White House caught planting a stooge in the press corps

[Evil_Captor]

I see this as just a logical extension of conservative thought on media relations generally. They started by developing legitimate think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, developed a whole slew of press lapdogs through them, created friendly media like hate radio and Fox News, and are now buying the opinions of opinion-makers like Armstrong and creating “artificial” reporters like this Gannon guy.

All very Rovian, if you ask me. Armstrong, the female columnist who proved to be on the take, now Gannon … I bet there’s a LOOOOONG list out there if anyone cares to dig for it. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Maeglin]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Another speculation: maybe the checks for day-passes are carried out by different staff from the checks for full press passes? If so, someone influential may have been able to get the guy in through the day-pass staff, where they didn’t think they could do the same with the full press-pass staff

This may be way off, but it does seem bizarre that anyone would get hundreds of day-passes to press briefings without just getting a full press pass, and there’s gotta be some explanation for it.

Daniel

If you are denied a congressional pass, you are ineligible to receive a “hard pass”. This article discusses the issue.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bricker

The only question left unresolved is the determination that his employer was, or was not, a legitimate news agency. We know that based on Congress’ standards, his employer does not qualify. What are the White House’s standards?

If he doesn’t qualify under White House standards, then I think we can assume that someone in the administration was involved. If he does, then there is no reason to assume any particular administration involvement.

There’s at least one BIG hole you’re avoiding here… even if we’re VERY charitable to everyone involved, and assume that he technically met the minimum qualifications to get a day pass, it seems certain that there are FAR more people who WANT day passes and qualify for them than who GET them. So someone must have made the decision to get him a day pass, over and over again. And that someone presumably works for someone who works for someone who works for Bush or Rove or whoever.
It’s hard to see how there isn’t WH complicity in this.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Maeglin

If you are denied a congressional pass, you are ineligible to receive a “hard pass”. This article discusses the issue.

So he was ineligible for a permanent pass and was given de facto permanent status by the surreptitious gift of two years of day passes…under a fake name.

Yes, I’m sure that’s the normal treatment for bloggers.

[jayjay]

@MaxTheVool

It’s hard to see how there isn’t WH complicity in this.

You’re just not not looking hard enough, Max. See that group over down yonder near where the President is “clearing brush”? Notice how careful they are not to actually watch him do anything. Notice how gracefully they avoid catching a glimpse of Rove picking their figurative pockets. Thrill at their serene facade of complete unconcern at what Glorious Leader is doing out in the brush.

Learn from them, Grasshopper. Theirs is the Zen of Sycophancy…

[Bricker]

@Diogenes the Cynic

No it doesn’t. WH press are not allowed to use fake names or wear them on their nametags. His story that he supplied his real name has not been corroborated by the WH and it is not a policy that was permissable anyway. If he was permitted to wear a fake name on his nametag, then why was he given such unique and special treatment.

I’m going to have to ask for a cite. He has stated outright that he gave his real name for the background check and used a pseudonym for his articles and pass. What’s your source that says this is not permitted?

Why would you assume that? I can assure you that bloggers are not considered legitimate press by the WH (my mother was once a political reporter in Washington. I asked her) and if they could be routinely let in on day passes the WH would be deluged by them.

The WH has not corroborated this and it would be a breech of normal policy if true.

With all due respect to Mama Diogenes, I’m afraid I’d like a cite here, as well – not for the issue of bloggers specifically, but for the more general proposition that this kind of news agency is routinely considered insufficient by the White House. If you can show that, then I’ll immediately concede probable White House inolvement. But that’s the missing link in this story right now: the evidence that this guy was treated in a preferential fashion.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

Any standards that permit bloggers to have press passes.

You’re seriously suggesting that the White House would allow simple bloggers, using pseudonyms at that, to get press passes, every day at that. That’s what your reflexive, unquestioning support of anything this administration says or does has led you to. Have you no standards of your own?

[Maeglin]

I spent awhile looking for information on the press pass application process. It is not exactly transparent. You might find this informative.

[Maeglin]

@Maeglin

I spent awhile looking for information on the press pass application process. It is not exactly transparent. You might find this informative.

Apparently, there is even something better out there. Bricker, can you help us out with this?

I do not know exactly what this proves. But I can lift out a few key bits of text:

Freedom of the press is threatened when the process of
accreditation of reporters for access to the press galleries
is afflicted by a chronic pattern of discriminatory conduct
and abuse. The setting for adjudication of press passes by
a self-regulated group of established reporters has
disclosed a long pattern of events of special concern: the
historical record of Washington reporters who use emerging
technology “as an excuse to exclude competitors” [65];
judicial findings of actions by established periodical
correspondents to exclude publications whose ownership or
ideas they consider objectionable [66]; and expert opinion
on the impact of the new dimension of the Internet medium
involving “fundamental changes being wrought by the advent
of many-to-many media directly threatening the current media
aristocracies and the status quo in much the ways that the
advent of democracy did to the aristocracies of two
centuries ago” [67].

