People have interpreted the Helen Thomas controversy any number of ways.Some were disappointed in her remarks, since they are overshadowing the fact that for years she’s asked questions about issues that the rest of the press corps didn’t care about.
Others have suggested that Thomas’ questions about war and the killings of civilians were a warning sign,and that other journalists should have stepped in to stop her sooner.
That’s the view of the Washington Post‘s Howard Kurtz, who led his piece today (6/14/10) with this:
There she goes again.
That was the eye-rolling reaction in the White House pressroom when Helen Thomas would go off on one of her rants about the Middle East.
Kurtz explained that Thomas was protected by her eye-rolling colleagues:
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that she was a member in good standing of a tightly knit club that refused to question why a woman whose main job seemed to be to harangue press secretaries and presidents deserved a front-row seat in the briefing room….
Journalists, especially those who spend a great deal of time together, don’t usually turn on each other. If Thomas was spewing bias and bile, the reasoning went, what was the harm?
Bias and bile?Kurtz delivered the proof:
There was something to admire in Thomas’ determination to ask uncomfortable questions. But when she declared George W. Bush the “worst president ever” in 2003, she shed any pretense of fair-mindedness. As time went on, her questions turned into speeches, as in this 2007 challenge to Bush over Iraq:
“Mr. President, you started this war. It’s a war of your choosing. You can end it, alone. Today. At this point bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled the country as refugees. Two million more are displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don’t you understand? We brought the al-Qaeda into Iraq.” One might agree or disagree with those sentiments, but she was performing as an activist, not a journalist.
Kurtz goes on to write that “Hearst bears some responsibility for keeping Thomas on as her behavior grew more disturbing.”
This is reminiscent of the New York Times story about Thomas (6/7/10) lamenting the “increasingly hostile and outlandish nature of her questions”–which was illustrated by the observation that Thomas “seemed particularly critical of the Iraq War and repeatedly pointed out during White House briefings that the American-led invasion was costing civilian lives.”
Kurtz also led his Sunday CNN show with the Thomas controversy (6/13/10). To drive home the point that Thomas was trouble, he showed these apparently damning excerpts:
THOMAS: Does the president think that the Palestinians have a right to resist 35 years of brutal military occupation and suppression? It could have stopped the bombardment of Lebanon. We have that much control with the Israelis.
TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I don’t think so, Helen.
THOMAS: We have collective punishment against all of Lebanon and Palestine.
SNOW: No, what’s interesting, Helen–
THOMAS: And what’s happening–and that’s the perception of the United States.
SNOW: Well, thank you for the Hezbollah view.
THOMAS: Mr. President, you started this war, the war of your choosing. And you can end it alone today. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don’t you understand?
Kurtz responded by wondering, “What correspondent or columnist gets to say things like that?”
He added:
If you look at some of the soundbites we just played, some of the questions that she’s asked over the years, I would agree, to some extent, she basically didn’t care what people thought of her. She was there to ask the kind of questions, particularly to President Bush, who she did not like, that she called one of the worst presidents ever.
Now hold on a second. Helen Thomas didn’t care what people thought of her? And by “people,” does that mean other White House correspondents? Scandalous indeed.
Even more revealing is the transcript from this past weekend’s “Reliable Sources,” hosted by Kurtz, in which he asks the following question:
“But is it the role of the journalists, even opinion journalists, to denounce the war in Iraq, to accuse the administration of killing civilians?”
This has now become the dominant theme of the Helen Thomas narrative: that the “embarrassing” manner in which she advocated for certain positions should have been her downfall, not the perceived anti-Semitism; that her questions, however many uncomfortable facts they contained, were really just biased opinions and unfounded accusations; that she wasn’t a serious journalist in the first place, and her presence was merely tolerated.
That Kurtz can even ask such a question says a lot about the weakness of the White House press corps–and the way in which he phrased the question says a lot about how journalists still perceive the war in Iraq.
That piece is an excellent antipode – all you have to do is flip it over to get morality and truth.
It reveals Thomas as a lone ethical journalist in a pit of corporate media snivelling and sleaze. The very fact that she stood alone and persevered, not caring what anyone thought of her, testifies to her integrity and moral courage.
