Shot In The Dark: Words Fail

February 17, 2006

Words Fail

Hugh tries to interview Helen Thomas.

I listened, dumbfounded.

Chad did a little better.

It was like listening to a Kos komment thread.

Beyond that, what can I say?

Posted by Mitch at February 17, 2006 06:26 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Listening to the interview was like I imagine an interview with Peeb would sound.

Posted by: Geoff at February 17, 2006 07:10 AM

It was one of the funnier interviews I've heard. I loved when she asked Hugh if he was a journalist and where he worked. When he replied PBS, she asks why he switched sides. This was right after denying her own bias.

Posted by: Kermit at February 17, 2006 07:58 AM

Hugh askes her what damage was done...

She answers him twice...

He tries to get her to say she doesn't like the President or the VP.

She hangs up on the prick.

Some interview.

Posted by: Doug at February 17, 2006 08:59 AM

Everyday, all accross this grat land of ours millions of people suffer the depredations of HDS, Humor Deficiency Syndrome. You see it affecting all walks of life, from White House correspondents to low income retail clerks.
There is hope. Won't you give to the HDS Foundation? Together we can buy these people the sense of humor they deserve and sorely lack.

Posted by: Kermit at February 17, 2006 09:07 AM

kermit, please go find someone else to stalk.

Posted by: Doug at February 17, 2006 09:24 AM

"Stop looking at me!" He shouts loudly, over and over and over again.

Posted by: Kermit at February 17, 2006 09:35 AM

Some right-wing jerk mugs an old lady. Hooray!

Posted by: angryclown at February 17, 2006 01:28 PM

That interview proved Hugh Hewitt is entirely in favor of excusing his open biased selection of "news" to discuss and..

That Helen Thomas has more class and intellect in her little finger than Hugh has had if you took his entire continuum of existence and combined it - now that's a personal shot, so I'll try to explain.

Thomas - I'm a member of the human race, I don't stop feeling

HH - But you don't like him.

See, this is called making up the answer, even if she didn't, she's entitled to. Are the press expected to not have feelings. The question is, can they legitimately report even though they might have feelings. Hewitt not only believes they can't, but that they shouldn't.

We all have tasks we are obligated to do as part of our jobs, some we like, some we don't. Assuming that simply because we may not like someone we will lie about them assumes a lack of ethics which perhaps guys like Hewitt assume because they cannot grasp others in fact have those ethics.

Thomas asked him a question (well, about a hundred - most of which he ducked). The question was valid, does Hewitt like Bush. The answer then can be inferred that HE does, based on his bias is selectively screening his news to shield the public from things unflattering to Bush - he openly advocates just such conduct.

Briefly Thomas started asking him the same sort of "yellow" journalistic, attack-dog questions he was asking, but she backed off because, I suspect, she knew full well how unprofessional the sort of "journalism" Hewitt practices is. That is what offended her, and got her eventually to lose patience with his petulant questioning. Perhaps her questions should have been, so there are conservatives in the press, how many, and how many radio stations are there with conservatives, and who owns the Washington Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, who is Roger Ailes, why did Bill O'Rielley suggest that Fox was connected with the administration and they'll "get" whomever Roger doesn't like.. so would you say that there is a prominent, even dominant conservative presence in the press? Do you suggest folks like you are doing fair reporting? If you do, given your innuendo, why, after all, you're conservative.

The best question probably would have been, so then Mr. Hewitt, based on your rather juvenile understanding of the press, you are asserting that NO liberal will do a fair job with a conservative, and by reverse, no conservative will do a fair job with a liberal. Perhaps then we should simply institute identity politics - and who then, Mr. Hewitt, would you have keep an eye on the Government, since you would have us corrupt the 5th estate to simply be the lapdog of the administration, because no reporter from any other group would be fair, by your standard.

Hewitt's line of questioning was imbecilic. I've listened to him pretty often, and always come away thinking he's about as well thought through as most teenagers. Believing that people lack morality is normally because YOU do.

So whatever Thomas, who does NOT believe in doing that kind of shoddy journalism, whatever Hewitt thinks she may be doing, Hewitt we know IS doing, meaning he's doing precisely the opposite - so what is it precisely he's upset about? That the press corps is liberal, well perhaps that's true, but it assumes they lack the moral compass that seemingly he never owned, let alone was familiar with how to read.

