Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

No kidding!

Posted by Ron Coleman on February 18, 2008

Taylor Marsh reprints a frank Margaret Carlson email, in which she just plain acknowledges she hasn’t much use for the Junior Senator. (Via Insty.) Marsh takes this as an admission of media bias; I just don’t see it. In fact, if Carlson claimed she had no political preferences, I’d be suspicious, but here she’s just being honest. How is this proof that she’s gunning forshocked-shocked.jpg Hillary in her work?

I once got a similar email from Margaret’s soulmate, Helen Thomas, myself. I asked her why she had referred to President Bush as having “lied” in some column or another. She promptly and honestly responded that of course Bush had lied to trick us into going to war in Iraq.

Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 5:18 PM

Subject: Bush lied?

You maintain several times in your article that President Bush deceived the
U.S. and based his policy on falsehoods. What are these falsehoods?

Ronald D. Coleman

From: Helen <>
To: ‘Ronald D. Coleman’ <>
Date: Aug 23 2004 – 1:24pm

No wmd; no threat; no ties to al qaida – helent

It puts Thomas among the moonbats to say that, but she has plenty of company, and much of that in newsrooms; and is it any surprise that that’s her view? This doesn’t prove that her reporting is biased… for that you have to actually read the columns. I didn’t even blog about the email because it struck me as a “dog bites man” story.

I’ll take Carlson’s frankness and Thomas’s tinfoil-hatted honesty over the pretense of objectivity any day.

But I wonder how offended Marsh would be by Thomas’s email to me? Or does it matter less because, after all, that doesn’t constitute treason from the political line, or appropriate political gender loyalty?


3 Responses to “No kidding!”

  1. Ara Rubyan said

    Hillary is the junior senator from New York; Schumer is the senior one.

    Beyond that, I’m hard pressed to describe just exactly what you’re saying in this post. You do drag out the old Republican chestnut that Helen Thomas is a moonbat. But I give you credit for posting her direct and clear-headed reply to what surely must have seemed to her to be a rather obtuse question from a total stranger. So yea for Helen, but wither goest Ron in this post?

    Could you please clarify? Am I missing something? Thanks.

  2. Fixed the junior/senior thing. As to Helen, it’s not a chestnut. She’s completely un-credible, and everyone can judge for himself on that. (Do you seriously consider someone who is taken seriously as a journalist? No, really?)

    My point is that it the fact that a journalist admits to having political views is not proof that the journalistic work is biased. And that perhaps the real complaint here is that a woman journalist is not taking the identity-politics line that Hillary Clinton is the candidate of women, regardless of merit.

  3. Ara Rubyan said

    The Incredible Helen Thomas!

    I have a feeling that word doesn’t mean what it used to mean.

    Seriously, the esteem in which I hold Helen Thomas is indirectly proportional to the esteem in which I held Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellan, Tony Snow and Dana Perino. Thomas has been there and done that through every administration since Kennedy. The fact that she thinks Bush is a hideous president counts for something. Besides, current events have already validated her observations — and I think history probably will too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: