Another Gannon article makes the Hartford (CT) Courant

not a great article, but Liz Halloran usually writes from the GOP perspective. (this past fall, she wrote that the media was showing bias towards Kerry by citing a study done by the CMPA while neglecting to mention that the CMPA is funded by RW extremists like Scaife) Her email for comment is: lhalloran@courant.com

Uneasily Redefining `Journalist'

White House Incident Raises Issue Of Access
February 23, 2005
By LIZ HALLORAN, Courant Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- There are undeniably titillating aspects to the current soap opera involving a Republican partisan who used the pseudonym "Jeff Gannon" and for nearly two years was cleared daily by the White House to join the press corps, allowing him access to West Wing briefings and presidential news conferences.

Was Gannon, whose real name is James Guckert, a Bush administration press-corps plant? Is it relevant that Guckert, who recently departed the pressroom, allegedly operated several X-rated Internet websites offering himself as a high-paid gay prostitute? And why did it take Internet bloggers, and not the mainstream media, to first write about Guckert's identity and his role as a reporter for an arm of Texas-based GOPUSA, owned by a Republican activist and whose stated mission is to "spread the conservative message throughout America?"

Interesting questions all, and the answers are as complex as they are elusive. But perhaps the most lasting effect of the Gannon/Guckert saga will be the outcome of renewed debate over not only how to define a bona fide reporter but who does the defining.

"That's really the key, and it's a fascinating thing - who's a journalist?" said USA Today's Jim Drinkard, who just finished his term as chairman of the Standing Committee of Correspondents, which oversees the issuing of credentials for reporters covering Congress.

http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/hc-guckert.artfeb23,0,7301349.story

that there is an article in a "local" paper, DUers should take advantage of the opportunity to respond with a LTTE. I would suggest that such letters should focus upon one simple part of the controversy, and should raise a question in the readers' minds. In this case, I think that we should be simply asking, "Why does this administration seem to be creating a 'fake' media, including having some journalists on the payroll, and a prostitute in the press corps?"

I'm beginning to understand one of the problems of this story, maybe you can help.

In asking thos two questions, the third one ("and why haven't any of you noticed?") is evoked sort of subtextully? Does that make sense?

There has to be a way to frame this so it's a bit more approachable by folks like the woman who wrote this story. She focuses on questions that distance her self from the uglier aspects of the story -- and in doing that, ends up being shallow.

Good questions, and in this context show how unself conscious the press has become. Apparently, journalists don't know who's a journalist! And to be worried about denying access by setting professional standards is simply irrational.

Add to that, what good is giving access to people who do little with it?

for the reasonable hours crew.