The Nation on Gannon/Guckert

I had heard this was only a so-so story by David Corn, but actually, I don't really disagree with his analysis. I think, if you read the entire piece, Corn makes clear that the hooker-turned-reporter angle is important. True, Corn doesn't agree that the issue on its face of "how this guy got into the White House" is a real issue, or at least a very big issue. But he does agree that the linkage to Valerie Plame makes all of this much more troubling. And while he says that this may be much ado about nothing - and it might - that doesn't mean we shouldn't be investigating and demanding answers, and he agrees.

I think, also, he raises another important point about blog-o-mania, or whatever he calls it. There always is a danger that in the midst of the hunt you get taken away by the fervor of the moment. And that is a bad thing, I would agree. In going after the bad guys, you don't want to BECOME one of the bad guys. You want to keep a clear head, and analyze the facts based on where they logically lead, and not where you'd like them to lead. Even people like Jeff Gannon, be he hooker, right-wing plant, or just someone we really don't like, deserves a fair shake. Let the facts hang him, but only if its merited.

Which brings me to another point. We ought to be nicer to some of the journalists. Nicer doesn't mean letting them get away with shit. It means not responding to them like Freepers every time we get ticked at something they write our don't write. I recently traded emails with one well-known journalist who has gotten a lot of emails from lefties criticizing him. Not that the criticism wasn't deserved - I think some of it was, in terms of how he handled the issue in question - but the criticism, and he sent me copies of the emails, were pure freeper. They were nasty, they were vulgar, they were uncalled for. Especially with this journalist. I'd rather not name names, but he wasn't exactly Ann Coulter.

All I'm saying is that, oddly enough, a lot of these journalists do actually read their email. They get your messages. I get your messages. Don't assume that just because you email someone "famous" or whatever that he or she isn't reading what you write. A lot of times they are. And at least in the case of journalists who tick us off, short of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, the soft touch can still win the day with these guys. Hell, even Bill O'Reilly likes me, and I like him too (don't get on my case), and as a result, there have been times when he was downright good on gay issues (he said he wouldn't object if gay marriage were legalized, he supports non-discrimination laws including gays, etc.)

My point is that you'd be surprised that journalists are people too, and a lot of time a lot of thoughtful emails might just get them thinking twice about something they've written or said or done. Telling them to fuck off may feel good, but it doesn't really achieve anything, other than convincing them that we're as bad as the freepers.

Just food for thought.