NPR's Liasson opines again, despite ombudsman admonishment: in exchanges with Bush like Helen Thomas's "the press corps generally loses"
SUMMARY: On Special Report with Brit Hume, NPR's Mara Liasson, again asserted, in defiance of NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin, that "whenever there's any kind of a contest or a contrast between the person at the podium in the White House briefing room and the press corps, the press corps generally loses. ... I think that happened in this case, too." Dvorkin has previously admonished NPR reporters for going on programs "that are looking to appear fair and balanced" and expressing their opinions rather than simply recounting what their reporting shows.
On the March 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, the national political correspondent for National Public Radio and a member of Special Report's "All-Star Panel," again asserted, in defiance of NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin, that "whenever there's any kind of a contest or a contrast between the person at the podium in the White House briefing room and the press corps, the press corps generally loses. ... I think that happened in this case, too." Liasson was referring to the testy exchange between President Bush and Hearst Newspapers columnist Helen Thomas at Bush's March 21 news conference. Liasson offered this opinion despite repeated criticism by Dvorkin, who recently admonished NPR reporters for going on programs "that are looking to appear fair and balanced" and expressing their opinions rather than simply recounting what their reporting shows.
This is not the first time that Liasson has claimed that the press looks bad in televised confrontations with the administration, nor is it the first time that Liasson has offered an opinion in defiance of admonitions by Dvorkin. On the September 7, 2005, edition of Special Report, discussing a heated exchange between NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory and White House press secretary Scott McClellan, Liasson said: "Look, any time there's a contentious exchange in the White House press room, it makes the press look bad." She made this comment despite Dvorkin's July 2003 admonition that "NPR reporters ... should not be in the business of making their own opinions known about matters of public controversy. When they do, the public quickly senses that NPR compromises its ability to report in a fair manner."
On March 21, Liasson was discussing that day's White House news conference with the "All-Star Panel." The discussion focused on the president's verbal clash with Thomas, who asked the president this question at the conference:
THOMAS: 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 oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?
Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes, who was also on the show, stated that "reporters are not supposed to fire accusations at the president or anybody else they are interrogating, and that [Thomas's doing so] was wrong." In response, Liasson said, "You know, whenever there's any kind of a contest or a contrast between the person at the podium in the White House briefing room and the press corps, the press corps generally loses, if that's the race that we're judging. I think that happened in this case, too."
Liasson made these comments despite criticism by Dvorkin, who on the February 16 edition of WAMU's The Kojo Nnamdi Show, stated that "NPR reporters have an obligation to stay reportorial, and not be asked for their personal opinions by programs that are looking to appear fair and balanced by hauling in someone from NPR to be the token lefty. I think it's a disservice to NPR, and I think it's a disservice to NPR listeners to ask NPR reporters to be in that role."
From the first hour of the February 16 broadcast of WAMU's The Kojo Nnamdi Show:
NNAMDI: On to [caller] in Silver Spring, MD. [Caller], you're on the air, go ahead please.
CALLER: Hi. Longtime listener. Thank you very much for my -- taking my call. What I wanted to ask, I was -- on a follow-up to another caller, who asked about the left-leaning of the NPR -- I've been in many houses over the years, and listened, with my customers -- I'm a contractor, and I'm sure that there are some of them listening now -- and, I've always been impressed with the juxtaposition of The Diane Rehm Show on her Friday night -- Friday roundup, and the Fox News Sunday show. And the Fox News lineup has three or four very right-wing people and then they have their token Juan Williams there to really spark the show. And Diane Rehm does the same thing. She has two or three people who agree with her, 80, 90 percent of the time, and then they have somebody like [Weekly Standard editor] Billy Kristol there to again spark it up and give them --
NNAMDI: Here's Jeffrey Dvorkin.
DVORKIN: Well, I mean, you raise a really important issue, which is: Should NPR journalists appear on highly partisan programs on -- in other media? And I think they shouldn't, actually. I think that NPR reporters have an obligation to stay reportorial, and not be asked for their personal opinions by programs that are looking to appear fair and balanced by hauling in someone from NPR to be the token lefty. I think it's a disservice to NPR, and I think it's a disservice to NPR listeners to ask NPR reporters to be in that role, and I have suggested to management on a number of occasions at NPR that we need to, if -- if -- if our people are going to be on those programs, they have to remain reportorial at all times, so that if they're asked, "Bill Clinton: guilty or guilty?" The proper answer is to say, "I don't know, but here's what we've been reporting," and to stay in that role.
Dvorkin also previously stated his disapproval of Liasson's participation on the Fox News panel. In his July 23, 2003, online "Media Matters" column (which has no relation to Media Matters for America), Dvorkin noted listeners' and critics' complaints about an October 3, 2002, statement Liasson made concerning "the arrival of Congressmen [David] Bonior [D-MI] and [Jim] McDermott [D-WA] in Baghdad, prior to the start of the [Iraq] war." She made the statement as part of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday discussion panel:
LIASSON: These guys [Bonior and McDermott] are a disgrace. Look, everybody knows it's 101 -- Politics 101 -- that you don't go to an adversary country, an enemy country, and badmouth the United States, its policies, and the president of the United States. I mean, these guys ought to, I don't know, resign.
Dvorkin wrote that he did not think that the statement and the participation of NPR reporters on panels like the one on Fox News, were appropriate:
NPR reporters, hosts, and ombudsmen should not be in the business of making their own opinions known about matters of public controversy. When they do, the public quickly senses that NPR compromises its ability to report in a fair manner.
In this pundit-crazed media culture, there are more than enough people who opine as soon as the klieg lights come on. NPR and its listeners deserve a better form of public discourse.
Dvorkin also noted former NPR vice president for news and information Bruce Drake's comments regarding the situation; as well as Liasson's subsequent acknowledgement that "she shouldn't have said it":
Bruce Drake as vice president of news is responsible for NPR's journalistic standards.
My guidelines are simple: an NPR News reporter should not say something on a television talk show, the Internet or a public speech that they could not say on-air for NPR in their own reporting. NPR listeners need to know that the journalists they hear on our air are committed to accuracy and fairness. Our listeners need to know that our journalists do not come to the stories they cover with an agenda, meaning that they must maintain a firewall between their private opinions and their professional performance.
Liasson realizes that her spoken words can't be retracted:
I certainly shouldn't have said it. I don't believe it is in any way representative of remarks I make anywhere, on Fox, PBS, NPR or in person about the news. I would encourage people to read the entire transcript from 10/3/02.
From the March 21 broadcast of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, which featured Fox News Washington managing editor -- and host -- Brit Hume:
BARNES: Brit, all that stuff's not going to be remembered. It'll be remembered the president sparring with Helen Thomas after she didn't really ask any questions. She had three accusations is what she leveled at the president.
HUME: Well, she asked the question: What was your real reason?
BARNES: Well, OK, I know, but, I mean -- I mean, reporters are not supposed to fire accusations at the president or anybody else they're -- they're interrogating, and that was wrong.
LIASSON: You know, whenever there's any kind of a contest or a contrast between the person at the podium in the White House briefing room and the press corps, the press corps generally loses, if that's the race that we're judging. And, I think that happened in this case, too.
In cases like this when a legitimate journalist asks a legitimate question of the President of The United States, and he responds the way he did, we as a nation lose.
This man involved us in a pre-emptive war with no plan to extricate our troops. Now he's going to leave another president, somewhere down the road to fix his mess. Why do we allow fools to run our country?
The nation loses when hard questions aren't asked and answered. Ms. Thomas did her job in posing hard questions. Bush didn't do his in engaging them. Bush's legacy will be his version of Vietnam. There's no jungle. No Charlie. No Chinese backing the Cong. Rather, this time, the Chinese back us, by merrily loaning us money and more money. And Bush borrows just as merrily.
LIASSON said: "You know, whenever there's any kind of a contest or a contrast between the person at the podium in the White House briefing room and the press corps, the press corps generally loses, if that's the race that we're judging. And, I think that happened in this case, too."
But why? Hers is an assertion without substantiation. She needed to reveal its foundation. She didn't. So, her assertion has no standing with me.
THOMAS: 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 oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?
She dares to ask the question: why Iraq while Al Qaida was in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and while Iran and North-Korea were bigger threats. Asking questions and going to the bottom of things is what good journalists do, even when it is the president. That is openess to the people.
It is a legitimate question, without saying whether the war is ok or not, just asking an answer why people are dying while the war on terror has not been won yet.
She poses a threat for the white house, thus: eliminate her on TV (i.e., FOX etc).
... really wrong-headed evaluation, Fred Barnes said that Helen Thomas should not " fire accusations. "
Fire accusations???
I guess the Neocon New Standard Dictionary defines the word "accusation" as: When used against one of our Brethren, any undisputable fact or truth.
Bust is a bad guy. Granted.
