|
It's not all that hard to
know who is a true journalist
Tallahassee Democrat
Leonard Pitts
Miami Herald
Feb. 21, 2005
Three weeks later, I'm still waiting for a good explanation of
what Jeff Gannon was doing in the White House. And for you to be
upset about it.
Gannon is the fellow who made himself memorable during last
month's presidential news conference by asking about Democratic
pessimism regarding the nation's economy. Specifically, he asked
if President Bush could work with "'people who seem to have
divorced themselves from reality."
The unusually partisan phrasing prompted reporters and liberal
groups to ask the same question: Who is this guy? Well, it turns
out that Gannon is not really Gannon. James Guckert says he
prefers that pseudonym for "commercial" reasons. It also turns
out that a company he owns is the registered owner of several
sexually suggestive Web addresses. Hotmilitarystud.com, to name
just one.
Most curious of all, though, is that it turns out he is not
really a reporter, at least not if that term still denotes a
disinterested observer of events. Rather, Guckert writes for a
Web site, talnonnews.com, which is linked to another site,
GOPUSA.com. That site serves, as you might gather, to promote the
Republican Party.
Guckert resigned, saying he and his family have been threatened
and harassed. If true, that is deplorable.
But it's also deplorable that he was ever seated in the White
House briefing room. As to how that happened, Bush spokesman
Scott McClellan has pleaded ignorance, saying that, "In this day
and age, when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue
to decide, to try to pick and choose who is a journalist."
Which is patently ridiculous. Contrary to the press secretary's
Hamlet-like agonizing, it's not all that hard to know who is and
is not a reporter. If an individual reports for a recognized
media outlet that observes customary standards of journalistic
integrity - even if it tends to view the world through a
conservative or liberal editorial prism - that person is a
reporter. But if the person works for an outlet that simply
promotes, or advocates for, one political party or another, then
the line between reporter and shill has been well and truly
crossed.
It's not brain surgery. So you'll have to forgive me for not
extending the benefit of doubt to McClellan. My problem is that
he speaks for an administration with a long record of
manipulating truth and propagandizing the public. These are the
folks who pay pundits to say nice things about them. The ones who
pressure scientists to change science that conflicts with
political goals. The ones who ignore their own experts when
confronted with information they'd rather not believe. And this
is a president whose press conferences occur with only slightly
more frequency than ice storms do in Key West, who ducks hard
questions posed by actual reporters, preferring to bat slow
pitches tossed by average citizens pre-screened for their
support.
So planting a party stooge among the real reporters hardly seems
out of character.
The thing is, a government that is not scrutinized by an
energetic and adversarial press is a government that is not
accountable for its actions. A government that is allowed to
create its own reality is a government that can get away with
anything.
So where is our outrage?
Frankly, the only thing more galling that the brazenness with
which the White House abrogates the public's right to know is the
sheep-like docility with which we accept it, with which we become
complicit in our own hoodwinking.
When the history of this era is written, people will wonder why
we didn't challenge its excesses, why we didn't know the things
we should have. If you're still around, remember the uproar you
do not hear right this moment and tell them the truth.
Ignorance was easier.
Contact Leonard Pitts at lpittsherald.com.
|
|