Y’all have to understand Duhbya has no part in this.
He sits up in his ivory tower and lets his handlers do everything.
Two words…
Plausible deniabilty.
HOMOSEXUAL CHILD PROSTITUTION RING INVOLVING GEORGE BUSH SR.
The Washington Child Sex Ring Coverup
I just came across this stuff myself, which is probably why it was on my mind re Gannon and Armstrong Williams. Anyway, don’t want to hijack the thread with it, but you asked…
Are you seriously asking whether the Bush Administration sees the national press as idologically hostile?
:dubious: You said, “I think the administration correctly sees the majority of the press as hostile . . .” And I’m calling bullshit on that. It is always the job of the press, especially the White House Press Corp, to be critical of the president and his administration no matter who holds the office. But the idea of systematic “liberal bias” in the press is right-wing prppaganda; they just call any serious, honest journalism that happens to throw a bad light on Pubs or business interests “liberal bias,” while any right-wing Fox or WSJ reporter gets a free pass as “fair and balanced.”
Those links both go to “Vox News: The News . . . Before It Happens.” I think it’s a parody.
Indeed, its not like any presidential administration is shy about releasing good news. You don’t have to ask them “how much is SS privitization gonna rock” or “how awesomely are our troops winning the war”, they release this sort of information constantly in press releases and speeches. That leaves it to the press core to ask about the stuff the administration doesn’t necessarily want to talk about. It’s not because they’re “biased” but just because the gov’t releases tons of material answering the questions that they want to answer, so it’s not really a good use of access to ask them to repeat it.
This is a joke, right? Surely you don’t believe the stories on this website have any relationship to reality, do you? I mean, whatever this site is – and if it’s not a parody, it’s written by some loon – it’s certainly not an actual news site. Here are excerpts from a couple of articles from Voxfux (all emphasis added):
Note that this last article was written eleven months before the 2004 election. How’d that prediction work out for you, Voxfux? [insert sound of cuckoo clock]
Dude…we’re talking about an administrattion that made participants at campaign rallies sign an allegiance pledge!! Do you seriously think this is just a silly mistake?
Yes, it’s a wacky site, but the hard news scans and text compilations are legit. Lawrence “Larry” King pleaded guilty to embezzlement (google the “Franklin Coverup” for more info), and one of the boys involved in the sex ring Paul Bonacci, received a million dollar civil judgement against him (a scan of the judgement is at the bottom of the cite). If it makes you feel any better, Democrats were alleged to be involved as well. Maybe that helps to explain why there are no “legit” news sources available at this time?
Just because the original news articles (we’re talking pre-internet days) are unavailable on the net except through sites like these doesn’t mean they aren’t true. Learn to think for yourself.
Anyway, I wasn’t trying to resurrect this story. Just thought it was a freaky coincidence re the Gannon/Armstrong Williams revelations. The sex/porn aspects are irrelevant to the meat of these stories, but they are there. Is blackmail so far fetched a theory?
Neither is Talon News. Keep in mind that “Jeff Gannon” was issued a press pass for the WH only 4 days after Talon News started up on the net.
Oh, and here’s another freaky coincidence. Rolling Stone magazine has an expose on Sinclair Broadcasting via the Armstrong Williams story, and it turns out the CEO of Sinclair got his start distributing porn films, such as Deep Throat.
Several years back a ‘reporter’ from (IIRC) the Weekly World News was able to get in a question at a presidential press briefing. (IIRC it was with Bush I, I can’t find the cite). The question asked was just what you’d expect. They learned.
The White House press corps reporters work for aqes to form the just the right question in the off chance that they will get called upon. They know who the regulars are, and who will get called.
Now if you’re naive enough to believe the press conferences are just sloppy unorganized loosley planned events where a virtual unknown can get called upon by the leader of the most powerfull nation on earth, well, I might just have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
…oh, come on, don’t leave us hanging…what was the question?
“President Bush, is it true that Mr. Cheney is considering stepping down from the Vice-President position due to health reasons, and will be replaced with Bat Boy?”
Hey, the Wikipedia already has an article on this! 
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon:
Only in America!
How much?
I can’t speak for the current administration. But I absolutely guarantee you that it has happened under some of the previous ones.
Steve Clemens has more detail on the Gannon story. He quotes John Aravosis, who writes:
Note that the links on Clemen’s blog lead to some pretty racy pictures.
Jonathan Chance:
How does this:
…referring to the White House Press Room, jive with:
…this?
Who summons me?
OK, it CAN be difficult to get access. But that doesn’t mean that lesser-known reporters DON’T get access. You just end up sitting in the back and don’t (normally) get to ask questions. There are a LOT more people in the press corps than ever get shown on TV asking questions.
If he were just some fringe blogger he wouldn’t get called on under normal circumstances. If it were standard procedure to call on random newsies we’d see a LOT more oddball questions being asked.
That said, the comment you quoted about ‘wandering the West Wing’ is kind of self-defeating. No reporter is idly ‘wandering’ through the White House. If there was one they’d get challenged by the marines PDQ. So I think that’s a little hyperbolic.
I’m not really sure why the administration would need to plant journalists. I’ve always understood that the White House Press secretary and aides typically instructed the President to avoid taking questions from journalists that were known to ask the “really” hardball questions. So they have a sort of filtration system built in, I mean it’s not like “real” journalists can go in there and repeatedly ask really over the top questions and expect to ever have their questions taken again.
Of course a Conservative blogger is probably about as much of a journalist as most of the infantiles employed in the reporting field these days.
2/16/05, 11:06 p.m.: I’m watching The Daily Show and John Stewart is just having so much fun with this story! 
On Gannon’s gay website (with the banner “BlogCabinRepublicans” blotting out the genitals in Gannon’s nude pic): “Lest we accuse him of hypocrisy, he does describe himself as a ‘Top.’ And we all know it’s not gay if you’re the guy!” He then goes on to skewer the whole relationship between newsbloggers and the mainstream press.
Are you sure you don’t want to rethink this?
Anyway, there’s no viable right-wing spin to rationalise Gannon/Guckert:
He’s a fifty dollar-2 day seminar-wannabe journo, working for an illegitimate news agency. He was granted access to the WH on those terms. Oh, and he’s a male prostitute to boot.
And yet he had regular access to the WH and the POTUS for 2 years, didn’t sit in the back, and was called on regularly by McClellan.
Not to mention the real story, which is how/why he was privy to the Plame memo.
More to it than that:
-he was allowed to use a phony alias, unlike even female reporters who can’t use their maiden names.
-he apparently was in the press pool somehow before Talon News even existed: we don’t yet know who he was with then
-he claimed to reporters that he had not been supeonaed in the Plame investigation… yet he’s told freepers that he has…