Friday, February 25, 2005

A Response to David Corn

David Corn of The Nation writes "two key aspects of the story--that Gannon is a gay GOP hypocrite and that Gannon was handed classified information regarding the Wilson leak investigation--are not fully supported by the known facts."

Mr. Corn has, as he admits, conducted only a "limited inquiry" into the facts of Propagannon. Those who have been investigating this for the better part of a three weeks know that the assertions are indeed supported by the facts.

The Hypocrisy
The fallacy in Mr. Corn's argument is that he first assumes that "Gannon" being a "gay GOP hypocrite" is a "key aspect of the story." It is not. It never was. The sole key aspect of this story has been propaganda and the intentional manipulation of the media by the Bush administration and its allies.

But assuming, arguendo, Mr. Corn's argument that the hypocrisy here is an issue. The hypocrisy of course is not that he is gay. There are many gay Republicans, being gay and member of the GOP are not mutually exclusive concepts. The hypocrisy was that Guckert was apparently engaging in illegal, immoral behavior while boasting about being a member of the "moral majority."

As for Mr. Corn's statement that Guckert is not a "gay-baiter" and that he addressed the issue of gays in a "staightfoward" manner, we direct him to the (now scrubbed) website, where Guckert revealed his true feelings which permeated his writings:

On that site, Guckert refers to "gay and lesbian fascists" who engaged in "lies" and "political terrorism" to get conservative Dr. Laura Schlessinger off television.

Yet the hypocrisy at issue with Propagannon is much more disturbing than "gay-baiting." The hypocrisy is that Guckert, self-proclaimed "conservative guy", abandoned any and all of the values that conservatives seem to think they have a monopoly on. While the right complains about individuals ripping off the government through welfare and such, Guckert owed some $20,000 in back taxes and interest. While the right complains about the corruption of our youth, Guckert posted explicit, pornographic images himself on public websites, readily available to anyone surfing the net. While the right complains about the erosion of morals in this country, Guckert was apparently selling himself online, engaging in sex with members of the military. And all of this, of course, is a crime.

A Need For Standards
Mr. Corn misstates the issue at hand when he writes "Yet there is nothing inherently wrong with allowing journalists with identifiable biases to pose questions to the White House press secretary and even the president. And if such a reporter asks a dumb question--as did Gannon/Guckert (which triggered this scandal)--the best response is scorn and further debate."

First, it was not one "dumb question" that "triggered this scandal." It was at least 16 of them, many which are more blatantly propaganda than the one that Mr. Corn believed "triggered" the scandal. Second, no one has ever claimed that the issue here is allowing journalists with identifiable biases into the White House Press Corps. This strawman is merely an echo of the Bush Administration's feeble attempt to deflect attention away from the true issue in this case: the White House Press Corps is the White House PRESS Corps, and there should be minimum standards which must be adhered to. Is that minimum standard non-partisanship? Of course not. Is that minimum standard more than a $50 weekend "seminar" to earn the title of "journalist"? One would hope so.

The White House Press Corps is the sole method of direct, frequent contact the American Public has with the President. As such, all members of the Press Corps, regardless of political affiliation, operate as representatives of the body politic and their duty is to transmit information from the White House to the American Public and to, if necessary, hold the President accountable for his actions. And that is why there must be some minimum standards...because this awesome duty should not be bestowed on those who cannot effectively perform it.

Is a journalism degree necessary? How long does one have to be published? These issues of course are up for debate, but the core issue remains that one who enters the Press Room with his own personal, selfish political who seeks to hide the truth rather than expose failing the American people.

Again, Mr. Corn's claim about standards presumes that Guckert was a journalist. Guckert has failed to demonstrate that he published as a reporter prior to joining with and being granted White House access a short time later. To be blunt, Guckert joined the republican activist group, whose explicit mission is to "provide news, information, and commentary which promote the conservative, Republican agenda", got into the Press Corps, then spent $50 to give himself some cover as the smokescreen of Talon News was established.

To call Guckert a "journalist", when all he did was Xerox White House Press Release and make up facts is an insult to journalists, both conservative and liberal alike.

Hopefully, Mr. Corn will take the time to visit the links on this site and on the Propagannon Investigation site to expand his inquiry and knowledge of the facts before he pens his next article.


Blogger libby said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:30 PM  
Blogger libby said...

David Corn is duly taken to task here, as well he should: "we don't need no stinking apologist" for this 'person of interest'.

8:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home