Interview with Helen Thomas, Hearst Newspapers, Editorial Writer

July 12th, 2004
Transcription by Volunteer Citizen Journalist Tab Julius

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So why don't you go ahead and introduce yourself?
HELEN THOMAS: My name is Helen Thomas, and I'm a Hearst Newspapers' columnist.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: When I'm looking at the time period building up to the war in Iraq, how would you evaluate your fellow -- the whole press corps' performance leading up to the war in Iraq?
THOMAS: Poor.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay -- I'm not going to be including my questions.
THOMAS: Okay. I think that -- White House press corps -- and the Pentagon press -- did a very poor job in the run up to the war -- Didn't ask the right questions -- Didn't ask, in fact, hardly any questions that would challenge the premises for going to war.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: What do you attribute that to? Why weren't these questions asked?
THOMAS: I attribute it to 9/11, which put everyone in a patriotic mode -- Being afraid to be called un-American -- And just afraid, really, that you would be rocking the boat.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And when you look at the --
THOMAS: I don't put myself in that category. I ask very, very tough questions -- Became almost persona non grata because of it.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And –
THOMAS: But I think it's the job of a reporter to do that.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: In other words, the job of a reporter to ask the tough questions?
THOMAS: Tough questions, and, you know, not just tough, just penetrating the lies. And prove it, and so forth. Now we find out there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that were usable, certainly -- were not discovered -- No ties to al Qaeda terrorist organizations -- And no threat.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Leading up to the war in Iraq, there was a sense that those "why" questions were not being asked at all.
THOMAS: No proof was asked on anything. They just blithely accepted everything. And I think we really defaulted on our real role, which is -- because we are the only transmission belt from the White House. The White House Press Corps is the only institution in our society that can ask the President a question. And the Presidential news conference is the only forum in our society where a President can be questioned and held accountable. And if they're not questioned, they could rule like dictators -- by edict alone.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: It seems like the communications policy has been -- when the President does have a press conference, to not allow the tough questions to even be asked -- the scripted nature of it. Can you speak to that a little bit?
THOMAS: I don't think that there's any of that kind of censorship per se, because President – They can pretty -- The White House can pretty well predict what we're going to ask. We'll go for the headlines of the day if we're certainly interested in news. At the same time, I don't believe that the White House censors, per se. But certainly the President had a list of people he would call on. And I think that the censorship almost comes from a self-censorship, rather than from on high. We can ask anything we want, and I'm sure they wouldn’t – they’d just have to stand and take it. But we didn't ask what should have been asked, obviously -- for proof.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Is there a sense of a pack mentality -- of a conformity? Can you talk a little bit about the psychological -- you know, the psychology of --
THOMAS: Well, I think the whole atmospheric of patriotism -- "Bring out the flag" and so forth -- after 9/11, it was a period of great trauma for the whole country. And certainly reporters are Americans and human beings also. We certainly were infected with the same reticence to challenge. So in that sense, there is a pack mentality. I think that we went into a coma, but I think that we're coming out of it now -- Finally. But it's a little too late, and too many people are dead -- too many people.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. Great. It seems like the White House crafts very detailed -- specific message of the day. They'll even have a global message that they send out. Can you talk about the "talking points," and how they stick to them?
THOMAS: Every time the President -- or his press spokesman -- or anybody, even the Vice-President -- or any of their entourage, top-side -- ever said, "Saddam Hussein," they said, "9/11." "Saddam Hussein -- -9/11." All in the same breath – constantly -- daily. It is no wonder that the American people, certainly, would have thought that there was a strong tie there. I mean, they did the subliminal message, which anybody knows who's ever studied anything about trying to get a message over.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: When you’re looking at the build-up --
THOMAS: By repetition.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: When you're looking at the build-up to the war in Iraq, was there a sense at any time that the press corps as a whole saw the war as inevitable? That it didn't matter?
THOMAS: I saw it from the day the President stepped into the White House. All of a sudden, out of no where, Saddam Hussein was on the radar screen. We hadn't heard from him for twelve years. We had a chokehold on him. We had satellite surveillance. We had tightest economic sanctions where they couldn't get medicine for their dying babies. And they wouldn't have died under -- because they had the normal ailments for children. They could not get -- just check the World Health Organization on that factor. And we were bombing them every other night. And in the closest time to the war, they were bombing every night -- what they call the "no-fly zone." But nobody was there to really find out if they were limited to the no-fly zone.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay --
THOMAS: And even if they were, this was, you know, this certainly would give the Iraqi leadership hierarchy some warning that we had the capability. Why would they challenge the United States superpower? The only superpower in the world.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Have you seen a change in the speeding up of the news cycle, and how that affects the news -- how it's covered over the years with cable and the Internet?
THOMAS: Well, I think that the 24-hour cable, of course, it's good and it's bad. I mean it's good -- We're saturated, and that's fine. Everybody knows what's going on. But there's no depth.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. From your experience, is there a lot of times when senior administration officials are speaking off the record when they could, in fact, be speaking on the record?
THOMAS: Of course, all the time. One of the --
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. Sorry – Go ahead.
THOMAS: There are times, of course, when they will put anything on it -- We always challenge when they say "on background." We say, "Why?" I mean, they want to tell you that -- What's the big secret about where Italy is? This is the kind of nonsense. But they get [unknown acronym] if they don't want to be identified. But a lot of times they do want to be identified. But I think we should always challenge the background, meaning you cannot name them, you can attribute what they say to a "senior administration official," and I don't think you fool world chancellories as to who's speaking.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Has it, to your knowledge, ever – If someone is speaking on background, and it turns out that what they were telling you was in fact wrong? Do you feel that there's a breach of contract there?
THOMAS: What they tell you is so innocuous that -- I mean, you're not getting any big, big, top state secrets from them. What you're getting is their message, so that the President can dominate the -- See, and if he's making a speech that day, then we'll have a backgrounder so that it doesn't interfere with the President's name.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Can you talk to how the President can dominate a news cycle?
THOMAS: Any time the President opens his mouth, you think it's important. If you're a reporter, you're certainly going to record it -- for history, and for whatever is happening. So, it's important. Certainly they can dominate any kind of news cycle.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And --
THOMAS: But a lot of TV networks, I've noticed, don't carry it unless they think ahead of time that there will be news, which is ridiculous. No reporter for any print press would ever ask, "Are you going to make news?" You go there and you listen, and you decide. But TV people want to ensure -- so that you won't miss "As the World Turns," or Monday Night Football, or whatever it is that distracts. I mean, Heavens!

