A News Director on Gannon (Gate)

Yesterday, I posted the first in a series of anonymous journalists' replies to the question of how common it is for reporters to use pseudonyms. I'm posting the replies in full--except for personal information. The most recent one comes from a news director at a TV network affiliate. (To read the first reply and a run-down of the original editorial that these journalists responded to, scroll down two posts or go here.)

To begin with, this part of the issue is nothing but a red herring.

Yes, some TV journalists (including some in my own newsroom) do use pseudonyms, although the practice is dwindling as ethnic-sounding names become more common. However, they don't use the pseudonyms on official documents, which this guy apparently did on his application to the Standing Committee of Correspondents. That's not a pseudonym, that's fraud.

However, I'm afraid this is one of those phantom issues that people get fired up about, find out it's more widespread than they think, and then figure the whole issue was nonsense. The problem here isn't the fake name - the problem is the fake presidency. For all intents and purposes, the Bush White House is now staging news conferences, much as they staged "policy" speeches (called that so that taxpayers, rather than the campaign, picked up the travel tab) during the campaign in front of invitation-only Republican crowds.

The worst part is that all of their manipulations of the media - the bought-off columnists, the fake reporters, etc. - are a no-lose proposition for the White House. At best, the schemes work, and they get positive press from what appears to be legitimate news organizations. At worst, it gets exposed, and all that happens is the public becomes ever more convinced that the entire media is just a charade anyway. Who's going to punish the White House for playing dirty? Congress? That's a laugh.

While those of us in the media haven't been doing a very good job of upholding our responsibility to hold the powerful accountable, just wait to see what happens when there's no there to do it all. Here's a scary exercise: Re-read 1984. It now seems a whole lot more like fact than fiction.

Comments, especially from journalists, are welcome.

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.