[davesimondotcom]

She is no more a journalist than Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh. And I seriously doubt that Rush could get press creditials to sit and ask questions of our next Democratic Administration.

I'm watching the Tony Snow press conference today and, because she's the senior member of the press corps, Helen Thomas gets to ask a question in every news conference.

And as she has in every news conference that I have watched in the last few years, she asks leading questions with misleading information, supported by straw men arguments that she sets in place and then continues to poke away at the spokesperson as if her (misguided) facts are the truth.

If anyone has any question about her bias, they aren't paying attention. Tony Snow even jokingly told her today, "Thanks for the Hezbollah point of view." This is a member of the press who has openly expressed a negative opinion of the Administration and reports with that slant without hiding it.

(It should be said here that I understand that EVERYONE has a bias, and it's actually kind of nice knowing where they stand and putting their articles in context.)

Today alone, she accused the US of "vetoing" a cease fire (there has been no such resolution.) She also expressed the view that the US has enough pull with Israel that we could tell them to stop and they would. (Neither of her assertions were true.)

She's loony. It's like having a member of DailyKos being the senior member of the press corps. Facts be damned, she just keeps pounding away.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

And as she has in every news conference that I have watched in the last few years, she asks leading questions with misleading information, supported by straw men arguments that she sets in place and then continues to poke away at the spokesperson as if her (misguided) facts are the truth.

Sounds like this forum.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sounds like this forum.

Yeah, except Helen is 86 years old and forgets that she set up the straw men. She just thinks that's how it really is.

[Sky Captain]

Answer:
Out of pity.

[PacHead]

She's an old evil woman. Her time on this earth will soon end.

[Gossamer]

*Thinks back to the Colbert video*

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

*Thinks back to the Colbert video*

That part was astoundingly boring.

[Gossamer]

It did drag on. It was funny when he fumbled with his keys for like 2 minutes and then used the keyless entry...but you're right, the joke lasted too long.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

It was funny when he fumbled with his keys for like 2 minutes and then used the keyless entry...

Exactly. It was the only good part and IT lasted too long.

[greenamp]

They let her carry on b/c she makes the left look bad.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Today alone, she accused the US of "vetoing" a cease fire (there has been no such resolution.) She also expressed the view that the US has enough pull with Israel that we could tell them to stop and they would. (Neither of her assertions were true.)

No?

(Edit) I just saw a transcript of the interchange. Tony Snow was absolutely wrong and Helen Thomas was absolutely right about the UN Resolution and the US veto of it. Does that change your opinion at all, dave?

The media, especially the washington press corps, absolutely sucks. But they suck not because they challenge the government too much, but because they challenge them too little.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

No?

A one-sided resolution that calls on Israel to "halt its attacks in Gaza" (quoting the linked article) does not a cease fire make.

A cease fire requires BOTH sides in a conflict ceasing attacks.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

A one-sided resolution that calls on Israel to "halt its attacks in Gaza" (quoting the linked article) does not a cease fire make.

A cease fire requires BOTH sides in a conflict ceasing attacks.

You're wrong. Yes the US did veto the resolution and yes it demanded ALL SIDES to adhere to a ceasefire. Bolton dismissed it saying, among other things,  that Hezbollah would not agree to it.

[Cody Dawg]

"Thank you for the Hezbollah point of view."







Thanks for that!

As far as Helen Thomas goes, I honestly think that they just feel sorry for her.

For the love of Pete, she's a 90-year old "reporter!"

[kvm_mkdb]

ah yeah, any point of view which differs from yours is the POV of the enemy. right.

[Kerrigan]

Either they are the enemy, or they are duplicitous White pigs, right?

[kvm_mkdb]

I wonder what disturbs you more: that the pig is white or that justice is brown?

And your obsession with an elderly reporter that is doing her job - asking questions that other do not dare to - just shows what your values really are.

[Kerrigan]

No, I'm just disturbed by the rise in blatantly factious and racist imagery on behalf of the left.

And I haven't said anything about Helen Thomas, how can I be obsessed with her? You are making generalizations.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by kvm_mkdb

And your obsession with an elderly reporter that is doing her job - asking questions that other do not dare to - just shows what your values really are.

I read the transcript and saw the video. She does appear to actually ask any questions. She makes statements and then interrupts when the Press Secretary tries to respond.

[typoon]

It's the same reason AL Gore is considered an "expert" on the environment. Or that some desk jockey in some university who has never been in a Military uniform can be considered a "military expert." Since they "THINK" they know something about it and are in some high up place in society newscasters seem to think these people are "experts" when they know nothing about what they are talking about.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by BRussell

No?

(Edit) I just saw a transcript of the interchange. Tony Snow was absolutely wrong and Helen Thomas was absolutely right about the UN Resolution and the US veto of it. Does that change your opinion at all, dave?

The media, especially the washington press corps, absolutely sucks. But they suck not because they challenge the government too much, but because they challenge them too little.

Now that was surely a smackdown wasn't it?

Dave, dave, where are you?

Oh, at the floor, ah comeon, get up again, this is not the WWF-smackdown, just a virtual MacNN-smackdown.

Taliesin

[besson3c]

My spidey sense says that if Helen Thomas said stuff that agreed with the right wing point of view, she'd be a saint to the right.

My spidey sense kicks ass too.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

My spidey sense says that if Helen Thomas said stuff that agreed with the right wing point of view, she'd be a saint to the right.

My spidey sense kicks ass too.

Just like if Rush said stuff that agreed with the left, they would vote him in for president.

What's your point?

[Cody Dawg]

It's the same reason AL Gore is considered an "expert" on the environment. Or that some desk jockey in some university who has never been in a Military uniform can be considered a "military expert." Since they "THINK" they know something about it and are in some high up place in society newscasters seem to think these people are "experts" when they know nothing about what they are talking about.

Post of the Day™.





Yes, you're absolutely correct. It's what makes Sean Penn a "journalist" that writes for the San Francisco Chronicle, or Susan Sarandon and Barbra Streisand "political experts" in this country. It's why Cindy Sheehan feels qualified to espouse on how things should be done in the Middle East.



The list could go on and on...

Anyone care to add their "picks" of supposed experts?

[Kevin]

This forum is full of em

[Cody Dawg]

[Cody Dawg]

I'm reminded of the Dixie Chicks too...

They're careers are in the toilet...

[typoon]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I'm reminded of the Dixie Chicks too...

They're careers are in the toilet...

Not according the the numbers from their new album.

[Millennium]

Analysis is a valid form of journalism, just as reporting is. Both have their place. The problem comes when people confuse one for the other, which sadly happens all too often these days.

[Cody Dawg]

Typoon:

No country music stations will play their songs in this country.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Typoon:

No country music stations will play their songs in this country.

Last time I heard they were attempting to go the "Rock" route.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Typoon:

No country music stations will play their songs in this country.

So? Despite that hardship -namely, alienating their core market- they've decided that rather than scream over nonexistent censorship, they'd find a new core market. If the numbers are any indication, they seem to have done this quite well. Rather than cry about the consequences of actions they believed to be worthwhile, they owned up to those consequences and worked hard in spite of them, and it has brought them success.

That's something I have a lot of respect for. It's what I believe people in a truly healthy society would do more often.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Analysis is a valid form of journalism, just as reporting is. Both have their place. The problem comes when people confuse one for the other, which sadly happens all too often these days.

I hope you don't really consider Helen's rants a form of analysis.

[Dakar]

This goddamn country is too politicized and partisan. Geezus.

[Gossamer]

Agreed.

[Cody Dawg]

No, what I disrespect the Dixie Chicks for was their waffling back and forth.

First of all, they denounced Bush and our troops - some of whom are in harm's way without a choice in the matter - when they needed our support. They seemed to speak for the country which I resented.

Secondly, when there was a backlash against them they recanted what they had to say.

