nimh wrote:Ticomaya wrote:My bigger point is to condemn questions that are asked in an effort to elicit a particular response, or asked because of a personal agenda of the reporter. Do you see those as good as well, or should reporters be objective?
I dont think there necessarily needs to be a correlation (or the opposition you submit) - all depends on the final output it yields. Sometimes you've got to ask provocative questions to get the facts out. Your objectivity will be measured by how you then process those in what you write.
Does work differently on TV, fersure. I'm used to office holders and politicians being interviewed a lot more assertively than happens on CNN, which strikes me as tepid and obedient. But vice versa, confrontative interviewing can, on TV, be used purely to stage a show where it's all about the rhetorical slaughter of the guest, rather than about getting any new or relevant info (I've seen some transcripts from Fox... but that BBC guy, Paxman?, sometimes goes over that line as well).
Well, nimh, regarding the question of Helen's objectivity, perhaps you'd care to peruse her past columns to see her "final output," and you can do that ...
HERE. The archives don't appear to go back all that far, but you can get the picture. If there's one thing she isn't, it's objective.
After you read some of her "output," and you still think she's objective, tell me whether you think G/G is objective, and if so, why. I think
neither are objective, but based on your criteria, it appears you might think they
both are objective.
TheBostonChannel.com
Bush Could End Prisoner Abuse
Treatment Of Prisoners Shames America
Helen Thomas, Hearst White House columnist
POSTED: 10:04 am EDT June 23, 2005
UPDATED: 5:39 pm EDT June 23, 2005
Is President George W. Bush living on Mars? Is he tone deaf?
At a news conference last month, he wrote off as an "absurd allegation" the conclusion by Amnesty International that the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was the "new gulag" because of the mistreatment of prisoners there.
Bush insisted that "the United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world, and when there are accusations about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way."
"It's just an absurd allegation," he claimed.
But how does he account for the slew of reports from the Pentagon and the FBI that some prisoners were subjected to mistreatment, torture and unspeakable indignities during interrogation?
Does he read the reports? Does he care?
None of the reports pinsthe blame on higher authorities. Instead, the official line is that this mischief was done by low-ranking military guards just having their sadistic fun.
There have been suggestions that the Guantanamo prison should be shut down, as if the buildings there are the problem. It's not the buildings. It's the cruel policies that have shamed America.
As soon as the devastating abuse of the prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib came to light, Bush should have ordered a ban on torture in all prisons under U.S. military control.
He has not done so, despite the horror of it all. Nor has he reaffirmed the U.S. adherence to the Geneva Conventions on Humane Treatment of Prisoners of War.
Objective? Depends on which side of the fence one is on.
Quote:After you read some of her "output," and you still think she's objective, tell me whether you think G/G is objective, and if so, why. I think neither are objective, but based on your criteria, it appears you might think they both are objective.
Well, neither are really an
impartial, objective source, when you come down to it. But at least Thomas isn't a male whore like G/G is.
One of these days we'll figure out who he was sleeping with in the WH. My money is on McLellan...
Cycloptichorn
Well, thank you for the link Tico, and I just read this one (the one thats highlighted now):
Military Won't Be Left Behind On Campuses.
Apart from the columnish headline, I dont see anything particularly scandalous in it. It certainly seems to offer more info than a gossip column does (which is what you consider Ariana Huffington to write, if memory serves - and with whom you were just equating Thomas).
I was going to say that I'd give you one thing: that columnists are not necessarily the best people to get to ask the questions at press conferences. If you've got to select, choose news reporters, not columnists. But this column of Thomas's actually makes me think again about that.
As for Gannon, I cant remember ever reading anything he wrote, so I cant say much about the objectivity of his output. But I do know that when administrations start planting favourable journalists into the press corps to lob friendly questions whenever the critical fire gets too hot, you have a problem.
Back to the original post regarding whether or not we should have known because it was being reported:
There have been some things reported, for which we should all be informed. However, a lot of it gets buried and forgotten.
What do we know about the status of the Enron prosecution? Whereabouts of Ken Lay? Who has been held accountable for the California faked energy crisis?
What happened to the Funeralgate investigation? Bush's lying under oath? The death of a key player in the investigation that was labled a suicide and then not investigated at all?
What happened with the investigational reporting of the Anthrax killer? Was that ever satisfactorily solved and reported? Or, do we still have a bio-terrorist among us getting no attention from Bush or the media?
What about Memogate? Now that we have had summer break and Katrina, will there be any follow-up? Or, will it just drop from media attention as if it was completely played out and solved satisfactorily?
What about ...
I could go on and on. We get snippets. We get the beginning of information, then it seems to fall into a black hole. There seems to be a lack of closure in the reporting so no one is ever really sure if it was true or not.
nimh wrote:Well, thank you for the link Tico, and I just read this one (the one thats highlighted now):
Military Won't Be Left Behind On Campuses.
Apart from the columnish headline, I dont see anything particularly scandalous in it. It certainly seems to offer more info than a gossip column does (which is what you consider Ariana Huffington to write, if memory serves - and with whom you were just equating Thomas).
You really are going to have to look back at more columns to get a good picture. In the column you identify, she only mentions Bush once .... but let's look at it, shall we:
"
Until the Bush administration makes peace a higher priority than this unnecessary war, ..."
Uh, yeah .... pretty objective reporting, Ms. Thomas.
nimh wrote:I was going to say that I'd give you one thing: that columnists are not necessarily the best people to get to ask the questions at press conferences. If you've got to select, choose news reporters, not columnists. But this column of Thomas's actually makes me think again about that.
As I said, read some more. Read the one c.i. quoted where she's asking if Bush is living on mars, for instance. Read 'em all.
