First, over to
Glenn Greenwald, who is mighty pissed off at the cozy relationship between journalists and those in power (in the context of this
SuperSoaker party!!!):
The issue is the relationship between the press corps and political power which these events reveal (here's an example of the type of event the Bush White House would hold and the controversy created). Along those lines, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank has a surprisingly decent column about Helen Thomas in which he writes:
Yet the White House press corps will be diminished without Helen front and center, and not only because she was in that job before the current president was born. She brought a ferocity to her questioning that has eluded too many in subsequent generations. At a time when others were getting cozy with sources, her crabby, unrelenting hostility was refreshing. . . . Now that Helen is gone, there's more need than ever for others in the briefing room to share her opinion -- specifically, the opinion that anybody standing on that podium should be regarded with skepticism.
Her career-ending comments to the side, we need far more Helen Thomases in the press room and far fewer giggly, star-struck servants who are so grateful and honored to participate in circle squirts with White House officials and not even embarrassed to admit it.
Ahem, the Jon Stewart commentary on this is darn good ...
No comments:
Post a Comment