will the "Jeff Gannon" story be as big as Dan Rather's?

I don't have the time, energy, or resources to summarize this story here... it's been moving in the blogosphere for about a week now and was just picked up by the New York Times. It's a short article -- read it, it's important.

This story, combined with that of payola pundits like Armstrong Williams, may be equally important as the Dan Rther dust-up. But will it be covered that way in newspapers and on TV? Some factors to consider.

1) The actual importance of the story. Dan Rather and CBS were wrong about a major story, but even if the story were true, it wouldn't have changed much in the election. Bush supporters understood that he wasn't a war hero, that he was lazy and got preferential treatment through his early life. This all fit in with the "born-again" story of Bush's life. This, on the other hand, is a story of actual corruption in the U.S. government, now. Which seems more important to me. I think it is obviously more important if you are only looking at the "media bias" angle. This story should get at least as much play as the post-election stories on Rather's resignation and the fallout at CBS.

2) The sex. Slacktivist discusses implications of the accusation that Gannon posted homoerotic pictures of himself online and might have worked as a male escort. Slacktivist argues that this angle is a "side-show"... I wonder how important it will be if/when this story hits TV. The NYT doesn't mention it, but they're far from representative.

3) The bloggers. From a old-media-versus-new perspective, this is the same story that was being told with Dan Rather. A bunch of bloggers got together and exposed people in power. Will that help or hurt the story in the mainstream press? Some conservatives argued that in addition to "liberal bias," the mainstream press was slow to cover the Dan Rather accusations because they made traditional media look bad. Will that make them want to bury this story? Or will they play it up because it fits the narrative that the Rather story established?

4) The "liberal media" question. Fox reporters are already blaming the liberal media for this story, even though it has hardly gotten any play yet. (Btw, interesting to hear "the liberal bloggers." I thought "Rathergate" established that bloggers were conservative revolutionaries?) But it seems more likely the recent "internatlization" of the liberal media critique would lead news orgs to play down the story. On the other hand, if they frame it as a lefty version of the Rather story ("Just six months after bloggers forced Dan Rather blah blah blah"), it might avoid the "liberal media" accusation altogether.

5) The investigation. As the NYT piece makes clear, the Democrats have launched an investigation, which reporters will have to cover whether they think the root story is important or not.

6) The (lack of) celebrity. The characters of this story will have to be established in the public mind. "Dan Rather screwed up" doesn't. On the other hand, the media will probably play up the connection to the Valerie Plame case (it was mentioned in the lead of the NYT piece), which might draw more eyeballs.

7) The security angle. One way to frame this story is "how did this guy get past the Secret Service." Of course, that question is a sham -- he got past because the administration wanted him there. In fact, that question shows that the corruption in this case must have been pretty serious. But since any story on national security will get more play, this might be one of the angles that shows up and pushes the story further.

I can't think of any more factors at the moment... it will be interesting to see how this plays out, tho. I'm guessing it will be one of the top stories of next week... the more interesting question is how it will be framed, and if it will be big enough to get anyone fired.