The First Lady of the Press

[Guest guest]

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/19604/

 

The First Lady of the Press

By Elizabeth DiNovella, The Progressive

 

Posted on August 19, 2004,

http://www.alternet.org/story/19604/

 

Helen Thomas, known as " the first lady of the press, "

has been reporting on the Presidency for forty-four

years. As a White House correspondent for United Press

International, she began covering the Kennedy White

House. She was not assigned to the beat – she just

started showing up.

 

For decades, Thomas could be seen sitting in the front

row during Presidential press conferences, often

asking the first question. In her memoir, " Front Row

at the White House, " she writes, " When it comes to the

Presidential news conference, I have never lost my

sense of awe that I am able to quiz a President of the

United States – politely I hope, but if necessary to

hold his feet to the fire. " Elsewhere in the book, she

quotes Richard Nixon as telling her, " You always ask

tough questions, tough questions not in the sense of

being unfair, but hard to generalize the answers. "

 

Thomas has built a remarkable career as a journalist.

She rose through the ranks to become UPI White House

bureau chief. She's covered the day-to-day workings of

the White House longer than any other correspondent.

And she was the first woman to hold posts in the White

House Correspondents' Association and the National

Press Club. She left UPI in 2000 and now writes a

syndicated column twice a week for the Hearst

newspapers.

 

Thomas no longer sits in the front row during

Presidential news conferences, a privilege

traditionally reserved for wire service reporters.

When I caught up with her in Washington, D.C., in

April, I asked her if she missed asking the first

question. " No. I just want the questions to be asked, "

Thomas replied. " It doesn't matter whether I ask them.

No leader should get off the hook when they take

people to war. "

 

I also called her in late June to ask her opinion of

the Abu Ghraib scandal.

 

The White House press corps was pretty tame after

9/11, but now they are starting to challenge the

President. What happened?

 

I think they are coming out of their coma. They

finally are realizing they've been had. They finally

realized that we went into a war based on false

pretenses. And we were very much a part of that. We

were the transmission belt for all of the spin and the

alleged threats.

 

But there was the aura of 9/11. At these televised

briefings there was an atmosphere among the reporters

that you would be considered unpatriotic or

un-American if you were asking any tough questions.

Then it segued into a war where the public thought you

were jeopardizing the troops if you asked certain

questions. So I think we walked the line too much. The

press corps is finally waking up to the fact that its

job is to ask the questions that are so obvious. The

American people were asking the questions. And they

were wondering why the reporters rolled over and

played dead.

 

60 Minutes held the Abu Ghraib torture story for

nearly two weeks. Should the press hold stories upon

the request of the Pentagon?

 

They would have to have a real good reason. You don't

want to do anything to jeopardize lives. But otherwise

I wouldn't abide by the request. I think definitely it

should be done if it involves the lives of human

beings.

 

Why do Bush's press conferences sound so scripted?

 

Bush has a seating chart and he knows who he is going

to call on. He picks the people. He's been told to not

call on me because I am going to ask a very tough

question, such as, Why are we there? Why are we

killing people in their own country? How can we? On

what basis? I mean, if you want to go after

terrorists, good. But Iraq had nothing to do with it.

 

This President has not had many press conferences. Do

you think the Bush administration values the

opportunity to talk with the press?

 

Hell, no. He's forced to. It's absolutely necessary

because we are there in their face. But he doesn't

hold enough news conferences. It's far short of

anybody else. And when he appears with a head of state

and they try to act like it's a news conference, it's

not. He says, " I'll take two questions here and two

questions on that side, " and there's no follow-up. He

gets mad if it is a two-part question. I mean, c'mon.

The President of the United States should be able to

answer any question, or at least dance around one. At

some time – early and often – he should submit to

questioning and be held accountable, because if you

don't have that then you only have one side of the

story. The Presidential news conference is the only

forum in our society, the only institution, where a

President can be questioned. If a leader is not

questioned, he can rule by edict or executive order.

He can be a king or a dictator. Who's to challenge

him? We're there to pull his chain and to ask the

questions that should be asked every day, for every

move.

 

Has President Bush given you a nickname?

 

I'm sure it's profane, but I don't know what it is. I

don't blame him for not liking me; I ask very tough

questions. He doesn't have to like me. I would prefer

that he respect me. We don't have to be liked. We

didn't go into this business to be liked or loved. If

we did, we're making a big mistake. It's not the

point. You cannot have a democracy without an informed

people.

 

In a June 2003 column, you wrote that we should have

an open mind while asking tough questions of the Bush

administration regarding its credibility on weapons of

mass destruction. A year later, do you think the Bush

administration is losing credibility?

 

Absolutely. Where are the weapons? Where's the smoking

gun? Where's the mushroom cloud? Where's the imminent

threat? Where was ever the threat? Are you kidding?

 

They have no credibility on the reasons for going to

war. And to this moment we don't know why this

President wanted to go to war so badly. It was very

clear there was no threat. We were not attacked. We

had a choke hold on Saddam Hussein for twelve years.

He couldn't make a move.