Not caring what one’s alleged peers think is a demerit to Kurtz? What is he, 14 years old and desperate to get in with the kool kidz? Yes, unfortunately, that juvenile form of bootlicking is endemic to today’s MSM. That’s precisely the way they think.
It’s like Shales seriously saying Amanpour’s non-beltway status was a bad thing. So he’s both vicious and stupid, if he’s that out of touch that he can’t even tell the difference anymore between what journalism is supposed to be and the treason against the public in which they’re all actually engaged.
We can only imagine the contempt they must feel for the Founding Fathers, who knew like simple arithmetic that freedom must always be vigilant in the face of power, since power, even leaving aside any malevolent intention on the part of the power-holder, by its own inertia tends toward tyranny.
So they’d regard the very question, “Should journalists always be skeptical of the powerful, never accept their claims on faith, and always challenge their claims where there’s any doubt?”, as absurd, as the answer is so obviously Yes.
But we know that the WaPo leads the charge in seeking the complete liquidation of all journalism, in favor of a new Goebbels ministry. Recognize that fact and all of today’s “journalistic” phenomena, like this Kurtz piece and the bizarre arguments within, become easy to understand.
Peter, I’ll say to you what I and others said to Jim – and hope for a better response.
I wasn’t disappointed in Thomas’ remarks, because I didn’t see any overt bias in them. Again, I don’t put anyone on a pedestal – folks tend to fall on top of you when they inevitably topple off – but I thought that she did at least make an effort to challenge conventional wisdom on a number of issues, and this was one of them.
My disappointment arose from her seemingly backtracking apology, and, again, I’d like someone to ask her for clarification on what both her initial comments and the apology meant. Wouldn’t that help illuminate matters?
Ask her if she was being anti-Semitic. Ask her if she was referring to historic Palestine or the Occupied Territories – not that the first would per force invalid her remarks: I stated elsewhere the analogy with Native Americans and colonial descendants. Ask her what she was apologizing for.
But the bottom line for me in this ongoing kerpfuffle (sp?) is that, regardless of our views, we have to treat each other with respect. I’ve tried to, and will continue to. What I’d like to see is my and others’ arguments taken seriously, rather than subjected to knee-jerk gainsaying, which seemed to be Jim’s modus operandi.
If we can’t agree, so be it. But a dismissive attitude only raises a smile on the lips of those who have nothing but contempt for someone like Thomas and those who go further than her in the field of journalism.
I’ve counted FAIR among those, and have for over twenty years.
Do the mensch thing.
Thomas did not tell Jews to get out of Palestine and go back to Israel. She said: “Jews, get the hell out of Palestine and go back home – to Germany, Poland the USA”. Doug, apparently agrees with her, comparing Israel to the US colonial descendants and the Palestinians to the Native Americans. But, the European colonizers had no historical connection to America. They did not became a people there some 3000 y earlier. There was no European presence in America before 1492. But, the Jews became a people, in what later became known as Palestine. During the centuries there was always a Jewish presence there. Those who came to Jerusalem in 1200, or to Safed in 1500 or to Rishon Le Zion in 1882 were not colonialists. And of course, nobody gave the American Natives the choice to have their own state, side by side with the European’s state.
Thomas, in fact, denies the right of the Jewish people to have their own nation-state, while not denying that right to any other people. That is a typical racist attitude and can be rightfully called anti-Semitic. She did well to resign.
Jacob, what I agree with is the right of any person to live in the land of their choosing. Palestinians don’t have that right, do they?
No “people” should have “their own nation-state.” Jews have no more right to prevent others from living in historic Palestine (or returning to it) than white folks like me have to keep “the other” from living in the good ol’ U S and A, although many of my lightly-hued bubbas might wish it so.
Many Jews, Israeli and otherwise, agree with that.
They get the whole Golden Rule thing.
Something to do with their religion, I believe.
No, in the real world one does not have the right to live in the land of his choosing. He has the right to apply for permission to immigrate and then if permission is granted he can move there. Israel, like any other country, has laws which regulate the immigration to it.
The vast majority of European democracies are nation-states. All of those states have immigration laws, just like Israel has. And all of them allow or deny immigration according to those laws.
There are 1.4 Palestinians who are citizens of Israel. The Palestinians who became refugees in 1948, as the result of the war they started, will not return. Just like the 14 million refugees from the India-Pakistan conflict or the millions of East-Europeans of German origin, who were expelled after the war, did not return.
