Pot, Meet Kettle

What is the opposite of institutional self-awareness?  Whatever it is, Maureen Dowd has reached the pinnacle, with her assault on quasi-pseudo journalist James Guckert, aka "Jeff Gannon".

Her winning entry in the "Cranial-Anal Impaction Has Been Completed" contest is this:

"the White House vetters should consider adding someone with some blogging experience."

Oh, boy.  Perhaps Ms. Dowd could encourage her own reporters to spend a bit more time at slightly more credible blogs.  As it is, right now the NY Times is the only major media to stand behind, or anywhere near, the allegation with which the Ms. Seelye of the Times led last Friday:

Two Democrats in Congress are pressing for investigations into how a Washington reporter who used a pseudonym managed to gain access to the White House and had access to classified documents that named Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. operative.

Dan Froomkin of the WaPo has dismissed this Guckert/Plame connection as falling in what I'll call the "anything is possible, but shouldn't reporters have evidence" category.  So have some (cough) bloggers (cough), like me (cough).

Well, if Ms. Dowd lacks for column ideas, and becomes bored speculating about the sexuality of her fellows in the press corps, here is a possible story to develop - why did Rep. Louise Slaughter pick up the Daily Kos allegation, as reported in the Times?  Could it have been overeager constituent service for a large Democratic fundraiser (The Kos is a large Democratic fundraiser, you know.  You do know that, right, MoDo?).  Was it really just an editorial in a local paper?  Shall we believe everything we read?

Or, a column about the editorial process at the Times, and how it might benefit from reading blogs, could be interesting.  Here is a blog post from Jan. 30 debunking the alleged Plame/Guckert connection - hmm, I bet Ms. Seelye wishes she spent a bit more time surfing the blogs.

And all these stories trumpeting Guckert's sexual preference in order to explain that it is not an issue?  Please.  On this kind of reporting, my sexual preference is "No".

The Captain does a fine job with Ms. Dowd and Mr. Rich. 

MORE:  That Is Not Very Nice: My spell-check insists that it should be "Maureen Dowdy".  C'mon.  And didn't I disable the Telepathic Prompt?  This is not about her looks; we don't objectify around here, and we deplore it elsewhere, unless the cheap shot is just irresistible.  And anyway, I *L-U-V* red hair.  Casey, the strawberry blond... oh, forget it.

UPDATE:  Dare we address the substance of Ms. Dowd's column?  Well, first we have to find it, which is not always easy.  We will let her speak, briefly:

I am very impressed with James Guckert, a k a Jeff Gannon.

How often does an enterprising young man, heralded in press reports as both a reporter and a contributor to such sites as Hotmilitarystud.com, Workingboys.net, Militaryescorts.com, MilitaryescortsM4M.com and Meetlocalmen.com, get to question the president of the United States?

...I'm still mystified by this story. I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the "Barberini Faun" is credentialed to cover a White House that won a second term by mining homophobia and preaching family values?

Her gist seems to be, how did this uncredentialed nobody get to attend a presidental press conference when a reporter like Ms. Dowd was turned down for a White House press pass?

Part of the answer has been widely reported (but not by Ms. Dowd) - "Gannon" reportedly operated on a day pass issued by the White House Press Office, while Ms. Dowd was turned down for the more prestigious (and presumably more useful) "hard pass".  Editor & Publisher describes the differences here, and also tells us that no changes are planned in the procedures.  May I guess here that reporters who travel on the White House plane to Europe, or who accompany the President on a walk-along at the Crawford ranch, do not have day passes?  Just a thought.

In yet another wrinkle, Dana Milbank of the WaPo has been studying videotape, and has told the Daily Kos that he thinks he sees "Gannon" with a hard pass around his neck.  Oh, boy, another excuse to study photos of Jeff Gannon!  We will reserve judgment on this point, noting only that Ms. Dowd should have alerted her readers to this issue, rather than pretending that she was rejected for a pass that "Gannon" received.

So, one might ask (but not if one is Ms. Dowd), how does a person with a day pass get into a Presidential press conference?  Surely the grand East Room drama, with the television lights and the wondrous spectacle, is not open to just any old day-tripper?

Who knows?  And more to the point, who cares?  It turns out that the Jan 26 press conference at which Gannon came to fame with his "divorced from reality" question was an impromptu appearance by the President in the regular Brady Room where Scot McClellan normally holds court.  Dan Froomkin describes it as "hastily called"; the ABC Note does not mention it at all in their schedule of upcoming events for Jan 26.

So, Ms. Dowd, a suggestion - if you can't get a "hard pass", get a day pass, hang around each day at the Brady Room, and wait for the right man to appear.