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Do you see a difference between the type of questionings -- or the approach that television reporters take versus print reporters?
THOMAS: Television reporters take a lot longer to say the simplest things. I believe the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. But they know the value of holding the camera, and a minute and a half is nirvana for them. We don’t -- I don't think print reporters think in those terms. But TV people do frame their questions in a different way, and I don't think they're as challenging. That doesn't go for Sam Donaldson, my favorite -- I mean, he was pretty straight to the point. But others sort of soften the question. -- Not all. Some are very tough.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Do you see that a lot of the storylines that television reporters -- Are they constrained with their deadlines being earlier and having to already figure out what the story is?
THOMAS: Well, I think they certainly have to think in those terms. They also have to think of "the picture." They're constantly, you know -- It's not a story unless there's a photo to go with it -- or television. I'm exaggerating, but what I mean is -- It means a lot to have the visual for them. So they do have to plan ahead and think in those terms.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Were you present at the March 6th press conference leading up to the war in Iraq?
THOMAS: Yes. Yes I was.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: What do you remember from that?
THOMAS: Questions like, "Do you pray?"
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. I’m sorry. I’m not going to be including my question. So if you could --
THOMAS: Well, I think that the March 6th press conference was eerie, in the sense that reporters knew that this was the curtain raiser, and yet we didn't really ask – I -- He didn't call on me. I had my hand up all the time annoying them. But -- The President should have been asked a lot more -- many more questions that would have gone to the core of "Why do you want this war?" -- "Have you done" -- "Have you exhausted everything to avoid it?" and so forth. "Where is the threat?"