 

Your book " Front Row at the White House " gives the

impression that administrations have become more

secretive.

 

All administrations are secretive, but this one is

more so. I think there's too much secretiveness and

arrogance of power. They really walk in lockstep. It's

a lockdown administration. This President in

particular abhors any leaks. And to me a leak is just

the truth that someone wants to get out. Other

Presidents have managed to have some dissenting voices

or devil's advocates around. But in this

administration, there's no tolerance for anyone who

has an opposite opinion. We can see what they've done

to Colin Powell. You're on board or you're not. You're

with us or against us.

 

What effect have the disclosures by Richard Clarke and

Medicare actuary Richard Foster had on this

administration?

 

I don't think they have made the administration more

honest, but they've had an effect on the American

people, who know they were misled in the most drastic

way – life and death, war and peace, Medicare being

underpriced by $150 billion so they could sell it.

It's the boy who cried wolf. How many more times can

we be deceived?

 

Polls show that Bush still has a lot of support from

Americans.

 

People always want to believe their President to the

very end. I found that true with Richard Nixon and the

Watergate scandal. It wasn't until his last weeks

practically when he was finally forced to say that he

had not been credible, had not told the truth, that

everything went downhill. But even then he had 23

percent approval. People want to believe their

leaders, and that's a good thing.

 

How has television changed news reporting?

 

It's dominant now. Can't blame a President to prefer

TV. He can reach sixty million people rather than talk

to you and me and reach maybe a few newspapers. With

TV you get a much wider audience. And it's good for

the American people to actually see the person so they

can decide with their own eyes.

 

But I think newspapers are indispensable. You have to

read a newspaper because it grabs you, it wraps you

all around. And you have to read the stories you never

intended to read. You get a much broader view.

Television and newspapers are both necessary. But I

notice the TV people get most of the interviews with

the President.

 

How did you see your role when you were a wire service

reporter?

 

Straight reporting. Just the facts, ma'am. I wrote

dull copy because I was afraid even a verb would sound

pejorative or judgmental. But now I go for broke. I

have to be curbed. I can honestly say I was never

accused of slant in my copy. But I tell everyone –

this is my cliché – that I never bowed out of the

human race since the moment I was born. I permitted

myself to think, to care, to believe. But I was not

paid for that. At the wire service, you had to have

straight factual reporting and I did it for

fifty-seven years.

 

What's an average day like for you?

 

Now, I'm loose. I go to the White House briefings,

which they call a gaggle, in the morning, at 9:45

a.m., and then a briefing at 12:30 p.m. I write two

columns a week. I have to decide what to write and

what to be outraged about, which is plenty.

 

And what were your days like when you were a wire

service reporter?

 

I used to go to the White House around 5:30 in the

morning, grab a cup of coffee, read the wires, hang

out outside the press secretary's office around 8

o'clock and see if I could buttonhole them early.

Attend the morning briefing and the afternoon

briefing, always checking with the office because when

we are sleeping, half the world is making trouble. So

you try to catch up. Do your homework. Things are

happening during the day and you try to get reaction.

You write many, many stories a day.

 

Who was your favorite President to cover?

 

Kennedy and Johnson. Kennedy because I think it was

the most inspired. I thought he had his eyes on the

stars, that he knew where the country should be going.

He told young people to give something back to the

country. He had ideals. And Johnson moved a mountain

the first two years in office. He got through

Medicare, civil rights, voting rights for blacks in

the South, federal aid to education at all levels from

Head Start through college, child and maternal health,

public housing, you name it. It was phenomenal.

 

How has the relationship between the President and the

White House press corps changed since you started

covering the Presidency?

 

It was much more intimate before because it was a much

smaller press corps. You could walk around the South

Lawn with Lyndon B. Johnson. We were very close to

Kennedy. There wasn't this whole cordon of security.

And you didn't have wave after wave of TV and other

electronic outlets. The press corps now is humungous

on a big story. Since 9/11, of course, there's been

heavy, heavy security, and even before that with the

attempts on the life of the President. There's always

been one more step to tighten security and keep us

further away.

 

Even after 9/11, when the press was really tame, there

were still charges by some people in the press that

there was a liberal media. Do you agree?

 

I'm dying to find another friend. I am a liberal. I

was a liberal the day I was born, and I will be until

the day I die. What's a liberal? I care about the

poor, the sick, and the maimed. I care whether we go

to war for unjust causes. I care whether we shoot

people who are innocent. There's no such thing as a

liberal media. I think we have a very conservative

press. Read the columnists. They are predominantly

conservative. I don't relate to them at all. I'm

looking for another liberal.

 

But there was a time when there were more liberal

voices.

 

There were more. But the press has moved with the

country to the right. There was a Ronald Reagan

revolution. There were many more liberals in the Great

Depression, World War II. They had heart and soul and

compassion. Reporters see so much more than anyone

else, really, if they open their eyes. It's their job

to take a very human approach. I don't see how you can

see what's all around you and not be liberal. You see

the poor. You see the hungry. You see the suffering.

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights

reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/19604/