Helen Thomas(white house reporter of 57yrs) on Bush Admin

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » March 26, 2004, 10:29 pm

Just an interview from the Seattle Weekly. Helen Thomas has been a reporter at White House news conferences for 57 years. She has always been a real reporter, who actually asks tough questsions and grills presidents on issues to find real answers. After 57 years of being in the front row at White House news conferences, the Bush admin now makes her now sit in the back row and they never listen to her. They don't want to be asked questions that might bring out some truth.

"We’ve always been manipulated and managed, back to when I began with Kennedy and certainly before, but never to this extent,” Thomas says by phone. “The secrecy in this administration has reached
the highest levels. That’s never been seen before. Everybody has to be on board with this president. Nobody plays devil’s advocate . . . There is no search for answers in this president.”

Bush has held fewer news conferences than any modern-day president, but, Thomas says, even his administration’s twice-daily White House press briefings have become politicized. “He won’t call on me, and I’m in the back row now so I’m ignored . . . They don’t like my questions. That’s okay, just so somebody asks them, but they just don’t want me to ask questions . . . If I was a favored columnist, I’m sure I’d be in the front row again. But I have the prerogative of asking the questions, I do try. I do think all of us [in the press] have laid down on the job early on [after 9/11]. Some of us are coming out of a coma. But nobody’s being challenging enough. We are adversarial. We aren’t there to worship at anybody’s shrine. We’re there for accountability.”

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0 ... arrish.php

Karae · Post by **Karae** » March 26, 2004, 10:38 pm

If this is about Helen Smith why are all the quotes from some guy named Thomas?

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » March 26, 2004, 10:40 pm

LOL woops, editing

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 26, 2004, 11:23 pm

Helen Thomas is the liberal version of Ann Coulter.

BTW have you ever *watched* Helen at a press conference?

Her questions are so loaded no wonder they ignore her.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » March 26, 2004, 11:37 pm

Shes very critical, thats how reporters should be. She's sat in the front row for over 50 years, I doubt shes a Coulter-like lunatic.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 26, 2004, 11:44 pm

Helen Thomas has been known for decades for being critical in the White House press briefings, Adex. It doesn't matter what the political alignment of the administration is.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 27, 2004, 12:01 am

HT is a pretty respected reporter and WH expert. She was critical of BC too. That is kind of their job.

Anyway, her account of the Bush Administration is consistant with the descriptions of it by Paul O'Neil as well - highly secretive and scripted. But I suppose O'Neil is just some liberal crackpot too?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 27, 2004, 11:59 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:Helen Thomas is the liberal version of Ann Coulter.

BTW have you ever *watched* Helen at a press conference?

Her questions are so loaded no wonder they ignore her.

Why is it you can't step away from your misguided convictions on occasion?

I mean if you're going to say something about NPR, you might have a point about bias but not Helen. And yes, EVERYONE has watched her. EVERYONE knows the deal except you it seems. How much longer and more impressive does someone's resume have to be for you to grasp ahold of reality?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 27, 2004, 2:37 pm

She's supposed to report the news.

When Helen Thomas walks the whitehouse press room she thinks it is the Helen Thomas show.

If she wants to be an opinion columnist fine, but her behavior while performing the job of a whitehouse reporter should be politically neutral.

My gripe isn't political, it's more a matter of journalistic professionalism.

We depend on people like Helen to deliver us information from the President's office. She performs us a disservice if she embelishes or withholds that information according her political leanings.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 27, 2004, 2:55 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:My gripe isn't political, it's more a matter of journalistic professionalism.

Helen Thomas Journalism Awards:
International Women's Media Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award in 1998, the Society of Professional Journalists Lifetime Achievement Award and the National Press Foundation's Distinguished Contributions to Journalism Award in 2001. The White House Correspondents Association established the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award and presented it to Ms. Thomas in 1998.

Adex's Journalism Awards:

Hrmmmmmm, Ya reckon the US professional journalists know more about journalistic professionalism than you?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 27, 2004, 3:25 pm

Adex: Your objection has been clearly countered by everyone stating that she's been behaving the same way, regardless of administration, throughout her career.

What makes you say she has a political bias?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » March 27, 2004, 3:50 pm

Adex to be totally open though you need those loaded questions, from every angle. You can't just ask the questions from a list that they have given you to ask. What good does that do. Critical questions that challenge the administrations stance and policies are a must, no matter if it's a donkey or an elephant in office. She's been doing just that for decades.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 27, 2004, 3:54 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:She performs us a disservice if she embelishes or withholds that information according her political leanings.