I'd be surprised if after doing so you remain convinced she's objective. She's as biased as they come. She and Huffington are the same.
BBB
Another reason I respect Helen Thomas is that when UPI (United Press International) was bought by the Moonie Church organization, Thomas quit working for UPI. She refused to work for a news organization whose mission was to shape the news, not just report it.
Helen Thomas had and has integrity.
BBB
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Another reason I respect Helen Thomas is that when UPI (United Press International) was bought by the Moonie Church organization, Thomas quit working for UPI. She refused to work for a news organization whose mission was to shape the news, not just report it.
... and so she quit and took a job where she could snipe at Bush with impunity.
Re: Tico
Ticomaya wrote:So what was wrong with G/G's line of questioning?
I have never heard of G/G, so I have no idea. Could you give me some of his questions that were deemed offensive?
Additional question: is this G/G identical with that journalist, who used a fake name (someone from the gay-porn scene, if I remember correctly)?
Re: Tico
Thomas wrote:Ticomaya wrote:So what was wrong with G/G's line of questioning?
I have never heard of G/G, so I have no idea. Could you give me some of his questions that were deemed offensive?
G/G = Jeff Gannon / James Guckert.
And I can only give you one question ... THE one he asked at a January 26, 2005, presidential press conference:
"
Senate Democrats have painted a very bleak picture of the US economy
.How are you going to work---you said you're going to reach out to these people---how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"
He has his own site if you want to know more.
Ticomaya wrote:In the column you identify, she only mentions Bush once .... but let's look at it, shall we:
"Until the Bush administration makes peace a higher priority than this unnecessary war, ..."
Uh, yeah .... pretty objective reporting, Ms. Thomas.
Well, in fairness it
is a column ... so she isn't, in fact, reporting, she is opining.
And for a column I thought that piece was pretty objective - it could practically have passed for straight reporting. Seen a lot worse, reproduced here.
But yeah, I wouldnt like Ann Coulter to get to ask the questions at the President's press conferences either. I'd say choosing reporters instead of columnists is fair enough.
(And I doubt whether Gannon falls in the category "reporters" by any reasonable standard either - though again, with him the problem wasnt so much what he wrote, but how he got to be given preferential treatment.)
Doesnt Thomas do any regular reporting any more, only columns?
nimh wrote:Ticomaya wrote:In the column you identify, she only mentions Bush once .... but let's look at it, shall we:
"Until the Bush administration makes peace a higher priority than this unnecessary war, ..."
Uh, yeah .... pretty objective reporting, Ms. Thomas.
Well, in fairness it
is a column ... so she isn't, in fact, reporting, she is opining.
And for a column I thought that piece was pretty objective - it could practically have passed for straight reporting. Seen a lot worse, reproduced here.
But yeah, I wouldnt like Ann Coulter to get to ask the questions at the President's press conferences either. I'd say choosing reporters instead of columnists is fair enough.
(And I doubt whether Gannon falls in the category "reporters" by any reasonable standard either - though again, with him the problem wasnt so much what he wrote, but how he got to be given preferential treatment.)
Doesnt Thomas do any regular reporting any more, only columns?
Yes, it is an opinion column, which is why I've been referring to her as an "opinion columnist," much like Arianna Huffington. She is indeed opining. That's all she does, at the moment.
Quote:Additional question: is this G/G identical with that journalist, who used a fake name (someone from the gay-porn scene, if I remember correctly)?
Not from Gay porn, but Male Prostitution; he billed himself as an ex-marine (not true) on several websites where he, um, whored himself out.
Puts him in a different class than
media whores, wouldn't you say?
Cycloptichorn
How interesting.
Those questions would be normal ones here, from a tough interviewer, although they are more emotively expressed than would be common here. (Not sure if that is a Helen thing, or a cultural thing. Americans often express themselves rather mawkishly for drier Oz tastes, especially in TV and film.)
The other side would be asked the mirror image ones, about defense of the countryetc..
More likely in long radio or televised interviews than at a press conference, but that kind of grilling, of all sides, is not uncommon.
Also, the grilling would be of the leader him/herself, or the cabinet minister etc, NOT a spokesperson.
However, as I understand it, Bush does not make himself available for proper interviews, where he will have to speak and answer for himself, except very briefly, and on the rarest occasions?
Those are tough questions, but only biased as such if they are not mirrored by toughness to the other side.
You do not think an administration planning to go to war should be asked tough questions? That ALL leaders should be asked tough questions?
That Bush hides from them is one of the troubling things about him.
I know these things are partly cultural norms, but here, if a senior politician cannot defend their views in robust and piercing interviews, without a script writer, they can't cut it.
Though, sadly, we are also drifting towards a more "presidential" style of political management and staged agitprop.
Yecchhh.
However, Australian political leaders cannot really hide. They face questioning in Parliament that makes the Thomas questions look like blancmange, thank goddess!)
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:Additional question: is this G/G identical with that journalist, who used a fake name (someone from the gay-porn scene, if I remember correctly)?
Not from Gay porn, but Male Prostitution; he billed himself as an ex-marine (not true) on several websites where he, um, whored himself out.
Puts him in a different class than
media whores, wouldn't you say?
Cycloptichorn
I think someone frankly prostituting themself (if they freely choose to do so) in the sex trade is pretty harmless to anyone except, arguably, themselves.
A journalist, politician etc "prostituting" themself does way more harm.
I find GG's behaviour at that White House thing, where I understand he acted as a stooge, (?) far more shameful than his selling his body.
dlowan wrote:You do not think an administration planning to go to war should be asked tough questions? That ALL leaders should be asked tough questions?
You must not have seen me say,
"Reporters should ask tough questions in order to elicit facts," 2 pages ago?