The idea Thomas kept trying to get him to understand, and the reason for the accusation of benig a dolt, is that it is by free and open access to ALL information that a society is kept free. THAT is why she would not cherry-pick news, as he and Mitch advocate. Unless you believe they have no dedication to the moral compass they fervently believe in, which is the accusation apparently, you can grasp that reporting who, what, how, where and when is supposed to include BOTH sides of a story, and however distasteful, some folks take that responsibility seriously. The WHY portion is for columnists and editorialists to debate.

Hewitt rather shabbily attempted to portray Thomas as having an agenda to deceive/distort the news, and further that the whole corps does. She repeatedly explained the reason for quickly reporting actions of the VP is to remove any concern regarding lack of transparency. Simply because he didn't want to accept that answer, he tried to infer her interest was for ulterior motive. What we can see is that Hewitt would wilfully act on such motive, but what he utterly failed to do is prove SHE would. Clearly he can't grasp staying the course of conduct because of moral responsibility, but SHE can, and she then proceeded to expose, despite her own internal feelings, that she was 10 times the journalist on her bad day, than he's ever been. She focuses on facts, reporting of them, rather than innuendo, salacious allegation, and unprovable inference.

Mitch, if this is somehow proof to you of something, I suggest the proof you need to seek is how Hewitt can come to grasp that many people are capable of putting aside thier feelings to accomplish a task, you may not be, and you may not understand that this is true as a result (sorry for the unprovable innuendo, but after having talked to literally hundreds of conservatives who also seem to be incapable of grasping that not everyone acts principally on their own selfishness). So, despite the fact that it may seem hard to believe - because many like Hewitt seem to be incapable of comprehending that I can actually write down information and report on it, while still being human and noticing the world around me. It may be hard to believe, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Posted by: pb at February 17, 2006 01:40 PM

Doug says:

Hugh askes her what damage was done...

She answers him twice...

He tries to get her to say she doesn't like the President or the VP.

She hangs up on the prick.

Some interview.
_________________________________________________
It's the same thing the White House Press Corp does every day Doug. Heck - your local "investigative reporter" does that every day too. Watch the 5pm news sometime.....They just don't like it when their tactics are turned back on them.

Posted by: The Lady Logician at February 17, 2006 05:30 PM

But Lady, Hugh Hewitt is a conservative. In Doug's book that makes him a prick. Democrats get to badger conservatives. Case in point Divid "I am important" Gregory. But not conservatives. No siree Bob. Doug is surprisingly unnuanced for a liberal.

Posted by: Kermit at February 17, 2006 06:47 PM

What a crock.

Hewitt isn't a prick because he is a conservative. He's a prick because in that alleged interview he acted like a self-righteous, condescending, insulting, bombastic, juvenile little prick.

The fact that you think it was humorous tells me you and Hewitt are a lot alike.

Posted by: Doug at February 17, 2006 10:21 PM

What a crock.

Gregory isn't a prick because he is a liberal. He's a prick because in the White House Press Room he acted like a self-righteous, condescending, insulting, bombastic, juvenile little prick.

Thanks for proving my point, Doug. By the way, was your sense of humor surgically removed or was it a chemical procedure? Just curious.

Posted by: Kermit at February 18, 2006 09:35 AM

The difference is that Helen Thomas actually answered Hewitts questions. When he didn't get what he expected, he pushed the personal "you hate Bush" crap.

Gregory keeps asking the same questions of Simple Scotty because Scotty never answers the questions posed to him - he spews talking points and evades.

And by the way, what we seldom get to see is the other reporters in that room laughing at Mclellens ridiculously canned responses. If you believe you're getting the truth and a complete answer from the administration through Mclellen, you have pretty low expectations.

Hewitt asked Thomas what damage was done and her answer was that the credibility of the office of the Presidency was damaged.

Her statement is perfectly open to debate and any journalist with a shred of integrity and credibility could have challenged her assertion and argued their position.