[Note to The "Note" - your archives are time-stamped, but how would anyone looking at that page know it was Jan 26, 2005?  Troubling...]

Comments

[BumperStickerist]

This from the person that gave us 'Dowdification'

What about MoDo's use of false analogies?

For example, Herself equates the process of renewing a hard pass to the process of having a daily pass issued.

My question is this: Did Herself actually GO to the White House and APPLY for a Day Pass? Or did she take such umbrage at Ari's sleight that she stayed in NYC?

[BumperStickerister]

Frank Rich remarked in his autobiography some regret over his trashing of certain Broadway plays in his days as an uber-powerful critic. That upon reflection maybe they weren't so bad and that he was wrong in his assessment.

Gee, ya think?

[SomeCallMeTim]

To be fair, no one's actually taking us to war against Gannon on the basis of assertions distinguished by a lack of evidence. So at least we, as a country, are learning.

[GT]

Tom,

How many on the right were disdainful of Maureen Dowd and the NYT when she and it were at the forefront of the anti-Clinton press?

I really don't care for Dowd who I hardly read but there are plenty of examples like her on the right. Should we replace Dowdification with Humeify?

[BurbankErnie]

"I really don't care for Dowd who I hardly read but there are plenty of examples like her on the right. Should we replace Dowdification with Humeify?"

GT, are you really trying to compare a bitter, man hating opinion writer to the finest News Anchorman on TV?. I believe you are losing your grip. on. reality.

[GT]

Finest Anchorman?

LOL

Now THAT is funny!

[Big Dog]

Well, let's see...
He hasn't waved phony documents around on national TV.
He hasn't tried to interfere in elections with the help of UN officials.
He had the balls to call Ohio on election night.
So while "finest" may be subjective, he certainly has a head start on the competition.

[Cecil Turner]

"How many on the right were disdainful of Maureen Dowd and the NYT when she and it were at the forefront of the anti-Clinton press?"

Nice try, GT, but I seem to remember Drudge breaking the Lewinsky scandal, not Dowd. Further, her Pulitzer-winning">http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1999/commentary/works/">Pulitzer-winning articles on Clinton were hardly damaging, as they focused almost entirely on his sex life and her outrage. Much of it like this one:

By the time I got to work, the market was healing. But something else really, really scary had happened -- the A.P. wire was running a story about Dan Burton's sex life.

Dan Burton's sex life.

Just when you thought this scandal had hit rock bottom, the bottom got rockier. Thank you, Ken Starr, for wiring up Linda Tripp and for creating a nation of Peeping Toms, for dragging us down to the point where we have to hear the sex secrets of crepuscular Republican swamp life.

Nowhere does she put forth the simple argument that Bill Clinton, while president, tried to fix a court case and ought to be impeached for it. That would have been "anti-Clinton."

Further, suggesting the Times isn't a liberal bastion is unconvincing at best. Even among journalists who insist they have no liberal bias, the NY Times is singled out as the most liberal (according to Pew):

Most national and local journalists do not believe any national daily news organization is "especially liberal" in its news coverage. Roughly six-in-ten in both groups (62% national/59% local) say no national daily news organization strikes them as particularly liberal in its coverage. Among the minority that names a specific news organization as being especially liberal, the New York Times was mentioned most frequently (20% national/17% local). [emphasis added]

[TM]

Humeify?

Hmm, "Humeidify"? Maybe a hint that his wit is too dry? Naaah.

Anyway, plenty of lefties have disowned MoDo over the years, but the right is surely not claiming her. And she did rip Ken Starr, after she started dating Michael Douglas.

Well, I'll just blast her for being at the Times, with her left/right/daft orientation held in abeyance.

And I will be updating this post - I am suspending her day pass on the day pass question, and I hope to get lucky with what is currently an unresearched guess: if the Presidential press conference at which Gannon questioned Bush was actually an impromptu appearance by Bush in the press briefing room (he did that a few weeks back on Social Security), then Gannon got *no* special treatment at all - he was just a guy with a day pass who happened to be there when the President walked in.

Well, I need to do a bit of checking. (and maybe everyone already knows this but me). But it leaves MoDo's column looking even worse, since she did not mention it (I hope - I have to re-read it. Boy, this could set a new standard for "premature comment".

[TM]

So far, so good - it was a 10:00 AM press conference in the James Brady Room, which is the daily site for press briefings - this was not a full, prime-time extravaganza.

[TM]

Getting warmer - this is how Dan Froomkin of the WaPo, writing on Jan 27, described the controversial Jan 26 press conference:

In a hastily called news conference in the White House's basement, Bush essentially said nothing is new.

