Boston Globe Uncovers Friendly White House Reporter

One more media note here. Remember Jeff Gannon of Talon News, the guy who asked the question in the president's last press conference that I thought was very similar and familiar to a point that I had made on this program? Well, the Boston Globe has sent two investigative reporters to find out who this guy is, and they've got a headline today:  "White House-Friendly Reporter Under Scrutiny -- The Bush administration has provided the White House media credentials to a man who has virtually no journalistic background, asks softball questions of the president and his spokesmen in the midst of contentious news conferences and routinely reprints long passages verbatim from official press releases as original news articles on his website, Talon News.com" Now, ladies and gentlemen, this is classic investigative reporting. They actually have found him. It took two reporters from the Boston Globe to find a friendly, one friendly White House reporter, and it's a major scandal now! They found a friendly White House reporter! Two investigative journalists from the Boston Globe did it.

RUSH: Let me start at the top of this story, because this, this, folks, is just too good. First let's start with a sound bite. Let's go back to January 26th at the White House. President Bush held a presser, and here is a reporter, Jeff Gannon for Talon News, asking the president a question.

GANNON: Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse yet on the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. You've said you're going to reach out to these people. How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves are reality?

RUSH: We had a lot of fun with this because this is a great question. This is the kind of question the president never gets asked. We don't hear it much, and everything in it is true. Everything in this question is true and the president was asked his thoughts on this. Well, it turns out, ladies and gentlemen, that members of the White House press corps were offended and felt that they had an intruder in their midst, and so the Boston Globe commissioned two investigative reports to see if they can ferret out whether or not there was indeed a White House-friendly reporter among them because I guess such a reality would be unacceptable, to have a White House-friendly reporter among the White House press corps. And so the results of this investigation have been published today in the Boston Globe by Charlie Savage and Alan Wirzbicki, Globe staff and Globe correspondent respectively. "Washington -- The Bush administration has provided White House media credentials to a man who has virtually no journalistic background, asks softball questions to the president and his spokesman in the midst of contentious news conferences, and routinely reprints long passages verbatim from official press releases as original news articles on his website. Jeff Gannon calls himself the White House correspondent for Talon News.com a website that says it is 'committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news coverage to our readers.'
"It is operated by a Texas-based Republican Party delegate and political activist who also runs GOPUSA.com, a website that touts itself as 'bringing the conservative message to America.'" (Gasping.) That alone could be a crime, ladies and gentlemen. "Called on last week by President Bush at a press conference, Gannon attacked Democratic Senate leaders and called them 'divorced from reality.' During the presidential campaign, when called on by...Scott McClellan, Gannon linked Senator John F. Kerry...to Jane Fonda and questioned why anyone would dispute Bush's National Guard service. Now, the question of how Gannon gets into White House press conferences is coming under intense scrutiny from critics who contend that Gannon is not a journalist but rather a White House tool to soften media coverage of Bush. The issue was raised by a media watchdog group and picked up by Internet bloggers, who linked Gannon's presence in White House briefings to recent controversies over whether the administration manipulates the flow of information to the public...."

"McClellan said Gannon has not been issued -- nor requested -- a regular 'hard pass' to the White House, and instead has come in for the past two years on daily passes. Daily passes, he said, may be issued to anyone who writes for an organization that publishes regularly and who is cleared to enter the building." Weeeeell, and so the Boston Globe was not going to tolerate a White House friendly reporter in their midst, and so it took two investigative reporters -- two of them, two of them! -- to find a man who sits right next to them in all of these White House press conferences and briefings, two investigative reporters for the Boston Globe, in a classic case of investigative reporting. This is the kind of work we expect from the mainstream media, folks, to ferret out infiltrators among their own population, someone friendly to the White House, someone who would dare show up to the White House and "attack Senate Democrat leaders." Listen to this sound bite again and tell me if there is an "attack" on Senate Democrat leaders.

