Helen Thomas and the Media’s Double Standard

The American Conservative ^ | June 15th, 2010 | Jack Hunter

[refermech]

I thought she was an impartial reporter... Right? Impartial my ass.

[grand wazoo]

I thought she was an impartial reporter

There is no such thing. Everyone has an opinion.

[Gumption]

My purpose here is not to defend Thomas, or even Israel or Palestine, but free speech.

Does this writer (Jack Hunter) think she was arrested for her opinion? You would think a conservative would know what free speech is.

[marron]

“When does America’s unwavering defense of Israel begin to compromise our unwavering defense of free speech?” Answer: with the forced resignation of Helen Thomas.

Who forced her to resign?

[TrueKnightGalahad]

"Long before I supported Ron Paul for president and in general, I was a staunch Pat Buchanan conservative. I still am." Jack Hunter, 11/3/2009

Ah. 'Pat Buchanan conservative,' AKA troglodytic reptilian anti-Semitic paleo-pseudo-conservative. Still whining about Nazis needing love, too.

Anyone writing that Helen Thomas's First Amendment rights have been infringed knows NOTHING about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Methinks Hunter, odds-on HT's love child, should crawl back under his rock...and no, Jack, that statement is not an infringement of First Amendment rights, either.

[grand wazoo]

Anyone writing that Helen Thomas's First Amendment rights have been infringed knows NOTHING about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

That's not what he said. Your reading comprehension is severely deficient. Public school educated?

He claims that she was forced to resign because of who she criticized. He is correct. His view is supported by the examples he provides.

[TrueKnightGalahad]

Last line of article: Defending the importance of having a free press if not Thomas, “The Daily Show’s” Jon Stewart recently asked, “When does America’s unwavering defense of Israel begin to compromise our unwavering defense of free speech?” Answer: with the forced resignation of Helen Thomas.

Grand Wazoo? How about your reading comprehension, not-so-hot Wazoo? As far as I remember from those dim days of non-public-school edumakashun, all that there free press stuff was in the...what was it?...oh, yeah, the First Amendment. Not to mention that most of the readers who have placed comments on the article's site have raised precisely those First Amendment free speech/free press arguments, so I guess simply EVERYbody but you is 'misunderstanding' the article.

I'll bow out now, having vowed to refrain from battles of wits with the obviously unarmed.

[nkycincinnatikid]

“Who forced her to resign?”
Don’t know , but I think we can safely say it weren’t the palistinian lobby.

[grand wazoo]

She was forced to resign by the news service she worked for. Not by the government which is bound by the first amendment.

I don't think people are misunderstanding the article. I think they are misrepresenting what the article states.

[Onelifetogive]

But if we are to be honest, Thomas’s sin had more to do with who she dared to criticize than what she actually said.

So much idiocy crammed into such a short article.

Strange he didn't mention how "ok" it would be for someone to suggest that blacks go back to Africa...

[grand wazoo]

Strange he didn't mention how "ok" it would be for someone to suggest that blacks go back to Africa...

Blacks didn't immigrate here from Africa. They were taken and transported here. The analogy doesn't apply.

[Onelifetogive]

Blacks didn't immigrate here from Africa. They were taken and transported here.

You mean to tell me that there has be zero immigration from Africa in the past 200 years or so?

[grand wazoo]

You mean to tell me that there has be zero immigration from Africa in the past 200 years or so?

The vast majority of blacks in the US are the result of the importation of slaves. Other than that, we didn't allow more than a handful of blacks to immigrate here until the 1960s.

[rmlew]

The American Dhimmi rides again.

TAC runs a piece defending a Third Worldist rant. Of course Ms. Thomas has a right to free speech. However, it is unfortunate that a putatively "American" and "conservative" magazine would defend a comment that undermines all settler nations, including the US, Canada, Austrailia and New Zealand. From issue one they have been subjugating America's interests and survival to screwing Israel.

[grand wazoo]

America’s interests and Israel’s survival are two separate issues that do not necessarily coincide. Something Israeli firsters understand, but refuse to acknowledge.

[rmlew]

America’s interests and Israel’s survival are two separate issues that do not necessarily coincide. Something Israeli firsters understand, but refuse to acknowledge.
We have a shared interest in defeating the Muslim Brotherhood (Al Ikawan) and its many spawn and in ensuring that Europe does not go Muslim.
And I notice that you failed to answer my point that Thomas's remark undermine the legitimacy of all settler nations, including the US. It is so sad that anti-Israel "conservatives" will sell out America's legitimacy to undermine Israel.

[grand wazoo]

We have a shared interest in defeating the Muslim Brotherhood (Al Ikawan) and its many spawn and in ensuring that Europe does not go Muslim.

No we don't. Our interest is in securing our liberty. We may wish that the other things don't happen, but that is really up to those other nations. Our involvement in destroying monsters abroad endangers our liberty.

And I notice that you failed to answer my point that Thomas's remark undermine the legitimacy of all settler nations, including the US.

Your only point is to confuse the interests of Israel and America. Likudniks only care about American conservatives if they can advance their agenda.

[NittanyLion]

America’s interests and Israel’s survival are two separate issues that do not necessarily coincide. Something Israeli firsters understand, but refuse to acknowledge.

A+Bert, is that you?

[rmlew]

I wrote: "We have a shared interest in defeating the Muslim Brotherhood (Al Ikawan) and its many spawn and in ensuring that Europe does not go Muslim."
GW responded: No we don't. Our interest is in securing our liberty. We may wish that the other things don't happen, but that is really up to those other nations. Our i
So we do not have an interest in defeating Al Qaeda, as well as the Islamist groups in America? Not very "America First" to ignore those who are killing Americans and those who want to kill us or subjugate us.
As for Europe going Muslim, I guess you think that the US can stand alone, something it has never done.

I wrote: "And I notice that you failed to answer my point that Thomas's remark undermine the legitimacy of all settler nations, including the US. "

GW responded: Your only point is to confuse the interests of Israel and America. Likudniks only care about American conservatives if they can advance their agenda.

You understand that the United States was formed out of the 13 Colonies and is a settler nation, right?
Helen Thomas's comment attacks the legitimacy not only of Israel, but of all settler nations, in so far as she calls for the ethnic cleansing of it "non-indegous" population. If it is OK to attack Israel, as a nation where the settler population has histical ties to the land, then we in the US have even right to exist. Hence it is in the interest of America and Israel to denounce such Third Worldism.

And where did you learn the term "Likudnik"? Do you know what it means? Because, I cannot be one, since were I an Israeli, and I am not, I would be a member of Yichud Leumi, National Union.

I look forward to a cogent response that addresses all points.