Tidbit in the Post's gossip column today about Matt Drudge (supposedly egged on by the WH) trying to paint ABC reporter Jeffrey Kofman as an evildoer. Kofman is the guy who wrote about declining morale among soldier in Gulf War II.

"Some folks in the White House were apparently hopping mad when ABC News correspondent Jeffrey Kofman did a story on Tuesday's "World News Tonight" about the plummeting morale of U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq.

So angry, in fact, that the next day, a White House operative alerted cyber-gossip Matt Drudge to the fact that Kofman is not only openly gay, he's Canadian.

Yesterday Drudge told us he was unaware of the ABC story until "someone from the White House communications shop tipped me to it" along with a profile of Kofman in the gay-oriented magazine the Advocate. On Wednesday, for 6 hours 38 minutes, the Drudge Report bannered Kofman's widely quoted ABC story -- in which enlisted people questioned the Army's credibility and one irked soldier went on camera to call on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign -- and linked to the Advocate piece with the understated headline "ABC NEWS REPORTER WHO FILED TROOP COMPLAINT STORY IS CANADIAN."

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan "is having a rough first week," Drudge said. "The White House press office is under new management and has become slightly more aggressive about contacting reporters. This story has certainly become talk radio fodder about the cultural wars-slash-liberal bias in the media."

A network insider was less sanguine about the White House tactic: "Playing hardball is one thing. But appealing to homophobia and jingoism is simply ugly."

Kofman said from Baghdad, where he is covering the 3rd Infantry Division: "This morning I had a meeting with one of the commanding officers and we talked about my report and the response back home. He said he'd read about it on the Drudge Report and had just one question. 'Is it true that you're Canadian?' I just smiled and said, 'My life is an open book.'"

Link to article -- and pic of Mr. Kofman.

[ July 18, 2003, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

Dang! The reporter looks great! Oh Canada!! YES!!

Where's Sheila Broflovski from South Park to sing the "Blame Canada" song? Matt is certainly doing some important work!

In another thread, Adam posted:

I guess the White House figures Americans would never believe information presented by a gay reporter.


Charlie in the Trees replied:

Isn't Matt Drudge openly gay?

I don't mean to be talking out of school here, but Drudge is somebody I'm just assuming is openly gay.


JC replied:

I think he's a latent homosexual. If only we could catch him at it. (stolen from John Irving, Cider House Rules).

[ July 18, 2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]

Well, not openly...

Mighaelangelo Signorile, 5/28/02 - "Cybergossip Matt Drudge may say that he is not gay, but one thing is clear, no matter his sexual orientation: he’s a nasty faggot." OOOH!

Referring to David Brock's 2002 book "Blinded by the Right", Signorile goes on, "This is the second book that outs Drudge (Jeannette Walls' 'Dish' in 2000 was the first), even though he’s denied that he is gay... Brock claims he and Drudge dated once; Brock says he received an e-mail in which Drudge pined on about how he wished they were 'f**k buddies'..."

So the question apparently is, which of the three "nasty faggots" at hand do you believe -- if any?

[ July 18, 2003, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]

Andrew Sullivan said in my presence that Drudge is gay, period.

Then it is kinda whacked that they would go to Drudge with a report that a reporter is gay. Were they simply trying to get him a date? If there's any reason other than that, this was a dumb dumb dumb way to try to discredit an unfriendly reporter.

I do think the fact that the reporter is Canadian is relevant, though, given how the Canadian government was being almost French-like in their sabotaging of our war efforts. I'm not saying that it means the guy should be fired, it's just a fact about the reporter's background that's relevant to his story. I mean, if he were a French national (or Saudi, as another example), I think we would all concede that that's a relevant fact in assessing the objectivity of news story.

Given that no one in journalism even pretends to be unbiased anymore, and all reporters seem to be more interested in providing "news analysis" than providing facts, especially in something as politically charged as post-war Iraq, I think the fact that he's a Canadian citizen is relevant.

CITT, it's not that relevant here simply because he got soldiers to speak on camera, on the record, about their feelings. Hard to believe they would have clammed up if they knew he was Canadian.

HA! wink

What's more relevant, that he's a Canadian citizen or that he works for an American TV network?

That's not why it's relevant. Two soldiers are going to get dishonorably discharged from the U.S. military because a Canadian reporter for ABC News wanted to slant a story to show bad morale among the U.S. troops. A soldier doesn't show such blatant disrespect for those above him in the chain of command in a war zone. The first amendment right to free speech does not apply to soldiers in hostilities. A Canadian reporter might not be cognizant of that. The soldiers lives will be ruined with the dishonorable discharges. Was that worth the price of the slanted story?

And the story was slanted. We have a large number of soldiers there in Iraq. Of course some are going to be angry at the Bush administration. Many more are proud of the job they are doing. Of course, the greater indicator of bias in this story is the fact that the guy draws a paycheck from ABC News. To anyone to the right of Barney Frank or Dennis Kucinich, ABC News is so biased against the Bush administration and the war effort that they make Dan Rather look like Limbaugh. So ABC and the reporter get to ruin two soldiers lives by putting their bitches and moans on camera.

Did ABC and its reporter have any interest in doing a fair story about the overall level of morale in Iraq among our troops -- positive and negative -- or did they just do a hatchet job? I didn't see the story, but given that the soldiers careers were ruined, perhaps the reporter could've been more circumspect. Perhaps more fair and balanced.

And I do think a Canadian would be less sensitive to this reality in the military, which is why his country of citizenship is relevant. So we're entitled to know his citizenship to factor that into assessing his obvious biases.

[ July 18, 2003, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Does anyone get the feeling that the Iraqi conflict is quickly going the way of the Viet Nam war?

Bad intelligence, unexpected resistance, leaders quickly distancing themselves from the original purpose of the war.

Personally, I am sickened by the behavior of GW Bush. And I'm sure the soldiers are equally disgusted. Recall when our President was prominent and public about the need to invade Iraq, free the world from an unstable tyrant with nuclear weapons.

And now that the going has got a bit rough, all we get from him are limp-wristed snippets claiming that pre-war intelligence was "darn good." And GWs bulldog, Rumsfeld, is no where to be seen. No doubt he's taken cover behind some desk in the Pentagon.

We as free-thinking citizens of the world and proud Americans should face up to the reality: we've been had by a delusional, dishonest and disgusting administration.

I say: pay it forward.

Should Peter Jennings tell everyone before each of his broadcasts that he is Canadian? I'm sure there are still many, many people out there who aren't aware of that. Let's be real, many people didn't figure out Liberace was gay until he died of AIDS. There are some bulbs in our great chandelier that don't shine quite as brightly as others.

He may now be an American citizen, but do we really know where his loyalties lie? He may have just become a citizen as part of his master plan. He could be subliminally bringing us down from within in a grand scale effort to assist his motherland in.... DESTROYING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!

President Peter Jennings
Vice President Bryan Adams
Secretary of State Anne Murray
Secretary of Tourism Canmark
Secretary of Party Seph
Secretary of Party Music Corey Hart (Sunglasses at Night becomes the new National Anthem!)


Let me add the following lest anyone think I was anything other than tongue in cheek here: wink :cool:

Within the last several weeks, Peter Jennings has become a US citizen. I have heard he holds dual citizenship.

TV reporters do not work alone; they all have field producers, techincal people etc. In most cases, it's the prodcuers who do all the work and set up the interviews. TV reporters, save for Geraldo, do not freelance and operate in a vacuum. Plus, all soldiers know the score when talking to the media (or they should know.) The reporter worked for ABC News, a US broadcasting outlet; his origin of birth is totally irrelevant. Does this mean that Aussie- or English-born reporters for Fox need declare that to interview subjects? I think not and this issue is simply an attempt to divert people from the substance of the story.

You're counting Geraldo as a reporter?

Origin of birth: yes, irrelevant. Country of citizenship? Relevant depending on the type of story. If he's covering Kobe at the courthouse: irrelevant. But covering a U.S. war zone? And from a country that is not allied with us in this particular situation? Relevant.

Like I said: it's not dispositive evidence of bias (although the fact that he gets air time from ABC News ... the network that famously described the Republican victory in the 1994 Congressional elections as America having a \"temper tantrum\" ... that's dispositive evidence of bias). But given that no reporter (esp. TV reporters) anymore seems to be even attempting objectivity, it's better to have the information.

Serious question: is this even legally possible to hold dual citizenship that way? I thought that, as a condition of getting U.S. citizenship, you had to renounce your other citizenship. Is that not the rule? I know for certain that the Bush State Department would not have bent the rules in favor of Peter Jennings, of all people. (See parenthetical comment, supra.)

[ July 19, 2003, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Citing a '94 report [without context] is hardly dispositive of an entire network in '03.

So it's relevent whenever a reporter isn't a citizen of the country at war? As in, a Swiss reporter couldn't be an objective/good journalist reporting on an American war? Never mind how you count the Canadians as not allied with us. Which means what--you only allow those whose citizen is the same as the attacking country? What if the US citizen is actually AGAINST the war--does that make him less allied than the German who is for the war? Last time I checked, there weren't litmus tests of political affiliation for reporters, nor should there be of citizenship.

Good reporting is just that. If you understand what the facts are the reporter is trying to convey, and in the end is as accurate and fair as possible [presuming multiple sources and reporters], what more could you ask for?

As for dual citizenship, the US doesn't force you to renounce all others--it's up to each country and the circumstances:

Dual Nationality

If given the choice, I'd rather be a dual Canadian/US citizen, just in case they start hunting the homos down here in earnest. After Robertson prays the supreme court away, he may move to Pray The Gay Away.

Praying For A Good Smiting

Using this criteria I propose that every Fox News report contain this disclaimer:

"The head of Fox, Roger Ailes, was a media consultant to several Republican presidents, including Nixon and Reagan, and has bragged about calling this Bush White House to offer political advice and of his strong GOP connections. ..."

See how silly it can get? Either a report stands on its own or it doesn't. Trying to discern bias is ultimately a sideshow.

Evidently FoxNews and Murdoch's NewsCorp think so. They are his employers.

As someone with more than a passing interest in the media, let me say this. (With the exception of FoxNews and other news outlets -both liberal and conservative- with clearly stated ideological positions) Most news sources and just about all network news departments try extremely hard to maintain objectivity neither conservative nor liberal.

CNN is very proud of the fact that many on the right complain that the network is too liberal. At the same time many liberals scream that the network is too conservative.
THAT is proof that CNN is doing its job properly. Knowing what I know about your positions Charlie, I'm not surprised that you find a liberal bias/conspiracy in Nerwork news. Just as many wacko liberals complain that th networks have been hijacked by the right wing.

Had the networks been so liberal, they would never have allowed pentagon and defense dept officials to come in before the war and dictate how war coverage would be handled. These officials even wanted to place themselves in the newsrooms on a permanent basis to monitor content (that was refused)

If there is any philosophy or force that overly influences news coverage, that would not be
anything political. Rather, it is money that overly influences how news is covered.
Cynical? yes. But true. I know.

You know, Ung, I never, ever thought I would hear anyone who described himself as a conservative admit that.

Why? I have no problem admitting that profitability is a legitimate concern.

I think all conservatives will admit that money has its place in life.

"He's Canadian" has become an insult, much the same as Shrub Sr. said
"He's a card-carrying member of the ACLU!"

Among others who went south for the money:
Keith Morrison (though he occasionally still works for CTV)
Arthur Kent, the "scud stud" of 1991
Linden Soles (a zombie if I've ever seen one)
John Roberts (aka JD Roberts as a VJ on Muchmusic, Canadian equivalent
of MTV; it says a lot about his journalistic quality, doesn't it?)

CBC news anchor Peter Mansbridge and TSN sports writer/interviewer
Michael Landsberg both reputedly had *huge* offers (in the US$1million+
range) to jump to American networks in the primes of their careers but
turned them down, mostly for reasons of journalistic quality.


Bob Dog

Don't think anyone reporting on anything needs to make a disclaimer. The slant or spin is obvious.

But anyone making a financial contibution to a political campaign should have their identity revealed. Nothing more should be needed.

I don't need to know who makes a statement to decide what I think of the statement. It should live or die by it's own merit.

But I think everyone should know the money trail.

I recall Kofman from his days at the CBC. I didn't realize he was gay, though. I found this profile of him on The Advocate:

From an article in the Globe and Mail:

George_vf: Your post was tres funny!

[ July 20, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: canmark ]

At least Maureen Dowd of the NYTimes is all over Blame Canada adding a little more punch to the proceedings.

Since registration is required at the site [highly recommended] I'll offer up a tidbit:


I can only hope that this solidifies in media management the idea that whether you're gay, Canadian, or whoever, the most important thing is getting the story right.

It seems with the current administration, that only counts if you're right-wing.

Well, I laughed!

Bit of a tangent, but Bruce Cockburn was in Chicago last week, and a fan somewhere back in the crowd (not me) yelled, "Canadians rule!"

Cockburn laughed, shook his head and said, "Nooooo. ... It'd be a different world if we did." He gave several examples, but the one I remember was: "People would be forced to put maple syrup on everything." wink