Lots of scare quotes, but don’t be frightened

Gentle Readers who are into schadenfreude have probably been following the Jeff “Gannon” miniscandal. For those who have not, more power to you, and if for some reason you want to delve into the nonsense, I suppose you can start with the dKosopedia article. The short version is that a fellow who was clearly a pro-Republican ideologue had been planted in the daily press briefings, and was evidently a frequent favorite of Our Only President’s spokesthing. He could be counted on to ask a “question” that was actually an attack on the so-called liberal media, and which might well coincide with the Republican Party’s coordinated talking points for that week. Pretty nice.

Now, it turns out that “Jeff Gannon” is a pseudonym, a professional one, and although Your Humble Blogger has no problem with the use of professional pseudonyms, it’s evidently a standing rule for White House Press Conferences that credentials must be applied for in the legal name of the reporter, which rule was waived in this case. It’s not clear to me, but it does seem that other rules and procedures were waived, some of which are waived pretty frequently, but it looks like he may have received substantially preferential treatment. In fact, some people are claiming that the preferential treatment included receiving confidential CIA documents in this Plume business. Also, since his actions pissed off certain people who dislike Our Only President and his cronies, people started digging into his background and found that he has business connections with what appears to be prostitution, and a shirtless come-hither photo that may well be of him, which does raise the question of whether his business connection with prostitution was, um, well. Anyway, Mr. Gannon has resigned, and so there’s this miniscandal.

So, why should you care? Well, probably you shouldn’t. The only reason I care, other than that I’m a news junkie, is that the matter brings up the whole bizarre relationship between Our Only President and the press, and between the press, the parties, and the populace. Much of the way the story is being played seems to suggest that the shocking thing is that the administration didn’t properly vet their press plant, hinting at some major security breach. This is nonsense. The problem is that they had a press plant in the first place. After that, the person they pick to do it is secondary.

Of course, having a press plant is not actually a big deal. The ‘gaggle’ press briefings are pointless, preposterous shams that primarily serve, as far as I can tell, to form settings for weak Doonesbury cartoons that. They are not news events, and they can’t be. It’s hard to imagine how this sort of thing discredits them; the joke of course is that it discredits prostitution. At least there’s some purpose, there.

I could also use this to mock the idea of campaign finance reform. Why should it bother a big-money donor, particularly, if he can’t contribute to a campaign, if he can start a news business on the web, hire a suit, and take care of business that way? Favor for favor, this is far more corrupt than the other, and not only presently legal, but essentially beyond the reach of any reasonable law. But that’s not new, nor is this particular part of it conspicuously illustrative.

Mr. “Gannon” is clearly not a “real” “journalist”, but why not? Because his articles often lifted large passages from press releases? Because his agenda was not to get the news, but to persuade? Because his boss donates to a particular party? Because he has insufficient training or experience? Because he has an embarrassing past? Because he drives an SUV? Honestly, I know he isn’t, and I know that the accumulation of differences is substantial, but if I had to define my terms, I don’t exactly know how I’d define him out while defining in almost all of the people I think are real journalists. And that’s leaving aside the journalists who moonlight as PR consultants for the government they cover, the journalists who trade access for access, and the clownalists on television and radio who divorce the entertainment of argument from the politics of policy.

And this is where the problem really exists. It’s hard for us to know why we want ‘real journalists’ because we don’t know exactly what they are. It’s hard for them to be ‘real journalists’ when they don’t know exactly what they are. It’s hard for a business to make bottom-line sacrifices for ‘real journalism’; it’s harder still for people to expect them to. It seems like it gets harder every day to believe in the vested authority of ‘real journalism’, and it doesn’t get any easier to live without it.

Thank you,
-Vardibidian.