Beaten Like a Bongo Drum Part II: Helen Thomas Can't Handle The Heat
Round two for the media started with Hugh's second hour as he had Helen Thomas on his show. Helen believes that the White House and Cheney handled the press very badly. She wanted a full announcement to the press. She wanted the release to come out Saturday night. She believes that the damage done by the delayed announcement lay within the suspicions that abounded from the release of the news.
She believes that there was a secret to be maintained ... from a secretive administration. Hugh doesn't think that 18 hours was such a deal. She still wanted the announcement. For crying out loud, can the man make sure his friend is OK? This interview started with her wacky ideas that the administration is so secretive. Of course, we moved onto his supposed leak of a classified CIA operative (who wasn't clandestine at the time), the promotion of torture, etc.
Hugh asked her the pointed question of disliking the president and vice president. She denies that, then launched into a diatribe about why she hates the administration. Hugh touched on the press corps' behavior over the last three days, and she positively denied that their behavior was wrong, or out of the ordinary. When asked if she believed the administration lied about the information used to go into Iraq. She launched into counter-questions of "where are the weapons of mass destruction?" and "where are the connections to al Qaeda?"
I won't slap her around as bad as I have others over both questions. My posts stand as they are: unrefuted.
He pushed her on the bias the media has. She denies it. She cites that the MSM sticks by the story and the facts. That's a laugh; bloggers have destroyed both illusions that the MSM has. Helen started grilling him over his "credentials." She was clearly not happy with his questions--questions that, I'm sorry, demanded answers. The answers are important to determine whether or not someone has an inherent bias. She's not answering them. She's evading them. And she seems affronted at questions like "who did you vote for?", "do you own a gun?", and "do you support abortion rights?"
Some people might look at that and ask why such things are important. This is a typical response from people unable to comprehend how a freelance journalist deals with an issue. Hugh is a talk show host. Aside from her credentials, he has only what she has written in the past for a basis on her mindset. Questions like these tell more about a person like Helen Thomas than "what's you favorite color?" and "do you own a dog?" Even Ted Kennedy has a dog, but it doesn't really tell you much about him, huh?
Questions like this give us an insight to how a person thinks, thereby lending us a look at where their ideology lies. With the MSM, we know that a majority of the MSM are registered Democrats, have supported liberal candidates in the past, and even still defend a couple. However, this lends to the overall view of bias the public has. Especially when they see how those same people act when dealing with a conservative president, like Bush, in comparison to a liberal president, like Clinton. The bias is clear, but denied by the MSM.
A psuedo-argument ensued over the statement that hugh made about the bias of the White House press corps. It's an abvious bias, but she refused to answer the questions. She refused to be forthcoming whatsoever, and then grand-standed on her own "50 year" record. Appreciate that Helen, but it's not that impressive, and based on her talking points, it's obvious that she is as biased as the rest of them. She cited the 100,000 dead (debunked), the lack of WMDs (again, debunked), and the lack of al Qaeda ties in Iraq (and again, debunked). Helen, that's strike three and your out.
Need we go back to her wacky statement reported on Drudge months ago about how she'd kill herself if Dick Cheney were ever elected president. This is disgusting. Not her statements, but the bias. She despises Republicans. She dislikes the president and the vice president, and it shows in her writing. Now, the bitter, old political hack from DC can express her opinion; she's not a copy writer anymnore. She's a pundit. And she has been nasty to the administration in her columns. Of course, there is no "bias" she seesin her writing. She might want to come out of those gilded towers, away from the four-star DC restaurants, and have a sit down with regular people more often.
That might be dangerous. The old moonbat might have a heart attack at how many "uninformed" and "uncaring" people are in the world. Whatever. She stated point blank that Iraq wasn't better off now than it was four years ago, prior to our invasion. She doesn't think Saddam would have kept killing his people. She doesn't buy any of the WMD evidence that has already come out of Iraq. She disavows the al-Qaeda connection going back to 1996. She's unhinged, folks.
After the interview was over, Hugh assured listeners that it took a lot for him to maintain composure. That was clear. Had he cut loose, she would have hung up sooner than she did. And yes, she did hang up on him. I'm sure after she did, her only thoughts reflected concerns about someone that doesn't consider a journalist. If that's the case, I wonder what she has to say about the 27.7 million citizen journalists on the Internet? Are we all as "uninformed" as she thought Hugh was? This is a woman who refused to prove to the audience that she had no bias. She refused to talk about whom she had voted for, but then basically challenged Hugh to tell her that her writing was slanted. Hugh didn't bite at the bait, and reinforced his argument. Basically, if you're not going to just answer the question, the listener is left to their assumptions, and those assumptions are more than founded that her writing is slanted by the bias she refuses to admit.
This is the problem with the MSM. Hugh has had field days with these nutters. He's handled Michael Hiltzik, Jonathan Chait, Jonathan Alter, Lawrence O'Donnell, Helen Thomas, Joel Stein, Eugene Robinson, and the list goes on. He's not doing it to sharpen up his skills in debate; he doesn't need to do that. No, he does it to infomr the public that these people are nutters, most incompetant, and are slanted to the Left. They are. They may not asdmit that, but Bernie Goldberg explained that masterfully.
If all your ever around are liberals, you'll never see the bias, and therefore you'll never admit it.
Yep. Neither Lawerence O'Donnell or Helen Thomas will ever admit their bias. They see themselves as honest, hard-working, unbiased journalists. Their viewers and readers see them as bitter, seething, vitriolic, partisan hacks.