Now that there is more of a resistance to the war we're in they're back to their denouncements on behalf of our entire country.

They're losers.

[saddino]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

They're careers are in the toilet...

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

No country music stations will play their songs in this country.

Right. And this apparent complete lack of radio play is why their latest album has been on Billboard's Top Country Albums for 8 weeks in a row (hold the #2 spot, peaked at #1).

FYI: "Data for Billboard's sales charts -- which include all of our album charts -- are compiled by Nielsen SoundScan from a universe of merchants that represents more than 90% of the U.S. music retail market."

Cody Dawg, country music market research analyst extraordinaire.

[BlueSky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks

Despite minimal airplay, Taking the Long Way debuted at number one on both the U.S. pop albums chart and the U.S. country albums chart, selling 526,000 copies in the first week (the year's second-best such total for any country act) and making it a gold record within its first week. The Chicks became the first female group in chart history to have three albums debut at #1.[8]

Yeah, Dixie Chicks...what a buncha losers.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I hope you don't really consider Helen's rants a form of analysis.

As opposed to... what, exactly? I doubt most people would consider her work to be raw reporting, so what's left? I consider O'Reilly and Limbaugh to be analysts in the same way, much like Franken, Moore, and their colleagues on the other side of the political aisle.

[Millennium]

My previous post is not meant to imply that I consider the people I named to be good journalists. O'Reilly and Moore, for example, are dishonest about what they do: they present their analysis as unbiased reporting, using terms like "fair and balanced" or "documentary." They do this deliberately, to try and manipulate people into thinking that theirs is the "normal," "natural," or "neutral" way of thinking. Most people want nothing more than to be normal, and so presenting your views as normal is a frighteningly effective marketing technique.

Limbaugh, by contrast, is certainly a pretentious blowhard, but at least he's honest about the kind of work he does: he doesn't pretend that any of it is factual, unbiased reporting. I'm no fan, but I do consider him slightly more legitimate than the O'Reillys and Moores of the journalism world for that reason.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Millennium

As opposed to... what, exactly? I doubt most people would consider her work to be raw reporting, so what's left? I consider O'Reilly and Limbaugh to be analysts in the same way, much like Franken, Moore, and their colleagues on the other side of the political aisle.

I disagree with the one assertion you are making. That is that people don't consider Helen Thomas a reporter.

I seriously doubt that the average viewer knows much about her except that she's a member of the White House press corps. And that she gets to ask questions, etc.

To most people, that is a reporter/journalist.

Now, we super-informed intelligent folk must know differently. She's a columnist, not a reporter, right?

But I seriously doubt that O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Fraken or Moore would ever be seriously accepted as a member of the press corps. Do you?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Millennium

My previous post is not meant to imply that I consider the people I named to be good journalists. O'Reilly and Moore, for example, are dishonest about what they do: they present their analysis as unbiased reporting, using terms like "fair and balanced" or "documentary." They do this deliberately, to try and manipulate people into thinking that theirs is the "normal," "natural," or "neutral" way of thinking. Most people want nothing more than to be normal, and so presenting your views as normal is a frighteningly effective marketing technique.

Limbaugh, by contrast, is certainly a pretentious blowhard, but at least he's honest about the kind of work he does: he doesn't pretend that any of it is factual, unbiased reporting. I'm no fan, but I do consider him slightly more legitimate than the O'Reillys and Moores of the journalism world for that reason.

to this post.

Although I find O'Reilly a tad more palatable than Moore, who is more of a combination of the "blowhardiness" of Rush with the hidden bias of O'Reilly.

[Gossamer]

Can't forget about Coulter.

[BRussell]

Of course Helen Thomas is a reporter. She asks confrontational questions during press briefings, as opposed to most of the White House press corps who are simply stenographers for whatever the government tells them to write. But that's completely different from being a talk show host.

