She was the quintessential hard news reporter, often given the privilege of asking the first question at press conferences.
Thomas became persona non grata overnight because of what certainly came off as a harrowing transgression. But was it? She expressed an opinion. Did she say "I hate the Jews?" No. There was nothing racist per se in her comments. One had to infer any such odious intent, but I made no such inference.
Before I proceed further, let me emphasize that I don't have a racist bone in my body, and if I happen to write something that seems outrageous, you might chalk it up to naivete.
When Thomas talked about how the Jews of Israel should "go home," it seemed to me ironically laced with warmth, as if Thomas were suggesting a gushy, happy ending to a period of adversity. Like Dorothy talking about going "home" in "The Wizard of Oz." And E.T.? What could be better than to go home.
The horrific wheels that turned to persecute Jews in the mid-20th Century would appear gone now. Moreover, if Jews were to follow Thomas' suggestion, wouldn't it relieve the world of the horrific strife known as the Israelis vs. Palestinians?
Baby boomers have lived their whole lives with the drumbeat of that uniquely hate-filled conflict giving a backdrop on the evening news.
Who speaks for the boomers? Well, Dave Barry comes close, and I remember this scribe venting once about the repetitive nature of distressing news reports out of the Middle East. His complaint was about their very repetitiveness. It's a news story and it has its place, but there was such a cacophony of depressing reports on violence over there - incidents with the same features.
Do we want our children consuming the evening news with this supplying such a drumbeat? As time went on, Jewish advocates decided they didn't even like the term "suicide bomber." They protested outside of the Star Tribune building in Minneapolis.
First of all, this is a nitpick. "Suicide bomber" was a term created to be descriptive. The willingness of a bomber to take his or her own life would seem to be the distinguishing feature of this type of act. Journalists seek precision and clarity, so the term seemed helpful and illuminating.
It was totally innocent, but the Israel advocates saw things differently, of course. They felt the term might engender some sympathy toward the bombers. They preferred the term "homicide bomber" even though it seems ridiculous on its face. It's redundant for one thing. Any "bomber" is probably going to be striving to kill people. I'm sure journalists were irritated terribly just having to deal with the matter. I remember the Star Trib's ombudsman writing on the subject and following my line of reasoning.
I have read that journalists get nervous any time there's a new flareup of conflict involving Israelis and Palestinians. Because no matter how they craft words to try to simply report, there will be critics (mostly Israel advocates) who scream bloody murder about some nuance being not quite right. This seems just as irritating and unnecessary as the phenomenon that Dave Barry was talking about.
I really think the boomer generation is fed up with it. And if the Jews "going home" could just relieve us of that - wipe it off the radar screen - we would be oh so happy. We'd have to pinch ourselves to see if we're dreaming.
When I was a kid there was the term "melting pot" that was put forward as an ideal. America was a "melting pot" in which we could disregard our ethnic or racial differences and come together as one society.
Academia eventually put the brakes on that and thought it better to emphasize "diversity." Diversity became one of those buzzwords on college campuses for a few years. It asserted that we indeed should be aware of ethnic and racial backgrounds but we should all treat each other nice anyway. But isn't that "the long way around the barn?"
Isn't it more practical and uplifting to just encourage everyone to accept each other?
Maybe the "melting pot" ethos was too simple to be swallowed in academia. It made too much sense.
Has the diversity fad passed on, now, like so many of the trendy things in academia?
I suspect that the No. 1 thing pervading academia today is fear - fear about its very existence as our society gets rocked by tech-fueled progress and communications inroads. The only "trend" on campuses now might be doing or saying anything to make happy the people who manage their purse strings.
Anyone who truly embraces the melting pot isn't going to be aghast at what Helen Thomas said. She said the Jews should get out of Palestine and go home. And that finishes her off, as if she really needed to keep working anyway (at age 90).
I think it says something about the decline of the legacy media that people like Helen Thomas, Sid Hartman, Barbara Flanagan and Andy Rooney hang on. For goodness' sake, why?
And it's sad they hold on to their plum media positions when obviously there are so many young, energetic journalists eager to ply their trade.
The young ones can always find a niche online. But the ancient icons of the legacy media move along like Old Man River. They are at an age when they could have been retired 30-40 years and enjoying it. Journalism seems almost like a drug to these people and I don't mean this in a charming way. They get addicted to the sense of power and entitlement that they think they have. Obviously they don't have near the power they used to.
One reason they're allowed to hang on so long is that the legacy media owners know that their industry is in a passive retreat. There's no need to aggressively groom a new, younger generation for those roles.
Helen Thomas was the quintessential female pioneer.
"She came to the White House to cover President John F. Kennedy at a time when female reporters were largely expected to write about the First Lady's social calendar," a Star Tribune article reported.
The National Press Club didn't even vote to admit women until 1971.
1971! Can you believe that?
And now we're supposed to be aghast over Thomas merely expressing an opinion, an opinion that doesn't seem racist on the face of it? I'm more aghast at the 1971 milestone for women to be acknowledged as legitimate reporters. Thomas deserves nothing but admiration.
I grew up as a naive boomer in the Upper Midwest who would have a hard time describing what a Jew really is. We knew the Jews of Israel had this general named Moshe Dayan who wore a really cool eyepatch, just like a pirate. And that Mel Brooks could make some really funny movies. He was proud to assert his Jewish heritage.
The Isreali-Palestinian conflict seemed distant, mysterious and really irrelevant to us. We knew something terrible had happened to the Jews at the time of World War Two but we had a hard time understanding why.
Since WWII was long over, maybe it was time to just move forward with the melting pot ethos. Maybe the Jews could in fact "go home."
Dave Barry speaks for all of us in wanting to be relieved of the drumbeat of depressing and violence-filled news stories from the Middle East.
When I was a kid I thought the Viet Nam War would never end. And then I felt inflation would never end. But both did. So why can't we expect a similar end or fading of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Let's move this along for the benefit of future generations. It could be another part of Helen Thomas' legacy. Maybe it's "Somewhere over the Rainbow" but it's within reach, really.
-Brian Williams - morris mn Minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment