Hmmm... wondering... Does George Will (who famously and admittedly part of a cabal that appropriated a copy of Carter's debate prep book and coached Reagan out of it in 1980) - is he an "operative"? Does he have a press pass?

I would like to note that the reporter who wrote this in the first paragraph claims I came up with some trick, and then in the 11th pargraph actually admits that the people likely criticizing me told me to do this. I would also like to note that this story doesn't name a single person who is supposedly "irked." I would further like to note that the biography in question was an old one that I had up when I was, in fact, working primarily for political campaigns (this was before I became a full-time writer).

Finally, I would like to note that this article doesn't once mention that, according to its own website, the Periodicals Press Gallery has granted credentials to an overwhelming number of right-wing partisans, while limiting credentials to progressive writers. Furthermore, many of the right-wing writers it has granted credentials to have used their credentials specifically to write attack books on Democrats, including Fred Barnes, Rommesh Ponnuru and Byron York. Apparently, in the U.S. Congress, right-wing book-writing partisans receive credentials no problem, but progressives with New York Times bestsellers and who serve as senior editors to 35-year-old, award-winning magazines do not. And perhaps most pathetically, the Washington Post has no interest in reporting on any of that.

Oh yes, one other thing I forgot to mention: this reporter refused to report what I told her - namely that I was planning to use the credential specifically write an article for In These Times about progressive lawmakers and how they were faring in the new Congress. My editors at In These Times sumbmitted the required paperwork for this.

Thank God you're on top of this. It would be truly terrible to have a partisan person working in the press corps. I wonder what Robert Novak and Cal Thomas must think of this.

This item is wildly irresponsible. Is a Washington Post reporter really ignorant of the concept of opinion journalism? "Persons eligible for admission to the Periodical Press Galleries must be bona fide resident correspondents of reputable standing, giving their chief attention to the gathering and reporting of news." Only Akers--not this rule--is stupid enough to pretend that "correspondants" cannot also be "strategists," and strategists also correspondants. There are dozens such who received credentials with no problem--including much of the staff of National Review and the Weekly Standard.

I'm proud to go on the record here wondering how such meritricious work can appear on the web site of a great newspaper.

When In These Times gets to be as big as either National Review or Weekly Standard, let us know.

Why is the Slueth to blame? Isn't she reporting what the executive committee did and what the scuttlebutt is about Sirota hanging around with an intern pass? Thin skin, Sirota.

And if that's really Rick Perlstein the author who posted a comment, you better get spell check before you send in the galleys for your next book. I assume you were trying to spell the word meretricious. And using the word to describe a blog posting of a female reporter is really a nasty little slur.

well, it's obvious that mary ann akers was hired to write fluff pieces for postinteractive, and she's doing a superb job of putting out fluff. take it for what it is, i suppose. junk.

I make a point of reading David Sirota for his insight and analysis. He's also an excellent debater, having crushed that awful, awful Ann Coulter, but I confess I have no idea who this so-called "Mary Ann Akers" is (though I suspect she hates America).

It's interesting how lathered up the snitches and backbiters on the Hill are. I doubt any of them protested or were even mildly upset that Jeff Gannon, a right wing gay hooker ($200/hr or $900 for the night), had unlimited access to the White House press gallery. Guess the rules don't apply if you're a Republic.

I can't stand Sirota, but I side for him on this one issue: The representatives of press owned by large corporations have no more right to press credentials than Democratic bloggers who editorialize about political strategy, even though Sirota is mostly full of hot air and pomposity.

As you note, "Persons eligible for admission to the Periodical Press Galleries must be bona fide resident correspondents of reputable standing, giving their chief attention to the gathering and reporting of news."

I read Sirota's crap often in blogs and, while I don't agree with him, I do assert that he offers just as much news when posted in blogs as do the opinions masquerading as news that are posted in major newspapers.

Again, I disagree with Sirota about everything, but I defend a principle in this case. Denying him access to the Congress would be dangerous, because his opinions blog posts might become more misinformed and biased than they already are. So, let him walk around interviewing people and reporting on that, if he wants to do so.

www.francislholland.blogspot.com

David Sirotta is a first-rate journalist whose articles I read regularly and with considerably more interest than I can any longer muster for the Washington Post -- a newspaper I used to read but gave up on when it lost its teeth.

In the case under discussion, Sirotta seems to have accepted the Press Clique's decision and found a legitimate way around their arbitrary veto in order to pursue his professional activity of journalism. The disgrace is that the veto should have been imposed in the first place by a group seemingly more intent on serving their cliquishness than on spreading essential information to the US public.

Go away, Mary Ann Akers, and find something of significance to write about rather than this non-story. You could start with Gonzales firing seven top-notch US attorneys (including the one pursuing Randy Cunningham) and replacing them with GOP hacks. Or might that be too much like actual news for your tastes?

Is Akers aching with envy?

I mean, with great reporters like Bob Woodward, Tim Russert, Judy Miller and Robert Novack never abusing the public's trust in their reporting role...like say, helping "out" a CIA agent in order to justify a trumped up war...it is just unconscionable that some big bad wolf, NY Times best-selling author--who attacks Democrats and Republicans equally (that old impartiality thing)--would be allowed to actually report on Congress.

What is this country coming to?

Pretty soon people will expect us to uphold the Constitution too.

I'm surprised the title of this "article" isn't:

"Sirota: Let Him Eat Yellow Cake"

the only thing that stuns me more than the fact that people got upset that this guy had to do what he did is that someone felt the need to write a story about it. holy cow.

"And if that's really Rick Perlstein...you better get spell check... I assume you were trying to spell the word meretricious. "

Yeah, Larry. I see your point. Sort of like preachy people who spell sleuth "slueth", huh? (Hint, the name of this WaPo blog section is "The Sleuth"...)

I can't spell either. Maybe we can form a club?

I just looked up "meretricious" in the dictionary and learn that its derivation does indeed have to do with prostitution, an implication in no way intended, and one I regret.

I'll go with "gassy and stupid" instead.

Howard Johnson -

So you think small circulation opinion journals are not legitimate? But there's more.

A quick internet search (not very reliable numbers, but good enough for this purpose) tells me that the Weekly Standard has a circulation of either 55,000 or 83,000, National Review 150,000, and In These Times 21,000.

I see opinions from the Weekly Standard in the mass media all the time, In These Times very rarely. If circulation is your criterion, shouldn't we see one In These Times talking head on TV for every three or four Weekly Standard talking heads? Not to mention the Post's op-ed page.

Ms. Akers, how about an analysis of that topic?

Fred Barnes and many, many other Conservative activists have press passes. Few Democratic activists do.

OMG! Some guy who writes on blogs tried to gain access to the US capital!!!!

CALL THE ARMY AND NAVY!

Only special insiders who pass the kool kid test and who work for corporate press are allowed anywhere withing sight of the capital building. It is strictly OFF LIMITS to all the riff raff voters, citizens and other non-elite non-kool non-corporate perple.

Mary Ann is one of the kool people and it's no wonder her panties are all twisted up over that uppity dirty hippy david sirota thinking he can talk to senators or get anywhere near the center of power!

Only Kool kids allowed!! Stay out!!

What's so annoying is the snarkiness of this piece...and the "in-crowd" notion of those who hold press credentials. If Sirota writes for In These Times and writes books...what about those two activities make him NOT a "writer?" Sheesh. The Washington press, methinks, has gotten too close to power...they think it's rubbed off on them. Well, guess what? It hasn't. I'm appalled at shenanigans like this.

You call this sleuthing? Waste of bandwidth...

I am embarrassed for you. There is no there there. Just another case of the green eyed monster getting the best of an inside the beltway "journalist".

Boy, wouldn't it be nice if the press behaved like they were professionals performing a public service, instead of a corporate clique dedicated only to protecting their ass...ets.

And your expose on David Gannon was published where?

Mary Ann - To clarify a couple points: I never characterized the gallery committee's opinion on Sirota becasue the gallery committee hasn't weighed in -- I don't know if the committee considers Sirota a political activist or not.

As for the observation that there are more conservative credentialed reporters in the gallery than liberal--when Republicans took control of the Congress, we saw an uptick in the number of conservative publications applying for credentials. I expect we'll see a swing in the other direction now that the Democrats are in charge.