Hmm, how to *prove* it was impromptu? Puzzling - maybe I will pull up "The Note" for Jan 26 - if it is not there, it was not scheduled. Of course, it it *is* there, maybe they snuck it in later, or they got the word just before publication. Troubling.

[creepy dude]

yes-but if Gannon was preprogrammed beefcake conspiring with the Administration then one would expect him to have forewarning of impromptu press conferences and, in fact, be there, right?

Better would be to find impromptu events at which Gannon was not present, thus showing he's not so "in the loop" after all.

[Frank Martin]

How do you parody a parody? The poor woman needs to get a hormone injection, not a blogger.

Someone needs to sit her in front of a DVD of 'Sunset Blvd' and ask her " Do you see anything in this movie that reminds you of anyone?"

If she says "Bush, Poppie or Rummy" she should get an full electric shock and be forced to watch it again, ala Clockwork Orange. Is she Maureen Dowd or "Norma Desmond", you be the judge. To me, her columns sound more and more like Jean Teasdale in "The Onion".

[Brent]

Those casting Humeify allegations should be required to read sane posts such as http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2005/02/much_ado_over_n_1.html>this one, and if it takes holding them down with a knee in their chest in an uncomfortable "torture position" and reading it to them, I'm good with that.

[Karl]

Re: the Clinton - Guckert comparison

Allegations about sex are relevant to a sexual harassment case. Clinton was a party to such a case. Guckert, afaik, was not.

Clinton was having sex with an intern (the only intern that year to become an employee, later placed at DoD) in his office. Guckert, afaik, was not.

Clinton was President of the United States. Guckert, afaik, was not. Rather, Guckert was one of many eccentric hacks, past and present, to be admitted to the WH briefing room. The difference is that the folks at sites like dKos and Media Matters didn't like Guckert's politics. BTW, am I the only one who finds David Brock's role in this little saga a tad ironic?

[AST]

Don't let her bother you. She's just jealous of Wonkette.

[Jim]

Can't we take MoDo and turn it into MooDoo? 90% of the time she's full of the same stuff dairy farmers are scraping off of their boots before going into the house.

[Crank]

Maureen Dowd defends blogs. Who next, Robert Fisk?

[GT]

Brent,

I read the blog you linked to, VC. It is pretty bad and misses the crucial point.

[Forbes]

Let's grant C-dude's speculation--that Gannon was a regularly planted softball. So what? We've already heard from such a switch hitter (media-to-WH-to-media) as David Gergen that this practice goes back as far as JFK's time.

If true as alleged--probably a unwise practice. Again, so what? Is there some harm to a harmless practice? Or should the WH press corps be organized like a private club or a closed union shop? (Would someone care to articulate the supposed harm?)

And this demonstrates the hypocrisy of the left and the media in raising the issue of sex/sexuality, and attempting to score a moral equivalence with Lewinsky/Clinton. Other than the sliver of daily pass access vesus an employee (intern) of the WH, there are no facts in common. None.

Should Andrew Sullivan (no matter whether he's on the right or the left, this week) be denied a daily WH pass because of homosexual details he's written about on his blog?

Please. Where does this end? Democrats scream, complain, pound the table, and accuse Republicans of wanting to regulate bedroom antics.

Well, the left has exceeded itself in this episode.

Hypocrisy isn't a strong enough word to describe what's on display here on the left.

And here's some food for thought. The WH press corps making a stink is their way of throwing their weight around, "See, we're important, we know how to make life difficult for a president if he doesn't pay us enough attention." But it's an adolescent temper tantrum because the WH press corps seems to be the last people on earth to discover that the president has no desire to have his plans, programs, and policies filtered through the bias of the WH press corps.

(In other words, if the press corps took its responsibilities more seriously, perhaps they'd be granted the respect they believe they deserve--but this temper tantrum is the wrong way to go about it. Beside the WH press corps, there are other media strategies the WH can employ to get their message out--it ain't the '70s or the '80s anymore!)

That's why Bush routinely goes around the WH press corps by going out in the country for appearances and speeches. He's using Bill Clinton's tactic of the full-time 24/7 campaign mode in the WH--granted Bush has a different strategy in mind, but it's the same tactic.

[TallDave]

SomeCallMeTim:

"assertions distinguished by a lack of evidence."

You mean, every intelligence agency on Earth asserts Gannon's malfeasnace to be a "slam-dunk case?"

[creepy dude]

Actually I have no problem with it Forbes.

A fake president should be questioned by fake reporters.

