One of the funniest cartoons I've seen showed a "martyred" terrorist appearing in "Paradise" only to find that all of the longed-for 72 virgins looked just like Helen Thomas.

I'll read the rest... but votes are private. Period. This guy is out of order for asking such an assinine question to begin with and shouldn't have gotten past than exchange.

Craig:
Canucks like you make me gag. Who TF are you kidding, who you vote for is private? Then don't ever discuss any political issues on a blog.

PEOPLE MIGHT FIGURE OUT WHO YOU VOTED FOR.

What, are YOU afraid of, a Bolshevik purge?

So many Canadians have no clue about what participation in public affairs really means.

At least Americans stand up like real men and women and face the consequences of their convictions.

Doug:

Do you favour the abolition of the secret ballot? If not, why not?

Doug,
I'll indulge you for a moment... and assume you aren't just trolling here because you obviously must understand how the personal attack you started with invalidates anything that follows it.
Also, I'll grant you a pass on Godwinning the thread on the 3rd comment because you substituted Bolshevik for Nazi.
Honestly... be a constructive little kiddie or leave the grownups alone. If you don't understand the importance of being able to vote privately than pick up a Britanica (I think there are childrens editions at your library) and polish up on your civics.

I believe that Hugh said that Helen had the right not to answer but that Hugh still had the right to ask.

Secret ballot doesn't mean that you can't say who you voted for and ask who other people voted for. Hell, you can even lie about who you voted for and no one will kill you for it. Here.

But who says no one has the right to ask any question they damn well please? Still free country?

Loved this moonbat logic:

HH: But Helen, did you think that he knew going in that they weren't there?
HT: Yes.
HH: And so you do think he lied going it? He deceived us all?
HT: I think that he had...there were facts, they've cherry picked the facts, they wanted a war.
HH: Do you think he should be impeached?
HT: No.
HH: No?
HT: No.
HH: Why not, if he lied to us about taking us into war?

free to ask the question, free to answer...

why? because!

Warwick,
All agreed there.. absolutely he has the right to ask. However, having the right and asking are two separate things. How old is your wife? Are those natural? are other questions that people are entitled to ask... it's a issue of whether or not they should. The only reason for asking is as some type of meme because the question itself is so laughable on it's face. Kate is right that ms Thomas should have recognized it for what it was (given her experience) and dealt with it as such. I simply feel that asking such a question so undermines the legitimacy of the interviewer (who is pressing an agenda here) that ms Thomas should have seen through it and been better able to properly take the idiot who asked it to school. She didn't.
This whole idea that putting people off-balance and trying to somehow diminish them doesn't serve any discussion particularly well. It would do many people well (especially in the blogoshere/web/cyberspace/insert pithy defining phrase here).
I hadn't meant to feed the trolls and for that I am sorry.

The fact is that if it could be proven that an anti Republican and pro Democratic party bias in the White House press corps had been maintained by major American news outlets, it would be a HUGE news story. As huge as Watergate, because at the root of it, it would be about the same thing. Namely, using underhanded methods to affect the poilitical process. If there is truth to the theory of White House Press Corps bias toward the Democrats, then it is a legitimate line of questioning to ask reporters about their political allegiences. Logic would dictate that there ought to be some card carrying democrats, some card carrying republicans, some who could swing either way, and some who never vote at all in any given crowd of people. If the press corps turned out to be mostly Democrats, or mostly Republicans, then it would seem to follow that someone is trying to manipulate the politics by letting certain people in, and keeping others out. If there is no truth to it, then journalists ought not to feel threatened by the question. Helen Thomas sounded defensive about the whole thing, and actually questioned the legitimacy of questions that under different circumstances, she herself might have (and probably has) asked. When journalists and journalism become the story, then they seem less attached to the right of other journalists to freely ask questions that they believe a pertinant.

I for one would love to know how Neil MacDonald and Peter Mansbridge have voted for the past 30 years.

Please excuse the above spelling mistakes. Should have proofed it.

Warwick nailed it. Hugh had the right to ask, and Helen had the right to refuse to answer.
And why didn't she want to answer? Because she didn't want to validate the idea that she supports Democrats more than Republicans.

Hugh's comment on transperancy is important. I'd like to know some background on the sources I get news from.

Karl,

The MSM in the USA is BLATANTLY left wing and above all, rabidly anti-Bush. Just look at the free pass Clinton got and continues to get vis a vis Hummergate. Look at the recent examples of the confirmation hearings where the likes of a drunken murderer (uh..."manslaughter-er") Ted Kennedy gets to chastise an esteemed judge with a track record as pure as the driven snow. The left pisses and moans about Fox news, yet ABC, NBC, CBS and ESPECIALLY CNN provide free adcertsing to the DNC and their anti Bush crusade. The reason why left wing bias is not a news story is that the newsmen would only be showing themselves in a negative light. It would be like robbing a bank then telling everyone about it: ie not gonna happen.

I love the part where he asks are there any conservatives in the whitehouse press corps she can't name one.

Theres a surprise.

I'm a straight shootin liberal,......

Damned right it's important who they vote for. The public deserves to know the slant they will give to the news if they want to say they are impartial then don't vote. Might give them some credibility.

Nahhh why give MSM's that. Kate told us who she voted for.

Well... I suppose it's a question of politeness.

I was always taught not to ask who a person voted for, as it was none of my business. That doesn't stop me from ascertaining where a persons sympathies might lie.

I make no bones about voicing my vote, but others are not so comfortable with that. I think both had the right of it in that regard.

Media bias on the other hand is rampant, and I don't see a whole lot of good journalism these days, I see a lot of propaganda journalism though. Whether its Fox and CNN, or CBC and CTV, it's all shit.

It reminds of when I was a kid, and I'd read Time magazine and Pravda... ending up with the truth somewhere in the middle of the two.

There is, I think, very little principle in journalism these days, and regardless of where your sympathy lies, the facts can be made to fit the story, instead making a story which fits the facts.

It is a little discouraging to see the press make a mountain out of a mole hill in relation to the Cheney incident. He probably feels horrible. Wasn't this guy like one of his closest friends. Thats gotta suck. I'd have thought they'd wait to see if the police had anything to say before going off half cocked... heh.

The press reminds me more and more of the cartoon BloomCounty, and the kid who'd bring any piece of garbage "Alien Blue meanie claims Clinton is actually a platypus wearing a costume" story to the editor, a drunk with no editorial ability, who'd then scream "Run with that baby!", then the lad would saunter back to his desk and call Mrs. Reily to see if her husband had died yet, so he could get something into the Obits.

I'm curious as to how much journalistic integrity is related to the true desires of a journalist, who we must assume pursues their career for noble reasons, only to find that they themselves are victim to the need for market share. As opposed to owners of press, fighting for market share control, who will do anything that sells more of whatever they own, be it newspapers, TV, or what have you.

It seems to me that the average journalist pretty much sells their soul to the agency they choose to work for, and once sold, they stay sold forever.

Thats what tics me off about Ezra Levant. I question whether it was journalistic principle, or a quest for attention and sales, that caused him to publish those cartoons. Having met the man once, and having been witness to his attempt to oust Harper as my local candidate, I'm inclined to the latter.

As long as the teeming mass' keep eating from the slop, I suppose it doesn't really matter.

I too was sort of surprised that Ms. Thomas didn't hit back harder... she is a tough old bird whose seen damn near everything. You would think she would smash the ball back hard and furious if she has no reason to hide anything.

Absolutely no problem with asking someone how they've voted. It's damn foolish to suggest otherwise.

Journalists should be asked this question (and others) more often. Spending more time on the receiving end might improve their perspective.

Speaking on biased reporters...
When is someone going to reform the CBC. Neil McDonald has no business reporting on Conservatives or Republicans. He has a deep seated hatred of them and never reports - he just lectures and editorializes on how bad they are. They seem diametrically opposed to everything the Conservative party is in favour of. Why not axe the funding of an organization that is so openly hostile, now that they have power?

Instead of asking "do you own a gun, Helen?" he should have asked "do you have an axe in need of grinding?"

How bout' just giving the axe to Neil Macdonald?

Would it not also be "just a question of politeness" (supposeing for a moment we are not dealing with Dick Cheney, but just an average Joe) to give a hunter who accidentally shot his buddy at least 18 hours of privacy to get himself together before he has to answer a lot of stupid questions about the incident? But Helen Thomas says Cheney was wrong to wait that long on the grounds that he is the #2 man in the country, and a public figure. I guess she is right. He is not the average Joe, and he has to face the tough questions. That's why he gets the big bucks.

However, her comments that his failure to speak to the press corps sooner is some sort of proof of the vast (and apparently, secretive) right wing conspiracy is to me a further confirmation of a vast conspiracy of moonbats in the press. But I digress.

Let's remember that Helen Thomas is not "just an average Joe" either. Why is it not quid pro quo? Why is the question of "How do you vote?" or "Do you belong to the Democratic Party" considered impolite and off limits? Especially when it is directed to a well known public figure, and long time part of the White House Press corps, and when media bias and how it might affect the political process is news?

The fact is that the "drama queen" reactions of the White House Press Corps over the fact that it was not them, but local Texas media that got the scoop, has become a big part of the whole "Cheney's got a gun" story. But if "It is none of your business" is a valid answer from Helen Thomas regarding her political leanings, then perhaps it is also a valid answer from Cheney about a tragic and personal matter that really has nothing to do with the business of government, except perhaps in a peripheral way.

