A trip through Editorial Space(shiver!) Part 1/3

Here is a little exchange between me and a couple of the editors(actually the editor's people) at the NYTimes as the Gannon/Guckert story was exploding. In 3 Parts 'cuz this editor sux.

02/09/05 to All the NYTimes Editors:

“Can you please tell me why I can't find mention anywhere in your online paper of the Jeff Gannon/planted "journalist" story that is sweeping AirAmerica and other radio? I mean, this is pretty big stuff and I can't find a peep from you guys.”

And then this the next morning:

“OK, you guys have been scooped on the the Jeff Gannon/ planted correspondent issue. 24 hours after I sent a note asking why I couldn't find it anywhere in your online edition, I still don't see it. Even CNN and the Daily Post have run stories on this, meager as they may be, and DailyKos is planning to issue a press release(more power to them). Your mea culpa for your woefully inadequate reportage in the months leading up to this war in Iraq has been trumped by your utter inability to stand up for your very profession. You no longer stand as much for a free
press and/or investigative journalism as you do for craven marketeering and political prostitution. Please tell me why, besides your crosswords which are arguably the best to be found, I should ever think of contributing to your organization when you have shown yourselves to be so slow to protect the 4th estate which you pretend to embody.”

I wasn't so shocked that my 2/9 letter hadn't spurred them to action but I knew that I was just one of hundreds(thousands?) trying to get this story into the MSM. It still has just barely shown up now 3 weeks later. However there was a story on 02/11 though I can't say I was thoroughly satisfied:

“

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/politics/11gannon.html

Is it any wonder that this administration is able to get away with so much when you guys, with your reach, are so slow to get behind a real story? Not to mention that it's stuck way deep inside. Those liquid lunches sure make it tough to stay on top of the news, huh?”

Yeah, um, weeeell, I felt it was a justified poke. They were sitting on a story that was burning up the blogs and progressive radio. I mean just burning it up. It was all that was being talked about. The administration(aka Karl Rove) had been caught red-handed and the NYTimes was apparently only going to respond with a buried 5 paragraph piece on a Friday. Who reads the Washington section on a Friday?

But, it did get a response from the Executive Editor's office;

“You'll pardon me if I resent your last sentence.......
Sorry you don't like the placement or the timing of the story ...But what has happened to reasoned discourse? Or must everyone be an idiot or a moron or a drunk because the story they are interested in doesn't make the front page of the paper?”

The story I'M interested in?! Everybody who cares about democracy cared(and cares) about this story. But:

“OK, I apologize for the liquid lunch remark. That was the 3rd note I dropped to you guys and the only one to get a response, so I had no reason to believe that it would be any more closely read than the 2 others. I do feel that this Gannon story and the implications toward a White House disinformation campaign it supplies should be, if not on the front page, front and center on the Washington page. I mean, you know as well as I do(or you should) that without freedom of the press to examine our government there will be no ad revenue and no sense in printing fashion stories.”

Which brought this:

“Thank you for your reply. I'm not making excuses -- but the fact is that on this email site alone, we receive over 3000 emails a day. There are 2 human beings who deal with this site ...Stuff gets lost - legitimate emails get sent to junk mail ... There is no way we can answer them all. If you want to send me something directly, email me at (...). Believe me, no one is more aware of White House disinformation than this newspaper. I'm grateful for your measured response.”

OK, fair enough, but WHERE IS THE STORY NOW?! Going to the NYTimes website and searching for “gannon guckert” gives the articles that were available as of last week(ending 2/20) and an AP National Review blurb that notes that Talon News has shut down. More on this later.

(If you want to read these articles, I would recommend searching at nytimes.com and then googling the name of the article unless you want to buy it from the Times. Or just click on the links as they pop up. I think they show all the articles.)