[TallDave]

"A fake president should be questioned by fake reporters."

Yeah, too bad Clinton's not around. He would have been perfect for Gannon.

[JayDen]

Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it.

According to what I take to be MoDO's desired rules, the following would be grounds for excluding a reporter from the White House:

1. Gay and/or at one time in life a "sex worker".

2. Uses any different name professionally.

3. Owed taxes to the government within the last 15 years.

4. Works for "political web sites" or likely to ask the president "softball questions".

OK, let's go for these new rules (and no changing them next time a Democrat wins) and we'll see how long it takes before MoDo and her buddies start squealing like stuck pigs.

[The Monk]

No, not a pinnacle but a nadir. I'm afraid if she digs herself in any deeper, MoDo will be liquified by the Earth's molten core.

[Robert Musil]

Americablog - which seems to be a center of this nonsense - appears to be backing down from the "Hard Press Pass" allegation:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/breaking-gannon-appears-to-have-had.html

Now Americablog says that the pass "Gannon" is wearing in that blurry photo does not resemble a White House "Hard Press Pass" after all. That seems to put Maureen even further out in her particular ozone layer. Will she retract the way Americblog has retracted? Don't count on it. Being a member of MSM means almost never having to say you're sorry - or wrong. And, apparently, it also means not even bothering to compare the blurry photo of the Gannon press pass with the actual White House "Hard Press Pass" the guy down the hall at the Times is wearing before writing one's column.

Ms. Collins!! Yooo-hooo ... Ms. Collins!? Can you hear me, Ms. Collins?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Brit Hume started to tell stories about some of the characters who hang out in the WHPR on Fox News Sunday, and Chris Wallace interrupted him loudly. Meaning there's even more to this than we know.

And don't forget that June Lockhart--aka Lassie's Mother--had a pass too, for years.

And, to follow on JayDen's point, in her previous column lambasting Michael Medved's review of 'Million Dollar Baby', MoDo seemed to be supporting the idea that the physically handicapped were better off dead.

[JorgXMcKie]

I, for one, would rather have a practicing pyro-necro-bestialist asking softball questions in the White House Press Room than either MooDoo or Helen (The Hyper-Partisan Crazy Aunt In The Attic) Thomas doing anything in any room. Besides, isn't the White House Press Corps under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of St. Bill? Just askin' is all.

[TM]

Americablog - which seems to be a center of this nonsense - appears to be backing down from the "Hard Press Pass" allegation:

Robert Musil, WTH have you been? I figured a Christmas break was cool, even with an early start, but we have gone past the two month mark here, buddy.

And the team needs you - I love the idea that the Milbank story is collapsing.

And on that subject, how is it that Milbank is "breaking news" off the pages of the Post? Or are Olbermann and the Lost Kos his outlets for the leads and speculation that make his editor frown, or laugh out loud?

Anyway, my alternative guess on the "hard pass around the neck" - on the off chance that Jeff Gannon is a bit of a poseur, maybe he wears something that looks like a hard pass around his neck just for the look. Hard passes for the hard cases, or something. Not possible?

And I am battling here with a dial-up, but I cannot find the interview at the Daily Kos, which, per E&P, was posted today.

My early favorite is that I am just not able to navigate the Kos site correctly. However, also on the tote board is the possibility that the interview was taken down, perhaps due to professional mortification of interviewee. That theory is *STILL THE UNDERDOG*, but worth checking.

I have also tried to check the Post website - I don't see any stories by Milbank or mentioning Milbank that include this tidbit.

What are the standards?

[TM]

Milbank on Olbermann:

MILBANK: Well, we don‘t know. I‘ve seen him with something that looked an awful lot like a permanent White House pass, with his face, name and organization on it. Others have seen the same thing. We don‘t know for sure. But either way, it‘s clear that Scott Mcclellan knew that it wasn‘t his real name. He had to provide his real name to get into the White House. So, here you have the press secretary to the United States, playing along addressing this guy by his pseudo name. So there was some degree of complicity, even if he was not granted, against White House rules, an actually hard past.

[TM]

OK, here is the Daily Kos/SusanG interview with Dana Milbank.

Here is a FOIA request from Rep. Lousie Slaughter for info on Gannon's clearance procedure.

OK, from the interview:

You've stated that you think you've seen Gannon with a "hard press" pass. What is the visual difference between a hard pass and a daily pass?

A hard pass has your photo and news org and name on it. A daily pass is just a brown and white striped pass that says, "Press," on it and comes on a dog-tag style chain. Note that the one Gannon wears in the footage on TV is a blue lanyard - not the sort of thing a day pass comes on.