I didn't "tell" Sirota to do anything. I made several suggestions to him in an effort to help him out.

The Weekly Standard has 17 credentials, is if anything more partisan than In These Times, and only has about three times the circulation -- shouldn't In These Times be entitled to at least 5 credentials? Jesus, even the Evans-Novak report, of your own good friend Count Novakula, has credentials. Even Human Events has 5! Can a publication be any more nastily partisan than that? Is Mary Ann Akers next going to argue that it's a great injustice that the white supremacist New Nation News is not credentialed?

Corporate media has been working to shut out progressive voices for years -- how often do you see someone from, say, The Nation on TV panels in comparison to someone from the Weekly Standard? In no way does it come even close to matching the relative circulation of each publication (the circulation of The Nation is three times that of the Weekly Standard). And The Nation doesn't hold a candle to the vicious partisanship and right-wing talking-point discipline of the Weekly Standard.

Of course, I'm sure Mary Ann Akers made a big fuss about Jeff Gannon, right? No? Oh well, I guess that really means Mary Ann Akers is a conservative partisan hack.

You expect this sometimes, from SOME institutions, but when a (supposedly) top-of-the-line newspaper like the Washington Post prints garbage like this... One sometimes feels embarassed to be an American!
-SS

I'm so sorry you had a bad experience in junior high. However, please don't take it out on us, the readers.

I am stunned that they " deny credentials to people working on a book- if they aren't otherwise employed as a journalist for an approved publication."
Reread those last two words and when did America approve of a press commissar ?
If the only news and opinions I can read have been vetted for approval than this is an important issue- not a joke about high school trivia. The Post/Times should follow up on the obvious implications

I came to Mary Ann Akers' blog specifically to read what she had to say after reading David Sirota's blog this morning. Sirota is one of the best blog writers out there and I read him daily. I am one of the many who have abandoned traditional newspapers because they have become so bland, petty, and uninformative. It is the kind of insider gossip detailed in Akers' worthless blog that sends people like me running to the Internet for our news and information now.

Thank god for real reporters like David Sirota who are taking about real issues that affect real people. Mary Ann Akers and the Washington Post are fast becoming obsolete.

As a follow-up on "Sirota: Journalist or Activist?", I propose the following titles:

-- Akers: Journalist or Gossipy Partisan Hack?

-- Washington Post: Newspaper or Conservative-Insider Yellow Rag?

Anyone has other suggestions?

This article makes the Congress out to be some kind of after hours club with so-called "bona fide" journalists controlling the velvet rope with their credenitaling committees. It's disgusting. If you can make it past the metal detector, you should be allowed in unless you are blatently disruptive.

Mary Ann seems to be unable to resist the snarkiness. I recall her describing Nancy Pelosi as "ever the San Francisco tree hugger" not long ago.

I am glad Mary Ann is so much better than all those saps she is forced to write about. But if you ask me, it would have been better if she and her six friends had never been rescued from the island.

So Mary Anne writes a "gotcha" piece about Sirota getting an intern badge, which Lorraine Wollert admits was her suggestion--a fact Mary Anne forgets to mention until the end of the story--how shoddy can your reporting be?

Then, Lorraine writes that she didn't "tell" David to do anything in a response here, she merely "suggested." Isn't that what the original article above says? It states, "The intern ID was Woellert's idea. She said she suggested to Sirota that he ask Sanders for an "intern badge or something to get him access for the days he needed it.'"

So what's she complaining about the word "tell" for? Touchy touchy.

What a non-story.

Oh my god! The TERRIBLE ASSAULT on our democracy of allowing a JOURNALIST to interview our elected representatives MUST BE STOPPED! Our VERY EXISTENCE as a nation could CRUMBLE if access to our government is not STRICTLY CONTROLLED by the media elites whose wisdom, guidance and concern for our well-being should NEVER BE QUESTIONED.

I'm ASHAMED that I secretly admire Sirota's CUNNING PLAN to circumvent the well justified ideological security which the media has benignly imposed by means of his NEFARIOUS TACTIC of obtaining access by requesting permission from a SITTING SENATOR!

When, oh when, will our democracy truly be safe from such DIRE ASSAULT!?

--Larry Hamelin, The Barefoot Bum

David Sirota and Lorraine Woellert have both posted to point how the inaccuracies in this blog post. It looks like Akers got just about every salient point wrong.

Why should I trust anything she writes?

It seems that the people have a different understanding of freedom of the press than the press does.

This is the sort of article I imagine that an envious dinosaur might have written as it watched the better adapted critters begin to inherit the earth. "Ooooh, that little mammal! How dare he be faster and smarter than me!"

Please. Dinosaurs ought to have a thicker hide.

Why is it I am familiar with David Sirota's name but not Mary Ann Akers?

I understand you all may personally like Sirota and dislike Mary Ann, and that's fine. But I am somewhat familiar with how the press gallery works so here are a couple of basic facts:

1) In order to get a credential to write for a particular news organization, that news org itself has to be credentialled. So if you want to get a credential to write for the WashPost, the WashPost as a whole has to be a credentialed member of the press gallery. As far as I know, In These Times is NOT a credentialed publication. They let their credentials lapse a few years ago and have not renewed them -- by choice, not because they were banned or anything.

So to sum up, as I understand it, Sirota CAN'T be credentialed to write for In These Times because In These Times isn't credentialed. Period.

2) As for whether he's a writer or a political "strategist" or "activist," what the press gallery would look at is where his income comes from. If a significant portion of his income comes from any think tanks or political organizations, he can't be credentialed. To be a credentialed reporter, all or nearly all of your income has to come from writing and reporting for news organizations (you can't get credentialed to write for a think tank or an advocacy group).

Yes, Fred Barnes is a conservative, but his money comes from the Weekly Standard, not, say the Chamber of Commerce. So he can get a credential.

Those are the rules, and they are pretty straightforward. From what I know of the gallery and the people who run it, the idea that there is any kind of ideological test that admits conservatives but bans liberals is patently ridiculous. Absolutely, 100 percent not true.

If you have any doubt about that, go some Google searches on World Net Daily, which had to fight for a very long time to get credentialed -- because, like Sirota, there was some question about whether they were journalists or political activists -- and complained very loudly that they were being discriminated against because they were conservatives and the press gallery was run by a bunch of liberals. That wasn't true, and Sirota's charges aren't true either.

> 1) In order to get a credential to write
> for a particular news organization, that
> news org itself has to be credentialled.
> So if you want to get a credential to
> write for the WashPost, the WashPost as a
> whole has to be a credentialed member of
> the press gallery.

Well, the first question that comes to mind is a simple "why"? Isn't this a case of the fox guarding the fox house?

The second thing that comes to mind is, is the week of the journalists' testimony in the Scooter Libby trial really the best time to be making this argument? While we many never know what happened in the CIA outing incident, we surely have learned a lot about how the credentialed media interacts with the Washington DC insiders. And not very flattering interaction in this Citizen's opinion.

Finally, was Talon Media credentialed at the time that Jeff Gannon/Guckert held a White House press pass? Does that raise any concerns?

Citizen

> Those are the rules, and they are pretty
> straightforward. From what I know of the
> gallery and the people who run it, the idea
> that there is any kind of ideological test
> that admits conservatives but bans
> liberals is patently ridiculous.
> Absolutely, 100 percent not true.

Actually, I think the complaint is that the rules favour traditional media over non-traditional. Since the conservatives have the money to buy traditional media outlets, and the liberals do not, that by default provides an advantage to conservatives.

Additionally, a system run by insiders and used primarily by the insiders it purports to cover (see previous post on Libby trial, role of journalists in Traitorgate therin) is by definition conservative.

Citizen

"That wasn't true, and Sirota's charges aren't true either."

But is it true that Mary Ann wrote this:

"Longtime Democratic activist David Sirota seems to have irked plenty of folks on Capitol Hill -- including reporters and even some aides -- with his clever end-run around the rules. ..."

And this:

"So reporters who knew that the House and Senate periodical galleries had rejected his application for credentials were surprised to see Sirota outside the Senate chamber, and elsewhere in the hallowed halls of Congress, wearing an intern pass and interviewing senators as if he were, well, some sort of journalist, which Sirota, who has a personal Web site/blog and writes for the magazine In These Times, considers himself to be despite protestations to the contrary."

I believe it is. So how could David's "charges" be untrue?

Mary Ann,

I don't know what Journalism school you bothered to go to, but when I went to J-School my grizzled professor beat this phrase into our skulls: Get Off Your Ass and Knock on Doors.

That's what David Sirota is doing. Not sitting around getting all snitty about "who's part of our exclusive Press club" or whatever.

The DC Corps got punked by somebody who isn't content to just re-write the press releases. Yeah, that's just terrible, just awful. Breaks my heart.

Maybe you all could learn a thing or two from this particular *intern*.

Derek Z. -- that's useful information but you miss the main point: Sirota didn't start this, he didn't make any "charges" (he quietly found his way around the self-important gatekeepers). Akers did. The main point is how Akers and 99% of the Washington press so easily put on the snark to deride liberals, while being ever-so-careful not to offend even the most bigoted right-wingers (whether it's because they are true believers or because they are intimidated I don't know, and don't care either). Just look at how even the most bigoted right-wing bloggers (look at Malkin, who wrote a book called "In Defense of Internment"...) are regularly on TV, while liberal blogers, who overall have a much larger audience, are pretty much shut out. In honesty, though, I really like it this way -- it's precisely because the Washington-based traditional media has become so complicit with the conservative establishment and tried so hard to shut out progressives that the alternative media on the liberal side has grown so explosively. And since it's a much more participatory medium, the results of getting so many people engaged are starting to show in elections. Thanks for that -- although I'll never, ever forgive you for so gleefully and dishonestly enabling the Iraq catastrophe.

Derek Z.
And who made the rules??? Our tax dollars pay for Congress...they are supposed to represent us...shouldn't we, the people, be making the rules and not some elite group of corporatists?

Given all the media scandals of the last year, your arguments for the 'rules' really carry no weight. The corporate media is on trial here...in the minds of public opinion. People are moving from newspaper, tv and news magazines to the internet for the very reason they can get better reporting and easily access counterviews.

Besides, David Sirota had a best selling book that was released less than a year ago. I am pretty sure that was a major source of income for him.

One follow-up: Don't rush to equate anything that's going on with Sirota with the Jeff Gannon story.

The Congressional Press Galleries and the White House press shop are completely different and have completely different rules.

The Congressional press galleries are run by elected committees of reporters who vet credential applications. I believe the White House credentialing operation is run by the White House itself. From what I've read, it sounds like Gannon was able to get in at the WH by using a series of temporary passes given to him by someone in the Bush administration press shop. Not the same as Sirota at all.

Also, it's worth remembering that the people who Akers says were "irked" about Sirota using intern credentials got upset AFTER Sirota unsuccessfully tried to get a press credential, not before.

Comparing Bios:

Mary Ann Akers...covered Congress for The Washington Times. She also serves on the board of the Washington Press Club Foundation. All signs point to complete impartiality. But since getting a credential seems to be about whether or not you earn your living writing books, I went to amazon.com to look for Mary Ann's. Seems she hasn't written any. Sirota? Not so much. I won't link, but I will ask, when Mary Ann was studying journalism at Guilford College (I assume she studied journalism) did she fantasize about one day defending the powerful from her pesky, if intrepid, colleagues? Pathetic.

Is Mary Ann one of the liberal bloggers wapo.com promised would replace Ben Domenich?

I thought so!

Sad.

Between this little piece of junior-high level gossip and the wretched revelations of media insider misbehavior in the Plame case, it's become clear that American Journalism Is Dead.

To Sirota and all the bloggers: Long Live American Journalism! You have defeated the enemy, and they are crying like a bunch of scared kittens.

Mary Ann, I actually have to thank you for this - you've inadvertently pulled the curtain back and shown us all why we can't get honest news out of the DC press corps. You truly think there's a closed market for information. Must suck for you now that America has awakened and is crashing the gates ...

I'm so glad that you're so wrong, though I look forward to your pending "Reporter or Partisan Hack?" fake-press-credential exposes on John Solomon, Judy Miller, Mike Allen, Chris Wallace, David Broder, Cal Thomas, Robert Novak, David Brooks ... you know, all your colleagues.

P.S. - Complaining about "process" when the story is really about "principle" makes you sound like a spoiled little goody two-shoes tattle-tailing on the class clown. How pathetically juvenile.

