Have we forgotten that the President of the United States is a servant of the People and Helen Thomas is one of the People? The People are more important than the office of the President no matter who holds that position. If Bush can’t handle “a cantankerous old broad” with tough questions (and her own partisan commentary), then I am embarrassed for him and for us.
Politicians and public officials have side-stepped tough questions for as long as I have been around (twelve Presidents) – or at least as long as I can remember. I hate it when they do that but I guess I’ve gotten accustomed to it. But a scripted press conference is a rock in my shoe that I won’t get used to.
Bush’s main purpose in the press conference seemed to me to be to further associate the words “terrorists” and “Saddam.” *Meanwhile he has not mentioned bin Laden in a public speech since June 2002. * Doesn’t that seem a little strange?
I would like a return to the days when the reporters vied for the attention of the Chief Executive with shouts of “Mr. President! Mr. President!” I don’t want reporters who sit meekly waiting to be called on so that they can ask “respectful” questions about the President’s relationship with God.
I want the questions to be tough – regardless of the political affiliation of the reporter or the President. I want to see our President handle awkward questions about official business with grace and intelligence.
The questions asked by the reporters aren’t going to be giving away Top Secret information. And a worthy President would not be worried about spilling the beans. His statements to the citizens of this country have to be micro-managed! That is creepy!
When you think back about this press conference, do you see a public servant standing before the reporters and television cameras? I don’t. He doesn’t appear to think that he is accountable to his employers.
Someone suggested that we underestimate Bush. Frankly, I don’t think that we can.
Yeah, and Gallagher is one of the people too. What are the chances that the White House will allow him to bring his sledge-o-matic to the next press conference? Maybe Carrot-top should be allowed to attend, and he can ask questions using a microphone made from a banana.
She has business sitting there because the White House has allowed her to sit there, even after becoming a columnist.
Which brings me back to my main point: If you are going to accord such privilege to someone you know is antagonistic (as any reporter should be) and publicly critical of your policies (as any left-leaning columnist should be), then be prepared to face the consequences.
If Helen had all of a sudden started publicly expressing her opinions the night before the press conference, I wouldn’t have blamed the White House for what they did. Instead, they went along with things for a year but pulled the plug when there was a chance people would actually watch.
Greenteeth, people think it’s a big deal because they feel this one incident is pretty symbolic of White House treatment of the press, and it’s easier to talk about this one incident over a much broader, abstract issue (though, Dopers being Dopers, that debate has been taken up and handled well on both sides).
As for me, it’s just a personal matter for me: I’m a political reporter and I’ve had the chance to talk to Helen a few times. She’s someone I really look up to.
SNenc - I understand your point about the timing of the Thomas snub; it does seem odd that it would come now rather than when she changed from reporter to columnist.
That’s why I am surprised no one has linked this piece:
slate
It seems that the grand dame has been in a bit of a one-trick pony for a few weeks. That, combined with her very recent “worst in history” comment, seems like plenty of reason for a snub.
At the same time, the linked Shafer piece confirms that the Bush/Fleischer team has left itself open for plenty of criticism over its relationship with the White House press corps. I am surprised that it has not generated more published ill will.
Nope, didn’t happen. Even though Nixon tried this, the IRS has not bowed to this kind of pressure. It’s illegal. If it had happened, “Judge” Star would have had something better than a blow job to investigate.
Got a cite?
Besides- outside of Nixon (and maybe our current Prez) Clinton had one of the most hostile Press in recent times.
I hate to continue this hijack, but since it does have some relevancy to the OP, I’ll go ahead.
Yes, Clinton “lied”. At a deposition in a civil suit. In his defense, the question & the definition of “sex act” he was given were oddly phrased, and open for interpretation. But still- his statement did cross over into at least a “omission of truth” if not an out and out lie. Not enough for any criminal action, but enough for “contempt”.
He did not lie to the Grand Jury. Show me where he told the Grand Jury he did not have sex with Monica. He admitted it. Ken Starr did claim Clinton lied to the Grand Jury- since Clinton would not admit to the GJ that he perjured himself in the civil deposition. That is a whole different kettle of fish. (If you are questioned about a criminal act- you can say “No, I didn’t do it”, and even if you did, there is no crime of perjury. Now, if you start making up alibis, that’s another issue.)
“Relevant”. Not entirely. If the “omission of truth” was truly “relevant” then he could have been prosecuted for Perjury- he wasn’t. In the case at hand, the only dudes that could rule on whether or not Bill’s “lie” was “relevant” would be a criminal jury at his perjury hearing. He did have a “hearing”- in front of Congress, where; although he was “Impeached” (indited) he wasn’t removed from Office (Convicted). Thus, he is- under the American system- “not guilty” of Perjury.
SNenc, if you’re a reporter, you should be able to tell the difference between a “tough” question and a “loaded” question. If you’re honestly unable, I’ll illustrate the difference.
Tough question:
“Mr. President, reports indicate that many innocent Iraqis may be inadvertantly killed if we invade Iraq. Can you tell us what you feel would be an acceptable level of collateral damage?”