GANNON: Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. You've said you're going to reach out to these people. How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

RUSH: Where, my friends, is the "attack"? What I heard there was an accurate recitation of what the Senate Democrat leaders had said and what Hillary Clinton had said. In fact, this is pretty much what I said the day before this press conference. What was amazing about it, you had Harry Reid talking about nobody could get jobs; the jobs that people did have didn't pay anything. The economy was so woefully bad that people were in terrible distress out there, and then Hillary Clinton came along, and she was saying that the economy is on the verge of collapse as well. But both of them turned around and said there's no crisis in Social Security whatsoever, how do the two go together? And so this reporter, Jeff Gannon, just asked the president for his response, and the White House press corps says, "Something is not right here," because, you see, ladies and gentlemen, an accurate recitation of statements made by Democrat leaders is considered an "attack," just as is calling them "liberals," which Mr. Gannon did not do. But if you dare call them liberals they also consider that to be an "attack," and the unfair usage of "labels," which doesn't serve any purpose. They also say that it is a distraction. Of course, the Democrats themselves today are saying that Bush's Social Security plan is "a distraction." A distraction from what, Dusty Harry? A distraction from what? What is the distraction?

So it still is apparently the case, ladies and gentlemen, you cannot accurately recite the words and the points made by Senate Democrat leaders or potential presidential candidates without being accused of being "White House-friendly" and engaging in "attacks," and as such, Mr. Gannon has found himself on the receiving end of an exhaustive investigation by the Boston Globe, two reporters to ferret out the truth of a man who sits right text to them in these press conferences. Now, when this story hit, our memories here were collectively jogged. Something about the Boston Globe and the Clinton administration. We couldn't quite put our finger on it but we knew it involved their famous columnist Thomas Oliphant who was the husband of CBS reporter Susan Spencer, and so we went back to the archives, ladies and gentlemen, and here is what we found. Our old buddies at Newsmax not long ago in writing about the Armstrong Williams so-called propaganda story published this: "In a 1994 case that received far less attention, two Republican congressmen complained that senior Clinton administration official Susan Brophy had promised that the Boston Globe's Thomas Oliphant would write favorable columns about them if they, the Republicans, voted for President Clinton's crime bill. Peter Torkildsen said to the Boston Herald, 'She said if I voted yes, that she'd ask Oliphant to write something favorable about me.'

"Torkildsen's Republican colleague Peter Blute said that Susan Brophy had made a similar pitch to him. She said the White House could be helpful with the regional press in Boston; she mentioned the Globe; and she mentioned Oliphant. Mr. Oliphant was righteously indignant, angrily denied that he had agreed to help the White House by trading his column for House votes. 'Nothing I write or have ever written is on anybody else's authority but my own, and anybody who suggests otherwise is a scumbag,' he told the Boston Herald. But after Blute supported the Clinton legislation, the Boston Globe reporter, columnist, Mr. Oliphant, praised him in print. Torkelson's vote against the bill was denounced in a separate Oliphant column as a smarmy move, and so what Susan Brophy promised the two Republicans, happened. If they voted for the crime bill, Oliphant would praise them, otherwise he would smarm them." Now, he praised Blute but he smarmed Torkildsen. So here you had the Clinton White House trading favors with the Boston Globe for votes in the House of Representatives, and that same newspaper now has concluded its exhaustive investigation into Jeff Gannon who has committed a journalistic crime. He was friendly to the White House in the press corps, and that, my friends, was so unusual that there was somebody in the White House press corps friendly to the president, it warranted a full-fledged, two-reporter investigation paid for by the Boston Globe. Ha-ha. These people will not be denied.
RUSH: Kevin, Detroit, you're next on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Dr. Professor Limbaugh.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: Thank you for taking my call. I consider it a compliment to myself that you would take it because I remember you explained that it's gotta be something worth talking about, so thank you very much.

RUSH: Well, partially, but the primary purpose of a caller here is to make the host look good. Don't forget that, and that doesn't mean you sit there and compliment me. Anybody can do that.

CALLER: I certainly don't think you have a problem looking good. Thank you very much for all you do for us.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: Like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, I'm sure that Talon News group is just jumping up and down with glee that the Democrats are whining about this guy that they supposedly embedded because I would have never heard about these two groups if they hadn't shined the light on them.

RUSH: Well, we might have heard about the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. They had truth. They had book out there. But it's true the Boston Globe has now raised the profile of the TalonNews.com and Jeff Gannon. There's no question they've done that by acting scared and angry of this one guy. This one reporter, sneaks in, he's White House friendly, and the Boston Globe stops everything and conducts an investigation! (Laughing.) Folks, it just doesn't say it all. They've got somebody asking questions of the president that criticizes his Democratic critics and the White House press corps is not tolerant. They've got so investigate. Now they've zeroed in. They've got the crosshairs on the Talon News and was Jeff Gannon -- and you're right. It's only going to elevate them and make them more well known. Eric in San Francisco, nice to have you on the program, sir.

