The Helen Thomas Affair

A lot of myths are being repeated as people and pundits dissect the Helen Thomas Affair.

Myth 1.  She asked the hard questions other reporters were too timid to ask.

“Thomas was — and remains — a bulldog. She doggedly questioned President Bush about war and torture at a time when the rest of the press rolled over.“
– Laura Flanders writing on Alternet

There’s a big difference between asking tough questions and getting answers to tough questions.  Anyone can ASK tough questions.   But figuring out how to hold government officials accountable, by posing questions in such a way that they can’t avoid answering them, is a much harder, and far more valuable journalistic exercise than just venting from a padded front seat in the White House briefing room.  Helen Thomas’ questions were not designed to probe weaknesses in the President’s policies.  They were just meant to provoke him.  Helen might as well have just stood up and yelled, “I don’t agree with you, I think you are wrong about everything,” And it would have gone just as far to advance the cause of truth.  Here’s the bottom line.  We don’t know now, and didn’t know then, any more about the shortcomings of the Bush administration war plans Iraq because of Helen Thomas’s allegedly “tough” questions.  They made her look feisty, and her sympathizers feel good, but it was all sizzle and no steak.

The fact is many, far better reporters asked many tougher questions than Helen Thomas, and some excellent reporting was done before, during, and after the war. But that doesn’t fit with the popular narrative that the “press rolled over,” to my mind a facile, and largely specious charge.  If you want to see someone who asked smart tough questions, take a look at the archives of NBC’s Meet the Press when Tim Russert was the host.   That’s how it’s done.

Myth 2.   She admitted she was wrong, and apologized.

“Ms. Thomas offered a sincere and meaningful apology. We should accept it and continue to appreciate all she has meant to journalism, women and America,“
– Michael Freedman,  former managing editor for United Press International, writing in the Washington Post.

Thomas’ apology was a typical Washington “non-apology” apology.

She said: “I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians.“
Translation: “I’m sorry I was so indiscreet as to blurt out what I honestly believe, and that it got me in trouble.”

She said: “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.“
Translation: “I also have good wishes about peace, respect, and tolerance.  And I’d like to put that out there, too.”

In his letter to The Washington Post Editor (quoted above) one of Thomas’s former bosses at UPI, Michael Freedman, compared Thomas’s apology to that of baseball umpire Jim Joyce’s, who botched a big call last weekend.  But Jim Joyce’s mistake was an honest one that was result of his best effort to get it right.  He made no excuses for it, and apologized without hesitation.  In contrast Helen Thomas committed the traditional Washington version of a gaffe, namely accidentally saying what she really thinks. She did not take back anything she said, nor admit she was mistaken.  Here’s what Helen Thomas didn’t say:  “My comments were hateful and untrue.  I don’t really believe that Jews should go home to Poland and Germany. I was wrong. Forgive me.”

Myth 3.  She simply spoke a politically incorrect truth.

Consider these typical reader comments from a recent Washington Post blog:

“Ms. Thomas spoke from heart and considering the oppressed nation who was given refuge by making residents of Palestine living for centuries REFUGEEES. 
It is a political and journalistic career suicide to speak the truth when it comes to the state sponsored TERRORISM, APARTHIED, CONCENTRATION CAMPS, OPPRESSION and RUTHLESSNESS committed by the European immigrant Israelites.
 Ms. Thomas has SPOKEN for many who are scared to tell the TRUTH.“
Posted by: iftakhar | June 7, 2010 4:59 PM |

“Helen Thomas was forced to retire after making anti-Zionist comments in an interview not anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic. Helen never even uttered the word “Jew” in that interview. …European Jews had no right to move to Palestine and displace the Palestinian people who had been there for many generations.“
Posted by: krpomer | June 7, 2010 4:59 PM

But it wasn’t Thomas taking a partisan position on the dispute between Israel and Palestinians over land rights that was her undoing.  (As an aside, it’s interesting how often when her quote is mentioned the word “Hell” is left out.  It softens the sentiment considerably to say, “Israel should get out of Palestine,” as opposed to “the Hell out of Palestine.”) Rather it was the suggestion that Jews should go “home” to Poland and Germany that revealed Thomas’ true ignorance and insensitivity.  It would be akin to saying African Americans should go home to Africa, except granted, Jews were not brought to Israel against their will as slaves.

4.  She has always exemplified the highest standards of journalism.

Actually, no she didn’t.

As veteran CBS radio reporter Mark Knoller put it to Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz, “As a columnist she felt totally unbound from any of the normal policies of objectivity that every other reporter in the room felt compelled to abide by, and sometimes her questions were embarrassing to other reporters… She asked questions no hard-news reporter would ask, that carried an agenda and reflected her point of view, and there were some reporters who felt that was inappropriate.”

How ironic is this quote from Helen from an interview from Vice Magazine given before the controversy, as reporter in the Washington Post Reliable Sources gossip column: “Everyone with a cell phone thinks they’re a photographer. Everyone with a laptop thinks they’re a journalist. But they have no training and they have no idea of what we keep to in terms of standards.”

5.  Helen Thomas is the rare exception.

Which brings me to the dirty little secret of this sordid affair.  There are other Helen Thomases out there.  Big name reporters, with big time reputations who you would not want to cover YOU, if YOU were to ever fall under the scrutiny of the press.  Arrogant, agenda-driven, self-aggrandizing charlatans who survive by gaming the system, and prosper because of an overabundance of professional courtesy.   It’s just rude to point out the shoddiness of other reporters’ reporting, especially because if you attack your competition, they will likely counterattack, and it could get messy for everyone.

National Review Online columnist Jonah Goldberg told Kurtz that Helen Thomas “always said crazy stuff,” but said the reason she got a pass is that “there’s an entrenched system of deference to seniority in the White House press corps.”

In an opinion piece in the Washington Post Jo-Ann Armao, also picked up on this theme.  Admitting she was “someone who has benefited from the trails blazed by Helen Thomas,” she nevertheless wrote, “I still find myself seething over the incident, and much of my anger comes from being part of a profession that was too willing to give a break to someone who — no matter how storied a career — dishonors our work.”

Armao put her finger right on the double standard practiced by journalists and news organizations, “The news media, with rare exceptions, are loath to subject their own to the scrutiny we routinely apply to others.”

Armao said she “cringed” at what she considered Helen Thomas’s increasingly inappropriate behavior at White House briefings. “It is one thing to ask a hard-hitting question to elicit real information and an entirely separate matter to grandstand for attention. Thomas long ago crossed a line and she finally ended up paying the price. It’s a sad end to her life’s work, but even sadder is how the rest of the media were willing to go along for the ride.”

So that I don’t leave the wrong impression, let me say there are still many truly dedicated reporters digging for truth in Washington, reporters whom I admire greatly and who I have never seen compromise their values.  Reporters who, not only ask the hard questions, but ask the questions other reporters don’t know enough to ask.  David Martin of CBS comes to mind.   So does Thom Shanker of the New York Times, and Robert Burns of the AP, just to name three.    I’m leaving out many of my close friends, most of whom wouldn’t be my friends if I didn’t respect their work.   So don’t be offended.  I promise to say nice things at your memorial service whether you deserve it or not.  To do otherwise would be plain rude.

Tags: Helen Thomas, Journalism