…

That setting of discriminatory conduct and abuse has led to
the following events specifically related to Internet-based
reporters, Mr. Schreibman, the periodical FINS, and this
case:
(A) The appearance of institutional bias manifest by
the fact that access to the periodical press galleries has
remained closed to all but the established media groups;
only three Internet-based publishers have been granted
membership: Slate <http://www.slate.com/>; APB News
<http://www.APBnews.com/company/index.html>; and Salon
<http://www.salon.com/index.html> [68].

n68. Email message from Michael J. Ravnitzky, APB NEWS,
to FINS (October 12, 1999), based on information from 
periodical press gallery officials.

(B) The appearance of institution bias, manifest by the

personal attack on Mr. Schreibman during discussion on the
“online news list” some months prior to his application for
accreditation, in August 1995. The personal attack on Mr.
Schreibman was an attempt to censor his ideas and proposal
to advance a discussion about the future of news reporting
in the Internet medium. Mr. Schreibman may be able to show
through subsequent discovery that one or more members of the
media responsible for this attack, in cooperation with one
or more members of the Executive Committee, sought the
denial of his press credentials.

There is a lot of info here. It appears to concern the accreditation process for obtaining a congressional press pass. I think it should help shed a little light on what we are currently discussing, provided that it is interpreted correctly.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

I’m going to have to ask for a cite. He has stated outright that he gave his real name for the background check and used a pseudonym for his articles and pass. What’s your source that says this is not permitted?

[According to sources, Jeff Gannon’s real name is not, in fact, Jeff Gannon. According to the same sources, his White House press credentials list him as “Jeff Gannon” - they let him use his pseudonym – even though married female reporters, who use their maiden name professionally, are given credentials with their married name and aren’t allowed to be credentialed under their maiden names…

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12640-2005Feb9_2.html]Washington Post](Atrios[/url)
Several White House correspondents say they saw Gannon wearing what appeared to be a permanent White House pass with his picture and pseudonym – legal names are generally required because of the Secret Service background check

With all due respect to Mama Diogenes, I’m afraid I’d like a cite here, as well – not for the issue of bloggers specifically, but for the more general proposition that this kind of news agency is routinely considered insufficient by the White House. If you can show that, then I’ll immediately concede probable White House inolvement. But that’s the missing link in this story right now: the evidence that this guy was treated in a preferential fashion.

You want a cite that non-news agencies are not considered news agencies? I’m not sure how I would Google that.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Fixed links.

Atrios

Washington Post

[Squink]

McClellan says Gannon = Guckart

Q Hard pass?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he had never applied for a hard pass. He had a daily pass. I think he’s been coming for –

Q Was he coming for –

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. I think he’s been coming for more than two years now.

Q Under what name?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sorry?

Q Under what name?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have to get cleared. You have to – just like anybody else that comes to the White House, you have to have your full name, your Social Security number and your birth date. So you have to be cleared just like anybody else.

Q So he was being cleared under James Guckert, or whatever his name is?

MR. McCLELLAN: My understanding, yes.

[elucidator]

At bottom, not that much of a scandal, we already know the Prez likes to fish in a stocked lake, he vets the participants at this “town meetings” and sets up fawning questions, stuff like that. Totally lame, but nothing new.

But this guy raises lots of questions. How was it that he appears to be on the inside track on the Plame stuff? Number one on my list of questions.

And assuming that he was thoroughly vetted before he got to within spitball range of GeeDubya, didn’t anybody find out about his sordid connections? Was somebody advised and said “Never mind, he’s our kind of guy”. Surely their supply of toadies isn’t that thin.

Or was he given a “super-pass”, one that doesn’t require the usual stringent checkout. If so, by whom?

As for his employment status, Talon News says it operates with “volunteers”, neatly skirting the issue of employment. So, when Mr. “Gannon” cashes his pay check, who writes it? Apparently not Talon News. And since when do amatuer reporters get White House passes?

And what is it with GeeDubya and all these Bernie Kerik, all American bullet headed Saxon mother’s son types?

[ElvisL1ves]

@elucidator

And assuming that he was thoroughly vetted before he got to within spitball range of GeeDubya, didn’t anybody find out about his sordid connections?

Which ones are you referring to - Eberle & GOPUSA, or militaryescortsm4m.com & hotmilitarystud.com?

[mhendo]

Well, Squink beat me to post the White House Press Gaggle link, but i think it’s worth quoting more of McLellan’s attempt to defuse the issue:

Q But did you know during all this time that he really wasn’t Jeff Gannon?

MR. McCLELLAN: I heard at some point, yes – previously.

Q As Press Secretary, what do you think about this whole –

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, like I said – what do I think about it? Well, let me explain a few things. First, as the press secretary, I don’t think it’s the role of the Press Secretary to get into picking or choosing who gets press credentials. Also, I don’t think it’s the role of the Press Secretary to get into being a media critic, and I think there are very good reasons for that. I’ve never inserted myself into the process. He, like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly, and so he was cleared two years ago to receive daily passes, just like many others are. The issue comes up – it becomes, in this day and age, when you have a changing media, it’s not an easy issue to decide or try to pick and choose who is a journalist. And there – it gets into the issue of advocacy journalism. Where do you draw the line? There are a number of people who cross that line in the briefing room.

