Tag Archives: helen-thomas

Bozell Column: Helen’s Hate-Filled Exit

The last two presidents have been elected on the very dubious campaign promise of “changing the tone” of Washington. Either could have proven his sincerity by shredding the press credentials of the White House press corps Dean of Mean, Helen Thomas. Her tone was nasty, and her “questions” usually meant more as insults than as requests for information. Still, presidents and journalists alike bowed and scraped before her, as if she were the Queen of All Media. Her reign ended with an implosion. A rabbi and two high-school kids in yarmulkes exposed Thomas as not merely anti-Israel, but anti-Semitic. Asked her opinion about the Jews at a Jewish heritage event at the White House, this daughter of Lebanese immigrants said they should “get the hell out of Palestine,” and when asked where they should go, she snapped “home” to Germany and Poland, where so many were massacred in the Holocaust. Thomas apologized quickly, then retired from her Hearst column after these remarks. Whether it was voluntary or mandatory is unclear. What is clear, however, is that some in the press returned immediately to kissing her ring. “Few White House correspondents ever achieved her high profile and respectability,” raved Jeremy Peters in the New York Times. “From her coveted seat in the front row of the White House briefing room to her ability to cow even the most hardened White House press secretary, Ms. Thomas was a legend in Washington.” The Helen Thomas “legend” devolved over the last decade after she left UPI, from annoying liberal Reagan-bashing scold to fire-breathing ogre. She bluntly admitted she was a hater in 2002: “I censored myself for 50 years….Now I wake up and ask myself, ‘Who do I hate today?’” Is that the sound of rarified respectability, New York Times? She clearly hated anyone who would wage a war on Islamic radicalism. Thomas sneered at press secretary Ari Fleischer in December of 2001 about President Bush: “I’m taking note of his wide-swinging threats in speeches recently. What makes him think that he has the right to go into a sovereign country and bomb the people?” Before the Iraq war in 2003, she demanded to know “Why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?” In her questions, the Americans were always psychotic killers of innocent civilians. Those who awarded her respect often did so because she was one of the first women in the press corps. But honoring this accomplishment came with a hefty price: ignoring the blatant bias of her questions and rudeness of her conduct. Media liberals offered her more than respect. They clearly enjoyed her ranting outbursts from the hard left. When she mocked Bush and American military action, this hater spoke for them, saying the ugly things they wanted said. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank is a good example. He disparaged her hateful Palestine remarks, but then hailed Thomas for offering “a ferocity to her questioning that has eluded too many in subsequent generations. At a time when others were getting cozy with sources, her crabby, unrelenting hostility was refreshing.” Journalists cherish ferocity and unrelenting hostility – when it comes from journalists. Milbank still fondly recalled how Thomas yelled at President Obama just two weeks ago. “When are you going to get out of Afghanistan?…Why are we continuing to kill and die there? What is the real excuse? And don’t give us this Bushism, ‘If we don’t go there, they’ll all come here.’ ” Milbank did not note the irony from his own newspaper on June 7, with the front-page story about the two aspiring jihadis who were nabbed by the feds in New Jersey as they attempted to travel to Somalia to join the terrorist group al-Shabab. One had said to an undercover cop he would be “doing killing here, if I can’t do it over there.” Helen Thomas thought her opponents were relentlessly dogmatic, but her unjust-war-on-terror narrative never acknowledged some jihadis want to kill us. In fact, they’ve already killed over 3,000 of us. The coverage of her retirement was sickening. ABC, CBS, and NBC all marked her retirement in a very narrow way. There was the offensive clip, and CBS and NBC allowed Obama flack Robert Gibbs to distance the White House from those remarks. But beyond that, the only soundbites came from sympathetic media colleagues, wishing her well. ABC reporter Dan Harris even suggested Thomas should get a break for her Jew-hating, because she’s approaching senility: “After all, many of us have elderly relatives who have lost their verbal filter.” So we should feel sorry for this hater? Helen Thomas is leaving the White House with all the hate she’s been bringing to the grounds for decades. Despite their ill-advised adoration, the White House press corps has been improved by her retirement.