And yes, our assumption is well-founded.
Publius II
Round two for the media started with Hugh's second hour as he had Helen Thomas on his show. Helen believes that the White House and Cheney handled the press very badly. She wanted a full announcement to the press. She wanted the release to come out Saturday night. She believes that the damage done by the delayed announcement lay within the suspicions that abounded from the release of the news.
She believes that there was a secret to be maintained ... from a secretive administration. Hugh doesn't think that 18 hours was such a deal. She still wanted the announcement. For crying out loud, can the man make sure his friend is OK? This interview started with her wacky ideas that the administration is so secretive. Of course, we moved onto his supposed leak of a classified CIA operative (who wasn't clandestine at the time), the promotion of torture, etc.
Hugh asked her the pointed question of disliking the president and vice president. She denies that, then launched into a diatribe about why she hates the administration. Hugh touched on the press corps' behavior over the last three days, and she positively denied that their behavior was wrong, or out of the ordinary. When asked if she believed the administration lied about the information used to go into Iraq. She launched into counter-questions of "where are the weapons of mass destruction?" and "where are the connections to al Qaeda?"
I won't slap her around as bad as I have others over both questions. My posts stand as they are: unrefuted.
He pushed her on the bias the media has. She denies it. She cites that the MSM sticks by the story and the facts. That's a laugh; bloggers have destroyed both illusions that the MSM has. Helen started grilling him over his "credentials." She was clearly not happy with his questions--questions that, I'm sorry, demanded answers. The answers are important to determine whether or not someone has an inherent bias. She's not answering them. She's evading them. And she seems affronted at questions like "who did you vote for?", "do you own a gun?", and "do you support abortion rights?"
Some people might look at that and ask why such things are important. This is a typical response from people unable to comprehend how a freelance journalist deals with an issue. Hugh is a talk show host. Aside from her credentials, he has only what she has written in the past for a basis on her mindset. Questions like these tell more about a person like Helen Thomas than "what's you favorite color?" and "do you own a dog?" Even Ted Kennedy has a dog, but it doesn't really tell you much about him, huh?
Questions like this give us an insight to how a person thinks, thereby lending us a look at where their ideology lies. With the MSM, we know that a majority of the MSM are registered Democrats, have supported liberal candidates in the past, and even still defend a couple. However, this lends to the overall view of bias the public has. Especially when they see how those same people act when dealing with a conservative president, like Bush, in comparison to a liberal president, like Clinton. The bias is clear, but denied by the MSM.
A psuedo-argument ensued over the statement that hugh made about the bias of the White House press corps. It's an abvious bias, but she refused to answer the questions. She refused to be forthcoming whatsoever, and then grand-standed on her own "50 year" record. Appreciate that Helen, but it's not that impressive, and based on her talking points, it's obvious that she is as biased as the rest of them. She cited the 100,000 dead (debunked), the lack of WMDs (again, debunked), and the lack of al Qaeda ties in Iraq (and again, debunked). Helen, that's strike three and your out.
Need we go back to her wacky statement reported on Drudge months ago about how she'd kill herself if Dick Cheney were ever elected president. This is disgusting. Not her statements, but the bias. She despises Republicans. She dislikes the president and the vice president, and it shows in her writing. Now, the bitter, old political hack from DC can express her opinion; she's not a copy writer anymnore. She's a pundit. And she has been nasty to the administration in her columns. Of course, there is no "bias" she seesin her writing. She might want to come out of those gilded towers, away from the four-star DC restaurants, and have a sit down with regular people more often.
That might be dangerous. The old moonbat might have a heart attack at how many "uninformed" and "uncaring" people are in the world. Whatever. She stated point blank that Iraq wasn't better off now than it was four years ago, prior to our invasion. She doesn't think Saddam would have kept killing his people. She doesn't buy any of the WMD evidence that has already come out of Iraq. She disavows the al-Qaeda connection going back to 1996. She's unhinged, folks.
After the interview was over, Hugh assured listeners that it took a lot for him to maintain composure. That was clear. Had he cut loose, she would have hung up sooner than she did. And yes, she did hang up on him. I'm sure after she did, her only thoughts reflected concerns about someone that doesn't consider a journalist. If that's the case, I wonder what she has to say about the 27.7 million citizen journalists on the Internet? Are we all as "uninformed" as she thought Hugh was? This is a woman who refused to prove to the audience that she had no bias. She refused to talk about whom she had voted for, but then basically challenged Hugh to tell her that her writing was slanted. Hugh didn't bite at the bait, and reinforced his argument. Basically, if you're not going to just answer the question, the listener is left to their assumptions, and those assumptions are more than founded that her writing is slanted by the bias she refuses to admit.
This is the problem with the MSM. Hugh has had field days with these nutters. He's handled Michael Hiltzik, Jonathan Chait, Jonathan Alter, Lawrence O'Donnell, Helen Thomas, Joel Stein, Eugene Robinson, and the list goes on. He's not doing it to sharpen up his skills in debate; he doesn't need to do that. No, he does it to infomr the public that these people are nutters, most incompetant, and are slanted to the Left. They are. They may not asdmit that, but Bernie Goldberg explained that masterfully.
If all your ever around are liberals, you'll never see the bias, and therefore you'll never admit it.
Yep. Neither Lawerence O'Donnell or Helen Thomas will ever admit their bias. They see themselves as honest, hard-working, unbiased journalists. Their viewers and readers see them as bitter, seething, vitriolic, partisan hacks.
And yes, our assumption is well-founded.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home