A trip through Editorial Space(shiver!) Part 2/3

So we let things develop until 2/17 with the appearance of a Maureen Dowd editorial in which she discusses the story but not the problem with the story. To wit:

“Indeed, but the larger story now is why the MSM(mainstream media in blog-speak) has yet to run a real story on this. Your paper ran a deeply buried short piece last Friday and then dropped it. Kurtz's(Howie Kurtz in the Washinton Post) piece was, I understand, in the style section for God's sake. Though the bloggers and Air America have been talking about this non-stop for over a week and I have sent 3 notes to all the editors at your paper asking why they weren't running the story, it has yet to land anywhere near the front page. You can't believe that the papers are squeamish about the sexual side of it(BTW it's not just that we have a web designer saying he put up nude pictures of Gannon/Guckert, we have seen the pictures: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/man-called-jeff.html). We all read about the semen stains on Lewinsky's dress. Indeed, we had to try not to read about it.
For whatever reason(disbelief, disgust, fear for democracy, fear of loss of access (Please! as if it matters when your news is being totally manufactured)) your paper is a tool for this administration's disinformation campaign by not covering this as news but as commentary on what others have reported. It's truly disgraceful. I have been recommending in the blogosphere and will recommend here that every White House correspondent except Helen Thomas(from whom neither Scott McClellan nor the President will take questions) start boycotting the press conferences. Then we can watch McClellan stand and stare at Helen Thomas, saying nothing and walking away. The net result would be no different than it is! Better yet, why don't all the correspondents start asking real questions so they will all be snubbed and we can watch McClellan or the President stare wordlessly at all of them. Again, the net result is the same only less CO2 being produced.”

That was meant to go to all the NYTimes editors, but I discovered later that it apparently only went to Ms. Dowd's box. Ahh, the joys of working with email clients that have their own rules about listing addresses and won't tell you before deleting your list. I love UNIX/Linux but not always. So, later that evening, it went to the editors with an extra tid bit:

“I have reason to believe that the attached didn't make it to you as it
should have this morning. And because I think you need to step up to the plate, check this out:”

As it happens a story appeared, in the News section, the next day:

“OK, getting it into the news section, but still behind the ball. Why was Gannon/Guckert spotted in the White House before Talon was even established as has been reported by Air America and Salon.com? If no strings were pulled to get Guckert into the press room, why did McClellan and Bush(I believe) call him "Jeff"? Are you implying that I can walk up there and get a daily pass without showing any sort of ID? That's absurd and you know it. Finally, why am I having to ask you about your incomplete reporting? You failed(or did you?) at reportage to help the administration get us into a needless war(yes, you are culpable) and now you decide to play it safe by under-reporting the White House disinformation campaign....Ugh, sometimes I wonder if there is any hope for your paper at all. If it wasn't for the fact that editors all over the country won't publish a story that the NYTimes won't publish ,(that power feels pretty good, uh?) I probably wouldn't care so much, but there are FACTS in this ongoing story that you still have yet to report even as 2 of your op-eders wrote about it yesterday(Dowd and Frank Rich). This smells like a whitewash and I would at least like to know what you have to gain from it.
You have to live with your own culpability in sabotaging democracy but I will never let you go quietly.”

And from the office of the Public Editor on 2/18:

“Dear (Sir),
Perhaps you missed the following articles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/18/politics/18gannon.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/politics/11gannon.html?ex=1108875600&en=6dc6b83cc1ac21d7&ei=5070
And the following two columns in yesterday's paper.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/opinion/17dowd.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/arts/20rich.html
Sincerely,
(...)
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times “

To which I sent the last of this thread 2/19:

“Thank you for your reply. I have seen those articles, 2 of which are
opeds rather than news. I wrote the note you replied to on 2/17 so I
didn't know you guys were going to pick it up again on 2/18. I think I
included you in the To: list for my note of yesterday but if not it is
attached. I am still disappointed with the MSM coverage of the
administration's disinformation campaign which has been well covered
elsewhere. I, over the last few days, ran a small, non-scientific
survey here in San Francisco. I asked 4 or 5 people who live and work
in the City if they had heard of Jeff Gannon or James Guckert. In all 4
or 5 cases I got an absolutely blank stare. I understand that ABC
reported some on this yesterday and CNN has reportedly done another
interview with him(this according to Editor&Publisher who have been
digging at this story pretty well this last week or so). It seems to me
that these news media who were oh so eager to bring us Clinton's every
peccadillo and to froth over it beyond its natural life should at least
be seriously interested that the White House is actively and repeatedly
selling them "news" done up from whole cloth and employing tactics that
would seem to fly in the face of their so-called security. Perhaps you
are numb to it since the spin and dishonesty are the constant
state-of-affairs these days.”

