Another Reporter on Gannon (Gate)

Today we have the third in a series of anonymous journalists' replies to the question of how common it is for reporters to use pseudonyms--and on the Gannon mess and the media. Again, I'm posting the replies in full, except for personal information. This one, like the first, comes from a reporter at a city newspaper. (To read the first response and a run-down of the original editorial that these journalists responded to, scroll down two posts or go here. The second response is above the first one, or here.)

This guy Thibault has a few interesting points. I agree with two out of three of his points, the first two. Gannon's lack of experience and pseudonym, by themselves, are unimportant. Being a journalist is not a clearly defined thing. It's much more hazy. This became clear a couple of years ago when a first-time true crime writer was sent to jail for several months for protecting sources in a Texas murder investigation. She claimed to be a journalist and argued that she should receive the protection of a Texas reporter-shield law. Prosecutors claimed she had no right to call herself a journalist because this was her first real journalistic effort. Now, with the Internet, lots of people can more plausibly call themselves journalists. We don't have professional licenses for what we do. Is Rush Limbaugh a journalist? Are you a journalist because you do a blog? In theory, the White House could let anyone into its daily briefing who claims to be a journalist. He's not the first maybe-journalist to ask loaded questions at these press conferences. But if Gannon was indeed a ringer brought in by the White House then that's a legitimate scandal to criticize.

I'm less convinced of Thibault's last point. The press did not, I repeat not, treat Bill Clinton with kid-gloves. I would direct this guy to Howard Kurtz's 1998 book, "Spin Zone," to see what a brutal lot the press can be. They may not have asked the questions this writer would have liked, but then again he's always free to come down to the White House and ask his own, conservative-minded, loaded questions. As far as homophobia driving this whole scandal, I disagree. It's created more cognitive disonnance than anything else. This Gannon guy is a real odd bird. Perhaps I've missed some overtly homophobic left-wing claptrap.

The last few paragraphs of Thibault's rant seem to be variations on the standard liberal-media rant. What's ironic to me is that the media is much less liberal than it was a decade ago, but charges of media bias are more frequent than ever. And now we have the phenomenon of overtly conservative media like Fox News added into the mix. Media bias is more particular to me. A bias toward government solutions to problems, a bias against evangelical religions, a bias toward more social libertarian kind of outlook, suspicion of business and commerce, a bias towards conflict, a bias towards easy storylines, that sort of thing. But the media is by no means easy on Democrats, however they might vote. That's right-wing fantasy.

The reporter's original response ended there. After I replied to it, he wrote back with the following gem:

This guy's assertion that Gannon is not a conservative was vile and odd. So what if this guy is a homosexual hooker or whatever. So Log Cabin Republicans aren't conservative? Andrew Sullivan isn't conservative? (well, not always). Why should we stop with homo hookers? I think Bill Bennett should be ousted from conservatism becus he gambled away millions in Vegas. Jack Ryan, one-time Illinois senate candidate, is no longer conservative because he took Jeri Ryan to brothels and group-sex-plexes. Yet, this writer says anything goes when it comes to journalism. Write using crayons and live in a padded cell? Sure, you can be a journalist. Administer blow jobs in between writing RNC press releases? Definitely, a journalist.

As far as Rush or anyone being a journalist, all I'm saying is I could easily see someone of his ilk claiming to be a journalist, especially if a federal prosecutor was breathing down their neck wanting to know their sources. And who could say they're not? Courts, I guess, would have to use the good-ole "reasonable" test? Is it reasonable to consider Limbaugh a journalist? Could be in the right circumstances.

Comments, especially from journalists, are welcome.

As before, if you're a reporter, uber-rich media tycoon, or Ari Fleischer and you'd like me to vent your spleen post your opinion on this subject, you can reach me at realitique@cox.net.