The Palestinian refugees could settle in the future Palestinian state, if they so chose, with appropriate compensation, which should be given also to the 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries.
The overwhelming majority of Jews, Israeli and otherwise, support that position.
“The real world” is going to hell in a handbasket.
You can choose to support the bastards who’ve planned out the route, or you can work for what should be.
The only just solution in this matter is one state, with equal rights for all its residents.
Is that a “real world” possibility?
I don’t know. I just know it won’t be if folks don’t work for it.
Humans being the only species wilfully incapable of reason, I’m not optimistic.
It’d be nice to be, but not necessary.
A conscience, and the courage to use it, is the only real necessity, isn’t it?
I have the former. Time will tell if I have the latter.
Shalom, bruddah.
So Helen answered a question that was put to her and people didn’t like her answer and went after her head. What happened to the old adage that ” I may not agree what she said, but I’ll defend to the death her right to say it? Evidentially, that doesn’t matter when anyone criticizes Israel.
So Howard Kurtz thinks Helen’s a stiff, who cares about Kurtz, we know why he thinks that way. He’s one of those neocons. A kissin’ cousin to the Zionist.
I wonder how the “defenders of Zionism” would come down of Limbaugh, Beck and Palin if they criticized Israel? Oh they didn’t mean it and apologized.
At least Helen wasn’t a run of the mill White House suck up like the rest of those, “good little Eichmanns,” afraid to call a spade a spade.
It’s a shame that Helen Thomas’s career ended this way. We should demand that journalists “harangue press secretaries and presidents” – THAT’S THEIR JOB!
Howard Kurtz apparently prefers the fuzzy warm & cozy approach.
Stephen Colbert embarrassed the press corps by revealing their true positions as stenographers. Helen Thomas was the only one with huevos. She comes from a different era than the present-day suck-ups. Back when Helen was asking Lyndon Johnson pertinent questions, journalists modeled themselves after Edward R. Murrow. Howard Kurtz just re-affirmed Colbert’s assessment with his ass-backward assessment of Helen Thomas.
Anyone anytime criticizes Israel, one is called anti-Semitic. It is to silence the critics. If Helen said something derogatory about Jews, that would definitely be anti-Semitic. She did not.
Helen Thomas is a pistol!
Her remarks were absurd and insensitive about sending jews back to european countries.
However, everything else she’s ever said has been stunningly correct and thoughtful and challenging to an Administration that caused the deaths of thousands of inocent people in the Middle East; and the illegal occupation of Iraq, Afganistan and Gaza.
What a career. Good for her.. The only one of the so called Press Core to have the balls to challenge the status quo!
kurtz’ hackery know no bounds—- he calls the following FACTS: “Two million Iraqis have fled the country as refugees.” “Two million more are displaced.” “Thousands and thousands are dead.” ” We brought the al-Qaeda into Iraq” SENTIMENTS that people can agree or disagree with….in what reality aren’t all those statements true?
I applaud Helen Thomas’ willingness to ask uncomfortable questions — of the Bush and Obama administrations — about the wars we are waging in the Middle East. And I understand her increasing frustration with the half truths and evasions she gets as answers to her questions. Meanwhile the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan deteriorate; Israel has carried out brutal attacks on Lebanon and Gaza (using U.S. made weapons); and there is a continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Ms. Thomas was not acting as a journalist when she was asked the question about the future of Israel-Palestine. Her gut frustration seems to have prevailed. I agree with her apology: there will be peace when there is mutual respect between the two cultures. But we cannot get there from here, if we — the U.S. — continue to support military solutions, and provide Israel $3 billion a year in military aid.
The Washington Press Corps has skated by on the reputations of the Helen Thomases of the world who really acted as adversarial and critical questioners of an imperial presidency going back to JFK as I remember. When the Howard Kurtz’s and Judith Millers were legitimately criticized for not questioning government handouts of press briefings, they could always point to the honorific position accorded to Helen Thomas who asked probing and uncomfortable questions. Now to paraphrase a former President she criticicized “they don’t have Thomas to admire anymore” I wonder who won and who lost?