It's clear that the press corps are a bunch of hacks who are more concerned with spouting conventional wisdom (e.g., that Bush is a popular president, that Iraq has WMDs), than actually challenging our government. Unless of course it involves politicians having sex. That really gets their investigative juices flowing.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Of course Helen Thomas is a reporter. She asks confrontational questions during press briefings, as opposed to most of the White House press corps who are simply stenographers for whatever the government tells them to write. But that's completely different from being a talk show host.

Have you watched a press briefing lately? I really don't think any of the press corps just spits back what the governement feeds them.

Nearly every one I see ask a question is trying to make a name for his/herself by being "confrontational."

And really, that is good. That's what the press should be there for. But Helen takes it too far, IMHO. Here's why:

* Most of the time, her facts are skewed and/or wrong.
* She doesn't ask questions, she makes statements. Asking a question means waiting for an answer. She just interrupts until the next person is called upon.

Originally Posted by BRussell

It's clear that the press corps are a bunch of hacks who are more concerned with spouting conventional wisdom (e.g., that Bush is a popular president, that Iraq has WMDs), than actually challenging our government. Unless of course it involves politicians having sex. That really gets their investigative juices flowing.

Do you REALLY think that the conventional wisdom is that Bush is popular?

You (in a round about way) bring up the Clinton/Lewinski thing. Do you not realize that very story was buried for a long time before Drudge broke it? Time had it, could have reported it, didn't.

Now, surely, we have to question the press as much as we question any other part of society. So why did they not break the story? Because it was not newsworthy? Because they liked Clinton and didn't want to hurt him?

There is a big difference between questioning/challenging the government as a watchdog, breaking a story that needs to be broken (Watergate) and what many reporters do now. Woodward and Bernstein didn't know where their story would lead. They just followed it.

Many reporters nowadays have a conclusion they want drawn and frame their info so it fits their worldview. That's what Helen Thomas does with her questions. She cherry picks facts, massages them, makes them up, whatever she has to do in order to express her point of view.

[BRussell]

davesimon,

I haven't followed Helen Thomas's shenanigans very closely, but I'll agree that she's a bit of a loudmouth. I do think this government we have now needs some serious scrutiny though, and since the congress isn't doing it, I'm not sure who else there is.

I did not know that the Lewinsky investigation was kept hush by the media, but I think it's hard to argue that Clinton had it easy. I think Bush has had it much easier than Clinton, perhaps due to 9/11.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Dakar

This goddamn country is too politicized and partisan. Geezus.

Word.

What happened to people disagreeing but not taking things on a personal level?

I mean, my dad served in the legislature for years and years and worked with Republicans and Democrats on things. His only goal was what was best for the people who elected him and for the state of Montana.

After some intense political debates, he'd go fishing with some of those most politically opposed to him. He still does. Some of them are his best friends.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

davesimon,

I haven't followed Helen Thomas's shenanigans very closely, but I'll agree that she's a bit of a loudmouth. I do think this government we have now needs some serious scrutiny though, and since the congress isn't doing it, I'm not sure who else there is.

I did not know that the Lewinsky investigation was kept hush by the media, but I think it's hard to argue that Clinton had it easy. I think Bush has had it much easier than Clinton, perhaps due to 9/11.

I would venture to guess that no President ever has it easy. Just take a look at Clinton on the campaign trail in 1992 and how he looked in 2001. I'd veture to say he aged more than 9 years worth in that time.

That can be said of most Presidents, I would think. Not a job I'd want, personally.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Word.

What happened to people disagreeing but not taking things on a personal level?

I mean, my dad served in the legislature for years and years and worked with Republicans and Democrats on things. His only goal was what was best for the people who elected him and for the state of Montana.

After some intense political debates, he'd go fishing with some of those most politically opposed to him. He still does. Some of them are his best friends.

I think people are much more judgemental now. They begin to define you by whatever flaw you might have -- for instance a certain stance on a certain political issue. I suppose in a way, I'm saying people are less tolerant than they used to be, but that's purely speculative.

[Cody Dawg]

Good post, Dakar.

The reason people are much more judgemental is because politics are always in our faces via media (print, television, news radio).

Everyone is informed and/or an armchair politician.