CALLER: Mega dittos, Rush. Pleasure to talk to you.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: Don't you feel a little culpability, though, for drawing a little extra spotlight on Mr. Gannon there for stating that possibly he listens to your program, to state the question the way he did?

RUSH: I thought that when I first saw the headline of the story and then I saw who it was about. But I realized that they would have conducted this investigation without me anyway. Just his presence and just his question is enough to cause them to stop the presses and do an investigation. I'm not denying that my calling attention to this the next day. It might have been that day. It was the day of the presser, yeah. My calling attention to this also helped focus attention on the kinds of things not asked at the White House press conferences, and, of course, the mainstream press is very sensitive these days. They know they're under assault. They know they're under attack. They had this. I keep going back to this, but they go back. They had their monopoly. This did not used to happen to them. Now they're even being, in their minds, they're being infiltrated. (Laughing.) It's not just that there's a White House friendly in there; they got in there under the radar. (Laughing.) So they're being infiltrated, you know, and it's something that would have happened with or without me, without me. I don't feel "culpable." Culpable is not even the word. You should be asking me, "Do I want to take a little credit here for the attention at Talon News Service," but I'm not going to do that, even. I mean he went in there; he got the press pass. He got the White House press pass. He went in there. He stood up. He asked the question, and they are investigating him now. I mean, he's a big boy, can take all this, and I'm sure is loving every moment of it. Pete in Lee, New Hampshire. You're next on the program. Hello.

CALLER: Hello. Marine Corps pilot dittos. Thank you for taking my call.

RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much.

CALLER: I just wanted to tie this together and see as you recall, this is the same newspaper whose credibility was shot many, many months back when they reached the conclusion then went out and sought facts to suit that. In an early edition of one of their papers they printed a pornographic picture that somebody had sent them claiming that it was -- I believe it was Iraqi female prisoners being raped by our soldiers, and they actually printed this before someone pointed out to them that in fact it was a clip from some porn videotape. And, by the way --

RUSH: I have that story right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. It was a story that ran in the Boston Herald.  And you could ask, and it would be a legitimate question and maybe Jeff Gannon could next ask the question this question in a press conference, and that is: "Does the Boston Globe have a predisposition against George Bush, and should there be an investigation?" The Boston Globe; this is Thursday, May 13th of last year. "The Boston Globe was reeling yesterday after graphic photos of alleged sexual abuse of Iraqi women by U.S. soldiers turned out to be staged shots from a hard-core porn website. This photo should not have appeared in the Globe said the editor, Martin Baron, in a statement. First, images portrayed in the photo were overly graphic. Second, as the story clearly pointed out, those images were never authenticated as photos of prisoner abuse. There was a lapse in judgment and procedures, and we apologize for it." This seems to be happening all over the place in the mainstream media. Forged documents are not checked; now forged porno pictures are not checked. What is the editing process of the Boston Globe? One guy just can't get this done. One person just can't get this done. These pictures have to be vetted. Of course there's a predisposition against Bush at the Boston Globe.

And let's not forget, one of their reporters, what was his name, Kranish? Wrote the John Kerry bio. Remember that? That they had to go back and change a couple times, and Kerry started changing his story. The Boston Globe has a long and rich tradition of being, shall we say, hand in hand or even in a warm embrace with the forces aligned against President Bush -- and I'm wondering, folks. Is there maybe too much concentration of power in print media? The New York Times owns the Boston Globe, after all. How do we know that these pictures didn't originate with editors at the New York Times and the Boston Globe was just told to run them, because the New York Times didn't want to deal with porn, but they could slough it off on the Boston affiliate, the Globe? Ho do we know this didn't happen? We don't know that it did. But there just may be too big a concentration of power in the print media. Washington Post owns Newsweek. Oh, absolutely right! The New York Times owns the Boston Globe. The New York Times owns classical music stations in New York. How do we know there aren't subliminal messages in the music, Beethoven's Fifth? We don't know, ladies and gentlemen.