Thomas’s supposedly anti-semitic comments were nothing of the kind. Her problem with Israel has been with the BEHAVIOR of the state of Israel, which has been criminal and out of hand since the days of Sharon. The fact that she expressed herself rather stupidly in the comments that got her fired can be chalked up to her advanced age and the fact she wasn’t phrasing her words professionally and for public consumption. But her hard questions about the war and her hard questioning and even criticism of the Bush administration to it’s face is something ALL of the press corps should have been doing since a year before the war… If they had done their job we might not be stuck in that quagmire now… Just remember it was Helen Thomas who had the gonads to say we went into Iraq based on administration lies. She spoke truth to power.
Most Jews who emmigrated to Mandatory Palestine/Israel in the 1940s onwards had no real connection to the ancient Israel either, except in a theoretical moral sense. The closest genetic relatives to the orginal Jews of that time are the modern Palestinians, ironically. Jewish citizenship in the new state essentially privileges one religious identity over all others.
But if history should be a guide to the formation of new states, surely the Native Americans have the best claim to, say, exile all European-Americans in California into a small, arid strip along the Pacific and the Mexican border, a slightly larger patch of land along the Nevada border, and a section of East Los Angeles. After all, they have strong historical connection and claim to that land.
Yeah, telling Jews to go back to the lands where they were slaughtered isn’t antisemitic at all.
I’m done with FAIR.
Most Zionists were “done with FAIR” in ’48. ^..^
The continued savagery in the “Holy Land” might rightly be called an ethnic “civil” war. Radicals on either side could justly be called antisemitic.
I applaud Helen Thomas. She has always spoken truth to power. If only those in power would listen. She is and always has been a courageous reporter. Apparently no one in this US of A is permitted to question US policy when it comes to the state of Israel. Funny, past presidents enjoyed the banter with her.
Helen should receive a Noble Peace Prize for life long committment to journalistic truth and reporting. Kurtz should resign and Fox mixNews should be banned from their misinformation mission.
What kind of articles/columns did Helen Thomas ACTUALLY write – what had she written over the last couple of years ? How did she qualify as a working journalist to receive a front row seat when she really was just an enfant terrible?
I’m late to the fray, but this quote and “woodword”‘s response to it make the nicest package, seems to me:
There was something to admire in Thomas’ determination to ask uncomfortable questions. But when she declared George W. Bush the “worst president ever” in 2003, she shed any pretense of fair-mindedness. As time went on, her questions turned into speeches, as in this 2007 challenge to Bush over Iraq:
“Mr. President, you started this war. It’s a war of your choosing. You can end it, alone. Today. At this point bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled the country as refugees. Two million more are displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don’t you understand? We brought the al-Qaeda into Iraq.” One might agree or disagree with those sentiments, but she was performing as an activist, not a journalist.
â┚¬Ã‚¦and woodword b. nails the Howie’s use of the word “sentiments” â┚¬Ã‚¦to denigrate what almost everyone outside of DC accepts as facts on the ground, in the air, and underwater. If Howie were, how does Jon Stewart put it?, ahh yes, “semitic,” one might think he’s part of the gang wut round-eyes be claimin’ is controlling the meja.
I’d say that we need a Helen Thomas in every seat in that little auditorium-over-a-swiming-pool press room. Say, are [British Plural] the White House (or We the People) going to reprise the Senior Hop scene from It’s A Wonderful Life and drop the press corps into the pool? Who has the key to the retractable floor?!? Hurry, hurry–the next press conference is about to start! Maybe a cold-water dunk would awaken any nascent 4th Estate moxie they possess. Though Ed Henry’s already gotten all wet, and it did nothing for his self-awareness. So we can’t expect too much. Maybe just close the floordoor and bring in a whole new crew.
Watch the clip of the young lad bearding Charlie Rangel “Do you think this is going to cost you your job?” or WTTE (words to that effect), and Charlie, drawing up his shortness to the tippy-toes, calling it “a stupid question” — ahh, but I see your young, you gotta make your chops (is that like the mafia term, becoming a “made man”–by unmaking someone else’s status as “alive” to “not so much”?).
I applaud Helen Thomas for doing what most in our media won’t do, that is speak up for the Palestinians who had their homes demolished, their lands stolen, and placed under an illegal curfew. All in the name of religion?