Helen Thomas and the Big Hypocrisy

When I was younger, the two looming female forces were Bella Abzug and Helen Thomas (Betty Freidan--whom I once met--was much too ladylike to be one of the abrasive forces although she was indisputably influential). Bella and Helen were out "there" in any number of ways--speaking out, confronting, visible. At that time, they were challenging what a paternal society "knew" about women. Not so fast, they were saying, don't underestimate us or we will use it against you. Way to go, ladies.

Bella, of course, was Jewish, while Helen is of Lebanese descent, an interestsing contrapoint that nevertheless shows how much they had in common rather than what separated them. They worked together to form a national association for women.

Bella died in 1998, her dream of a zionist state long realized. Helen kept going, a rambling dinosaur of a woman who could still make a difference at going on 90. Along the way she made numerous enemies, as anyone would with the capacity and opportunity to challenge and embarass presidents--ten of them no less. She asked the same impolite questions of them all and never hid her own preferences or as many would say--prejudices. As she grew more elderly, she let her feelings be more open, as in the way of people who have reached an age where pretense seems a waste of precious time. So in a moment of complete exasperation she said what many felt but were too circumspect to say.

I will admit it. I have felt completely fed up with Israel's hogging the role of victim. While I would never say (or think) anything quite as awful and over the top as wishing anyone back to the holocaust, I have frequently said I would like to bang
Israeli and Arab heads together--a point I have made more delicately in this blog by saying a plague on both their houses because both of them are playing the game of "I'm a bigger victim than you are."

Helen Thomas committed the apparently unforgivable sin of bringing her frustration out into the open--in probably one of the stupidest ways I can imagine. As a result, Hearst newspapers, in a move worthy only of the glorious hypocrisy of William R in his heyday (find me a war or we'll start one of our own), dumped her. Had Hearst been in a better mood, they would have scolded her--which leads me to think there were other reasons (probably a lot) why this was a good time to move her on out.

What sticks particularly in my craw, though, is the subtext to her retirement--the hypocrisy of the journalistic profession in maintaining that they can be absolutely neutral in news reporting. There's no such thing. Just by choosing what to report and including or leaving out particular details, the news is slanted one way or the other. Look at the coverage of the Israeli detention of the Turkish ship. Leaving out or not stressing the fact it was in international waters is an editorial decision, as is reporting on the weapons wielded by those on board: it ranges from armed thugs with weapons to relief workers with slingshots and knives. Details are everything. I used to teach this to my freshman students; I can't believe that journalism profs teach anything different unless they are totally incapable of introspection. All I can say is God help us all if that's the case.

I shall miss Helen Thomas. I shall not miss the sinking feeling I get when I read our newspapers and wonder how reliable they are. In the meantime, I will try to find balance by reading (eat your heart out Sarah Palin) the UK newspapers on line, the Economist, and the Wall Street Journal, and by listening to the BBC as well as keeping an eye on the news headlines from papers around the world. By doing that, the only thing I will miss is who is divorcing whom in Hollywood.