Conscious Choice: White House Press Worries

November 2004 | Editor’s Note

White House Press Worries

I don’t even pretend to be a political expert. But I know someone who is.

Her name is Helen Thomas. For years she was known as the “Dean of the White House Correspondents.” She’s covered every president since John F. Kennedy in the 1960s. Heck, most of them called on her by her first name.

So when Helen (and I can call her Helen, too, since we’ve been out drinking together), told me why she was troubled by the George W. Bush administration I figured we had a real problem in the White House.

Despite my misgivings about dispensing political advice, and the fact this happened about two years ago but is still relevant today, I felt obligated to pass this information on to you. This month’s election affords us an opportunity to fix this problem by electing someone else to take up residence in the White House — hopefully. I say hopefully, because I’m not convinced that it will be a fair election. I’m terribly concerned that the Bush administration will cheat to “steal” this election, especially with the introduction of computerized voting. I’m not alone in this either. The Nation, in a July article entitled “How They Could Steal the Election This Time,” made this the subject of a magazine cover story.

But getting back to Helen. Helen is a no-nonsense journalist who currently writes a Washington-based opinion column for Hearst Newspapers. But prior to that, she spent the major chunk of her career as the Chief White House Correspondent for United Press International during its heyday. Since I also worked at UPI way back when, it was my downright duty to steal her away from the stuffy academics at the awards ceremony honoring her and sneak her down to Mike Royko’s old hangout: the underground Billy Goat Tavern. There, we reverted back to the old school days of real journalists: which means that until the wee hours of the morning, during the consumption of cocktails we passionately discussed the state of affairs in the union, the city, the world with people who actually know what’s going on because their job is to witness it all and then inform the rest of us. It was exhilarating and troubling. Troubling, because of what Helen had to say.

I could explain how Helen was upset that Bush was calling for a preemptive-strike war, which meant the U.S. would start dropping bombs based on what someone in Washington thought or said some other country might do, instead of what actually happened. And no, there was no proof that Iraq actually had anything to do with the tragic events of 9/11. As if going to war was any kind of solution to anything, anyway. Forgive me this brief digression: How come if everyone understands why it’s not okay to allow kids to tough it out with fists on the playground, or with guns in the inner city, most people think it’s perfectly acceptable for supposedly sophisticated, grown, educated adults all over the world to try to poison, shoot, burn and bomb each other as a solution to their turf battles and disagreements?

Or I could talk about how Helen later told one of my classes that she also had problems with provisions in the so-called Patriot Act, claiming that it poses a huge threat to our personal liberties.

But instead I will explain that one of the biggest problems Helen had with President George W. Bush was that he was, she said, so inaccessible. He simply refused to make himself available to the press. Press conferences, where journalists are allowed to ask questions on anything, (not to be confused with press appearances, where questions are not allowed or very limited) were almost nonexistent. Besides making it difficult for people like Helen to do their jobs — it’s pretty tough to cover someone who won’t talk to you — this should upset you, a lot.

You see, most of us can’t make it to Washington D.C. on a regular basis, so we depend on the press to help us out. That’s why the press is referred to as the “Fourth Estate,” the so-called fourth arm of the government’s executive, legislative and judicial branches that were designed as a system of checks and balances to ensure a functioning democracy.

Let me repeat that: checks and balances were set up by our founding fathers to ensure a healthy democracy. Checks and balances involve questioning. Questions are good for democracies, especially during times of war when we are sending out people to kill and be killed. Anyone who thinks it’s unpatriotic to demand our elected officials be held accountable for their decisions needs to go back and read the U.S. Constitution.

And anyone who is sending our sons, daughters, friends, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, cousins and neighbors half way around the world to possibly die or be maimed in a war, based on flawed reports (of so far non-existent weapons of mass destruction) at the very least owes us a chance to ask a question or two, or as many as we like, until we are satisfied. And here I’ll digress again: Since our president declared the major combat was over, can someone please explain to me exactly who and why the U.S. is fighting there now?

And while I’m on a war roll, for those of you who believe that war is sometimes necessary, let’s talk about all the fuss over the war record of Bush’s challenger, Sen. John Kerry. Well, at least he has a war record. Personally, I trust someone with field experience to make a better decision than someone who just sat by on the sidelines. I mean, who do you want to treat you if you’re in a medical crisis? A doctor who has worked the emergency room of a county hospital, or some inexperienced C student who missed a bunch of classes but graduated anyway because his dad went to the same medical school and then set him up in a comfortable practice?

And on top of that, at least Kerry had the guts when he came back from Vietnam to critically look at the situation and realize that maybe that war wasn’t such a good idea after all. Some people have been making a big fuss over that, too. Why? Kerry was big enough to look at the truth before him, instead of arrogantly staying stuck in the same place refusing to grow and evolve. What’s wrong with that?

Now, I know, sometimes it seems that the two parties aren’t that much different. And I would welcome the day when we truly have viable alternatives and green candidates. But until then, let’s deal with the situation we have now: and I believe that means we need to vote to elect the guy who has the best chances of beating Bush: John Kerry.

Besides, maybe Kerry will actually talk to the press and us. We know Bush won’t. The way I see it, if someone continually refuses to talk with you, it’s probably one of two things: either they don’t respect you, or they are up to no good and have something to hide. Both options should not be tolerated in the president of a democracy. Think about this: we elect presidents to serve terms. That means they should be serving us, not the other way around.

— Marla Donato

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: