Isn’t the Message the Issue?

Kaus raises an interesting question about Gannon.

I’m trying to get up to speed on Gannongate, but I keep getting confused. If “Gannon” did get a leak of classified documents, would that make him more of a fake reporter or more of a real reporter?

The question is revealing, I think. If the issue here is the revealing of classified documents, why the complaints? Wasn’t one of the big feathers in the cap of the NYT, for example, the fact that they printed “The Pentegon papers”? 

I don’t recall anyone of the press getting upset by the attempted ‘leak’ of documents about George W. Bush’s supposed service record… (The documents later proved to be forgeries… a point the MSM lost no time in trying to discredit)

But no… let the unproven accusation of a leaked document come out against someone supposedly freindly to a Republican… and now suddenly the howls of outrage from the MSM are deafening.

The conclusion one draws from this is rather clear; It’s OK to leak documents if the target of the leak is a Republican. That makes you a ‘real journalist’ whatever the hell THAT means, anymore.

But suddenly your press credentials become invalid if what you are acused of leaking makes a Democrat look bad… or, worse, a Republican look GOOD. When you do that, you can’t be a ‘real journalist’.

The problem with these people is not the bona fides of the people involved…. Had Gannon come up with somehting dirty on Mr. Bush, the MSM would have welcomed his being there with open arms, and doubtless, job offers.

The problem is, the message.

The MSM still can’t figure out why Pajamas are more popular then Newspapers.

(Shake of the head)

Kaus raises an interesting question about Gannon.

I’m trying to get up to speed on Gannongate, but I keep getting confused. If “Gannon” did get a leak of classified documents, would that make him more of a fake reporter or more of a real reporter?

The question is revealing, I think. If the issue here is the revealing of classified documents, why the complaints? Wasn’t one of the big feathers in the cap of the NYT, for example, the fact that they printed “The Pentegon papers”? 

I don’t recall anyone of the press getting upset by the attempted ‘leak’ of documents about George W. Bush’s supposed service record… (The documents later proved to be forgeries… a point the MSM lost no time in trying to discredit)

But no… let the unproven accusation of a leaked document come out against someone supposedly freindly to a Republican… and now suddenly the howls of outrage from the MSM are deafening.

The conclusion one draws from this is rather clear; It’s OK to leak documents if the target of the leak is a Republican. That makes you a ‘real journalist’ whatever the hell THAT means, anymore.

But suddenly your press credentials become invalid if what you are acused of leaking makes a Democrat look bad… or, worse, a Republican look GOOD. When you do that, you can’t be a ‘real journalist’.

The problem with these people is not the bona fides of the people involved…. Had Gannon come up with somehting dirty on Mr. Bush, the MSM would have welcomed his being there with open arms, and doubtless, job offers.

The problem is, the message.

The MSM still can’t figure out why Pajamas are more popular then Newspapers.

(Shake of the head)

Kaus raises an interesting question about Gannon.

I’m trying to get up to speed on Gannongate, but I keep getting confused. If “Gannon” did get a leak of classified documents, would that make him more of a fake reporter or more of a real reporter?

The question is revealing, I think. If the issue here is the revealing of classified documents, why the complaints? Wasn’t one of the big feathers in the cap of the NYT, for example, the fact that they printed “The Pentegon papers”? 

I don’t recall anyone of the press getting upset by the attempted ‘leak’ of documents about George W. Bush’s supposed service record… (The documents later proved to be forgeries… a point the MSM lost no time in trying to discredit)

But no… let the unproven accusation of a leaked document come out against someone supposedly freindly to a Republican… and now suddenly the howls of outrage from the MSM are deafening.

The conclusion one draws from this is rather clear; It’s OK to leak documents if the target of the leak is a Republican. That makes you a ‘real journalist’ whatever the hell THAT means, anymore.

But suddenly your press credentials become invalid if what you are acused of leaking makes a Democrat look bad… or, worse, a Republican look GOOD. When you do that, you can’t be a ‘real journalist’.

The problem with these people is not the bona fides of the people involved…. Had Gannon come up with somehting dirty on Mr. Bush, the MSM would have welcomed his being there with open arms, and doubtless, job offers.

The problem is, the message.

The MSM still can’t figure out why Pajamas are more popular then Newspapers.

(Shake of the head)

Kaus raises an interesting question about Gannon.

I’m trying to get up to speed on Gannongate, but I keep getting confused. If “Gannon” did get a leak of classified documents, would that make him more of a fake reporter or more of a real reporter?

The question is revealing, I think. If the issue here is the revealing of classified documents, why the complaints? Wasn’t one of the big feathers in the cap of the NYT, for example, the fact that they printed “The Pentegon papers”? 

I don’t recall anyone of the press getting upset by the attempted ‘leak’ of documents about George W. Bush’s supposed service record… (The documents later proved to be forgeries… a point the MSM lost no time in trying to discredit)

But no… let the unproven accusation of a leaked document come out against someone supposedly freindly to a Republican… and now suddenly the howls of outrage from the MSM are deafening.

The conclusion one draws from this is rather clear; It’s OK to leak documents if the target of the leak is a Republican. That makes you a ‘real journalist’ whatever the hell THAT means, anymore.

But suddenly your press credentials become invalid if what you are acused of leaking makes a Democrat look bad… or, worse, a Republican look GOOD. When you do that, you can’t be a ‘real journalist’.

The problem with these people is not the bona fides of the people involved…. Had Gannon come up with somehting dirty on Mr. Bush, the MSM would have welcomed his being there with open arms, and doubtless, job offers.

The problem is, the message.

The MSM still can’t figure out why Pajamas are more popular then Newspapers.

(Shake of the head)

Kaus raises an interesting question about Gannon.

I’m trying to get up to speed on Gannongate, but I keep getting confused. If “Gannon” did get a leak of classified documents, would that make him more of a fake reporter or more of a real reporter?

The question is revealing, I think. If the issue here is the revealing of classified documents, why the complaints? Wasn’t one of the big feathers in the cap of the NYT, for example, the fact that they printed “The Pentegon papers”? 

I don’t recall anyone of the press getting upset by the attempted ‘leak’ of documents about George W. Bush’s supposed service record… (The documents later proved to be forgeries… a point the MSM lost no time in trying to discredit)

But no… let the unproven accusation of a leaked document come out against someone supposedly freindly to a Republican… and now suddenly the howls of outrage from the MSM are deafening.

The conclusion one draws from this is rather clear; It’s OK to leak documents if the target of the leak is a Republican. That makes you a ‘real journalist’ whatever the hell THAT means, anymore.

But suddenly your press credentials become invalid if what you are acused of leaking makes a Democrat look bad… or, worse, a Republican look GOOD. When you do that, you can’t be a ‘real journalist’.

The problem with these people is not the bona fides of the people involved…. Had Gannon come up with somehting dirty on Mr. Bush, the MSM would have welcomed his being there with open arms, and doubtless, job offers.

The problem is, the message.

The MSM still can’t figure out why Pajamas are more popular then Newspapers.

(Shake of the head)

Kaus raises an interesting question about Gannon.

I’m trying to get up to speed on Gannongate, but I keep getting confused. If “Gannon” did get a leak of classified documents, would that make him more of a fake reporter or more of a real reporter?

The question is revealing, I think. If the issue here is the revealing of classified documents, why the complaints? Wasn’t one of the big feathers in the cap of the NYT, for example, the fact that they printed “The Pentegon papers”? 

I don’t recall anyone of the press getting upset by the attempted ‘leak’ of documents about George W. Bush’s supposed service record… (The documents later proved to be forgeries… a point the MSM lost no time in trying to discredit)

But no… let the unproven accusation of a leaked document come out against someone supposedly freindly to a Republican… and now suddenly the howls of outrage from the MSM are deafening.

The conclusion one draws from this is rather clear; It’s OK to leak documents if the target of the leak is a Republican. That makes you a ‘real journalist’ whatever the hell THAT means, anymore.

But suddenly your press credentials become invalid if what you are acused of leaking makes a Democrat look bad… or, worse, a Republican look GOOD. When you do that, you can’t be a ‘real journalist’.

The problem with these people is not the bona fides of the people involved…. Had Gannon come up with somehting dirty on Mr. Bush, the MSM would have welcomed his being there with open arms, and doubtless, job offers.

The problem is, the message.

The MSM still can’t figure out why Pajamas are more popular then Newspapers.

(Shake of the head)

Kaus raises an interesting question about Gannon.

I’m trying to get up to speed on Gannongate, but I keep getting confused. If “Gannon” did get a leak of classified documents, would that make him more of a fake reporter or more of a real reporter?

The question is revealing, I think. If the issue here is the revealing of classified documents, why the complaints? Wasn’t one of the big feathers in the cap of the NYT, for example, the fact that they printed “The Pentegon papers”? 

I don’t recall anyone of the press getting upset by the attempted ‘leak’ of documents about George W. Bush’s supposed service record… (The documents later proved to be forgeries… a point the MSM lost no time in trying to discredit)

But no… let the unproven accusation of a leaked document come out against someone supposedly freindly to a Republican… and now suddenly the howls of outrage from the MSM are deafening.

