If you want something fun to read…

…you won’t find it here tonight, because I’m not in blogging mode. But do visit a most spirited thread on the fast-growing Jeff Gannon scandal. I’ve been arguing with the wingnuts over there all day, and I’m ready to give it a rest. Like banging your head against a wall.

The Discussion: 13 Comments

OMFG. Richard, you are a far better person than I am. Just reading that stuff makes my blood pressure rise to a dangerous level. It renders me wordless. I don’t even know how to respond.

For those who haven’t braved the thread, if you want a perfect example of the facist mindset – just go read “Darlene” and “Joe.”

For those who want a really good laugh, check out JimJeff GannonGluckert on Anderson Cooper – here at http://mediamatters.org/static/video/gannon360.mov

February 18, 2005 @ 11:02 pm | Comment

Richard, I just glanced thru the thread, see you busy kicking ass over there. Didn’t know you were a professional journalist.
Interesting to read who’s gay and who’s not. Seems like everybody is gay? Wonkette is gay? Scott McCellan is gay and married? Anderson cooper is gay?
“January 14, 2005
Anderson Cooper to put a more prominent gay face on CNN
Gay news anchor Anderson Cooper may soon be movin’ on up to prime time to rescue CNN’s ratings. Fresh from garnering accolades for his show’s tsunami coverage, media critics are saying that Cooper “is being groomed as the new face of CNN.” As what is likely to be a preliminary step toward taking a seat behind the desk of CNN’s flagship prime-time news broadcast, Cooper’s show, ‘360,’ is being expanded to two hours. The critics’ buzz is loud: they’re using words like ‘authentic’ to describe Cooper, and going so far as to call him “a phenomenal talent.” Right now, the cable news channel is locked in a life-or-death ratings fight with conservative Fox News— and, frankly, CNN is circling the bowl.
NewsMax, Philadelphia Inquirer ”

Lisa, good link on Media matter, Anderson asked a lot of good questions. Jim/Jeff could barely speak English in front of the camera. What a fool.

February 19, 2005 @ 3:00 am | Comment

I suppose it makes some sort of twisted sense that the right-wing élite is passionately defending a former (?) gay prostitute, given their revulsion at the idea of gay marriage.

Apparently we homos are supposed to be sluts, and that’s OK! Just don’t expect to approve if you settle down with one person for the rest of your life. That would be wrong.

February 19, 2005 @ 3:47 am | Comment


“Just don’t expect anyone to approve if you settle down…”

February 19, 2005 @ 3:47 am | Comment

Vaara, facts really don’t matter to these conservatives anyways as long as you support president Bush.

February 19, 2005 @ 9:02 am | Comment

Nothing matters — not “family values”, or criminal behavior, or anything at all.

To them, it’s not about being right — it’s about winning — i.e. convincing everyone ELSE that you’re right.

February 19, 2005 @ 9:10 am | Comment

It’s a waste of time to debate with Darlene. Obviously, she is the missing sister of Ann Coulter and Michel Malkins triplets. She does not have a clue. The sad thing is she thinks she is winning the debate by just claiming victory.

February 19, 2005 @ 12:51 pm | Comment

vaara, I just notice that you have a great blog.

February 19, 2005 @ 1:04 pm | Comment

Thanks JR! I only wish I had the time and energy to update it more often.

February 19, 2005 @ 1:10 pm | Comment

Silt has always been one of my favorite blogs. Of course.

Yes, I can’t win against the likes of Darleen and Joe — the more you show the flaws in their arguments, the louder they claim victory, as you said, JR.

Vaara, thanks for joining in. A totally thankless exercise, but somebody’s gotta set the record straight, or at least try to.

February 19, 2005 @ 2:34 pm | Comment

How can you bear to diddle around with such trifles while gouts of black smoke fill the sky and tattered scraps of the constitution flutter slowly, slowly to the ground?!

Seriously, I know you think this story has some meat (sorry), but think this is just a rhetorical place-marker until a serious issue comes around. I didn’t read all the thread, so maybe I missed the hot stuff, but no matter how hard I try, I can’t come up with a headline that would sell much: “Flash! Immorality found in Washington!” nah, that doesn’t do it. How about “Privileged Partisan Prick Pokes Privates“, OK, maybe in the Tattler.

Richard, I’d think you would be all over the secretly recorded Bush tapes just released. (I stole your graphic; who do I owe credit to?).

February 19, 2005 @ 8:24 pm | Comment

I like the alliterative Privileged Partisan headline, Sam! We’ll soon know whether this story has “meat” – I suspect it does, and that the MSM will be all over it for the next several days. The professional reporters resent that they were showed up by bloggers who kept uncovering things about Gannon, and now they’ll want to show that they still have some useful role to play. That means they’re going to go after Gannon with a vengeance. Just a prediction….

February 19, 2005 @ 8:32 pm | Comment

The professional reporters resent that they were showed up by bloggers who kept uncovering things about Gannon, and now they’ll want to show that they still have some useful role to play.

Hmm. That’s a very perceptive point, and very telling about the press’s newfound attitude about blogs. It may even turn into a grudging respect! Your “insider” perspective on the profession would give you some insight I’ll never have.

February 19, 2005 @ 9:07 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.