Define Conservatives vs. Liberals

Monday, February 21, 2005

Howard Kurtz Misses the Bigger Story and Takes a Proven Liar at His Word 

As Crooks and Liars points out, Howard Kurtz can't seem to figure out what the real store is with the Jeff Gannon / James Guckert case.

Crooks and Liars: "Kurtz has been 'swimming to the heart of darkness' on this story so far, and the first question he asks follows in suit as he misses the bigger 'picture' here, that his colleague Dana Milbank is so in tune with. Why was Gannon allowed into the White House at all?"

But beyond that, check out Kurtz's comment following John Arovosis' statement that a hooker was asking questions in the White House and we deserve to know how and why this happened (starting at 2:14):
http://movies.ziaspace.com/Reliable%20Sources-~1.wmv

Or view the transcript:

CNN.com - Transcripts: "ARAVOSIS: Yes. I mean, you know, right. I mean, the gay- baiting is a cute line that the right likes to throw out there. I mean, as a gay man who's been working on gay issues for years, I wish there were more people on the right who claimed to care about gay issues.

But we have an administration here that goes out of its way to bash gays, whether it's the marriage amendment or what. And then we've got a writer like Jeff Guckert -- or I can't even get his name right anymore; nobody can -- who writes anti-gay articles and then wants the protection of saying, 'Oh, I'm a gay man.'

The bottom line is we had a hooker in the White House talking to the president two weeks ago, and if that president's name was Bill Clinton, it would be people like John and others who rightfully would say, 'What's this guy doing there?'

KURTZ: All right. Well, he can -- Gannon denies running anti- gay articles. "

Why does Howard Kurtz take Gannon / Guckert's denial at face value immediately after Arvosis brings up the point within the first 2:14 that Gannon / Guckert, "The issue was how Jeff Gannon, what we would consider a fake journalist with fake credentials, got into the White House to report fake news."

What do you call a media critic who fails to criticise this media failure?

John Hinderaker certainly comes across looking like an idiot when he he states, "The idea of these people posting those photographs, I mean, it is pure, flat out gay-baiting. I think it is contemptible."

John, the pictures were first published by Jeff Gannon / Guckert, and he, unlike Kurtz is willing to grasp, has published anti-gay columns, which makes it newsworthy. It's not an invasion of someone's privacy to republish photos of a male hooker to a blog.

To act like is contemptible is immature, or shows a lack of understanding of the story.