Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Rightwing hatemonger Helen Thomas of the AP accuses Obama administration of media manipulation that even Nixon wouldn't attempt

The difficulty is that, as the Dems are finding out, the MSM really does like to pick away at whatever side is in power--which is, after all, their f**king job.

Thus Helen Thomas, the matriarch of the Washington press corps:

Following a testy exchange during today’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.

“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

The transcript of the exchange is worth reading, or you can go here and watch it.

The serious question now beginning to be asked by honest observers is whether the Obama administration actually discerns any difference between campaigning and governing.

Nixon didn't.

But you wouldn't expect somebody who'd run a post entitled Nixon would have aborted Obama to get the irony, would you?


Anonymous said...

“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said.

Well, yes, that is the way you've been acting the last 20 years.

And tell me, what is the difference between telling a blogger that they may be asked a question and the "tradition" of always calling on AP first or making sure that Helen Thomas always gets her front row seat?

She is another example of the prima donna White House press corps who will do anything and attack anybody to try to preserve their self-glorification and sense of entitlement from the dirty smelly bloggers.

Another example: John Hartigan, chief executive for Murdoch's News Limited complaining that bloggers aren't sent to jail.

When are you going to stop defending the state-enabling media whores known as the Washington pundits?


Steve Newton said...

The difference A1 is this:

Parties in power attack the media for giving them shit because they believe, deep in their hearts, that the media should be behind their agenda.

You choose to criticize the MSM and to ignore the fact that the Obama administration--which campaigned on unprecedented openness and transparency--is staging exactly the kind of staged media events that its predecessor did.

And just like the Bush administration, they think it is funny that they continue to get away with it.

I get to say that because I have been just as consistent about attacking the previous administration as I have been about criticizing this one.

Bloggers, by the way, are still only a substitute for the MSM in their most outrageous wet dreams.

Anonymous said...


I am not ignoring it at all. Mega-media corporations have become way too cozy with elected officials in the last 30 years. Had the media really and truly done its job as watchdogs instead of cheerleaders, we would not have gone into Iraq.

I don't trust either the Washington press corps or the White House to not try to manipulate each other for their own agendas. But you seem to lose any capability of critical analysis whenever some establishment press lapdog whines about any change at all in their feeding order.

Eventually the gate will be torn down, but I expect both the Washington politicians and the Washington press corps will try futilely to shape it to preserve their own power and control


Steve Newton said...

March 2006, Helen Thomas being called on for the first time in three years by Dubya after publicly calling him one of the worst presidents in history:

"I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet...your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth...what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?"

Lapdog stuff. Absolutely.

You can be as cynical as you want about the MSM, but what you cannot do is allow any administration to use that cynicism to make the situation worse.

Dubya did that. Obama is doing that. Missing that point is dangerous.

Anonymous said...

Your example proves my point.

Why was it take 4 years after the war was started and a presidential election cycle for somebody to ask that question? Why does the Washington Press corps tolerate being treated as puppets, recent protestations aside?

If I had any confidence that the motivations of the press corps were to actually establish some independence, then I might be hopeful about some of this screeching. But I see no signs that they haven't taken their teeth off the bedside table and put them back in. They're only worried about losing their seats at the White House barbecue.

As far as I can see, if the Washington corporate media and the White House Press corps, in particular, are starting to bitch, moan, and whine because a blogger asked a question, then that is a good thing. Maybe they'll quite worrying about their cocktail weenies or dancing with Karl Rove and start to do their jobs, like asking hard questions, investigating, and following up.


Anonymous said...

Read that and then tell me that the relationship of the Washington Press Corps with the Washington Politicians isn't rotten to the core.


Anonymous said...

Link didn't post properly: