Apparently, even Helen Thomas becomes outraged a Democrat dishonesty beyond a certain point. Previously, I thought that impossible.  It took the Obama administration to bring it out.

( a testy exchange during Wednesday’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.

“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

Actually, Helen, that’s not true. Mike Allen at The Politco explains it this way:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to “those powerful few”: Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”

The remarkable thing about all of this is that the actual output of the paper really hasn’t perceptibly changed.  Ponder the meaning of that for a moment. Personally, I think they should be following up on making sure Bloggers aren’t taking money for pushing various political positions, don’t you? That was all the rage when the left proposed it not long ago. I wonder how they’ll react to this, if they deign to note it at all.

And Helen… you’ve been a willing tool all this time. A tool of the people now in the White House. I suspect the taste of that isn’t sitting well.


Iain Murray at The Corner comments:

Here’s why I find the Washington Post cash-for-access story so disturbing. As even Helen Thomas is now realizing, this administration favors certain journalists with extra access. In that respect, it is mimicking the Blair government in the U.K., which was famous not just for giving extra access to favorable journalists, but denying it to critical journalists. Putting the two pieces together, it might not be long before access becomes a commodity, and writing favorably about the administration not only gets extra access, but becomes profitable. That’s why I am also very glad to see the excellent Howard Kurtz and via him, the Post‘s executive editor, recognize that possibility and how appalling it would be.

All true.  Yet what’s not being recognized here is the reason that Thomas remained in the public eye during the tenure of Presidents Bush .. both of them. they were each a target of Thomas, on an everyday basis.  She made her living, by being a pain in the bump.  The way things are going, we are going to see something that we never would have seen with Bush… Helen Thomas being shut out of the White House press room.

Does anybody remember, when CNN was charged with having “Special access” to Saddam Hussein, on the basis of writing in their “news”, what Saddam wanted the world to see?  If I recall correctly, there wasn’t a great deal of noise from the left over the matter, since the left at the time wanted to paint Bush, and not Sodumb Insane, as the aggressor.   It’s funny , that despite the similarities of these two cases, that little point in history hasn’t come up in this conversation.  Perhaps, the comparison is uncomfortable for those currently infesting the White House?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,