Helen Thomas: The Real Lesson Learned Part One

“Journalistic giant,” “trailblazer,” “a bona fide icon,”- These are just a few of the phrases members of the evening news teams have used to describe the recently retired Helen Thomas.  And, yes, this is what was said after her now infamous go- home- Jews rant.  It seems as though most of the media views the incident not as a shocking revelation of ethnic hatred (as they did when a drunk Mel Gibson made much milder comments), but as an unfortunate case of an elderly woman who has lost her “verbal filter.”  They don’t find the notion that Jews ought to return to the places where they were put in ovens outrageous.  They just think it was in poor taste to say it in front of a camera.  They feel so gosh-darn bad that some people will hold this against her.  Some people just don’t understand.

The rush to protect Helen Thomas and downplay her remarks has laid plain two truths about the landscape of modern media.  First, the idea of an expectation of objective journalism is a lie.  Helen Thomas has had a long history of being anything but objective.  The length and legacy of her career is evidence that the mainstream media hasn’t even attempted to report without bias in decades. Second, anti-Semitism is now the norm among liberals and the intellectual elite (In no way do I intend for the term intellectual to be construed as a statement of mental prowess.  By intellectual I mean only that they produce nothing, answer to no one, and seem to exist for the sole purpose of mulling things over.  This would include the average professor, UN employee, community organizer, and so on.).  The only reason that even a modest attempt to hide these views is still made is the left’s fear that the “unenlightened” population might find such ideas offensive.

In this series, I will attempt to expose what I believe to be the truth about the modern press.  In Part One, I will show that not only are most journalists heavily biased, they don’t even desire to pursue the truth.  In Part Two, I will demonstrate the left’s growing loving affair with anti-Semitism.  And Finally, I will explain my belief that this all plays into an overall desire to actively push public opinion towards liberalism as opposed to impartially observing and reporting on public affairs.

Part One: The Phony Expectation of Objective Journalism

“This is the worst President ever. He, George W. Bush, is the worst President in all of American history.” – Helen Thomas 2003

Now substitute the name Barack Obama for George W. Bush and ask yourself if a reporter who said that would be permitted to remain on the job as a White House correspondent.  Not as a political commentator mind you, but as an “impartial” reporter of the facts.  Not only would that individual likely be out of a job, but we would be told that it was necessary to forget every story they had ever covered.  Surely, such a person could not be trusted to faithfully pursue the truth.  We certainly couldn’t count on them to stay away from “gotcha” questions and biased talking points.  No, that sort of talk must never come from a true journalist.  …. Unless, that journalist is a member of the liberal elite.

For years we have heard members of the mainstream media calling for “fair” news coverage.  The President himself has said that Fox News, talk radio, and the internet are threats to the freedom of the American people.  Many on the left have called for a revival of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.  They have been clamoring for “net neutrality” so that they can better “manage misinformation” on the web.  They claim to be concerned about the people’s access to unbiased information, but when one of the most outspoken liberals in journalism served as the filter of information from the White House for decades did anyone make a peep?  Any one? Of course not, all one has to do is look at the life of Helen Thomas to know that the fight over “fairness” in the media is nothing more than a desire for total control of the media, and a need to make everyone see things their way.

“The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I’ll kill myself. All we need is another liar… I think he’d like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does.” - Helen Thomas  2005

Apart from Helen Thomas, which journalist are considered by their peers to be the most reliable?  Which names do we consistently hear lifted up as the bearers of objective truth?  Is it the Jake Tappers and Chris Wallaces of the world, who have a track record of being tough on both parties?  Not in my experience. Let’s take a look at some of the most trusted names in news.

• Tom Brokaw – During the Reagan years, Tom Brokaw was known for repeatedly predicting that the President’s tax cuts would certainly lead to economic disaster.  In fact, he “knew of no one” who thought it was going to work. He described Gorbachev as a “courageous, far-seeing prophet” who was “still fun to be around.” In an interview with the former Soviet dictator, Tom had this to say, “We know that you’ve devoted your life to peace and to changing your country and those of us who have gotten to know you count ourselves among the privileged.”  This was the man trusted to provide impartial coverage of the Cold War!  When it came to the Clinton- Lewinsky scandal, Brokaw wasn’t concerned with discovering if the President had committed perjury.  Instead he asked in regards to Kenneth Starr, “Is he out of bounds or just tone-deaf?”  Where was his thirst for the truth?  When Republican Senator Bob Packwood was accused of harassment by members of his staff, Tom said that the lawmaker had “sexually terrorized” women.  However, he complained to Tim Russert that, when it came to Bill Clinton, the press was too fascinated with “ancillary” issues like Paula Jones! And I don’t feel that it is necessary to rehash his feelings towards George W. Bush. I will admit, however, there is one area where Tom Brokaw demonstrated his devotion towards “neutrality.”  In 2002, when the country was still gripped with post-9/11 patriotism, he said that “I don’t think journalists ought to be wearing flags.”  Way to take a stand Tom!