I think this would be a good opportunity to re-credential ALL the Beltway so-called "journalists." I laughed out loud at the idea that these "journalists" are not supposed to be "advancing [fill-in-the-blank} causes and candidates." I can think of at least one cable news network and dozens of supposedly "mainstream" newspapers who don't have any greater "journalistic" credentials than that Republic call-boy, Jeff Gannon-Guckert.

> One follow-up: Don't rush to equate
> anything that's going on with Sirota with
> the Jeff Gannon story.
>
> The Congressional Press Galleries and the
> White House press shop are completely
> different and have completely different
> rules.

Derek,
OK, I will give you that one for the moment[1].

Now, would you please address what has been revealed in the Libby trial concerning the deference with which the traditional media treats the Bush Administration? Compare and contrast with WJ Clinton Administration; make prediction as to media treatment of potential HR Clinton Administration.

Concerned.

[1] If you will then at at later date/different forum explain how the entire Gannon/Guckert scandal was allowed to slide down the memory hole by the traditional DC media.

Must suck to know what readers really think of your journalistic talents.

Ms. Akers, you should be thankful that David Sirota, a widely read journalist, has given you some much-needed publicity.

PS I do honestly acknowledge Ms. Akers' integrity in leaving this comment forum open for comments. That is actually an encouraging step.

Concerned

Some sleuth!
In classic mainstream fashion, Mary Ann missed the story entirely. The REAL story is who gets "press" credentials and is an ideological test being applied in this case but not others? How about following up with that one?
What criteria is REALLY used to issue credentials and how consistent is their decision in this case applied. Talk about coverup! Do your job....

so, wait... let me see if i have a handle on this-- books: bad, no press pass; gossip column: good, press pass.

i guess i'm not sure why this is news.

BTW, I commend David Sirota for his ingenuity AND perseverance. The rest of the press should take notes of this and follow his example.

Thanks, Mary Ann, for doing your part to keep me safe from any information about my government that lies outside the narrow confines of acceptable discourse as defined by your corporate masters. I sleep soundly at night knowing that they and you know what's best for me and have nothing but my own best interests at heart.

Ms. Akers, you're just a reporter. Get over yourself. Congress is not the personal fiefdom of the corporate-controlled media, and as a citizen I want to hear as diverse a set of views as possible. Conservative views are more than adequately, indeed predominantly, represented. Time for another viewpoint, especially considering the horrifically bad performance metrics exhibited by conservatives in say.... the past 35 years.

Mr. Sirota has just as much right to be in the press gaggle for Congressional events as you do. Maybe more so, since I have little doubt he'll report on what actually happened in hearings and the like, while so-called major media reporters are much more likely to pick their noses and then blither on about Anna Nicole Smith, or a diaper-wearing astronaut, or whatever the pointless distraction of the week is.

Stop whining about your colleagues, and start doing your job. Maybe if people like you HAD, we wouldn't be in this quagmire in Iraq.

This is silly: everyone knows that the government is the business of the politicians and ordinary people don't know anything and should just mind their own busness and not try to interfere with or second-guess their betters -- and picking up a pen doesn't change that. We should be grateful that the government and associated insitutions let common people have any information about what they doing. Who does this Sirota guy think he is trying to question the government anyway? What does think this is, a democracy?

> so, wait... let me see if i have a
> handle on this-- books: bad, no press
> pass; gossip column: good, press pass.

> i guess i'm not sure why this is news.

> Posted by: dave | February 13, 2007 01:22 PM

Exactly: the corporate media loves to obsess about Anna Nicole Smith etc., keeps the plebes happy and ignorant.

God help us when someone like Dave Sirota actually seeks the truth.

I wonder when the lickspittles that pass for journalists in Washington will get the hint?

Jeff Gannon went from prostitution to journalism, I wonder how many current "journalists" reversed that course?

Jeff Gannon went from prostitution to blogger. Yet he was admitted without question to the White House press gallery.

Granted he was denied credentials by the U.S. Capitol group, but I hardly see much criticism of Gannon in the mainstream media to this day.

