Did WE cause the MSM to ignore Gannon?

When Americablog first broke the Gannon story, I remember being "excited" by the juicyness of the story and the possibility of uncovering something very damaging to the Bushies.

But, I've consistently been very worried by the language we've been using in the blogs, message boards, and comment sections. We had TONS of people monitoring our every word and getting their information from us...

Yet, so many of us were using phrases like "man whore" and "butt slut" and "jeffylube" and on and on.

I can't help but think that it's easier to dismiss someone when they use such language. I certainly dismiss all the right-wingers when they talk that way. I can't help but think that we gave Gannon the ammnunition to somewhat-legitimately say this was just a "political attack" and "gay hypocrisy" and on and on. Any person who would look at a blog and see "man whore" would think it wasn't very professional and was pretty nasty. I dont think that legitimizes our cause.

Perhaps if we had continued to present the story in a professional, journalistic way...then the MSM wouldn't have been so apprehensive in carrying the story.

I'm sure I'll get lots of responses (some in the same tone that I'm condemning here)...but as a feminist and a lesbian, I've had a real problem from the get go with all the "whore" language and "pussy" language and "fag" language.

and no one wants to blow the whistle on themselves now, do they?

The MSM is not going to cover it. End of story.

Way too many rocks to flip over and see what slithers out.

The MSM does not like the laser beam of scrutiny pointed at itself.

was the reason the MSM virtually ignored the issue. Not for a second.

If this had been about a Democrat, WE would have been among the tamest in our descriptions!

They ignored it because it was 1) actual news, and 2) damaging to the Bushes.

Gannon to other political journalists and they couldn't do that without showing the masses there is no difference between them.

who have nothing but FACTS....sure that it.

:silly:

you should understand the corporate propagandists have a specific agenda and don't really care what is said on blogs. They are not looking for the truth, only new ways to spin their self serving prevarications.

Don't question my feminism....

Even if those things about the media are true (and, I know they are), it STILL doesn't justify some of the language we use.

It feels upsetting to me that we're just the "liberal equivalent" of the freepers in some way...using the same childish, nasty language, etc.

I think if we had presented the story in a more unified and professional front, that was not as nasty, it would have been much better received.

At the very least, it woudlnt have given Gannon the ammunition to say that we were "personally attacking" him.

But, that's just my opinion.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You think the MSM reads this and see us using childish lanuage and says: "Oh thank god, we're totally off the hook now? Bury it?"

Dream on.

The press will not cover a story that hurts Republicans in a way that will keep the story running. They reported on it long enough to contain the story and get the damage control spin points from the White House in circulation. Mission accomplished.

But Americablog was certainly featured on CNN almost daily and almost all of the stories quoted that blog and John was on all of the programs. So obviously they were paying attention to it.

And, lots of "man whore" language went on there.

and it's about the bloggers' manners? I don't think so. I also believe more attention was focused here on how he got into the White House than his sex work, which most didn't consider a big deal (beyond the sheer hypocrisy of his backers).

A final note: even if it were true that DUers are the liberal equivalent of freepers (personally I don't think there IS a liberal equivalent of freepers, but for the sake of argument)-- consider all the attacks, jokes, "nasty language" etc. thrown at President Clinton for over a decade now by rightwingers. It certainly did nothing to squelch media hyperfocus.

If we'd followed the lead of the Dems who picked this story up, and are still fighting it actually, then maybe it would have stayed in the headlines. It should have been a catalyst to all the fake news and propaganda, which would have been helpful. Gannon, himself, was never enough to do any real damage. We never focused on all the contradictions made by Scotty & Ari either, they clearly knew who let him in but we never got that info either. I don't think the language hurt, I think the lack of a complete strategy hurt.

yes, the lack of a strategy hurt.

we were too focused on making fun of the "man whore"....

and not focused on the talking points and all the inconsistencies and the larger story.

the fucking legislation as well???

Stop making EXCUSES for spinless DEMOCRATS.

And no one said they had to go on TVG and use anti-gay curse words either.

They COULD have asked "What else is Bush hiding?" "Why is Bush paying the media to lie for him?" "Who else is on the payroll, Wolf?" etc, etc.

I never once saw Kerry, Dean, Hillary or Obama on TV talking about this and media bias.

Of course, if it had been Kerry, we would have seen Tom DeLay, Frist, Santorum etc, all on TV every night saying "corruption", "Propaganda" "Liars" and "Liberal Media" over and over.