What leanings? She's been doing her work in the same fashion since before you were born. The most restricted she has been since this admin was under the Kennedy admin; which she has said on multiple occasions (w/ Kennedy cheating issues).

Quite frankly, it's beyond obvious why this admin doesn't want her to dig into tough questions. Thinking it's any other motive than journalistic integrity with HER background is plain stupid.

Please, grow the fuck up already and call a spade a spade

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 27, 2004, 5:20 pm

I agree she should be in the back row. In fact I think she should have her white house press pass taken away entirely.

George Bush has had what, like six press conferences in his entire term as president? Five? At every press conference seating it assigned to every reporter and the president has a little placemat on the podium with the names of what journalists are sitting where.

During question period he has a list of journalists who have been prepared ahead of time with a loaded question such as "Mr. President, please explain to the american public using as small words and as simplistic language as you can why your tax cuts have been so wonderfully amazing at restoring our economy and bringing freedom to the world?!"

It's ridiculously scripted and phony, like everything else about the administration. It's a stage show. It's insulting. Helen Thomas is an actual journalist with integrity and a high degree of professionalism. She's just wasting a seat trying to do her job as a journalist under this administration.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 27, 2004, 6:39 pm

I've seen all I need to during press conferences to form my opinion.

If you guys like her that's fine.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » March 27, 2004, 6:42 pm

I did not say I liked her specifically, I am just saying you have to have someone in there asking the tough questions that the boot lickers refuse to, no matter who is in office.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 27, 2004, 6:53 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I've seen all I need to during press conferences to form my opinion.

If you guys like her that's fine.

Heh wait...so you haven't read her actual articles and you are accusing her of biased journalism?...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 27, 2004, 6:53 pm

Sam Donaldson

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 27, 2004, 6:54 pm

Wait, you haven't absolutely read every one of her articles and yet you defend her?

Give me a break, yes I have read her work. Not all, but enough.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 27, 2004, 9:23 pm

Enough to know that's she's been doing the hard line approach for each and every president since Kennedy regardless of whether they're a Republican or Democrat?

Oh wai

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » March 28, 2004, 12:58 am

Adex has done something pretty interesting. Got everyone talking about whether HT was a good reporter, rather than on the subject of the thread, and HT's critisism - namely that the Bush administration is overly secretive and too controling of the press.

Her points, from the quoted section are :

1. Bush holds very few press conferences, prefering instead to release canned material not subject to examiniation.

2. Reporters have given this administration a free pass on scrutiny for longer than they should have post 9/11.

I keep coming back to this - Everyone planning on voting for Bush should read the Suskind/O'Niel book - "The Price of Loyalty" so that they can understand the fundemental differences between this Bush and Bush I or Reagan.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 28, 2004, 1:32 am

I do not agree that Helen Thomas was just as hard on folks like Bill Clinton as she is on BushII.

As far as Bush have too few press conferences. I belive it's a function of the press. The press tends to be liberal. Democratic presidents can use the sympathic press to further their politics much easier than a republican president can.

Has Bush been given a pass on the 9/11 stuff? I think so, for a while it was a taboo to criticize the sensitive issue.

The only reason I mentioned my dislike of Helen Thomas was to show that her words hold little persuasion with many people due to her track record of being biased and egocentric.

I understand if you guys don't see it my way, your world is shaded by different glasses.

If you want to add weight to your suspicions, I suggest you cite someone more neutral that Helen Thomas, or you'll get the same effect as Brotha citing Ann Coulter.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 28, 2004, 2:18 am

Provide examples of Helen Thomas' bias. You have to do better than "she is harder on bush than she was on clinton' because that could not be a more patently false fabrication.

even hacks rush and o'reilly have nothing but respect for her, because she is one of the few impartial journalists in the WHPC. to claim otherwise to justify your own partisan paranoia is an insult to her entire career.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 28, 2004, 2:29 am

"I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war. Bush's policy of pre-emptive war is immoral - such a policy would legitimize Pearl Harbor. It's as if they learned none of the lessons from Vietnam," she said to enthusiastic applause.

Doesn't sound like an impartial reporter to me. Sounds like she is professing her opinion as fact. I wasn't aware Bush wanted to go to war. Wow she has like a sixth sense or something.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 28, 2004, 2:34 am

was that excerpt from an article she was writing? I didn't realize it was one of her journalistic endeavours. I was under the obviously false pretense that it was a public speaking engagement. thanks a lot for clearing that up for me you stupid fucking moron.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 28, 2004, 2:36 am

kyoukan wrote:was that excerpt from an article she was writing? I didn't realize it was one of her journalistic endeavours. I was under the obviously false pretense that it was a public speaking engagement. thanks a lot for clearing that up for me you stupid fucking moron.

Oh yeah thats right every thing has to fit your guidelines or you can't grasp it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 28, 2004, 2:40 am

what does that even mean? jesus christ you are dumb.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 28, 2004, 4:00 pm

kyoukan wrote:even hacks rush and o'reilly have nothing but respect for her, because she is one of the few impartial journalists in the WHPC. to claim otherwise to justify your own partisan paranoia is an insult to her entire career.

Hehe you never listen to Rush, or you'd never would of made that statement.

I'm not going to do your homework for you Kyo. Prove to me that she isn't biased.

Your side presents Helen as someone who should be listened to. Conservative folk like me don't think much of her. Either provide a new more objective source, or prove that Helen balanced in her reporting.

Otherwise her words mean little.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 28, 2004, 4:10 pm

And you know Kyo,

I really don't want you to bother reasearching a bunch of stuff. It's a lot of work to do right, and this messageboard shouldn't have that priority.

How about you just keep on thinking that I'm the "passive aggressive conservative bastard" that you love to hate and we move on to more interesting topics?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 28, 2004, 5:02 pm

what is it with dumb ass conservatives trying to make people prove the non-existence of something to make their point

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 28, 2004, 5:38 pm

You just don't see it do you?

Consider what I said before. Sometimes we're so locked into our own world view that we become blind to differing perspectives.

I suffer from this. You sometimes suffer from it as well.

The noble goal is that you try to understand me as I try to understand you.

Without that effort, there is no middle ground.

(edit) on second thought I have more to say

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 28, 2004, 5:42 pm

no I don't. hey, if I whack myself in the face a few hundred times with a really heavy bible, maybe I will?!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 28, 2004, 5:52 pm

Have you ever lived in a small town?

Has you life been mostly urban?

Were you parents active politically? What leaning did they have?

These kind of things are big factors I think.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 28, 2004, 11:08 pm

how bout this, either provide examples of your point, or don't belabor it.

Though i think we would all like to find out more about Kyo, those things are best done over drinks, or dinner. Its simply impolite to ask such things of a lady otherwise. Or at least talk to her father and notify him of our intentions.

i have joked with people about Helen's questions before watching the daily press briefings (when Ari Fleischer was the WH Spokesman), but hell mostly cause old people ask silly questions from time to time.

COmparing her to Sam Donaldson though is a bit much. I can't trust anything that comes out the mouth of somebody so severly in denial of their own baldness they would put on such a cheap toupee.

but the point is, if she is so patently biased, i'm sure there are plenty of examples.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » March 28, 2004, 11:22 pm

I do not agree that Helen Thomas was just as hard on folks like Bill Clinton as she is on BushII.

Bill Clinton did not carry such a grim reputation with him either bro. However, I think the point is that, yes she does play against the present administration and asks the questions which are directed specifically to find the harsh truth. However, I keep going back to ockham's razor on this issue, that being:

Why is the present administration unwilling to address her questions? What does it have to hide? The simplest explainantion is usually the correct one.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 29, 2004, 1:20 am

You guys: "Hey Helen says Bush is bad"

Me: "Do you have another source? She's not objective"

You guys: "PROVE she's not biased!"

You guys: "You're an ignorant racist bush-dick sucker!"

Me: "That doesn't make Helen any more convincing."

You guys; "Spend 4 hours of your Sunday doing boring research you reneck backwards pig fucker!"

Me: "sigh"

I'd rather be watching the Chapelle show.

(edit typos)

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 29, 2004, 1:24 am

Acies,

As I mentioned before in response to Aaeamdar. I belive Bush is camera shy because the press core is a hostile audience. He has more agreeable ways to get his word out than through them.

He's just maximizing the political cards given him.

I'm not trying to pry into Kyo's personal life.

Kyo suggested the divide between our perspectives was due to me banging my bible over my head a hundred times.

I in response suggested other factors that might of influenced my political viewpoints such as urban/rural upbringing and the political leanings of one's parents.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 29, 2004, 1:33 am

Adex said dick and fucker.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 29, 2004, 6:06 am

Adex, all anyone did was ask you to back up your claims that this journalist is biased. So far your only basis for this claim seems to be that she asks loaded questions instead of being a good little cheerleader.

