I was for the war in Afghanistan, against the war in Iraq, support both the efforts now until we finish the job, but saying we were invited or that we would simple pull out if asked nicely is absurd.A response:
My objection has less to do with politics and more to do with the shortage in civility addressed a few days ago. I certainly don't favor allowing only Republicans into press briefings--though it would save space. Nonetheless, citizens have a duty of courtesy toward the rest of us, including government officials. I think lefties call that "tolerance": plainly, Thomas has none. And asking purely rhetorical questions after which no answer is expected isn't "reporting": but that's precisely what Thomas does.
In some ways the bloggosphere is an experiment testing whether political exchange and debate are better accomplished by blogs or briefings. So a question for Dingo and other leftists: Imagine you were press spokesman, supported the war, and then were harangued by Helen Thomas. Would you be more inclined to answer, or more inclined to conclude the questioner was a d*ck-h**d? How would liberals react were a conservative reporter [sic] ranting to some future Democrat Press Secretary [sic] about, say, proof homosexuality is genetic:
This week you said we were close to capturing the gay gene. Yet the Administration hasn't. Doesn't letting it slip through your fingers mean your credibility already is mired? What's the Administration's excuse for letting Scandinavia take the lead in gay marriage? Doesn't it prove the President sent our Uniformed Science Corps into action despite the criminal shortage of "gaydar?" Can't you admit Science Corps recruiting has collapsed because the President can't protect our boys from homosexual propositions?Remember, Helen hammered Scott McClellan before a live audience of people part of Mr. McClellan's official duties, and recorded on videotape. Thomas was playing to the house, not to (imaginary) readers.
And what about the millions of Arabs whose faith insists homosexuality is a crime punishable by death?1 Isn't the President commencing a crusade against faith in disregard of the private right to stone infidels?2
Further, since courts tie U.S. and international law, shouldn't the Supreme Court undertake a country survey and reverse Lawrence if the majority of UN thugocracies prefer stoning to wedding? And, let me remind you once more: me, me, me, me, me!
Dingo constantly denies media bias. Yet Dingo didn't recognize that Thomas' entire approach demonstrates press bias. Which means that Dingo's bias-meter is seriously. . . uh . . . biased. I submit that rejecting bias here is proof positive the media and leftists (such as Dingo) unfairly discriminate against Republicans and conservatives. Proof as well that Thomas, like most liberals, is anything but tolerant.
If Dingo agrees Thomas' questions were biased, how would he respond were he -- I shudder to suggest -- Press Secretary? My answer: I wouldn't call on her again and would say so publicly. Reporters have the right to report, not to rebuke rudely. But surely that would generate a lefty firestorm contending to have proved Bush=Hitler or that the First Amendment compells government funding for nude performance artists defecating on a cross in a city museum.
In sum, I'm amazed that Dingo's defending non-questions; not intended to elicit genuine news; crafted as a speech not inquiry or debate; instead opting for harangue and querulous lecture. The First Amendment doesn't give the press or people the Constitutional right to be rude.
Helen Thomas' politics are her own affair. Just don't call her a lady or a reporter--she's a heckler hiding behind a press pass.
_________________
1 Or claimed a sovereign right, or duty, of clitoridectomy.
2 As established by the Supreme Court in its 2009 decison Margaret Marshall v. Alliance for Construing Language as Unyielding.
1 comment:
First, I have said over and over (you can go back and check) that I do not deny that there is bias in the media. It is there on both sides (and please don't pretend that FOX is fair and balanced). What I have said in the past, and stand by, is that it is not as big as you think, nor is it as agenda driven as you may think. And, I often take issue with how you try to prove media bias. *BTW, you never responded to the Bill O'Reilly e-mail I sent you. Why is oxycontin akin to heroin when sold on the streets on NY, but just a small Rx beef when Rush Limbaugh buys it on the black market?
As for Helen... She has been attacking press secretaries on both sides of the partisan divide for years. And, yes, I think McClellan's statements deserved a little smack down. It was an absurd statement. If someone you work with says something stupid, do you just always smile and let it go?
Post a Comment