” A liberal bias? I don’t know what a liberal bias is.  Do you mean we care about the poor, the sick, and the maimed?  Do we care whether or not people are being shot everyday in the streets of America?  If that’s a liberal than so be it.  I think it’s everything that’s good in life.” – Helen Thomas 1993

• Barbara Walters- While Babs has indeed mastered the 20/20 -impartial tone of voice, anyone who has suffered through 30 seconds of The View can clearly see her bias.  For one thing, as producer of the show, she has made sure that the person representing the conservative “view” is (a) outnumbered 4 to 1, (b) weak in debate skills, and (c) not all that conservative anyways.  As a co-host, she selectively leaves out huge portions of information on a given topic to make the liberal point of view appear to be the only valid one.  She gushes over liberal guests (not to mention world-class nut job Rosie O’Donnell before that relationship soured) and smiles and nods in agreement with every ridiculous statement they make.  However, she is remarkably rude to any guest who is even remotely to the right of center (just check out youtube video of interviews with John McCain, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck). Finally, do we remember her hard-hitting interview with the Obama’s?  The hardest question being “What’s your biggest fear?”.  Even worse, we had to listen to her promote the piece by describing Barack and Michelle as a “devoted,” “funny,” “relaxed,” “so smart,” “very cute,” “youthful embodiment of style, substance, and hope.”  Now that’s objectivity!
• Dan Rather – There is no need to retell all of Dan Rather’s career in biased journalism because it is all summed up by one story.  Memogate. In 2004, Rather claimed to have come across documents which painted George W. Bush’s time in National Guard negatively.  The memos claimed that Dubya was lazy and had been coddled by senior officers.  So what was wrong with this story?  Well, for one thing, the “witnesses” Rather claims to have been in contact with never materialized.  Even more shocking, the memos were typed in a font that didn’t exist on military (or any other known brand) typewriters in 1972.  They also featured a proportional spacing layout that was not seen until the age of personal computers.  With all of the facts pointing towards forgery, one would think that an objective journalist would retract such a story.  Not Dan Rather!  First, he claimed to have found another document that used the same font and spacing from 1971.  He quickly flashed the page in front of the cameras.  However, upon closer inspection, this second document did not even remotely resemble the script of the forgeries.  Finally, he admitted to running the story a bit prematurely, but still stood by the tale.  He said that it could never be definitively proved that they were fakes and even if they were, it didn’t matter.  He was more concerned with the overall questions raised by the story, not with any actual evidence.

“This lecture series is about the human spirit. To me and millions of others, President Clinton has always personified that.  He is the man from Hope, and that is what he has given us, hope.” – Helen Thomas 2001

• Charlie Gibson- Many of us  think of Charlie Gibson and immediately picture his interview with Sarah Palin.  The way he looked down his nose at her. The condescension in his voice.  His inane question about the “Bush Doctrine.”  The doctrine which (a.) doesn’t exist and is only a slang term and (b.) has as many as four definitions.  But it didn’t matter to Charlie, he wanted to make sure the audience thought Sarah Palin was as stupid as he did.  While this may be the most memorable example of his bias, it certainly isn’t the first.  During the Iraq war, he said it was “embarrassing” for the United States to try Saddam Hussein, because he believed we were responsible for his reign of terror.  When President Bush landed in the Middle East one evening to visit the troops, Gibson spoke of the “symbolism” of Bush “sneaking in, in darkness” and how it showed the failure of the Iraq war.  He called Jimmy Carter “the greatest ex-President of modern times” and called his Nobel Prize “long overdue.” In 2002, he even indulged in Rosie O’Donnell-style lunacy when he claimed that George Bush “knew” about 9/11 before the attack.  He followed that statement by asking if during the famous moment where a staff member whispered the news in the President’s ear as he was reading to schoolchildren, “Was the President really surprised?”  During an interview with George W. Bush, Gibson asked him why he didn’t “feel the need” to consult with former President Bill Clinton before making decisions.  And finally, if you had ever wondered why Charlie dealt so gently with Clinton during his time in office, you need only to read Gibson’s thoughts on the man. “I remember the great thing on Saturday Night Live, where the gentleman who does President Clinton says ‘You’re going to miss me.’ And indeed people miss him, he’s still a fascinating man.”

The Rest

So who are the other “trusted names?”  Katie Couric? Matt Lauer?  Anderson Cooper? Contessa Brewer? Tavis Smiley? Is there a single “respected” journalist that is truly worth our respect?  It seems to me, that the only media personalities who take their jobs seriously are the ones most often mocked by the intellectual elites.  Which is exactly why the recent remarks by Helen Thomas reveal more about what passes for journalism than most people realize.  This was not some crazy old lady who forgot her manners.  This is a woman who the rest of the media claims to admire.  A woman who has been propped up as an example for all other reporters.  They love her and they can’t understand why we don’t feel the same way.  Members of the press and now the White House too, like to tell us that we must shun “alternative” news sources.  We have to stay clear of Fox News, the internet, and talk radio.  They say we can only get the unbiased truth from “trusted” “impartial” journalists.  Decades of Helen Thomas worship has shown that this is a lie.  Not only is the media far from objective, they have never sought objectivity.  They don’t seek the truth, or your respect.  At the end of the day they are only concerned with one thing… A hardy pat on the back from people who already agree with them.

“I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, and I will be a liberal ’till the day I die.” – Helen Thomas 2006

Next- Part Two: Anti-Semitism and the Left