Instead, Hewitt chose to assert that nothing Thomas has to say has any merit because she is a liberal and then he exhaustedly attempted to bait Thomas into saying she hated Bush.

I've listened to a lot of Hewitt - I think for an over inflated gas bag, he's a smart guy and I happen to agree with quite a few things I've heard him say.

But this was just pathetic. Hewitt can do better that this.

Show me example of Gregory pulling the same cheep stunt that Hewitt pulled?

We had four plus years of a gutless White House Press corp tip-toeing around this administration like a bunch of frightened little poodles and now that a couple of them have finally started to pressure the administration for some real information, you and your buddies cry foul.

...and Kermit, when and if you actually say anything witty or funny, I'll respond. You have yet to say anything worthy of a chuckle. I know you think you're a laugh riot but dude, you're the William Hung of the Blogosphere comedy circuit.

Posted by: Doug at February 18, 2006 06:29 PM

The William Hung of the Blogosphere comedy circuit.
Doug made a joke! Look out clown, he's going to supplant you.
What you so willingly overlook, Doug is what Hewitt was trying to do, which was to get this angry old woman to admit her bias and stop lieing about it. Which she refused to do. To you that made him a prick, unlike all those other totally objective reporters poor Scotty has to deal with. Doug, it's his job to deflect these hyenas. the job sucks and has a high turnover. Rather like retail.
But you probably ignored the most important exchange of the interview. Helen Thomas, the woman who said she would commit suicide if Cheney were elected president and then claimed to be an impartial, objective journalist:

HT: Tell me about your career. What have you really done?

HH: Well, it's not nearly as impressive as you.

HT: Where did...yes, it's...it's very important to me. Where did you work?

HH: PBS for ten years.

HT: PBS?

HH: Yes.

HT: Well, that's a good credential.

HH: There you have it. See? I'm...

HT: But then you decided to switch over?

HH: To switch over to what?

HT: God knows what you are.

From her own lips.

Posted by: Kermit at February 18, 2006 08:05 PM

And you're point would be?

HT: But then you decided to switch over?

HH: To switch over to what?

HT: God knows what you are.

So he used to be a journalist and he switched over to something else?

Wow... Thast's some damning evidence you got there kermit...

Posted by: Doug at February 18, 2006 08:25 PM

And further kermit, Here's the most important part of the whole interview...

HH: But I'm getting back to the point that you and your colleagues in the press room, you really don't like Dick Cheney or George Bush at all, do you?

Do you get it Kermit? It's not just Helen... It's ALL of her collegues as well now... And it's a theme that is getting a lot of time in right wing wacko world.

Hewitt is now putting all of the reporters in the White House in the same category - They all hate Cheney and Bush... So of course, nothing they say has any validity to it because they all just hate the poor president and his poor vice president... Awwwww... isn't that sad... No one likes the Pwezident...

I thought you guys were above crazy conspiracy theories yet here you are pushing one about the whole Press Corp out to get the White House...

I guess since you lost Jeffy Lube with his tongue shoved up McLellans a** you must feel all alone and scared...

Posted by: Doug at February 18, 2006 08:46 PM

No Doug, I'm afraid you'e the one who doesn't get it. But you don't really want to. I'd ask who Jeffy Lube is, but what's the point?

Posted by: Kermit at February 18, 2006 09:19 PM

Kermit said,

"I'm afraid you'e the one who doesn't get it."

Followed by...

"I'd ask who Jeffy Lube is, but what's the point?"

You have no idea how funny THAT is do you kermit...?

THe press Corp is FINALLY doing their job and that's driving you guys crazy. And when they try to get to the truth by asking probing question, a method any first year journalist knows, you cry and stomp you feet and scream that those mean old liberals in the press corp don't like the President.

This entire "interview" was an attempt to paint the entire press corp as illegitimate by baiting Thomas into saying she didn't like the president.

They get to close...? Smear the source. You guys ave been doing this successfully for years.

That way, you don't have to deal with the facts in any any given situation. All you have to do is repeat to youselves, "consider the source, it's the liberal press corp who hates the President..."

It no different than your sides continuous screed that the mainstream media is liberal - doesn't matter that they may in fact be reporting accurately, they're still liberals.