If you really think journalism should go no further than reciting what people in power have to say and accepting it at face value I think that's very sad.
And dangerous.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 29, 2004, 6:06 am

F'in double post bullshit

Mak · Post by **Mak** » March 29, 2004, 10:14 am

President Bush “is the worst President in all of American history,” Hearst Newspapers White House reporter Helen Thomas proclaimed at a Society of Professional Journalists awards event in California...

Statements like this would certainly make any reasonable person consider whether or not she could report anything without bias. I'm not saying she is or is not biased, but I don't think it can just be dismissed without question.

Other quotes include:

"I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter. Now I wake up and ask myself, 'Who do I hate today?'"

"It's bombs away for Iraq and on our civil liberties if Bush and his cronies get their way. Dissent is patriotic!"

Now neither of these is particular bad coming from you or me, but a Whitehouse Press Corp reporter? Can I really trust her to keep those personal views out of her reporting?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 29, 2004, 11:00 am

Tanc,

Tough questions from a reporter that tries to be objective are fine.

I pointed out Sam Donaldson as an example.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2004, 11:38 am

Mak wrote:
"I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter. Now I wake up and ask myself, 'Who do I hate today?'"

Helen said Hate. She must be a racist. Where is your anger and outrage at what Helen said?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 29, 2004, 11:57 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I wasn't aware Bush wanted to go to war.

Further proof of how much of a fucking idiot you are.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 29, 2004, 12:04 pm

Tough questions from a reporter that tries to be objective are fine.

I pointed out Sam Donaldson as an example.

I have no fucking clue who these people are and must admit I don't care much. So as an observer-in-a-vacuum I've read this thread and still don't see you really justifying your claims of bias. Or partisanship, more accurately.

Of the three quotes Mak provided I see one of common sense (neutral), one that really doesn't mean anything to me and one that's a conclusion any sane human would draw

Anyway, carry on.

Oh except Midnyte.

Helen said Hate. She must be a racist. Where is your anger and outrage at what Helen said?

Every time you post you prove yourself incapable of any form of rational thought or understanding. It's a shame we can't harvest drool as a clean form of energy so you could contribute to human society.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » March 29, 2004, 12:15 pm

From now on, anytime someone challenges any statement I make... i will make them provide proof INSTEAD providing any of my own...

fucking brilliant.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 29, 2004, 12:24 pm

It's not a matter of me having to prove anything. I'm not the one trying to sell Helen Thomas.

Someone here brought forth Helen Thomas's words for consideration without providing evidence that she was balanced. Moreso the quote of Helen Thomas showed questionable slants.

If you're going to sell me and others on Helen Thomas, you need to do something to make your source appear objective.

You guys chose a poor example to sway a more general audience.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 29, 2004, 12:29 pm

Truant wrote:From now on, anytime someone challenges any statement I make... i will make them provide proof INSTEAD providing any of my own...

fucking brilliant.

that is the standard form of rationale that right wing strategists use for tackling issues actually. so i'm not surprised Adex, being a consumer of those media outlets, would imitate (even unintentionally) that proven style.

mix that approach with some ad hominem attacks and you can intern for Karl Rove or Roger Ailes.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 29, 2004, 12:34 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:It's not a matter of me having to prove anything. I'm not the one trying to sell Helen Thomas.

Someone here brought forth Helen Thomas's words for consideration without providing evidence that she was balanced. Moreso the quote of Helen Thomas showed questionable slants.

If you're going to sell me and others on Helen Thomas, you need to do something to make your source appear objective.

You guys chose a poor example to sway a more general audience.

LOL Adex, drop the bullshit already.

nobody is trying to 'sell you' anything. seriously nobody here cares if you hate Helen Thomas, and nobody cares if you would seat her down the street around the corner for the briefings.

You levied charges about her to counter the initial argument (she is a respected journalist), and were asked to back up the arguments.

You are either unwilling, unable, or both to back up those arguments, so are in some sort of scramble to distract the conversation as much as possible.

if you dont have any intention of backing up your position, why do you insist on participating in the conversation with irrelevent statements?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 29, 2004, 12:38 pm

When this topic was posted it was posted making the assumption that Helen Thomas is a fair, impartial reporter.

It is very obvious she is not. What is there to prove?

I and others have quoted her partisan statements, only to receive ridicule and "What does that mean?".

It's funny how some people have the intelligence to make a blanket statement, but their brains shut down when proof is given that contradicts what they said.