The conclusion one draws from this is rather clear; It’s OK to leak documents if the target of the leak is a Republican. That makes you a ‘real journalist’ whatever the hell THAT means, anymore.

But suddenly your press credentials become invalid if what you are acused of leaking makes a Democrat look bad… or, worse, a Republican look GOOD. When you do that, you can’t be a ‘real journalist’.

The problem with these people is not the bona fides of the people involved…. Had Gannon come up with somehting dirty on Mr. Bush, the MSM would have welcomed his being there with open arms, and doubtless, job offers.

The problem is, the message.

The MSM still can’t figure out why Pajamas are more popular then Newspapers.

(Shake of the head)

Kaus raises an interesting question about Gannon.

I’m trying to get up to speed on Gannongate, but I keep getting confused. If “Gannon” did get a leak of classified documents, would that make him more of a fake reporter or more of a real reporter?

The question is revealing, I think. If the issue here is the revealing of classified documents, why the complaints? Wasn’t one of the big feathers in the cap of the NYT, for example, the fact that they printed “The Pentegon papers”? 

I don’t recall anyone of the press getting upset by the attempted ‘leak’ of documents about George W. Bush’s supposed service record… (The documents later proved to be forgeries… a point the MSM lost no time in trying to discredit)

But no… let the unproven accusation of a leaked document come out against someone supposedly freindly to a Republican… and now suddenly the howls of outrage from the MSM are deafening.

The conclusion one draws from this is rather clear; It’s OK to leak documents if the target of the leak is a Republican. That makes you a ‘real journalist’ whatever the hell THAT means, anymore.

But suddenly your press credentials become invalid if what you are acused of leaking makes a Democrat look bad… or, worse, a Republican look GOOD. When you do that, you can’t be a ‘real journalist’.

The problem with these people is not the bona fides of the people involved…. Had Gannon come up with somehting dirty on Mr. Bush, the MSM would have welcomed his being there with open arms, and doubtless, job offers.

The problem is, the message.

The MSM still can’t figure out why Pajamas are more popular then Newspapers.

(Shake of the head)

Kaus raises an interesting question about Gannon.

I’m trying to get up to speed on Gannongate, but I keep getting confused. If “Gannon” did get a leak of classified documents, would that make him more of a fake reporter or more of a real reporter?

The question is revealing, I think. If the issue here is the revealing of classified documents, why the complaints? Wasn’t one of the big feathers in the cap of the NYT, for example, the fact that they printed “The Pentegon papers”? 

I don’t recall anyone of the press getting upset by the attempted ‘leak’ of documents about George W. Bush’s supposed service record… (The documents later proved to be forgeries… a point the MSM lost no time in trying to discredit)

But no… let the unproven accusation of a leaked document come out against someone supposedly freindly to a Republican… and now suddenly the howls of outrage from the MSM are deafening.

The conclusion one draws from this is rather clear; It’s OK to leak documents if the target of the leak is a Republican. That makes you a ‘real journalist’ whatever the hell THAT means, anymore.

But suddenly your press credentials become invalid if what you are acused of leaking makes a Democrat look bad… or, worse, a Republican look GOOD. When you do that, you can’t be a ‘real journalist’.

The problem with these people is not the bona fides of the people involved…. Had Gannon come up with somehting dirty on Mr. Bush, the MSM would have welcomed his being there with open arms, and doubtless, job offers.

The problem is, the message.

The MSM still can’t figure out why Pajamas are more popular then Newspapers.

(Shake of the head)

Kaus raises an interesting question about Gannon.

I’m trying to get up to speed on Gannongate, but I keep getting confused. If “Gannon” did get a leak of classified documents, would that make him more of a fake reporter or more of a real reporter?

The question is revealing, I think. If the issue here is the revealing of classified documents, why the complaints? Wasn’t one of the big feathers in the cap of the NYT, for example, the fact that they printed “The Pentegon papers”? 

I don’t recall anyone of the press getting upset by the attempted ‘leak’ of documents about George W. Bush’s supposed service record… (The documents later proved to be forgeries… a point the MSM lost no time in trying to discredit)

But no… let the unproven accusation of a leaked document come out against someone supposedly freindly to a Republican… and now suddenly the howls of outrage from the MSM are deafening.

The conclusion one draws from this is rather clear; It’s OK to leak documents if the target of the leak is a Republican. That makes you a ‘real journalist’ whatever the hell THAT means, anymore.

