The "Gannon Standard" -- the Left's "bizarre and obsessive" coverage

From RW Mens News Daily

Applying The "Gannon Standard"

February 26, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by John Hawkins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we've learned from watching the left side of the blogosphere's bizarre and obsessive coverage of the Jeff Gannon AKA James Guckert non-story, it's vitally important that we have "real," "non-biased" reporters asking questions at White House press conferences...you know, like Dan Rather or Michael Moore.

In fact, the left is such a stickler over this issue -- in the case of Mr. Gannon at least -- that they're demanding to know why the White House didn't do a long, detailed examination of Jeff Gannon's sex life.

Who'd have thought this would be such a big issue to the left after they spent the Clinton years claiming that it was OK for the President to commit perjury as long as he was lying about sex? Interesting thought: I wonder how the left will react when Hillary's sex life is given "Jeff Gannon treatment" when she runs in 2008? Why am I guessing that they'll be upset?

In any case, that's beside the point -- especially since I have a hot, juicy scoop (well, it should be at least as big of a "scoop" as the lefties had with Gannon) . I've found another person who's getting into White House press conferences even though she's not a reporter!

Her name? It's Helen Thomas. She quit her job as a reporter with UPI back in 2000 and now is a syndicated columnist for Hearst Newspapers. Maybe Gannon was from a minor-league organization, Talon News, but at least he was a reporter which is more than anyone can say for Thomas anymore.

Moreover, you want to talk partisanship? Just take a look at some of the questions Thomas has asked at press conferences...

Helen Thomas: "My follow-up is, why does (George Bush) want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?" -- January 6, 2003

---

Helen Thomas: "Is this (war) revenge, 11 years of revenge?" -- January 6, 2003

---

<more>

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/h/hawkins/2005/hawkins022605.htm

I don't have time to do it, but it would be really helpful. Thanks, guys!

Helen Thomas has decades of credibility. Gannon is a fake journalist, from a Bush-league (pun intended) RW propaganda outfit, who asks the most softball questions imaginable, and may have engaged in prostitution. Are we really comparing the two? Has this fellow lost his mind?

ask him to do a follow-up story called "The Right-Wing's Obsession with Monica and Stained Dresses"

that are in this 'article'.

John Hawkin's latest diatribe, quite honestly, left me in a state of befuddled amusement.

A conservative writer sternly warning the "left" of the dangers which come with investigating the sexual predilictions of anyone is laughable after the Clinton years. The right is always more than happy to hop on its moral high horse until it's one of their own caught snorting coke, gambling millions, toking on marijuana, or buggering boys. Presently, we have the governor of California laughing off the fact he abused steroids and the president of jesusland grinning over his use of marijuana (and his refusal to address his use of cocaine). But, oh, you lefties are responsible for Clinton's penis and you'd better be careful what precedent you set!

That's a wonderful tangent. The truth is, Gannon's sex life and tendencies are anecdotal and gleefully comical given the "moral" authority this administration claims. That, again, is anecdotal. The importance of "Gannon-Gate" is that a no-name "reporter" was planted by the White House and was used as a tool to spread dis-information. It's called propaganda. And, that is anti-thetical to the fundamental beliefs upon which America was built.

Claims that Helen Thomas is a partisan reporter deserve little note. They're ludicrous. She asks hard questions and has done so of many presidents through several decades. Mr. Hawkins quotes her, trying to give evidence of partisanry: "We didn't go in to win the war on terrorism when we invaded Iraq." Guess what. She was right.

This administration scoffs at "reality-based" thinkers. Mrs. Thomas is a reality-based thinker who points out simple fact. This sad administration seems to be populated by wishful thinkers who think if they click their heels three times the world will appear as they wish it to.

We have a pot-smoking, coke-snorting, phony cowboy surrounded by a bunch of corporate tools killing innocents who possessed no weapons of mass destruction speaking through a repressed gay man posing as a reporter who all but claims half of the citizens of this country are traitors so as to defend our "right" to pillage oil-rich nations while we deny our soldiers VA benefits.

Yet you guys think the problem is honest questions from a reliable reporter? Either you are totally whacked from the drugs you deny using, or you are delusional. Perhaps it's the excess mercury in the water in jesusland, allowed by your Fuhrer, which has caused such neurological damage. I have to conclude there really is just something fundamentally wrong with you.