You're mad at Dems because the propaganda networks won't cover Dems calling the propaganda networks deliverers of fake news. Is that right?

Kerry & a letter specifically on the Bushies and Fake News
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=553

He took a couple of swipes at the media at the Kennedy Awards, pointing out that it all started going bad when we lost the fairness doctrine.

There were several articles about Arnold delivering fake news videos to tv stations in California and the stations broadcasting them as part of the broadcasts.

Pelosi has made statements in the past about the media not showing up at press conferences.

Slaughter wrote several letters about Gannon and the other propaganda. Reid did too, seems to me.

It's YOUR responsiblity to know what they say and BE the media, spread it all over the internet and write to your local paper.

If people spent as much time helping as they do bitching, we might get somewhere once in a while.

And what in the world tdo you think writing a stupid letter is going to do to expose this scandal??? This is not the 1890's- "writing letters" is a cop-out. There is a new invention that Republicans have been using- its called "The TV."

Wow- Pelosi "made statements"-so did Dr fate- big deal. Did she make them to Wolf Blitzers face? If no, then why not?

No one shows up at Press conferences? Well, then who is stopping Dean, Obama etc from going on live interviews on pundit shows then???

We need to see Hilary, Dean, Kerry ,etc "on the TV" confronting this.

Dr Fate cant get nationwide television interviews- Top name democrats can- so dont blame me for this.

YES- I am mad at DEMS for giving Bush/media another free pass for the 100th time...

Maybe they thought saving social security was a bit more important, ya think? Besides that, I saw Louise Slaughter talking about the fake news on the teevee too. I can't remember every instance of seeing people talk about Bush's propaganda mess or the bias in the media, but they've been there.

More people get their news from local newspapers and tv than cable news. Did you know that? You can have a rapid affect on them. I've gotten them to change the way they're reporting a story on several occasions. Writing letters has an affect.

There's solutions to this, but too many just pass the buck on to somebody else instead of doing their part. And then whine at 300 people in Washington D.C. because they can't change the minds of 250 million people all by themselves.

This "Gannon fella" would have been the perfect posterboy for that issue- he was just the tip of the iceburg.It had "the sex" and "the lying" and everything.

Most local papers report things that were said "On the TV" too. The reason why you cant remember instances is b/c it rarely happens- and when it does, it's never framed in a blunt, easy to understand manner like "Bush pays the media to lie for him."

Now you change the story- 1st you say it was not up to Top DEMS to expose this story- now you revise your excuse and say it's not an important issue.

We need to stop making excuses for why we can't kick ass, and just start kicking some ass.

Kerry/Dean/Obama/Hillary to Wolf Blitzers Face:

"Bush pays the media to lie for him-we know that for a fact. All we have to do is look at the WMDs or Swiftboat lies- you media people repeated these falsehoods as facts- who knows what else is being lied about. This Gannon fella is just the tip of the iceburg- no telling who else is on the payroll, eh Wolf?"

"no telling who else is on the payroll, eh Wolf?" That's just stupid, too stupid to even comment on. About as stupid as Tom Delay saying Terri was talking and laughing with her parents.

I said the Dems were trying to frame this story, that WE didn't support them because too many people went off on wild sex and child pornography ring tangents. Gannon and the proveable propaganda is the fake news story. Since they couldn't get the grassroots on the right page on fake news, it's no wonder they had to drop it.

The media problems are something else again and no Dem can go on CNN and acuse them of being paid by the Bushies. That's just ridiculous. When they have been on CNN, they have been hammering on SS. If they hadn't, you'd have bitched about that too. I didn't say the fake news and media wasn't an important issue, I said SS was MORE important.

Whatever you do, don't lift a finger to change anything. Just keep sitting in the corner with your thumb in your mouth and stomping your feet at the dumb ol' Dems.

...make Wolf give an uncomfortable, fake laugh as a response. Then ask him "But seriously, how long did you guys know about this Gannon thing without reporting it? Why do *I* have to come on your show to bring this up- I thought that was your job."


We dont know if fighting them will work until we try it. I say we try it for a change- i think it will work. Swing voters respect fighters.

And please, dont accuse me of not doing anything for DEMS-you are barking up the wrong tree, I assure you.

Plenty of people on this board have spent literally thousands of hours working for DEMS- I am one of them and I pride myself in the work I do for DEMS. Now I want them to do somthing for me.