But Helen Thomas is still arguably wrong. However much we like to hear someone call Bush a liar and murderer phrasing the question that way is designed to be make the statement that Bush is a liar and a murderer, not to actually get an answer about why he went to war.
If Maureen Dowd wants to write that, it makes sense, she is a columnist, but Helen Thomas is a news reporter which makes her job to get answers to questions, not opine with the questions.
Moreover, it give the President more reason to be insular and secretive--he's not paranoid if the press is actually trying to make him look bad. That I think is what Liasson means with her comments that when you go after the person at the podium everybody basically looses, because the questions don't get answered.
And also, what's with the gag order from NPR. Last I checked, Liasson is an American which means she ought to be absolutely free to express her opinion where ever and however she wants without fear of reprissal from people who don't think her opinions are correct enough.
ILEANGOOD,
From the transcript:
"THOMAS: 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 oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?"
She asked the question that no one else in that room would - the question that millions of Americans want Bush to answer: "why did you really want to go to war?"
Everything she said was true and I don't see the word "murderer" or "liar" anywhere.
Do you?
Helen Thomas was not trying to accuse Bush of being a liar or a murderer. She asked a question that has not been asked in the three plus years that Americans have been dying because of Bush's desire to invade Iraq. Every excuse he used has turned out to be pretty lame.
If more people don't start holding this administration's feet to the fire, it will get a lot worse before it gets better. We have a very small group of people running this show, with absolutely no input from anyone with a differing point of view. This is no way to run a war. It's time that those in charge answered any question that anyone puts to them.
Also, Mara Liasson is an American as you noted, but she is a full time employee of NPR. NPR's journalistic guidelines are posted above. She seems to be in violation of the guidelines. If she does not want to conform she should look for employment with the Fair & Balanced Network and give her notice at NPR.
When you hear that she's from NPR, the assumption is that she will at least be middle of the road. However, her performance has been pathetic on Fox News.
"given that all your administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq have turned out to be false, Mr. President, can you tell us the real reason for going to war?" (paraphrase)
What's wrong with this question? It goes to the heart of the problem, and Bush's answer was "no I can't give the real reason." Otherwise he wouldn't have rambled on about the Taliban. He could have answered the question, but he chose not to. Helen didn't diminish the press's standing, she threw it a rope, but I doubt that very many of them will grab ahold. Mara certainly seems to want to continue to flounder.
... she does something that congress should do: control the president.
Secondly: Bush is not necessarily bad, either
What questions were asked to Clinton when he wanted to help in the Balkan war, and when he lied about his blow job, or the White Water affair?
Something like: "Mr. President, concidering you like a blow job, and it isn't sex, I am glad that Monica is still a vergin and you respected her silver ring thing. How do you respond to all those traitors that want to bring you down, whereas you actually did a great thing, to give this little girl such a patriatic present?"
Or:
"Why did you lie about your blow job?"
virgin and patriotic
When there is no way to defend George W., always bring Clinton up. How Infantile!
He/she was lambasting the media's kid glove treatment of Bush, not trying to defend him.
Interesting and persuasive position, Ileangood. If a question isn't answered, and Thomas's wasn't, we aren't being served.
Draftedin-
There's this concept called conversational implicature. It means that you dont' always have to say directly "You're a lying murderer," to get that point accross
Looking at the transcript...
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.
( You're a murderer and a maimer)
Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true.
(You're a liar)
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?
(Cause not only are you a liar, your a liar whose been planning this lie for a while)
You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it
(It was totally oil, liar)
Helen Thomas is making a good point, but she isn't seriously trying to get an answer from Bush about the real reason for war. Perhaps she thinks that since that answer couldn't be gotten no matter how reasonably one asked the question, the next best thing is to underline what she thinks of the president. However my opinion is that as a reporter her job is actually to get answers to the questions, and insofar as she is asking in the question in a way garunteed to produce and evaision, she isn't doing her job and Laisson makes a good point.
On how the question should be posed to get an honest answer from the leader of the free world?
On how you view the function of a free press. In my opinion, part of its function is to act as a watchdog on the excesses of government officials. I think it's apparent that the press has all but abandoned that role since the Sept. 11 attacks, and it's high time they stepped up and started doing it again.
Bush IS a liar, and a serious argument could be made that he has crossed the line into war crimes. If Thomas's intention was to call him out and embarass him, then kudos to her.
... Helen Thomas on many shows - The Situation Room, Countdown, Real Time, The Daily Show to name a few - and she has NEVER used the words you parenthetically put in her mouth.
You used the Straw Man slight-of-hand on her just like Duhhbya and the rest of the Rovian/RNC zombies do and you are way off base!
HELEN THOMAS ANGRY AFTER 'KILL SELF' OVER CHENEY COMMENTS PUBLISHED
White House press doyenne Helen Thomas is plenty peeved at her longtime friend Albert Eisele, editor of THE HILL newspaper in Washington, D.C.
In a column this week headlined "Reporter: Cheney's Not Presidential Material," Eisele quoted Thomas as saying "The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself. All we need is one more liar."
Thomas also said: "I think he'd like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does," according to Eisele's column.
But Thomas said yesterday at the White House that her comments to Eisele were for his ears only. "I'll never talk to a reporter again!" Thomas was overheard saying.
"We were just talking -- I was ranting -- and he wrote about it. That isn't right. We all say stuff we don't want printed," Thomas said.
But Eisele said that when he called Thomas, "I assume she knew that we were on the record."
"She's obviously very upset about it, but it was a small item -- until Drudge picked it up and broadcast it across the universe," Eisele said.
Still, he noted that reporters aren't that happy when the tables are turned. "Nobody has thinner skin than reporters," Eisele said with a laugh.
What is the point you want to make? That she can ask questions, but not write them down?
What did Helen say that was so wrong? Cheney is a worse President now, than George W. could ever have been.
You are clearly reading between the lines - this is 'dangerous' because when you read between the lines you have a tendancy to see things that aren't there. If Bush, or his admin., or you, interpret Thomas' comments to mean Bush is a murderer and a liar, you are certainly entitled to do so. But, if you accept them at face value, as established facts, then they deserve an honest answer.
Plato
From who do we deserve an Honest Answer? How about our President?
Apparently Bush has gone back to picking his audience, and people with questions i.e. Jeff Gannon, after the "Hard" question from Helen. See the latest "press conference" from W. Virginia.
of all the "pundits" who thought Bush actually won some of the Presidential debates. This will be the new GOP revisionist history. By the end of the week, Rush and his parrots will be saying that Puddinhead George mopped the floor with "that old bat".
Just hide and watch.
at all times.
Only one exception. If you are Republican.
In fact yes, all reporters should keep their opinions to themselves because the high standard that investigative journalists have is objectivity. A reporters job is to report the facts with as little interferance from what they personally think about those facts as possible.
Total objectivity is impossible, but that is the goal anyway. That "Repubclian" journalists often ignore this standard is sad. That republicans do it is not an argument for democrats to do it too--I believe the expression two wrong don't make a right applies here. Not to mention that when people who claim to report the news actually seek to report what they think about the news--we all loose.
so you say that Republicans shouldn't do it. So here is an example of someone doing it -- propagandizing for the PR-esident. Let's hear your total condemnation of what she's doing.
Who is propagandizing for the repubclicans? I'm honestly not sure who you are talking about?
Did you read the Post? Can you read?
Republican Reporters like Jeff Gannon; whatever happened to him?
Worrierking-
In my opinion the various paraphrases of what Helen Thomas said might have been a better way to ask the question--though I doubt she would have gotten an answer as no one else has yet. I also think that the answer to the why question is pretty irrelevent at this phase in the game. "Why are we really doing this," was a great question three years ago--and it is a question that the press completely fell down on the job at asking. Asking it now doesn't matter because we're already there, so the question now is "what the hell are we doing to do, that won't tip off world war III"? That, I think, is a question more worth holding Bush's feet to the fire for.
As for the point of the free press--I agree that there are people in the media's whose job it is to opine and point out that Bush is a liar. These people write on Op-Ed pages. However, a reporter isn't at a White House briefing to opine, she's there to gather information by asking questions, and a good reporter then checks teh veracity of those answers and reports on them. An accusation phrased as a question doesn't ellicit answers it ellicits evasion and annoyance from the person being questioned. Moreover it does not really persuade anyone--people who agree with Helen Thomas like myself have agreed with her for about three years, people who don't agree with her will see her as comabative and be more likely to believe the rightwing spin that the press belligerant and not interested in seeking the truth.
She was simply stating facts in her leadup. I challenge any wingnut to point out which part of her statement wasn't true. Despite Bush's flimsy challenge, her premise was sound.
This is a respected, credible veteran journalist who has been passed over for questions for the likes of Jeff Gannon/Guckert for 3 years- it's really a good thing I'm not in the press corps, because if I were in her shoes, I would have started off with "Mr. President, seeing as you haven't seen fit to answer any difficult questions for your entire presidency, why should we waste our time with you and little Scotty ?"
Nice -- you've skewered another conservative again!
My wife's father and brother call themselves "libertarians" but are ultra conservative and watch Faux News exclusively - and they think they're informed! Her father is a Vietnam veteran who was career Navy - he voted against Kerry b/c of his stance after the war - but at the same time bought the line that GW served honorably and didn't use his position as a son of privelege to get out of being drafted. I try to use very subtle means to get my point across to keep harmony at family gatherings. My wife is horrified at what the Republicans are doing to this country as well, and she can afford to be less diplomatic with her dad and brother. Last time she was there, she told them both if they get all of their info from Faux, they desperately need to "broaden their horizons". Last time I was there, her dad was bashing the Dems, saying they're just being obstructionist - I responded "they're doing their jobs - their constituency, who voted for them, don't want them to roll over and play dead - if the situation were reversed, would you want your representatives to roll over on you?" I actually got a "well, yeah, I guess if you look at it that way, that makes sense" as a response. So, sometimes there IS hope! He actually said that if Hillary ran on a platform of national healthcare, she'd get his vote - this from a guy who hates John Kerry AND Bill Clinton! I nearly fell off my chair!!
"This is a respected, credible veteran journalist who has been passed over for questions for the likes of Jeff Gannon/Guckert for 3 years"...by left of center
=====
She's been muzzled by THIS administration and I'm glad she took this opportunity to ASK her question the way MANY of us would have done IF given a chance.
Bravo Helen! Unfortunately they'll probably put you back in mothballs for the duration of Bush's term
And they pushed the war from the get-go. They can't go as far as Rush because their public can actually read and write, but they do their best to support the conservatives.
He's the only commentator who could even come close to approximating anything close to an actual centre-left point of view. If he's not allowed to opine, the Fox "All-Stars" would be entirely conservative.
Surely, there could be a Williams excemption.
I would actually love to see Juan Williams and Alan Colms in a b**ch-slapping fight.
Yes, the irony is that Mr. Bush looked exactly llike what he is, a bumbling idiot, answering a straight forward question about Iraq with an answer that consisted of Afghanistan. Ms. Thomas generally lost this one, right Mara? And I'm supposed to trust your reporting skills after this?
- looking to appear fair and balanced by hauling in someone from NPR to be the token lefty - Jeffrey Dvorkin
There you have it...from the NPR's own ombudsman...their reporting is left leaning. Dvorkin admits that media outlets covet NPR reporters because of their liberal slant.
He knows it...I know it...you know it...NPR reporters lean way to the left.
Check out the following site to get some of the lowdown on NPR:
[link to mediamatters.org]
Then check out fair.org . Ignorance is not a virtue.
I prefer to get my news from a variety of sources...you know...avoiding that blind allegiance thing. Dvorkin...the NPR man...admitted their reporters are liberal. That carries more weight with me.
Mara Liasson is a flaming liberal. Suuuuuuuure.
You get your news from a variety of sources, huh?
I don't believe it, or else you would have checked out the link to the obscure site I listed. Oh, wait... that link is to THIS site. Guess you conservatives checkout a variety of sources, but even though you're here on this site, you won't check out NPR on it.
Let's see... variety of sources... Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity... why that's three sources right there!! That should do it.
NPR is zionist right wing. Learn something new, then post.
realize that there are no liberals in any corporate media outlet.
Of course, to many folk, anyone who advocates a single payer healthcare system is a liberal.
Anyone who advocates an integlligently planned withdrawal from Iraq is a liberal.
Anyone who advocates using the resources of the federal government to protect our environment is a liberal.
Anyone who disagrees with the monkey-in-a-man-suit is a liberal.
There are no liberals in any position of real power in this country.
Actually, there are no conservatives (I mean real conservatives, not this neocon stripe that calls itself 'conservative') in power, either.
Mara Liasson has been prostituting herself on Fox News since 2000, if not before. I remember complaining about it then to Dvorskin, to no effect. For a long time I assumed that NPR tolerated it because it made them look less liberal for her to appear on Fox News and that this was one way to counter conservative criticism. Not that she is liberal at all. Personally I turn off the radio when she comes on and I haven't watched Fox news since the Florida fiasco after the 200o election. (In our house we block Fox news, it saves on the aggravation.) But everything people are saying about Mara Liasson was happening then. For Fox News she has always functioned as a totally ineffective liberal stand-in, kind of like Alan Colmes. The only word for it is prostitution.