He Made It!
It was good to read Garrett Graff's posting from inside the White House briefing room this morning. Apparently, passes are available for lowly bloggers.
On the other hand, it seems to be far more complicated and difficult than "Jeff Gannon" would have us believe. The New York Times reports:
Curiously, the BBC article quotes TIME magazine's Washington correspondent talking about how juicy this story is. Why is that curious? Because TIME magazine itself has only printed a short paragraph in its online 'Blogwatch'.
There are times when, in reading through the left side of the blogosphere, that the tinfoil hats are so numerous and shiny that they hurt the eyes. I usually find conspiracy theories tedious. But I think a reasonable person must wonder why, after weeks, we still don't know the most basic answers here. Why do we get more detail and information about this from comedians Jon Stewart and Bill Maher than from major papers and newsmagazines? Why is the most basic reporting on this, right down to finding out how hard it really is to get a press pass, being done by bloggers? Tight White House message control? Corporate media ownership? Press Corps embarassment? Actual tinfoil-hat-level conspiracy? Why?
Right after we get the detailed explanation on the story itself, I want the explanation on the way the story has been covered.
As Marvin Gaye once sang, "What's going on?"
On the other hand, it seems to be far more complicated and difficult than "Jeff Gannon" would have us believe. The New York Times reports:
But it was not until the traditional media joined in, Mr. Graff said, that the White House relented.Which reinforces my strong suspicion that someone inside the White House played a role in "Jeff Gannon"'s appearances there. Who and why seem like important questions to me, though apparently not to most major media outlets, who continue to shun the story. However, the BBC has apparently noticed something going on.
"USA Today started making calls on Thursday. CNN mentioned it on 'Inside Politics,' and Ron Hutcheson, president of the White House Correspondents Association, raised the issue with the White House Press Office," he said. "I think a combination of all of that made the White House pay attention and decide to let me in."
Curiously, the BBC article quotes TIME magazine's Washington correspondent talking about how juicy this story is. Why is that curious? Because TIME magazine itself has only printed a short paragraph in its online 'Blogwatch'.
There are times when, in reading through the left side of the blogosphere, that the tinfoil hats are so numerous and shiny that they hurt the eyes. I usually find conspiracy theories tedious. But I think a reasonable person must wonder why, after weeks, we still don't know the most basic answers here. Why do we get more detail and information about this from comedians Jon Stewart and Bill Maher than from major papers and newsmagazines? Why is the most basic reporting on this, right down to finding out how hard it really is to get a press pass, being done by bloggers? Tight White House message control? Corporate media ownership? Press Corps embarassment? Actual tinfoil-hat-level conspiracy? Why?
Right after we get the detailed explanation on the story itself, I want the explanation on the way the story has been covered.
As Marvin Gaye once sang, "What's going on?"
posted by Paul at 10:10 AM |
|
email this