I accept your apology in advance.

It's true. So why are we afraid to say it?

All we have to do is bring up Gannon, the Education guy, and the others who were caught.

Why are we afraid to go on TV and tell the blunt, unvarnished truth?

I agree 100%

NOW my question is, who stopped Kerry, Obama, etc from going on TV and using the words "FAKE NEWS STORY" and "Propaganda" and "Lies", etc.

You really got my goat when you accused me of not doing my part. I'm SO sick of excuse making here at DU. I cant BELIEVE you are blaming the DEM leadership's inability to go on TV and talk about this on the base.

Somthing besides grossly inaccurate personal attacks would be nice.

Why cant we go on the TV and truthfully say "Bush pays the media to lie for him" and then give three examples? Would that not be "nuanced enough?" Would that be "too much like Micheal Moore?"

All you ever said was "that's stupid."

Why?

Why is telling the blunt, unvarnished truth in a manner that swing voters understand "stupid?"

You said to tell Wolfie that Bush is paying him to lie. And that the media as a whole is paid to lie. Why not say that? Because it isn't true. It would be stupid.

Otherwise, Dems have gone on the tv and said Bush has paid specific people to lie and are spending tax dollars to create fake news.

The question is, why didn't the story stick. Because it takes enough interest from the country to make it stick. That takes, in part, letters to the editor all over the country. Which, despite whatever else you've done for party, you say you won't do.

You say swing voters respect fighters and the Dems should fight like Michael Moore. So, tell me, why did the voters say Kerry attacked unfairly more than Bush did; and those same voters didn't vote for Kerry. If the voters like those attacks so much.

Then I suggested getting his goat- by asking "Who else is Bush paying to lie, like he did Gannon?"

The idea is to make Wolf & the GOP split hairs about how propaganda is not technically "lying." Then the DEM response would be- So Wolf, you are saying that Bush bribed various pundits to tell the TRUTH? That does not make good sense, does it, Wolf? Who bribes people to tell the truth? Now, back to this Gannon business- is it normal for journalists to moonlight as male prostitutes..?" Etc, etc.

The story did not stick because DEMS were afraid to go on TV and talk about it. It's that simple. The media is not going to run stories about how corrupt it is- DEMS should have kept it alive by talking about it.

I dont know which election you were watching- Bush told Americans that they elected Kerry, we would be attacked again. Bush told voters that Kerry faked his medals. What did we do that was on par with that? We could not even muster up a TRUTHFUL statement like "Bush lied about the WMDs- we should never have trusted him."


Excuses, excuses. Go ahead and get your excuses ready for why we will lose 2006 too.

"Who bribes people to tell the truth?"

Kos and Jerome were paid for Dean campaign work, is that right? Does that mean everything they said about Dean was a lie?

When you start throwing stones, everybody ends up broken and bruised.

One thing I now about dealing with sick relationships, you don't try to outsick the sicko.

You have to pick your battles and move forward. You pick a goal and you stick to it. You don't engage in crazy making spitting matches with the sicko. They either get well and join you, or slither away.

or Karl Rove, which is where the Gannon story appears to be heading. They see Ganuckert's funky-ass past, which pretty much discredits anything he says, they see what happened to Rather and his 60 Minutes producers, and they look at their nice, fat paychecks, and they realize they have a choice between pursuing the Ganuckert story or going back to the buffet for another glass of chardonnay and a mini crab cake or two (or maybe some more shrimp). For most of them, it's an easy decision to make. It's got nothing to do with us calling a man-whore a man-whore, for God's sake.

Or Dean, Obama or Hilary?

No one stopped them from going on TV and exposing this story.

It is, to an extent, the Democratic disease these days. Non of the above are comfortable in the role of rabid attack dog, a la Gingrich. I think there's a sense in both the non-Fox media and the Democratic party leadership that the Big Bush Scandal is just around the corner, waiting to break--so they're biding their time. Any good poker player, short-stacked, would take the same approach. You don't put all of your money in the pot until you're holding the nuts.

"We are giving them rope to hang themsleves with."

"They will fall on their own sword"

"We are playing rope-a-dope."

"The media will wake up when the realize Bush is against them."

"We are setting a quite trap."

"We dont want to confuse swing voters."

Dated 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Did I leave out any excuses as to why we cant kick ass, ever?

