Jeff Gannon, internet hero…
Frank Rich’s column this Sunday in The New York Times considers the case of Jeff Gannon and what he means to the Bush administration’s information machine. For me, Gannon raises this question: Who gets to be a reporter? (You’ll note that I am not using the terms “journalist” or “journalism” here because I assert that the practices they indicate must include an independent editing process often lacking in the reporting efforts of citizens.)
Anyone who wants to be a reporter gets to be a reporter if they put in the minimum effort. You might not get to make a living at it, but all you have to do to be a legitimate reporter is report and publish. The internet–specifically weblogs–makes this easy and cheap (free in many cases!) to accomplish.
(The concept of legitimacy here is tricky. On the one hand, the citizen reporter finds legitimacy in citizenship. On the other hand, no one is obligated to speak to any reporter–especially those who are less than well connected.)
What does it mean to report? Reporting is the act of gathering and disseminating information (def.: statements about facts in the world). Simple as that. There’s no requirement that reporting be thorough, accurate, contextual, unbiased, truthful, or fair.
There is nothing at all illegitimate about GOPUSA setting up an internet news organization (Talon News) and reporting the news. (They might even be practicing journalism if they operate with a recognizable editorial process.)
That the White House should approve a reporter from such a news organization for daily passes is not at all surprising. But that they approved Gannon/Guckert is. His background is, shall we say, problematic. I’ve been through the White House security procedure. There ain’t no way he’d have been approved unless a very senior official wanted him approved.
I don’t think the White House knew this guy was a problem. He was bought-and-paid-for ideologically, and that apparently was good enough. I have no problem with this.
The character Jeff Gannon may turn out to be an internet hero. Here’s why: Reporting is a craft, not a licensed profession. That’s as it should be in our democratic republic. Until now, you needed a job to be a reporter. You needed a so-called legitimate news organization to cover the highest offices of government. Today, all you need is a web site and the chutzpah to give it a go.
In a way, it’s too bad about the whole gay porn thing. That’s a red herring that keeps us from seeing what’s important here. Let me enumerate it:
1. Citizens journalism has arrived and will only get bolder and stronger (re: changing noetic field).
2. A news organization is any collection of individuals who report and disseminate information.
3. Political factions have a right to operate news organizations (welcome to 1776).
4. Any presidential administration must make skilled use of the current (and changing) media paradigm.…and…
5. As a result, we are drenched in free speech and drowning in propaganda.
Heck, why not open up the press secretary role too?
I’m looking forward to your first press gaggle
Um, no, he’s not a hero, he’s a plagiarist (“In at least two of his articles, Gannon lifted more than half of the text directly from GOP ‘fact sheets.’…”.
and – given that the problem with some op-ed writers’ ethics is widely considered to be due to the fact that they *didn’t* get the journalists’ education and thus have journos’ ethical standards beaten into them…how will we deal with this same problem, with journobloggers?
Normally, I think you do too much self-linking. But this time, your self-link to propaganda was instructive. I have three thoughts about your post. #1 MSM uses Either/Or, Stacking the Deck and Opinion as Fact with alarming regularity. #2 As a blogaholic, I’m beginning to see there are two conversations going on the internet, right and left. If you read Memeorandum, you will see that very few articles are covered by both sides. The upshot is what I’m calling the “So’s Your Old Man” style of civic discourse. The NYtimes didn’t cover Jordan, so they are flooding the zone with Gannon coverage (I wonder how the NY gays will react that the Times thinks gays shouldn’t have a WH pass?). Hey, maybe we’ll get a quote from Heywood Jablome! But to counter the Gannon/Guckert kerfuffle, the right is digging up WH press conferences where major media stars and the major media outlets they work for pretty much bend over, grab their ankles and say “More Please” for Bill Clinton. It’s kinda pathetic. But this goes on and on. It’s like ping-pong, or tennis—it’s a continual volley. I like this because if you read both left and right, you get propaganda, but you can glean enough information to make up your own mind about who is “reality” based and who is “fact” based. The #3 is that after reading WH press transcripts for more than a year, I can say with some authority that the WH press, as it is now consitutued is passe. The WH press could be done as an email list. The WH press secretary could send out POTUS agend and talking points. If the “reporters” had questions, they could email back and all the listers could see the results. When POTUS travels, there would be a pool, but the primary reporting would be done by the local reporters, giving more diversity and a fresh POV to the stale Inside the Beltway mentality and groupthink infecting MSM. IMO, there are several local reporters who could write circles around the hacks at WaPo and NYTimes (Bumiller and Nagourney being particularly lame), and I’m in a small media market. So there you have it, disbanding the WH press corp is my current hoppyhorse, but the Ping-Pong style of political discourse is a new thing.
Anna… yes, but the GOP (or the DNC) wants reporters to lift stuff directly from the fact sheets
In such cases, the character called Jeff Gannon is being a lazy reporter. I probably should have used the term “anti-hero,” but I was trying to be deliberately provocative.
R- re: lots of self-linking That’s necessary because I have between 1,500 and 2,500 readers per day. I don’t know how many are first-timers and short-timers. I don’t want to assume they are as familiar with my nomenclature and critical techniques as you are.
Anna, I hope “journobloggers” never
“have journos’ ethical standards beaten into them”. We need more free speech in this country, not less. Let a thousand Points of View bloom! The East Coast Liberal Elite do not speak for the whole USA, just the East Coast Liberal Elite.
Doc, have you thought about bringing on co-bloggers? I don’t know anyone who does what you do (I mean that in a good way!), but are there some graduate students, fellow faculty members, etc. in the PolySci, rhetoric, j-school, etc. dept. at your school, who have a compatible POV who might add to Rhetorica? This would take some of the pressure off you and give voice to others.
R- I’ve thought about adding a co-blogger or two in the past. I’m certainly open to the idea.
OK, one more time. Both you and Callimachus commented on the Guckert/Gannon affair, citing your experiences with obtaining day passes to the WH. Your conclusions couldn’t be more different. This is the beauty of the internet/blogs. Who’s right? Who knows? Who cares? Reading divergent takes on a same experience enlightens the reader, and does not confuse. Diversity is what elite media lacks, IMO. http://vernondent.blogspot.com/2005/02/gannon-ade.html
R- The Gospels don’t agree either
So, you’re now on the same level as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Hubris,thy name is Rhetorica!
In that one respect, I suppose
Actually, Hubris IS a good alternative name for the character of Rhetorica. She does represent the idea that we can move hearts and minds by the power of words. Further, the early Christian thinkers understood this power and respected it. God was to be found in The Word, and Christians were called upon to spread the Gospel (i.e. the word of God and his good news).
Of all the years I’ve been reading Rhetorica (a few) your comment above is the most profound I’ve read here. You surprise me every day Doc.
It’s easy when you work with good material
Thanks.
Did you see on E&P that the White House Correspondents Assn. in a meeting 2/28 decided that they didn’t want change in the WH press credentialing process, and that no members thought that Gannon/Guckert was a “plant”? What say you?
R- I haven’t seen it. It depends upon what one means by the verb “plant.” No, I don’t think the WH planted him in the sense of orchestrating his presence as part of a political/communications plan. But I do think they let him slide because of who/what he represented. That’s two very different things.