Loaded question:
“Why do you want to kill innocent Iraqis?”
Tough question:
“How do you respond to charges that this war is simply a matter of revenge for the attempted assassination of your father?”
Loaded question:
“How many babies have you killed this morning, you warmongering prick, huh? Answer me! How much is Big Oil paying you to wage this illegal war? You’re the devil! You’re the devil!”
See? A tough question brings enlightenment. A loaded question has no right answer, and is simply designed to make the recipient look bad. If all Helen Thomas wanted to do is make Bush look bad, then why in the hell should she be afforded the special privilage (not the right) of asking the first question? She’s a partisan hack and an uncouth old bat, and deserves exactly the level of respect she affords others: in this case, nil.
Jeff
ElJeffe, Your “tough” question examples are exactly the way Helen thomas phrases her questions. She does not ask questions in the “loaded” tone that you demonstrated.
First of all, if the White House press secretary responds to tough questions with little but obfuscation and avoidance, as he does on a regular basis, then i think it’s incumbent on reporters to get a bit more aggressive and confrontational in an attempt to get information. You claim that “A tough question brings enlightenment,” but that only happens when the recipient of the question is willing to answer it forthrightly and honestly.
Second, your own examples show that the border between a tough question and a loaded one is a rather blurry and often subjective one.
For example, in your first “tough” question you finish by asking: “Can you tell us what you feel would be an acceptable level of collateral damage?”
Well, to me the term “collateral damage,” when used as a euphemism for “civilian casualties,” is no less offensive and “loaded” than the questions that you criticize Helen Thomas for. Why not use the most accurate and descriptive words, rather than a self-serving neologism, unless your intention is to “load” the question in favour of the recipient?
The arguments became silly when you compared someone who has been part of the White House press corps for decades to the likes of Gallagher and Carrot-top. My argument was not that Helen Thomas was entitled to be there because she is one of the People (along with Gallagher and Carrot-top). My comments came in response to the claim that the President is more important than the People.
And that has exactly what to do with Helen Thomas?
Look, it’s quite obvious that sitting in on a white house press conference is a privileged position. Otherwise, there would be thousands of reporters there. There is a White House press pool, and its members are there with the approval of the White House.
They are under no obligation to allow someone to use their position as an excuse to expound on their own personal beliefs.
There are no first amendment issues here, and I saw no evidence that Bush was only picking people who would throw softballs for him. He was asked plenty of hard questions.
I think this whole argument is an example of how blind partisanship effects people. None of you would be outraged if Clinton had kicked an obnoxious Conservative out of the room.
And by the way, she wasn’t barred from the proceedings. She just wasn’t given the ultra-privileged position of being in the front row and getting to ask the opening question. If you think this is unreasonable, fine. I think your judgement is severely skewed.
WHY is that creepy? Do you think any reporter should be able to just sit in whenever they want?
Would you like it if a bunch of hack reporters wasted all our time by asking stupid or irrelevant questions?
Should a reporter for the Enquirer be able to attend and ask the president what he thinks about the scary space monkeys that live at the center of the earth?
Collateral damage is a term of art. The hypothetical question gave many innocent Iraqis may be inadvertantly killed as an example of collateral damage.
Obviously, the reporter and the President would know what information is desired by the question. You believe reporters should go further and craft the question so outside observers can make judgements about the reporter’s beliefs.
The lefties’ arguments on this thread seem to boil down to this:
Bush is violating the First Amendment because he isn’t giving an old, former journalist air time to spout off.
If Thomas wants to vent her opinions, put them in a column and see if anybody wants to read it. I for one don’t care for a press conference where I find out what the reporters think. I would like to know what the President thinks. Questions designed to discover this, even to see what he thinks about contrary positions, seem to be dismissed as softballs by those who simply want the press to attack.
The Washington press corp seems to take it as a personal insult if the President contemplates any course of action of which they disapprove.
The press gives opportunity to anti-war activists to make their case without asking loaded questions or attacking them. Why shouldn’t the President get the same chance?
I take your point about the “term of art,” but i still think that using the term “collateral damage” is no more or less a display of the reporter’s beliefs than my proposed alteration. If it makes you happier, i offer another alternative:
ElJeffe’s original said:
What would be wrong, for example, with: “Mr. President, reports indicate that many innocent Iraqis may be inadvertantly killed if we invade Iraq. Can you tell us how many such casualties would be acceptable?”
Anyway, the key point that i was trying to make was that what ElJeffe seems to see as a rather clear distinction, i see as somewhat more blurred and subjective. The line between “tough” and “loaded” is easily crossed, and we don’t all agree on when it happens.
And Shodan, as one of the “lefties” in this thread, i have never made a single mention of the First Amendment, nor even of free speech in general. I have simply stated my position about the role of journalists, and what i see as the self-serving spin and media manipulation carried out by the White House. I concede that these are my opinions, but they are based on my close attention to the sources and a genuine attempt at analysis, mixed in with my leftist political predispositions. Neither my arguments, nor those of many other lefties on this thread, boil down to: “Bush is violating the First Amendment because he isn’t giving an old, former journalist air time to spout off.”