Visit link:
Bozell Column: Helen’s Hate-Filled Exit

Veteran White House Reporter Helen Thomas Retires After Israel Remarks

Veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas has retired amid a firestorm of criticism over comments she made on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Widely known as “the dean of the White House press corps,” Thomas is the most senior White House correspondent and has covered every president since John F. Kennedy. In a brief video interview with the website RabbiLive.com, Thomas said her message to Israelis is to “get the hell out of Palestine.” Thomas also suggested Israeli Jews should return to Poland, Germany or the United States. Thomas later issued a statement saying, “I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.” We speak to former Senator James Abourezk, the first Arab American in the Senate. [includes rush transcript] http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/8/veteran_white_house_reporter_helen_thomas added by: treewolf39

Christiane Amanpour: Too Brunette, Persian For TV? [Bias]

There is some controversy over Christiane Amanpour taking over ABC’s This Week. Longtime Washington Post critic Tom Shales , for example, is upset that she hates Israel and has bad hair. Now, normally, there’s nothing wrong with Tom Shales . He’s become a kind of boring TV critic, and being merely “kind of boring” instead of “actively terrible” at the Washington Post is actually doing pretty well for yourself. His SNL book was great and I am looking forward to his ESPN book. But it is increasingly apparent that he brokers no dissent in television figures when it comes to the subject of Israel, and he also has a really nasty tendency to suspect non-Jews with family ties to the Middle East of bias. Like, did you know that Helen Thomas is criticizes Israel because her parents were Syrian immigrants (like three hundred years ago)? And Amanpour—certainly sounds French, but she’s actually half-Persian. This is over the line, really. Amanpour is anti-Israel because 60 people joined a Facebook group and she’s from (pre-Islamic Revolution) Iran? Ugh. And then Tom made some sexist cracks in his livechat today. During his Washington Post chat today about his column, Shales called Amanpour “one of the most over-rated and hyped personalities of our day” and then added: “neither you nor I has stooped to mentioning that hair of hers — yipe. What’s the deal with that, as David Letterman might say.” He also wondered whether ABC will “try to turn Amanpour into Little ms Politics.” I… I don’t know what is up with her hair. It seems pretty normal to me? Besides, you know, not being blonde. To say “ooh that hair” is mildly chauvinistic, but it’s also just the sort of thing people say about people on TV, male or female. (No one ever thought Sam Donaldson’s hair disqualified him from being taken seriously, but they did indeed make a lot of fun of it.) But yes, “Little Ms. Politics” is pretty gross. (It also sounds like a title that a lady Fox correspondent would happily accept.) And Glenn Greenwald makes the obvious point that no one serious (like, newspaper critic-level, not nutty blogger-level) ever really talks about the Jewishness of Wolf Blitzer or David Gregory and wonders whether or not that affects their objectivity. (Nor does anyone mention that former AIPAC employee Blitzer is also a complete moron. Seriously, there are not thoughts in his head. He just emits sounds. He is a professional sound-maker.) I, for one, think Amanpour-to- This Week might be a dumb idea and a shame because we’re taking one of our very few television celebrities who does anything to educate television-watching Americans about foreign affairs and sentencing her to a career of eliciting canned responses from the same idiot elected officials. Seems like a waste of her experience and expertise. But she’s earned a rest from real journalism and CNN is an identity-less third-place joke, so ABC might be good for her. Still: a prominent 52-year-old half-Persian woman is being subject to attacks based on her sex and ethnicity! Color us shocked! Time to watch Megyn Kelly explain some poll she read that told her 99% of voters spontaneously weep when they even think of Obamacare .

Read this article:
Christiane Amanpour: Too Brunette, Persian For TV? [Bias]

Fox wins, Obama loses

The White House's latest foray into media criticism has exposed it to criticism, as journalists from left to right question its prudence. Seeking to marginalise Fox News, White House communications director Anita Dunn earlier this month dismissed the network as “opinion journalism masquerading as news” and announced a boycott of its Sunday talkshow with veteran newsman Chris Wallace. White House officials David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel tossed a few more lit matches on the fire last weekend.

Originally posted here:
Fox wins, Obama loses