But suddenly your press credentials become invalid if what you are acused of leaking makes a Democrat look bad… or, worse, a Republican look GOOD. When you do that, you can’t be a ‘real journalist’.

The problem with these people is not the bona fides of the people involved…. Had Gannon come up with somehting dirty on Mr. Bush, the MSM would have welcomed his being there with open arms, and doubtless, job offers.

The problem is, the message.

The MSM still can’t figure out why Pajamas are more popular then Newspapers.

(Shake of the head)

Kaus raises an interesting question about Gannon.

I’m trying to get up to speed on Gannongate, but I keep getting confused. If “Gannon” did get a leak of classified documents, would that make him more of a fake reporter or more of a real reporter?

The question is revealing, I think. If the issue here is the revealing of classified documents, why the complaints? Wasn’t one of the big feathers in the cap of the NYT, for example, the fact that they printed “The Pentegon papers”? 

I don’t recall anyone of the press getting upset by the attempted ‘leak’ of documents about George W. Bush’s supposed service record… (The documents later proved to be forgeries… a point the MSM lost no time in trying to discredit)

But no… let the unproven accusation of a leaked document come out against someone supposedly freindly to a Republican… and now suddenly the howls of outrage from the MSM are deafening.

The conclusion one draws from this is rather clear; It’s OK to leak documents if the target of the leak is a Republican. That makes you a ‘real journalist’ whatever the hell THAT means, anymore.

But suddenly your press credentials become invalid if what you are acused of leaking makes a Democrat look bad… or, worse, a Republican look GOOD. When you do that, you can’t be a ‘real journalist’.

The problem with these people is not the bona fides of the people involved…. Had Gannon come up with somehting dirty on Mr. Bush, the MSM would have welcomed his being there with open arms, and doubtless, job offers.

The problem is, the message.

The MSM still can’t figure out why Pajamas are more popular then Newspapers.

(Shake of the head)

WorldNetDaily reports Big Chief Shitting Bull… (The left calls him Prof Ward Churchill) has gotten cancelled yet again… this time in Oregon.

Apparently, message received.

Boortz this morning compiles a list of interesting tidbits about Eason Jordan you may not know:

August 16, 1997 – Eason Jordan gave a gift to Kim Jong-Il, murderous thug and communist dictator extraordinaire of North Korea.  No word on what the gift actually was.

March 10, 1999 – Eason Jordan gave a speech at Harvard University, where he gave thanks to Fidel Castro for inspiring the creation of CNN International.

October 10, 2002 – Eason Jordan, speaking in Slovenia, accuses the Israeli Army of deliberately shooting at journalists (sound familiar?)

November 19, 2004 – Eason Jordan, at a media conference in Portugal, accuses the U.S. Military of killing journalists, and even of arresting and torturing them.

Clearly, the latest outrage is nothing new with this guy.

No, I didn’t watch the Grammy awards last night. Not that, with the various things going on right now I could have, in any event, but I must tell you that I wouldn’t have been even remotely interested. Not even close.

Now, keep in mind… this is someone who was in Radio for 15 years and in Music in general for 10 year longer than that.  I have a music collection that would dwarf that of just about any of you… I have, at last count, around 27,000 vinyl LP’s a couple hundred thousand singles (Yes, you’d call them 45’s) and a few thousand CD’s.  So, music, I know. Music, I’m interested in.

The reason for my studied disinterest in last night’s awards show has nothing to do with Music. Then again, neither does the awards show of late. What these people are turning out anymore, for the most part can be found in lesser amounts on any stable floor.
It ain’t music. 

Is there a way I can make that clearer for you?

And by the way, I’m not alone. The numbers I see being reported in the trades I read suggest that the number of those watching the awards show was the lowest they’ve had in nearly a decade. … by my own quick math, that means around a 27% drop from last year in viewer numbers.

If there’s one thing that does surprise in all of this, it’s that the numbers weren’t a great deal lower than they were.

With the situation with my mother in law, we have decided it’s time to get the dog dealt with.

We’d just as soon not have the dog put down… we’ve got one tragedy in the making, and would rather not make it two.

So, free to a good home… a 7 year old Beagle Mix, male.
Freindly, house trained, all the shots etc.
Answers to “George”.

He’s had a run-in with a truck some years before my mother in-law got him, and so his tail doesn’t work…. some nerve damage. As a result his body language is a little off, though it doesn’t seem to bother him much otherwise.

He’s free to a good home… and if you’re within a drivable distance to Rochester, NY, (Say, 600 miles or so) I’ll even drive him up to you.

Mail to: [email protected].