I have made no comment on the “Jeff Gannon” story (nor, for that matter on the Eason Jordan one) mostly because I haven’t anything to say that wasn’t already being said.

The Gannon thing (some background here if you have no idea what I’m talking about) strikes me as largely a non-story insofar as I already was pretty sure that Talon News wasn’t the next version of the AP or Reuters (and despite whatever gripes one may have with their editorial policies at times, the bottom line is that both major news wire services doing a fairly good job of reporting the news). It’s not like a) the guy was exactly reporting to the masses, and b) it wasn’t as if it wasn’t obvious that he was something of a shill. Of course, there are other more widely read shills who have been asking questions for year (*cough* Helen Thomas *cough*) , so it isn’t as if this is a whole new situation.

Still, it does seem pretty obvious that the guy’s credentials were lacking and there is a legit reason to think he doesn’t need to be in the White House Press Room. Now, I am not sure what his past dealing in gay porn domain names has to do with anything, but so it goes.

In terms of comparative significance, however, it is pretty clear that the Eason Jordan story is far more significant than the Jeff Gannon one.

Here’s a hint: don’t take penny-ante, clearly ideological “news” services seriously. There’s a reason why, for example, I never link stuff from NewsMax. They are so clearly ideological that the handful of “scoops” that they have are so partisan in nature that I always want a second source–and usually on those kinds of stories I can’t find one. Some may argue that this is because the MSM is ignoring the tale, but I am more inclined to believe that it is because NewsMax (and Talon, for that matter) have a lower standard of proof for stories, especially when they are anti-liberal.

It is one thing to have reporters or news sources that may have certain leanings, as that is unavoidable. It is another when the goal of a “news service” is to produce only good news for their “side” and only bad news for the other–and this is especially problematic when one exaggerates in both directions. Surely Jeff Gannon’s question that got him hot water is an example of precisely what I am talking about. That is shoddy journalism, and people like that ought not be wasting the President’s (or the public’s) time.