Well, Warner, YOU may not be dangerous, but there's Tim, that Insomniac Internet Goon......

has been entirely perfect since she began her career some time in the late Pleistocene period.

Cruel Warner... necessarily cruel. Maybe since the early Plasticsurgery period.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

4:52am?? What? A second insomniac internet goon?

Don't you people ever sleep? 

Warner, you've been selected to tell Helen to her face that she is full of it.  I have a scheduling conflict.

Jer

Gee, neither Helen Thomas, nor the journalism likes me because I am dangerous?

To quote Maverick:

"THAT'S RIGHT!  Helen...I AM DANGEROUS!!!" 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Warner, I wish there were some way this blog on the main page could retain its current position so that Helen's picture would remain adjacent to the photos of the t-shirt babes.  It does mitigate the trauma to the brain.

Jer

That the bloggers and "Citizen journalists" are not propperly indoctrinated into the socialist ideology as they should be by having gone through a School of Journalism. She is worried that the various stories that the public has access to won't have the required left tilt and that some stories and issues that should be ignored will be reported. This could serve to undermine the 50+ years of work that the liberal socialists have accomplished.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

Thomas: No, but I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they're a journalist and doesn't understand the ethics.

MSM ethic stalwarts  like Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, Eason Jordon, AP's faux photography, Newsweek Koran toilet flushing,  and the list goes on.

Poor Helen...she doesn't even know how obsolete her comments have become. What an old fool!

And she publishes this statement on HuffPo of all places?

Sounds like she just thinks Republican bloggers are bad.

Patty and Selma Bouvier's lost sister is Found! Giveaway? That sweet voice and leatherface from a lifetime of smoking.                

Truth.org should plaster that mug everywhere if it wants to impact on smokers.

This "We don't make accusations without absolute proof. We're not prosecutors. We don't assume" is absolutely hallarious.  She seems to be all assumption and no proof.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

I have to agree with Helen Thomas on bloggers are dangerous.  Anybody who is willingly posting that picture with out any warning is very dangerous.

 My husband read the newspapers and magazines. I read bloggers.  When we conversed, I find that he does not have the "rest of the story" so to speak.  We used to subscribe to Newsweek, Time, National Geographic, Popular Science, Popular Mechanic, PC World and USA.  We now has Popular Science, Popular Mechanic and PC World. 

I would imagine that Helen would like for all bloggers to graduate from "Pravda" truth and justice school before blogging. We just can't have people posting on the internet, unless they have been approved by the editors from "Pravda."

"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane" Waylon Jennings

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE GO OVER TO HELEN AND CLOSE HER COFFIN!!!!

Yeah... I've heard of wearing your heart out on your sleeve.... but not "wearing your genitailia under your chin"

You elitists have nothing to fear but your own hypocrisy

Life can be a real b*tch... so why vote for one?

Of course Helen and the MSM think we are dangerous, to them a citizen with a laptop asking questions to determine the facts is like a child wielding a gun and indescriminately pulling the trigger saying bang, bang your dead!

In their world view, questions that don't bring forth facts that support the agenda are unethical.  Propaganda must be carefully and thoughtfully crafted to create the desired impression.  Having citizens ask questions or pull up contrary facts destroys the whole effort.  Therefore there can't be any interaction that allows the citizen to respond to the assertions made by the MSM.  We saw this in the Soviet Union with the VOA.  Propaganda is only believable when there is no contrary view to challenge the assertions and get people to see the contradictions just under the surface.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

"I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they're a journalist and doesn't understand the ethics.  We do have to have some sense of what's right and wrong in this job. Of how far we can go. We don't make accusations without absolute proof. We're not prosecutors. We don't assume."

This is so loaded, I can't tackle each point individually... although I'll try...  But she's totally confused about reality.

First, given the total LACK of ethics I see in the products of modern "journalists", I don't think I'm a journalist, nor would I WANT to be considered one!! So much for that self-inflated sense of importance.

Second, the "ethics" she alludes to are also delusions of grandeur. Whatever standards "newspaper writers" must adhere to were put in place by their publishers in order to avoid running afoul of slander and libel lawsuits and other constitutional potholes.

Third, regarding that "some sense of what's right and wrong in this job" - most of us ordinary folks (read: those who think and write intelligently without certification papers from some school of socialist indoctrination) learned a sense of right and wrong when we were children, and we learned it from our parents and families and spiritual communities. We did not need to have some self-important writing school tell us what's right or wrong. As for what's right or wrong "in this job", why the distinction, as if what's right or wrong is somehow different "in this job" from what is right or wrong in every other aspect of one's life. This is another clue that there's a double standard in operation in the minds of those in the MSM - and that they view themselves above the rest of us.

As for the rest of the assertions, I'm not going to tear each apart. I figure we are all aware of how flimsy they are, and can rattle off a list of examples to refute each one of them. But I will summarize my view that these again reveal media elitism. And as such, they have no credibility. (She really does need a reality check! She probably believes CNN truly IS "fair and balanced"...)

I'm an ordinary citizen, using the tools of communication at my disposal, to converse and discuss issues of the day with my fellow citizens.

On the whole, I don't see any difference between those of us on blogs and forums nowadays from those folks who gathered in the town square or in a tavern or inn, to discuss the news events of the day.

In my view, the role of the media is to report the facts of the story. Period. Commentary is for the rest of us - we each have an opinion (as the old saw goes), and regardless of how it may stink, we are not only entitled to it, but we are entitled to express it to anyone who will listen.

Hopefully, rather than just talking to express ourselves, we engage with each other to examine thoughts, reveal the truth, and help us make better decisions.

The blogosphere is the modern town meeting, and we will participate to whatever degree our lights shine, and we will not be silenced. We are exercising the democratic process, where we each have a voice and we use it. ("Sad"? What's sad about that?)

And there I think is the root of Helen's problem! She is accustomed to pontificating, to telling others "we have looked into the story, and here's what you should think about it."

We are not dolts and don't need to be told what to think. We read and sift through and filter tons of information each day in order to understand the events of the day and their significance to our lives. We are accustomed to being confronted with and evaluating many alternate points of view. It's our way of communicating, and it's called "dialog", not diatribe (like this is getting to be...oops, am I sounding like a "journalist"?)

We are the wave of the future. This is the new way of participating in our communities. The old ways are going, and are almost gone.

What I think is kind of sad is when everybody who says they're a journalist doesn't understand they're obsolete. 

Helen Thomas: I don't have any mistakes to tell you about.

Helen, did you accept that from President when he was asked a ery similar question in a 2004 campaign debate?

I thought so. 

Just my $0.02

[Helen] Thomas: It's dangerous. [referring to the Internet]

It is dangerous to Ms Thomas' being perceived as a feisty, yet fair journalist. She fears it because she has seen how bloggers can expose biases and bad reporting--Memogate springs to mind--so quickly that such incidents remain fresh in the general public's minds and further erodes the public's confidence in the mainstream news media meaning her!  

Just my $0.02

Where did you get the cool picture of Freddy Krueger?