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)