There's been a lot of pussyfooting around the Helen Thomas Affair. We've been chided on Twitter for calling members of the legacy media to task for not "taking sides." That is between the individual journalist and his conscience, but there's a lot of willful misunderstanding going on. Chris Muir (above) captures the essence of our own argument with his usual laconic wit. Our point is that in giving Thomas a pass by not saying anything about her anti-Semitism, members of the legacy media may be inadvertently enabling Israel's mortal enemies' public relations war.
Update: "Inadvertently?" asks Adam in the comments to our crosspost at Riehl World View. Our reply:
Good point, Adam. Still, the specific White House Correspondent I happened to have a private online conversation with was convincingly pro-Israel as a private citizen but naively bought into the Columbia Journalism School ideal of an unbiased media. Unbiased media? Give me a break. Who'd want that, even if it were humanly possible? Just acknowledge your biases and get on with it.
Crossposted at Riehl World View and Liberty Pundits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
I think that covers it.
Posted by: Teresa | June 07, 2010 at 08:24 PM
She is a hatefilled harpy and it's long past time that she is through sqauatting in the front row of the White House press corps where she has contributed nothing to our nation's best interests.
I've posted today on another very elderly newswoman I encountered in my youth, the magnificent Dorothy Fuldheim who was a journalist of uncommon skill and integrity. She was also a woman I knew and admired (as did most in the news biz in Cleveland, Ohio) who had early on dubbed her "Big Red" and both admired and feared her inordinate skill. This may be merely legend, but the word on the street was that even Adolph Hitler was afraid of her and had her tossed out of Germany early on in his reign of terror!
Posted by: Gayle Miller | June 08, 2010 at 12:32 AM