A trip through Editorial Space(shiver!) Part 3/3

Whoops, I almost forgot about this one. It's not just that they aren't reporting it. When they do report it they do a really weak job,2/20:

“Web Site Owner Says He Knew of Reporter's 2 Identities
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/national/20gannon.html

"Texas Republicans said he(Bobby Eberle. kmw) was not well known in the party."
Of course they said this!!! You nitwit! He was a delegate to the 2000 RNC(http://txgop.org/newsroom/newsDisplay.php?id=112), he purchased a website from a political insider(Bruce Eberle, relation unknown, but you certainly can't just say the aren't related when Bruce says he's handing off MillionsofAmericans.com to one of the Texas Eberle clan). You guys are just determined to bury this story aren't you? “

That got no reply and was the last article on the subject from the Times.

Where you see “(...)” or “(Sir)”, I have removed actual names, though it's easy enough for anyone reading this to discover mine. I also fixed some typos and a single case of bad grammer on my part. Otherwise these are unmodified.

It is just before 11AM on 2/27. SusanG on DailyKos informs us yesterday(the joys of time stamps that tell you you were let know before you saw it) that Jeff Gannon is the author of part of the Congressional Record of the Senate of November 17,2003 because Senator Craig Thomas of WY asked that it be so and the question is still,"Where's the story?". Not in the NYTimes and, so, not in the SFChronicle although they did run a reprint of Howie Kurtz's puff piece in a Saturday edition(low readership of news) and an editorial after a visit from Joe Biden who talks a big game but has refused to sign a letter with other senators demanding a full administration investigation. Of course I wrote to the Chronicle the following:

"And just how many stories have you guys run on this in the past 2-3 weeks? I've only seen one reprint of Howie Kurtz's useless article in a Saturday edition. You are part of the problem along with Biden who talks a big game and then refuses to sign a senate letter demanding an explanation from the administration."

Which got no response. I also called Biden's office to ask why he wasn't signing the letter and was told that he didn't want to ask the administration to investigate itself. OK, so, how is he going to get an independent investigation going? "That's a good question.", I was told. When I mentioned that it was an important political statement his aide said that Biden didn't want to make it a political issue. Yeah. Right. Publicly, the Biden camp has said that he didn't have time to read the letter. Go ahead and read it slowly 2 or 3 times and you'll be but half an hour older. I will do everything I can to keep Biden from becoming preident just for this.

Recently The New Yorker has decided that the story is not worth covering because nothing is likely to happen. To which I wrote:

"Well, now that Hendrick Hertzberg has deigned to opine that this story is dead, I suppose all the other print media who have been doing their best to find reasons to run, not walk, away from it can now do so with the comfort of knowing that it has at last been "covered" and killed. How dare you use such a backhanded technique to excuse your publication for being just as lazy as the Times. "

So, where's the story? Pretty much where it started, in the blogosphere (of which I am now a proud member). The MSM occasionally gets some on its fingers but wipes it off as soon as it can. I have yet to see a report that mentions 1/3 of what is commonly known by the bloggers. For instance; every time the bloggers expose another website connected to this thing the site goes down or it is scrubbed clean of whatever drew the interest. Talon news(owned by the Bobby Eberle mentioned above) scrubbed all Jeff Gannon material a few weeks ago and 2 days ago shut itself down.

These people cannot handle scrutiny. They are opportunist scum of the lowest sort that dies on exposure to the Sun or Reason or Reality. Check out USANext who have decided to try to destroy the AARP so they can help push throuugh BushCo's Social Security fiasco. If you want to see what other causes they have whored for in the past go here. Charles Jarvis doesn't look like that because he is a happy, balanced individual.

These people must be stopped and, apparently, we cannot rely on the NYTimes, NPR or the rest of the MSM to do the job though that's what they are paid to do; fight for the truth. If you disagree with how your news media are "covering" things, let them know. And let them know that you will take your dissatisfaction out on their pocket book. Better yet, let them know that you won't read, listen to or watch them. Most of these people need at least the illusion that someone is listening.

