Liberal Blogger, Thou Doth Protest Too Much

David Corn makes an interesting point about why pursuing Gannongate may not be a good idea for liberal bloggers:

Let me stipulate that how Gannon/Guckert came to be permitted into the White House press room is a worthy topic of inquiry. But his pursuers ought to be careful on this point. Talon News was a fly-by-night (or phony) news operation with a political agenda. But White House daily briefings should be open to as diverse a group as possible. There is a need for professional accreditation; space is limited. Yet there is nothing inherently wrong with allowing journalists with identifiable biases to pose questions to the White House press secretary and even the president. And if such a reporter asks a dumb question--as did Gannon/Guckert (which triggered this scandal)--the best response is scorn and further debate. Bloggers should think hard when they complain about standards for passes for White House press briefings. Last year, political bloggers--many of whom have their own biases and sometimes function as activists--sought credentials to the Democratic and Republican conventions. That was a good thing. Why shouldn't Josh Marshall, Glenn Reynolds, John Aravosis, or Markos Moulitsas (DailyKos) be allowed to question Scott McClellan or George W. Bush? Do we want only the MSMers to have this privilege?

The rest of the article explains in typical Cornian fashion why liberals shouldn't get carried away with their crazy conspiracy theories. I agree with Corn (and Leslie Stahl -- remember how she couldn't wipe the smile off her face the whole time she was talking about Gannon on Bill Maher's show), -- Gannongate is just FUNNY. Especially when it's juxtaposed (as MSNBC did in a news update, seemingly without knowing) with Bush calling for freedom of the press in Russia. (Of course, bloggers have done yeoman's work noting this irony, but they're SUPPOSED to detect ironies.)