That's the big one. It means Republicans chair every congressional committee, and control each committee's agenda. It means no investigation can be launched and no special prosecutor can be named unless the Republicans do the launching/naming. So, for a scandal to have legs, it has to be big, obvious, and horrendous, and the evidence has to be out in the open and irrefutable. If Pickles came forward, say, and said on Meet the Press that Condi was fucking Chimpy with a strap-on every night on top of a three-foot-high pile of stolen Social Security checks in the Lincoln bedroom, that might do it.

From going "On the TV" and asking:

"What are the Republicans hiding? Why do they refuse to investigate this important issue? The only logical answer is that they are lying again and hiding things from the American people."

They could say this in every TV appearance until it picked up steam. The "sex" could only make it that much more interesting.

Republicans hold a majority, but I don't understand why that keeps DEMS from fighting them with the blunt, plain-spoken truth.

I'm sick of blaming the Republicans/media for being good fighters- the fault is ours for being bad fighters.

I think the Bushco subversion of the press IS a major scandal, one that violates the First Amendment rights of all Americans (the right to a free press and the full benefits of democracy). I think, though, that cagier players than me may be sitting back and watching with some pleasure as the Republicans hang themselves with SS piratization, Iraq, and the whole long, dreadful radical right agenda. Either that or they're the despicable pussies you say they are--a grim possibility I can't discount, unfortunately.

It failed us in 2000, 2002 & 2004.

I disagree with you- we need to STAB the GOP/media- they will NEVER fall on their own swords- they are way too smart for that.

They refused to demand, on TV, that Bush get behind an investigation "unless he is hiding somthing."

They refused to ask Wolf Blitzer, to his face- "How long has this been going on in your profession, Wolf? Who else might be on the payroll?"

They refused to go on TV and say "Bush is paying the media to lie for him- Gannon is the tip of the iceburg."

Dean, Hillary, Obama, Kerry etc killed this story.

imho.

Republican media operatives are still far better at shaping breaking stories in their favor. They have no hesitation painting ANYTHING in the best possible light for them, while pathetic Democratic operatives are way too willing to either give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt or "wait and see" what develops.

We won't get better at this until our media operatives learn to ALWAYS go for the kill.

They are ripe with rot, among the last to "get" what is going on in the USA and the world. They do not want their role and their failures examined. But so it must be.

Spill the beans now, journalists, and get it over. The sooner the better. The Whole Freaking Planet and all of life -- including you and your families -- hangs in the balance.

This you know is not exaggeration. The Earth Changes are underway. The Wars and Rumors of War are everywhere. Corruption lies under every BushCo stone.

You are betraying readers and listeners by whitholding information they need to be good citizens, and by jerking the collective chain with endless coverage of Michael Jackson and Kobe Bryant and Scott Peterson.

Wake up. Do your jobs. The hour is getting late.

Fascinating how many people like to post about how how "we" are damaging "our cause" by speaking up or speaking too loudly or saying the wrong thing. Yeah, it's all "our" fault. The corporate media would certainly have run with the story if it weren't for "us." Right.

Sadly, some on DU care more about scoring partisan hits than they care about the pain inflicted on minorities (gay men in this instance) when vicious stereotypes are bandied about.

And you think this is something that would inflict "pain" on gay men?

Noone gives a whit, here, that he is gay. The point of the matter is that he sold his tricks for a couple hundred to a little over a thousand dollars per.

judgements about the moral worth of (gay) "pimps" or "prostitutes". Why do you appear to despise (gay) "pimps" or "prostitues" to such an extent?

so i have a hard time calling someone a "whore" and bashing them over it!

So, you're all perfectly fine with all the language that's been used by our OWN side - e.g . "man whore" "pimp" "butt slut" "jeffylube" and on and on???

Isn't ANYONE mature?? Why can't we talk about this story without reverting to 5th grade puns and innuendos???

Most feminists try to keep women from prostitution. And also, note, that Guckert is a *high class* prostitute and so isn't doing it to get by but is doing it to make alot of money quickly.

"most feminists?"

no one wants women to HAVE to be prostitutes...but they shouldn't be arrested for doing wahtever they want with THEIR bodies...and, they should be able to work in a safe environment, not be belittled, not be victimized, not be pimped out, etc.

sexual liberation man, heard of it?

a woman should control her body. if she chooses to strip or hook, that's her right.

Some, like butchjg and myself, don't presume to tell other women what to do with their own bodies.

Also, note Guckert charges the average going rate for an escort in the DC area. Like most of the hookers I know, he makes the money quickly so that he has time for other things.

Meanwhile, here at DU, when someone places an ad on the internet advertising their services as an escort for $200 an hour, or $1200 for the weekend, we call that someone a WHORE, or, if it is a man advertising, we call him a MAN WHORE. And if that WHORE decides to pretend to be a journalist and take a prominent place in the White House press room, we will BASH THE HELL OUT OF HIM. Since no one else will.

This is a discussion forum.

We weren't the source of the Jeff gannon story, several blogs were and those blogs presented the story in journalistic terms.

We just commented on those stories the same way we comment on other stories. The media didnt pick up the gannon story because they were told not to cover it using the blatently bogus execuse that it wasnt really news.

Then they gave him intense media coverage to go around and explain with the newsmen how it wasnt really a story, then they dropped it as the shit hit the fan.

You are just grasping for reasons to blame something on us that is so clearly the fault of the decision makers in news organizations and the people they are beholden to.

I wasn't necessarily talking about THIS site (b/c I think mainstream people out there see it as a left-wing message board and not much more)....but, rather, like Americablog and Daily Kos. John Aravosis was on TV *all* the time and in every article about the story when it first broke...Obviously they were paying attention.

And, what they saw was a bunch of people talking about man whores and butt sluts!

that the mainstream media was all geared up to cover this story, but opon glancing at the comment sections of the blogs covering the story, they saw people being lewd and decided instead to cover up the story, lie, have Jeff Gannon all over thier shows to lie, and then becoming completely silent when the facts surface that prove they lied?

Does that really sound like a likely scenario?

Doesnt it seem much more likely that the they didnt cover the news story and chose instead to lie because that is what the people who decide what gets covered in the news organizations decided to spin the Jeff Gannon story away?

I posted my question as a hypoethetical...

A way to get the conversation going (which, it is)...

Sadly, no one is willing to step up and say "Gee, maybe we ARE acting like Beavis and Butthead and should handle this matter a bit more seriously." Why are we acting just like the people we despise?

Retribution for the way they treated Clinton? I totally disapproved of that...why would I act the same way!!

"Man whore. Hehe Heheh HEhehe Hhehe. Uh, Beavis"

I think its just a matter of taste and your preferences are not the norm on alot of sites you like, its unfortunate but I dont think you will succeed in proving your taste objectively right.

I posted my question as a hypoethetical...

A way to get the conversation going (which, it is)...

Sadly, no one is willing to step up and say "Gee, maybe we ARE acting like Beavis and Butthead and should handle this matter a bit more seriously." Why are we acting just like the people we despise?

Why do we even have to attack someone on OUR side for even posing a question???

Retribution for the way they treated Clinton? I totally disapproved of that...why would I act the same way!!

"Man whore. Hehe Heheh HEhehe Hhehe. Uh, Beavis"

The Gannon/Guckert story not being covered by 'MSM' has NOTHING whatever to do with what words we use.

WE don't have to "present the story in a professional, journalistic way"... that is THEIR job, and they will NOT do it.

He is a CRIMINAL PROSTITUTE selling himself online where children can view photos of him, fully erect and urinating, citing his hourly prices, and specifically offering "sex". NO INTERVIEWER HAS ASKED ONE DAMNED QUESTION OF HIM about this. NONE. The interviewers conveniently ask about a couple of unused domain names, but NEVER the actual prostitution sites.

I don't care if the 'MSM' dismisses me because of the language I use. It has nothing whatever to do with it. Let them investigate the STORY, the NEWS, the TRUTH.

I am trying real hard not to use bad words here, because I don't want my message deleted, but this is a complete and utter load of shit.

You and I both know why the MSM ignored Gannon. And you need not worry about what type of language we use on message boards and blogs. People will say what they want to say. Remember during the Monica fiasco. Right wingers used all sorts of sexual explicit words when they talked about her and Clinton. So what?

And not use those words--some of which I first encountered in your message? And if "WE" were using those words--where are the links to YOUR intemperate statements?

The problem was his whoredom. Not so much the naughty Internet images, but the meretricious questions in news conferences. Too bad that Mediawhoresonline has gone dormant--they (he/she?) could have explained it quite clearly.

The story looked bad for Bush & Co. Therefore, it was stifled.