Yesterday's daily White House news briefing featured the usual scene of Helen Thomas (the ever-obnoxious "Dean" of the White House press corps)taking her daily shot at George Bush and the mission in Iraq. Thomas, whether she's asking questions of the White House spokesperson or appearing on some other news show, is a one-trick pony. She hates Bush and never misses a chance to condemn him. This time, she took a shot at our troops with questions as to how many innocent Iraqis we (our troops) are killing, and why won't Bush bring the troops home. Bush Spokesperson, Dana Perino did not take kindly to the questions.
After listening to Thomas' standard rant, which ended with this: "You mean how many more people we kill?", Perino gave the partisan reporter a stern dressing-down, calling the question absurd and offensive for someone whose colleagues had placed in a position of honor (which tells you something about her colleagues).
I have no problem with reporters asking the White House hard questions on behalf of the public. Indeed, that is part of their job. The problem is that with today's media, there is very little objectivity. Questions from Thomas and the almost-as-obnoxious David Gregory are formed as statements masquerading as questions. They see their job as to take down the President because they despise him. Thomas seems to be buying in to the idea that our troops are targeting and murdering innocent Iraqis. As Perino pointed out, our troops are targeting and killing the enemy that is fighting them in Iraq-perfectly legitimite. I guess to Thomas, everyone we are fighting is innocent.
I would also add that Thomas' whining questions are framed in a most juvenile manner, sort of like asking Mommy why she won't buy poor Helen an ice-cream (Why, Mommie, why?- Why won't George Bush bring the troops home now-why?")
This is our Mainstream News Media in action, folks. Kudos to Dana Perino for putting Thomas in her proper place.
2 comments:
Thank you for your report on Helen Thomas. I have a few corrections and comments for you.
Helen is not a mainstream reporter anymore. For more than 50 years she reported the news without injecting opinion as a wire service reporter at UPI. The last nine Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike respected her, because she believes in watchdog, not lapdog, journalism.
As a columnist at Hearst Corporation now, she is a voice of conscious for those colleagues who are not willing to be called unpatriotic for asking very direct questions about U.S. engagement in a preemptive war. Their lives are at the very core of her questioning on the legitimacy of this war, similar to the overwhelming majority of the country who no longer support the war, only the troops.
Erica,
Thank you for your response. I don't expect Thomas or anyone one else to be a lapdog reporter for presidents. As I stated in the blog, there is nothing wrong with reporters asking hard questions to the president, whomever that might be. In my view, however, Thomas has an agenda that goes beyond objectivity.
I also think you overstate the idea that reporters are afraid to be called unpatriotic if they ask direct questions about the war. The news media is overwhelmingly liberal, anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War, which is their right. It is also their right to criticize the war, which they do. The fact is that Thomas is implying, if not outright stating that our troops are killing innocent Iraqis. That would make them war criminals. If a few incidents like that have in fact happened, it is not policy, and the military has taken pains to punish those involved.
No one is trying to silence Helen Thomas, but we also have the right to respond to what she says. I cherish the principle of a free press as much as you do. (I have lived overseas in a country that did not have a free press, so I know what it is like.) Yet, the news media itself is also subject to criticism when merited.
Post a Comment