I agree that it is impolite to ask certain questions of people. But the press has made a business of ignoring those social norms when dealing with public figures. But some don't seem to like it when it cuts both ways.

Go to CTV.ca and find the video feed of Mike Duffy Live: Panel discusses the daycare debate.

Listen to Ken Dryden's opening comments.
Loosely paraphrased, "what we need now before April 3 is to hear the people's voice and the media's voice on childcare."

Yes it is very important for the media to part of the debate on childcare.

That's cause Ken is feeding them their "impartial" viewpoint.

Read on. Doubling-talking factually-challenged O'Donnell from "The Left Wing" displays his arrogance and silliness.
For example, on the reason for the 18 hour gap:
"I believe the Vice President is very smart. I believe Karl Rove is very, very smart. I believe the President is very smart about a situation like this being brought to him at 7:30PM on a Saturday night. Those three people decided we cannot let this out tonight, and I believe they decided it for a very smart reason."
Cheney is sooo smart that, in spite of his heart condition and meds, he gets soused just before going on a shoot. No doubt, his Secret Service guards applaud all the while.

Here is a quote from Thomas Sowell that I found in a linked story from NealeNews. It relates to the media in the US and their demands for instant gratification over the Cheney hunting incident. It can also easily be applied north of the border with respect to CTV/G&M and their 'feed me' criticisms over Mr. Harper's new way of dealing with the media.

" The media are so full of themselves -- among other things that they are full of -- that they act as if the government exists to provide them with something to publicize. The time is long overdue to put these people in their place. Where is Margaret Tutwiler when we need her?"

Getting back to the Ken Dryden appearance on Mike Duffy Live. I am still doing a slow burn over the attitude of his statements, at the beginning and the end of the segment, where he almost seems to be challenging the media to get involved in the debate over childcare.
He seemed to imply, in words and attitude, that the media had an obligation to join with the Liberals and the NDP to stop the Conservatives over universal childcare.
I did not know the media had an official position on the issue but he sure wanted them to get their voice heard before April 3.

Now THAT'S news!

"The fact is that if it could be proven that an anti Republican and pro Democratic party bias in the White House press corps had been maintained by major American news outlets, it would be a HUGE news story. As huge as Watergate, because at the root of it, it would be about the same thing. Namely, using underhanded methods to affect the poilitical process. If there is truth to the theory of White House Press Corps bias toward the Democrats, then it is a legitimate line of questioning to ask reporters about their political allegiences."

And THAT is the whole point.
There is not much doubt that the press corp is blatantly and outrageously ANTI-Bush. Anti-Republican for certain, but totally and rabidly ANTI-Bush.
But they are not the only ones. More and more it becomes clear that the Clinton appointees over at FBI, CIA and NSA have a lot to answer for along with the press corp.
We are AT WAR damnit! And they had better start getting onside. Even if Bush were all the things they foam at the mouth about him being, ( and he most certainly is NOT) he is a damn site better than what we will have to live under if the Al Quedas, Iraqi suicide bombers, Palestinian hate mongers, Iranian crazy people get their way.
What about this doe the elite not get?
They choose not to believe ANY of it because it suits their political agenda to ignore the overwhelming evidence that not only was Bush right but that his actions have saved us many more thousands of lives and countless attacks.
Of course, they don't have time for such things as protecting the American people ( and by association Canadians). They are too busy preening in the mirror of their own self-importance. THEY do the questioning , thank you very much and they do not care to answer ANY questions that , were THEY be putting them would have a petulant fit if they were not answered as they insist.
Their behaviour is worse that the most spoiled child and collectively should be tolerated no longer.

The Canadian press is just as bad and in some cases worse. Americans GET their press is biased and verge on the criminal in their behaviour not to mention treasonous.
Many people in Canada consider the conflict worldwide to be "Bush's War".. It is most definitely NOT that. It is a worldwide conflict that threatens to overwhelm us if we do not get onside, yet the Canadian press , also preening in their own self indulgence and pushing agendas of their own, fail to see this gathering and ever more dangerous threat.

A lot of the media coverage over the Cheney hunting accident seemed to be implying that there may be some nefarious reason for the delay in releasing a comment. It seemed to me that the media was leading people to conclude that there was something to keep secret here. As if foul play of some kind may have been involved. If anyone else picked up on that it just another example of the hatred for Bush/Cheney eminating from the MSM.

As for the CBC, they know who pays the bills, and they know which party has ruled this country throughout most of its history. Eventually they know the Liberals will be back on top, and until that time they're more than happy to prepare the way.
Unless Harper engages the media they won't leave him alone, and unless the media is willing to give him a fair shake he'll continue to freeze them out. Its a nice little pardox with no end in sight.