"A NEW LOW"? Yesterday a former Oliver North associate named Cliff Kincaid attacked me for doing exactly what he's been doing: criticizing left-leaning bloggers for engaging in a sexual witch hunt over the matter of Jeff Gannon, the pseudonymous male prostitute caught servicing the Bush administration at White House press briefings.
Kincaid is the editor of Accuracy in Media Report, published by Accuracy in Media, the far-right media-watchdog group founded by the late Reed Irvine. Kincaid writes:
The Boston Phoenix, a counter-culture publication, has taken the anti-Gannon campaign to a new low, citing a left-wing blog as reporting "rumors" about an unnamed "high-ranking, married White House aide who may or may not have had a homosexual affair with Gannon" and who "may or may not" have provided Gannon with a confidential document about CIA employee Valerie Plame. There is no evidence cited for any of this, but that doesn't seem to matter at this point.
Kincaid is quoting from my column in this week's Phoenix. Here is what I actually wrote:
Readers of the Web site Raw Story ... know that there are rumors involving a high-ranking, married White House aide who may or may not have had a homosexual affair with Gannon, and who may or may not have provided Gannon with a confidential document concerning the investigation into who leaked the identity of former covert CIA operative Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and other journalists.This is piling rumor upon rumor. And in any case, Gannon told Anderson Cooper that reports about his having claimed to have seen the Plame document were based on a misunderstanding. In fact, he said he'd only seen a Wall Street Journal article describing the document.
That was immediately followed by my quoting Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz, who told me:
I'm a big fan of bloggers, but the blogosphere has also become a repository of a lot of mean-spirited rumors that seem unaccompanied by a shred of evidence. I am not going to publish any such unsubstantiated crap without being able to pin down the facts. That's one of the things that distinguishes the much-maligned mainstream media from the freewheeling world of the blogosphere
Could Kincaid have got it any more wrong? You see what's happening here. I took Raw Story to task for rumor-mongering. Then Kincaid came along, twisted my words out of context, and then took me (or, rather, the "counter-culture" Boston Phoenix) to task for - yes - rumor-mongering! Thus does Kincaid contribute to the notion of a monolithic left, trying to bring down George W. Bush because one of his favorite reporters likes to pose naked on the Internet.
I sent Kincaid an e-mail yesterday, suggesting that he take a reading-comprehension course and pointing out that if I were really interested in "taking the anti-Gannon campaign to a new low," all I had to do was name the White House aide mentioned in Raw Story. It's not like it's a secret. In fact, I'm sure many Media Log readers know exactly who I'm talking about. But, as Kurtz says, it's "unsubstantiated crap."
Anyway, if Kincaid responds, I'll be sure to post it here.
10 comments:
He, of course, knows exactly what he's doing. The right has made spinning via erecting straw men a high art.
I do know who you are referring to in the Raw Story article, and I think you're right in showing restraint... In addition to this being unsubstantiated, this stuff just gets out of hand very easily, and ultimately hurts the legitimate aspects of the case.
It certainly doesn't help this specific case either. The right is spinning this as the left having some kind of problem with homosexual reporters, which is patently ridiculous. The actual problem we have isn't that he is gay, it is that he is a prostitute (and I mean "is," despite his protests about this being in his past). I'm not sure how much success they are having in this particular case, but they're trying like hell.
Just goes to show, Dan, that even when you try to be fair to them, you can't win. It's just sad.
By Jove, they are going to stick it to yah...Even through you showed great restraint....
The beauty of being on the Right means never to say your are sorry....Your integrity is never called into account,,,as is the case with any leftward leaning opinion...
Perhaps a legacy leftover from when the government targetted communists, and before them, the Wobblies.
Steve
at EmperorNortonII@yahoo.com
For another look at l'Affaire Gannon, visit the NashuaAdvocate.
And consider this...Did Jeff Gannon contribute to the political demise of beloved Tom Daschal?
It would seem Gannon did play a significant role in smearing long-time home state commentators and reporters there, hereby casting doubt on objective coverage of Daschal himself. This in itself merits more attention.
It is my opinion that Gannon's services re Daschal were enough to gain him his press credentials; not some homosexual affair with a Republican big fella.
Most American people are dupes, like the voters in Kansas...And Ohio...like the young, angry German families in 1929 too.
Emperor Norton II
EmperorNortonII@yahoo.com
Man, AnthonyG, you've got some real potential. I hope you read Somerby. You've got a similar style, but you've got to develop a humor component. :-)
I don't think the Gannon thing means all that much, except as yet another exhibit in the administration's propaganda program. It was telling that Putin thought Bush had Rather fired. It was played in our media as showing how little Putin knew about how the press worked in this country. But I think Putin was onto something. (Not that Bush directly had Rather fired. Just that Bush's media surrogates forced Rather into retirement.)
I wouldn't ask the unnamed White House official if he were gay. I would ask if he has had any dealings --social or personal-- with Gannon, that would not involve his duties in the WH.
If he answered no, I would say that the reason for the question is that he'd been seen at gay clubs at his home base.
I agree that trying to have rational discourse with many on the right seems to be futile. Just go on one of those right-wing "discussion" boards, like the one at frontpagemag.com, and try to argue by presenting data and research to back up your statements. You'll just get more ad hominem attacks.
And I also agree, that you shouldn't apologize for the left, Dan. I haven't followed the bloggers' writings on Gannon's sexual affairs, but I don't think the point is to denigrate him for his sexual orientation. I think the point is to expose (to red staters) the hypocrisy of the Bush administration's bogus claims to some sort of conservative "Christian" "morality."
Btw, can someone point me to the Raw Story piece which names names ?
Robin Williams made a really funny joke the other day on Bill Maher's HBO show about Gannon being involved with Karl Rove.
It doesn't name names per se,however:[url]http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=73[/url]
It doesn't?!?!
The public's snookered because it is uneducated and cannot think for itself. Which is why it is now back sleeping with superstition. The public ought not need the lazy press to remind them of the anthrax guy - who served no purpose but to cut the most effective line of communication with its representatives. The public ought not need the corporate media to remind it that the entire Iraq disgrace was formulated to thwart folks from understanding that Sept 11th was a total failure of this government.
I think folks on the left/liberal/progressive side need to be careful about making arrogant and condescending statements that the public "cannot think for itself." I understand the frustration that fuels those kinds of statements, but I think the problem is more complex. I think the problem is probably more that a lot of the public is not well informed and more people would make wiser choices if they were exposed to more accurate information. In other words I think the media's the main problem.
Post a Comment