And, as far as I’m concerned, I would welcome the White House Correspondents Association, if they have any concerns or issues that they want to bring to my attention, they know my door is open and I’ll be glad to discuss these issues with them. I have an open dialogue with the Correspondents Association. No one’s ever brought such an issue to my attention, in my – during my time as being Press Secretary. And you all cover the briefing room on a regular basis. You know that there are a number of people in that room that express their points of view, and there are people in that room that represent traditional media, they represent talk radio, they represent – they’re columnists, and they represent online news organizations.

Q Was the White House aware at all – was the White House aware – was the White House aware at all about the online websites that he was linked to?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. This has only come to my attention through the news reports, just a few reporters calling in.

Q But just to make it clear, the only criteria, from the White House perspective is, someone can pass the Secret Service background check

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, that’s not – first of all, I don’t involve myself in that process, it’s handled at a staff level. Like I said, if the White House Correspondents Association ever wants to talk about issues, I welcome that. But it becomes an issue – it becomes an issue of where do you draw the line? Do you draw the line at advocacy journalism because there are a number of people that crossed that line, as I said? But there’s hard – there’s hard passes and there’s daily passes, as you are well aware. For a hard pass, you have to have a House and Senate credential, you have to regularly cover the White House, you have to apply for it, you have to go through a detailed FBI background check.

My understanding was, when he started coming to the White House about two years ago, the staff asked to see that it – that he represented a news organization that published regularly. And they showed that, so he was cleared and has been cleared ever since based on that time.

And this is just now something that’s come to my attention more recently because it’s been an issue raised in some media reports.

Bolding mine. In response to this assertion, former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Susskind made the following observation (Salon article requires day pass or membership):

“That’s like [McClellan] saying, ‘I’m chief of staff at a hospital and when a patient dies in surgery and it turns out the guy operating wasn’t a doctor … [it’s] not my business to be a medical critic,’” says Ron Suskind, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who has written extensively about the inner workings of the Bush administration. “Nobody is asking him to be a media critic. They’re asking him to make sure people in the press room – the ones using up precious time during extremely rare press conferences – are acting journalists, honest brokers dealing with genuine inquiry to get at the truth.”

Suskind questions the White House’s explanation that Bush had no idea who Gannon was when he called on him during the press conference. “Frankly, my sense is that almost nothing happens inside the White House episodically. They are so ardent with their message discipline. It all happens for a reason.”

Exactly.

[Captain_Lance_Murdoch]

When you think about it, perhaps no “journalist” from any other “news organization” is more qualified than “Jeff Gannon” to cover stories such as “Saddam’s link to 9/11,” the search for “WMDs,” the “vandalism” done by the Clinton White House staff and so on.

This is the kind of crap one would expect from some third-world nation run by a dictator. It’s a national disgrace.

On the other hand, there may be an upside to people using assumed identities posing as journalists gaining close personal contact with President Bush. The White House doesn’t seem to mind.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Fixed links.

Atrios

Wait a second. That’s a link to a blog. That author makes the assertion, but doesn’t provide his sources. You’ve spent time here arguing that a blogger doesn’t deserve press recognition for pass purposes – but a blogger DOES deserve to be used as the sole cite for this proposition?

Washington Post

OK - your Washington Post link I’m prepared to accept, because they have professional fact-checkers and they generally are responsible.

@Washington Post

Several White House correspondents say they saw Gannon wearing what appeared to be a permanent White House pass with his picture and pseudonym – legal names are generally required because of the Secret Service background check – and that McClellan sometimes called on Gannon when he wanted a softer question. McClellan disputed this, saying he calls on reporters “row by row.”

He also said Gannon did not have a permanent pass and was admitted on a day-to-day basis like many other journalists, adding that he does not meddle with the process on political grounds.

So we have several folks saying Gannon had what “appeared to be” a permanant pass, and we have McClellan saying definitively that it was not a permanant pass.

I have to regard this as unsettled. You credit unnamed sources who say he was wearing what they thought appeared to be a permanant pass. The guy who’s in charge says, for sure, no way.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

McClellan has all the credibility of John Lovitz’s “Liar” character.

[annaplurabelle]

Jesus Christ, at what point do these apologists register as bullshit?

I just wanna know.

[elucidator]

Just saw Wolf Blitzer’s interview with “Mr. Gannon”. Softly, softly.

But one point got my attention: “Mr. Gannon” says he withdrew from his occupation due to threats to “his family”. This is entirely unacceptable! We should all insist that “Mr. Gannon” report such threats to the FBI most instanter! They have ways to ferret such things out, and I want their full power to come to bear on this disgraceful behavior.

Of course, if these claims are bogus, that also is likely to be exposed. Yes. Indeed.