I second that!

if they don't publish your response (I give that very poor odds), at least we're reading it here!

Has someone forgotten Rathergate? I believe they're still talking about that over on the other side.

How many other people made this same stupid argument? Right wing journalists all write the same thing. Its amazing that they can make money that way. I'd like to know where I could get paid to just repeat whatever I hear on the left.

I wonder how the left will react when Hillary's sex life is given "Jeff Gannon treatment" when she runs in 2008? Why am I guessing that they'll be upset?

Can there be any doubt that Hillary's sex life, if she has a history, is going to be subjected to microscopic examination?? The double standard is still pretty strong. What Bill could get away with would destroy Hillary.

Of course, I have no idea what her history actually is, but can anyone doubt that it will be found out and exposed at the very most inopportune time, sorta of like the * drunken driving charges just before the election in 2000? Assuming she has a history of extramarital activity, that is.

Politics is a brutal business. So I hope, for her sake, she realizes this before she runs, and strengthens herself to endure it for our sakes.

or they'll just make some shit up and the "liberal" media will run with it ad nauseum.

she'd better be prepared. Just think how bad it would be if she started to cry at some of the insults. There would be the just like a woman, women are too emotional to be commander-in-chief, women aren't tough enough, etc. BS in all the RW columns. And, IMO, she would deserve them because she didn't prepare for a perfectly predictable scenario.

On the other hand, Hillary is tough as cat-shit, and extremely intelligent, so maybe she'll find some way to turn it back on them.

they would have dug it up a decade ago.

All they could manage was some boring stuff about investments and the law firm she worked for. They woudn't have made a big deal out of that if they had proof of a sexual relationship with someone other than Bill, they would've made her out to be the Whore of Babylon instead of blathering about land deals and hog futures.

Still, I hope she doesn't run. Let's start with a canidate who isn't quite so hated or so willing to move to the right on an issue and give ourselves a fighting chance. :)

that there is a dark secret in Senator Clinton's past. But if there is, and she runs, the pressure will be more intense than ever to find it. It won't stay hidden.

But say they already have it. Perhaps they decided to wait until her campaign for President??

Who knows. conspricacy theories are very popular on DU. Why not this one??:)

the fake name, the fake credentials, the fake news organization, the plagarized "stories," the bullshit questions, the brazen yet feeble attempt at coverup, the prostitution, the lies, and the overwhelming fucking hypocrisy from the man, his apologists, the bush administration, and the entire republican party.

and finally, and most importantly, it's about the haphazard juggernaut that is the extreme right wing propaganda machine entrenched in the oval office, spinning out glutinous tons of shit into the mouths and the minds of the late, great united states of america.

I have written our Senators and Congresspersons to encourage outrage. Every newspaper or other media should express editorial outrage. "The media" has been made fools of by this White House far too long. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." (old saying, attributed variously to the Scottish, the Native Americans, and the Chinese) Encourage your local media to show some interest in giving the White House an "accountability moment" for their unchallenged proliferate propagandization.

Hawkins: "....the left is such a stickler over this issue -- in the case of Mr. Gannon at least -- that they're demanding to know why the White House didn't do a long, detailed examination of Jeff Gannon's sex life."

Question: Can you provide us the name and quote of any "leftie" who demanded to know "...why the White House didn't do a long, detailed examination of Jeff Gannon's sex life."?

Hawkins: "Who'd have thought this would be such a big issue to the left after they spent the Clinton years claiming that it was OK for the President to commit perjury as long as he was lying about sex?"

Question: Can you provide us the name and quote of any leftie who claimed that "....it was OK for the President to commit perjury as long as he was lying about sex." ?

Didn't think so. You fit right in with the other media whores John Hawkins

called this type of retraction/counter attack
"pee down your pants-leg prose."

He said once you get into the game of pretending Gandhi was a shill
or some such nonsense, no one goes with you down the rest of the storyline.

When you put out a statement like--
"Maybe Gannon was from a minor-league organization, Talon News, but at least he was a reporter which is more than anyone can say for Thomas anymore." -- you eject out of the warm safe cockpit of journalism and into the thin, cold atmosphere of huck and fantasy.

I hope you can fly, Mr. Hawkins, because the RW charges more for a parachute than they pay you.