I agree with Mr. Sirota wholeheartedly. Blocking him out on bogus grounds while letting in everyone and their brother who works for Fox News or draws a paycheck from Sun Myung Moon is nothing short of disgusting.

I was trying to read the Washington Post, how did I get the Washington Times instead?

Wow. What a sloppy piece of writing. I wouldn't even dignify it with the label "article." Get a real job.

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrry

What happened? You just aired yourself out. Why would you do this to yourself? 1st, your dry snitching is very dishonorable. If Sirota has you heated, squeel to the authorities. What you don't want to do is write a b.s. piece that exposes you as a bitter psuedojournalist. maybe when you loose this job you can write for the national enquirer. Have you heard? Osama has adopted BatBoy!

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrry.
you f'd up

You wrote: The intern ID was Woellert's idea. She said she suggested to Sirota that he ask Sanders for an "intern badge or something to get him access for the days he needed it" since an appeal of the committee's decision would take many weeks and Sirota needed temporary credentials immediately to work on his book.

So little Mary Ann Akers is upset by what exactly?

So, tell me Mary, do you consider yourself "some sort of journalist?" Boo-hoo, David Sirota got around our silly rules. Go cry to your Mommy. LOL

Mary Ann Akers, corporate stenographer!

Yes, be sure to keep citizens and tax payers out of our government offices. Your corporate bosses wouldn't want the great unwashed to get any real information would they. Just as soon as they dictate the daily propaganda to you, you'll be happy to tell us what to think.

The MSM is rapidly becoming obsolete and not a moment too soon. When I want real news, I watch Jon Stewart or click into a DailyKos or Americablog. Don't let that door hit you from behind on your way out.

Jeff Ganon is fine, but Sirota is a problem? Pardon me while I laugh myself silly.

I remember Dave Sirota when he I worked with him on the Daily Northwestern. He was more of a journalist as a college freshman then than most of the inside the beltway bozos that pass of as a press corps.

Dear Sleuth,

Can you find the one who's a strategist and not a journalist?

Robert Novak
Charles Krauthammer
Kate O'Bierne
David Brooks
Judy Miller
David Sirota
Laura Ingram
Mark Steyn
Bill O'Reilly
George Will
Tim Russert
Matt Drudge

"Meretricious... And using the word to describe a blog posting of a female reporter is really a nasty little slur."

That is truly the funniest thing I've read all day.

Derek said "From what I've read, it sounds like Gannon was able to get in at the WH by using a series of temporary passes given to him by someone in the Bush administration press shop."

It's funny Derek that neither you, I or seemingly anyone else knows WHO that "someone in the Bush administration" is, isn't it? Don't you or Mary feel that finding out the answer to that question would be worthwhile? Or would the corporate handlers frown on pulling back the curtain on how talking points are parroted by "real" reporters while mere bloggers demand insight and analysis?

I can't name one credentialed U.S. news source (aside from PBS) that I trust to report what's REALLY happening.

Certainly the "sleuth" doesn't...is she even aware of what going on in the world today?

I don't know the author and am not familiar with her entire body of work, so I'm not prepared to cast judgement on her character overall. I will however, echo the sentiments of so many of the other commenters who responded to this pathetic piece of "journalism". Like many of them, I've found myself abandoning the corporate MSM and turning to a variety of blogs in pursuit of truth, depth, substance, balance, etc. To the author: shame on you for this clubby fluff-piece. To WaPo: shape up.

Katharine Graham, after she stopped laughing at this piece, would have fired its' author. It is silly, moronic, and thumb-suckingly infantile.

Perhaps as a career move, this author [who is definitly NOT a reporter] might consider applying to the Drudge Report.

Almost by definition, all large circulation media outlets are corporate owned. To say that small circulation media sources should have restricted access to congress is to say that only big business biased media should have access. That's a very scary position! So much for the free flow of ideas in a democracy.

"I would also like to note that this story doesn't name a single person who is supposedly 'irked.'" -DS

Basic rule of journalism, multiple sources= common knowledge and does not need to be sourced. god knows there are enough people in the world who think that you are an a$s sirota.

Oh, give me a break. Isn't Fox an arm of the Bush admin? They have press passes and so should Sirota. What a specious argument the 'Sleuth' makes. The man should have a pass. For once we'd hear something closely approximating the truth.