I have listened to NPR for less than an hour since I wrote that note and I haven't bought a hard copy of the NYTimes since the 9th of February, though I do still give them $40 per year for access to their crosswords.

1/29/05 to KQED and NPR

I thought you might want to know why, after 15-20 years of steady pledges to various local(and distant) NPR radio stations, I will not be pledging to my local station(KQED) this time. If I hadn't been laid off twice in the past 14 months(due to this administration's economic failures about which you refuse to report in depth), perhaps this wouldn't have come up, but I now have to be very careful with my money and NPR isn't, at this time, a priority. I have to say, though, that if AirAmerica was asking for a pledge they would get it in a heartbeat.

It may just be my rosy remembrance of the past, but I recall being able to, gratefully, rely on NPR to deliver pertinent, critically analyzed news. I no longer feel that this is the case. The first time I have ever turned NPR off in disgust was a couple of weeks ago when someone, I don't remember her name, did a story on a couple who were going to attend the "Service Member's Ball" during inaugural week. It was an utterly useless and hokey story apparently meant to reassure us all that our current crisis isn't in fact a crisis. She wrapped it up by following these people around a mall to choose the ball gown and ending up at JCPenney(product placement?). Never did this reporter address the obvious: an obscene $40 million on an inaugural while we are at war for no reason(even the administration can't decide on one), a token ball given for service members to prop up some false sense of taking this whole thing seriously. This story was a waste of time, bandwidth and my previous pledge.

I am, right now, listening to "Wait, wait, don't tell me!"(perhaps for the last time) and Peter Sagal was just talking with Helen Thomas, the White House correspondent whose questions are no longer accepted by the President and treating this fact as if it were just another of those things about which we should shrug and laugh. This is a crisis for what you profess to be your business!! This forcedly non-opinionated commentary about very hot items is offensive. Yet it is just this semi-laissez faire attitude that has become the hallmark of NPR. Just about the only critical political analysis found on the network these days is given by Garrison Keillor!! Utterly unthinkable just a few years ago.

I have heard a long story about the trials and errors of a British rock group consumed by drug use. THIS IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING NEWS!!! And if you can't be bothered to critically analyze the wars and lies(documented) of this administration you certainly shouldn't be covering this kind of stuff.

NPR is at grave risk of becoming as fluffy and marginal to real news as any of the mainstream provincial press. Too bad. Like I said, I can remember when the opposite was the case. I will continue to support KUT(1700 miles away) because I rely on it 2 hours a week to keep up with new music from Latin America, but KQED will have to go on without me for the time being.

Er...Um...Yes

OK, a friend suggested I set up a blog, so here it is.

I am, in the words of Mort Sahl, "...not a liberal. I'm a revolutionary." (I hope someone will correct me if that is not completely accurate). I find it difficult to accept that I am stuck on the same planet as people(for lack of a better term) like Tom Delay, Trent Lott and GWBush. I cannot accept, that is I refuse to accept, that my own father, of whose genes I am made, voted for this president or that certain ex-friends were behind this War in Iraq. I am not one who believes that now is the time to heal the rift between the RightWing and the Sane. No, I think that now is the time to shut them down. They are welcome to keep their party, but the Right Wing Echo Chamber(RWEC) and the prostrate MSM need to come around or be blasted to dust. I have no problem with honest debate, but that is not what the RWEC engages in. The RWEC engages in lie propagation and repetition and they must be stopped. On a good day I am willing to concede that we have the administration we do due to lack of information rather than abject stupidity, but that's not often.

None of this is news. Al Franken, Joe Conasen, Dave Brock just to name a very few individuals, have been working on this for some time and do a fantastic job. Yet, somehow, news media like NPR are being led down the primrose path on things like Social Security as shown here. With that in mind, since this friend suggested that some of my letters I've sent to news organisations such as NPR would provide a basis for this blog, we will start with that one.

Krome is a name I've used for ages on the net. It is the name under which I post on most other blogs. It comes from William Gibson's book "Burning Chrome" and I chose it because back when I logged onto my first BBS on a TI Silent 700 terminal with Bubble Memory and an acoustic coupler(300 Baud) back in the mid '80's I was reading a lot of him and the BBS was called "Black Ice".