Here's your talking point provided by Hugh himself...

"it just seems to me, that this White House press corps doesn't like this president or vice president more than most."

Here it is again from Radio Blogger...

"Have you ever seen a White House press corps that hates an administration so much as these guys?"

"They (the press corp) are very narcissistic, self-referential, interested only in themselves and their jobs and what they do, and I think most people recognize that."

Let the swiftboating begin... Target? Anyone who has the balls to get to the truth.

Posted by: Doug at February 19, 2006 09:02 AM

Understanding the New Medicare Drug Bill Subject: Bush Explains Medicare Drug Bill Submitted on 2005-12-13 16:35:14

WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: 'I don't really understand. How is it the new plan going to fix the problem?'

Verbatim response: PRESIDENT BUSH:

"Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."

Now, if you din't understand that, don't blame the President, blame the liberal press corp who hates the President.

Posted by: Doug at February 19, 2006 09:09 AM

"I'd ask who Jeffy Lube is, but what's the point?"

You have no idea how funny THAT is do you kermit...?

Neither does anyone else, Doug.

"THe press Corp is FINALLY doing their job and that's driving you guys crazy."

I personally am LMAO at this pack of buffoons.

Posted by: Kermit at February 19, 2006 12:21 PM

kermit, do you make it a habit of speaking for anyone else?

And yes, it is very funny. Still, I have no doubt you don't get it.

Posted by: Doug at February 19, 2006 07:51 PM

Kermit,

Jeffy Lube is a none-too-kind name for the male prostitute plant that the White House (Rove) had planted into the White House press corps. Now of course the fact that the guy was a plant has been denied, but he got credentials very easily when many others (including Thomas, MoDo) had a lot of beuaocratic crap thrown at them.

He asked puff-ball questions of Fliesher and McClellan until he was exposed as a gay prostitute.

See, we happen to think that kind of BS done to delegitimize the press corps smacks of rife condescension toward the idea of a free and open administration and society. Plant puff-ballers, not caring what their qualifications are, because you simply don't believe in having to answer for unpopular or inconvenient facts.

THAT has nothing to do with bias from either side, it has to do with insisting on controlling the message - a tactic of totalitarianism.

Kermit, I sometimes agree with your comments, but Doug has factually ripped you to pieces here, with one well-reasoned argument after another.

That you don't know who Jeff McClure is speaks volumes about your knowledge of the intimidation and vulgar tricks of this administration toward the White House press corps or anyone else who has the temerity to question them.

A counter, on the bias question, did you see Britt Humes interview of Cheney. God, I thought he was going to hand the man a handkerchief and pat him on the back. Where were the tough questions, sir, why did you wait to tell the public for 12 hours AFTER Mr. Wittington was in the hospital? It's been asserted you waited because you wanted to look after your friend, but don't you have a lot of assistants with you nearly anywhere you go, couldn't one of them taken a few moments to provide the public the story? Why did you feel the need to coordinate this with the White House, you say you didn't have time to contact the public, yet you made several calls to contact the White House, specifically Mr. Rove, isn't that contradictory regarding your time availability? Finally, there have been comments, even from the victim regarding the trouble you and your family faced, isn't that making YOU out to be the victim? Does that seem a little unseemly?

THOSE are tough questions, I'm not shocked Fox labrador Hume couldn't find one of them in his perfectly coifed hair, but claiming liberal bias in the press these days is about as accurate as saying Houssien hid the WMD in Syria. Paraphrasing Admiral Jelico said at Juttland, "We seem to be having a bit of a problem with our (battlecruisers) intelligence." It might be time to question the spoon-fed facts. This press corps, the moderates, the liberals AND the conservatives (including folks like George Will and Will Safire) are long past believing anything that comes out of the mouths of the administration, perhaps you should take a hint.

Posted by: pb at February 20, 2006 09:33 AM

Posted by: alain delon at March 20, 2006 12:38 AM

Hey dude! My site about penis http://penis-device.s34.info/pills/

Posted by: penis enlarge pills at May 14, 2006 02:26 PM

Web Cams http://www.live-chat-web-cams.info Web Cams !

Posted by: Web Cams at June 29, 2006 01:28 AM