And great moments in news judgement here:

It's not that Gannon, and the CNN guy's remarks in Switzerland, etc. aren't stories, it's that they're not the most important stories.

Uhh, "the CNN guy" is Eason Jordan.

"Reflections on media manipulation":

Does traditional media feel driven in any way by competition with the blogs?

I don't think we feel pressured. But it does drive the agenda in a sense that stories pop up in the blog ether and, because people start talking about them, they need to be addressed or debunked. The Kerry mistress story comes to mind.

The not-so-hidden agenda:

Can you foresee any circumstances in which mainstream media and blogs could join forces for the benefit of both mediums?

I think there will have to be convergence. I'd like to know how you, and your readers, think this could best be done. Some of us have thought about the idea of doing a daily blog report, summarizing what the top blogs are saying and assessing the accuracy/significance. but that's just a small item.

Hmm, another possible way the MSM and blogs could join forces - I'm just guessing out loud here - if Milbank had a lead or idea that he couldn't get past his editors, maybe, just maybe, he could put it out in an interview with a major blog. Then a Congresswomaon could pick it up, and the WaPo could report it as real news (just like the Times!).

Naah. No one would believe it.

[Brent]

Brent,

I read the blog you linked to, VC. It is pretty bad and misses the crucial point.

And what, pray tell, is the crucial point other than the truth? Sigh.

I guess I'm just lacking the nuance cells necessary to detect where Brit went off the tracks. I mean, quoting FDR and all. He should have known better than to bring up real history when so much fake history has already been propped up for all to pay homage to.

[RedDan]

Brent,

You should look up the word "elide" and its various permutations.

Then you should look up the word "misrepresent" and its various synonyms.

Then you should read, and compare, what NotDavid (Hume) said and what FDR actually wrote.

Point being that what is good for Dan Rather (misrepresenting, using bad information, knowingly or unknowingly relying on shoddy sources and bad research to push inflammatory stories about candidates on the eve of an election) should be just as good for NotDavid (Hume) - misprepresenting what FDR said about the policy crafted and pushed by FDR during a period when there are active campaigns to change or shore up or preserve or trash that policy in such ways that could affect the lives of millions of people.

And if you think my sentences are long, too bad!

[Cecil Turner]

"Then you should read, and compare, what NotDavid (Hume) said and what FDR actually wrote."

Okay, let's. Hume's quote:

Roosevelt said that any Social Security plan should include, 'Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,' adding that government funding, 'ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.'"

FDR's quote:

"Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

It's not "made up" as claimed by Olbermann, or "rearranged" as claimed by JR Jr (except to split an infinitive for no apparent reason . . . Help! Grammar Police!). The argument that it suggests totally privatizing SS might have been valid, if Hume hadn't said the opposite in the lead-in: "FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it." Which is precisely, and exactly, correct.

If you guys want to beat this drum, go ahead. It isn't making Hume look bad.

[TM]

I tuned out of the Hume debate when the first post screaming about it claimed it was worse than Rathergate - even Kevin Drum admits that Rathergate represented inexcusable, inexplicable lapses of news judgeemnt. (Well, I differ with "inexplicable" - I think the explanation is obvious).

Of course, I might have missed the news - are we voting next month on whether to keep the Roosevelt Memorial?

[Robert Musil]

Tom,

I've been starting a new business and I just haven't had time to blog. Thanks for the kind words.

BTW, I think it's absolutely fascinating that the MSM and the left side of the blogosphere have tied their panties in continuing and gathering knots over this "Gannon" thing. Few real voters care to spend more time on its substance than what it takes to read a page or 2 of "People" or the "Star" at the grocery checkout line (yes, "Gannon" is news, news appropriate to such publications). But the widening, self-destructive fixation of liberaldom is worth extended consideration.

While the New York Times and others on the left fiddle with Mr. Gannon's privates, the President is, for example, signing legislation restricting class actions - a moderate but very real disadvantage to trial lawyers, now an essential Democratic constituency. More such initiatives are coming. Is fixation on "Mr. Gannon's Profession" something with which liberals are occupying themselves while their national coalition is dismantled?

Love the "Dowdy." Love the dismantling. Love the whole concept!

[richard mcenroe]

All these people staring so closely at pictures of Gannon.

He shoult put them up on a pay site or something,

[ed]

Hmmm.

"All these people staring so closely at pictures of Gannon. He shoult put them up on a pay site or something,"

That's an interesting point I hadn't considered before. Does "Fair Use" apply to copyrighted pictures? Does Guckert have a case to sue all those blogs for copyright infringment?

Just curious.