Helen Thomas  On Ethics


CENSORSHIP

I've lived through about four wars, I guess, always on the sidelines, always safe and protected in an armchair watching the world roll by. And it's easy to criticize. But I think the censorship was tighter this time, I think the news was managed totally, sanitized, and I think the reporters rolled over and played dead. I think that when a briefer, a military briefer gets up and says, "It's a beautiful day for bombing," "It's a healthy day for bombing," "It's a target rich environment," likening killing fleeing Iraqi soldiers to shooting fish in barrel, we've lost something in the translation, and I think it's called humanity. I think reporters should have said, "What do you mean by that? You mean it was a good day for killing?"

ETHICS

I think that there is always a question of, is this story for the story's sake, or will it ruin a life? Ruin a reputation. What is at stake here? Is the story that important? I think you always have to know that you have lives in your hands, really, futures and so forth. I think that you have to have great integrity about what you write. I don't think you should ever not do a story because of it might defame someone, but you better be sure of what you're writing, you better be sure of the truth, you better be sure of the facts, and I also think that people in high places have to know they are, their life will be an open book. I think the questions are the humanity and human beings involved. And there are many ethical questions, of course, that you come across. I think that you have to be fair. And you have to use common sense. And I don't think you write anything unless you check with your editors if it's really that touchy. If it verges on national security, and could really rock the boat, then I think you have to go to your editors, and make command decisions at that level.

PRESS AND MEDIA CRITICISM

I think that we're much more under the gun. I think it's public reaction that has impacted on the courts, that the public is a little tired of us, they think we're intruders, they think we have overstepped our bounds, they think that we should be as vulnerable to telling what all we know on the witness stand as anyone else, and I think a lot of the protections that we had are being chipped away. In terms of revealing sources.

I think it's very bad. I think it's terrible because I think that the reporters are kind of the last stronghold in this country. Where you really have an outside observer on government. And if you don't, if people can't tell you anything without being very vulnerable themselves, they're not going to. So, when they tell the government, it becomes an immediate secret almost, it's classified. So I think in order to get at the truth, the courts have upheld our right to the confidentiality, but that is being chipped away.

And I think Watergate made us all more skeptical. When the press secretary for Richard Nixon can say that everything he said for nine months was inoperative, it does give you pause, because you have been the transmission belt for all of these untruths.

I think that is a part of the intimidation, and also all of these anti-media groups who are making a living, and have since Watergate, of bashing the press, and keeping an eye on them, and holding...they seek to dominate in television now, and everything else. They're called on every time there's a story, they're called on to criticize the press. Not that I think that we're above reproach, far from it. But these people make a living off of bashing the press. They never tell the American people how difficult it is to get the truth and to get real information. I mean, it is a struggle, because people in power wanna put in their thumb and pull out the plum on their own terms and they also want to suppress a lot if it is embarrassing to them. Lots of information that's gonna be locked up for 50 years, 25 years, that I feel is in the public, legitimately in the public domain that we can't have any access to.