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Do you think that there was a fear in reporters from standing up and asking --?
THOMAS: Well, we knew the die was cast. I think that reporters had the sense of the inevitability, and they were simply accepting what he said. And -- He doesn't like to be interrupted, and he doesn't like follow-ups, so you don't -- I mean, he sort of cuts you off and embarrass -- I'm not afraid of a President cutting me off. I'll just pursue the question, which is what you're supposed to do. They are there to be accountable. We pay them. They are public servants. And that's my attitude. And we hope they'll do the right thing by their office.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: You said before that a press secretary has to have a kind of schizophrenic personality -- serving two masters. Can you speak to that?
THOMAS: Well, I think that good press secretaries not only are spokespersons for the President, the whole federal government, the whole United States, and the American people. And you can normally do that with fear and trepidation. But the other responsibility, the other hat, of course, is to really be responsive to the people so that they will be informed. You can not have a Democracy without an informed people. And the more they know, the better off they are, and better judgments they can have.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And how do evaluate the communications policy and performance of this particular --?
THOMAS: Well, they're all in lockstep. They have one message. They stay on the same page -- no matter what. Their press secretaries are given very little running room. And so they're very predictable. And no matter what you ask, they give you the same answer.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And so, do–
THOMAS: -- It's very limiting.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: What is limiting? Go ahead, and --
THOMAS: These spokesmen are very limited in what they can say. It's very clear that they were sent out with marching orders to just stick to a set quote. And you can see them reading -- You can see the press secretary reading along the sidelines where they finally had to scribble everything in. They're not given much -- you know?

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Is there always a press gaggle in the morning that's off the record, and then there's -- ?
THOMAS: It's not off the record. The morning gaggle is not televised. It's on the record, but I don't think it's filmed at all. But we certainly can use anything from it. It's very limited to around 15 minutes to lay out the President's day. And. --

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Do you see a difference between what kind of questions and what kind of interactions happen during the gaggle versus the regular press briefing?
THOMAS: Not that much. There is a big difference -- There is a difference in the sense that on the televised -- We usually go into much more detail. You know, the time is very limited for the so-called "gaggle." But a lot of the televised news conference will be a repetition of what we had in the morning.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: What is your sense of how public relations -- Or different strategies of not answering questions -- How, you know -- Are there a lot of journalists that are aware of these "tactics" that are being used if the questions -- And how many times would you keep on asking the same question before you know that you're not going to get a answer?
THOMAS: I'd ask to infinity. Because when the question is legitimate, it should not be dropped. But of course, I mean you have to move on or the press secretary will just take someone else when they know you're pressing. And -- I think it's very important to get the question on the record, whether they answer it or not.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: When you come in every day, do you have to read The New York Times, watch the -- Go over what you do in the morning to get prepared for what questions you're going to be asking that day.
THOMAS: I read many newspapers in the morning. If you don't know what's going on -- and while we're sleeping, half the world is making trouble according to a Secretary of State, which really tells it -- You have to know what's happening. You cannot go to the White House and not be prepared for what the events are, and what has been breaking through. But of course, you can't know everything. News is always breaking -- As long as people are on this planet, there will be news.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: In your evaluation of the news coverage, did you see that it was more event-based as opposed to issue-based? Of looking over long periods of time or of like what's happening each day?
THOMAS: Well, it's -- I would say that it's issue-based at the White House when they're preparing for a new legislative session or something. But if something's happening -- there's a real crisis, then it's events. So it's both.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Can you talk a little bit a pool spray? And when the --
THOMAS: Yes. When a group of photographers and reporters designated -- usually wire services, then newspaper reporters, and so forth, and the photographers -- go into the oval office after a meeting – when the President's meeting with a Head of State -- he will answer a few questions. And he'll only take one or so from a person that day -- there's no follow-up. It's very unsatisfactory, I think. But at the same time, if that's all you can get, it's fine.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Are you usually a part of that pool?
THOMAS: No, I'm not in the pool anymore. I was for years as a wire -- I worked for UPI for 57 years, so I had a lot of pools. And I had a lot of opportunity to ask Presidents questions. And I must say, they took them. And they took a deep breath first. (laugh).
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Can you talk a little --
THOMAS: I think when you have one chance in the barrel, you should not let the President off the hook. I mean, you are representing the American people in the sense that, that's your job.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Can you talk about some of the differences that you see of being a wire reporter versus now -- more editorial?
THOMAS: Sure. When you're a wire service reporter, everything is a news story in the sense that you don't pass up anything. And you're heavily on the body watch. When the President goes anywhere, you go, and so forth. It’s a little different -- I'm more laid back now. I'm a columnist. And so I can -- And you never put your opinion in your stories if you with wire services. "It's just the facts, ma'am" And when I write a column now, I can express myself -- my own feelings.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Do feel that the constraints of objectivity -- of getting both sides on an issue – when it -- especially when both sides agree -- How do you, I mean, what is the standard? Can you talk a little about that?
THOMAS: Well, both sides don't usually agree! But I think that American people are much better served when they get an objective news story, and not my opinion. It's not that important. No, I think that the straight facts, and people can make up their own minds -- that's best. And usually there are two sides.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Well, what happens when there's more than two sides?
THOMAS: Then you try to get that too. To be fair and have a story that's really fair and balanced. Being fair is -- to me, that's the Holy Grail of journalism.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Did you see a lot of skeptical viewpoints in the press or in the press corps leading up to the war in Iraq?
THOMAS: Not enough. There should have been much more questioning.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: I’m sorry –
THOMSAS: Not enough skepticism. We learned skepticism in a heavy, heavy way after Watergate -- where for nine months we printed untruths, because we were told from -- at the White House. We should have never fallen back into that. We should have asked many more questions. We're dealing with human beings and lives. And Presidents have to be accountable for who they send to war and why -- They have to explain the reasons for war, and they have to be legitimate.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Do you have a sense of, you know, does the government lie? Can you speak to that?
THOMAS: Well, do they lie? They would not call it a lie, but a lot of times the truth is just half-truth or distorted information and so forth for their own purpose. I mean, it's very sad because I think it's so important that the American people be well informed, and truthfully informed.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And –
THOMAS: They're the ones making the sacrifice. And you shouldn't have to sacrifice on falsehood.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. Can you just say that – I think I interrupted you.
THOMAS: Well, you should -- We always hope that we'll be getting the straight goods from the government. And I think that the American people deserve no less.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: What is -- Do you think that this administration is living up to that? Or do you feel that they're --
THOMAS: Of course not. I think that the reports have come out lately on the reasons for the war, and so forth. Every reason given has been just knocked down. I mean, there must be a lot of -- There should be much more anguish in the country. Do you really go drop bombs on people under falsehoods? And this is what this Senate Intelligence Committee said -- that they were falsehoods.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Do you feel that it is the CIA's fault? Or do you feel that this administration was determined to go to war regardless of what the intelligence was?
THOMAS: I don't know. But I think that the CIA knew what was expected of them. I think that they very well knew that they had a President who was quite determined. And so -- Everybody's at fault in a sense.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. Let’s see -- Looking at issues of international law, can you kind of give a sense of the importance that -- as journalists, but also this administration sees issues of international law?
THOMAS: I can see that this administration doesn't care about international law, or any of the international agreements we've made since World War II. They arrived here, and they started tearing up practically every treaty that's been made since World War II. Anti-ballistic missile treaty -- They have certainly have not gone for any of the other -- They've not worked very hard for -- One treaty, the Chemical and Biological Weapons Covenants -- We were part of 144 nations signed it, many, many years ago. In the last seven or eight years -- before he -- the President arrived -- there was a committee that set up that worked on a provision for some enforcement of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Convention.

And they -- They had this protocol ready which would allow some enforcement -- not thorough. We twice sabotaged it -- even though we were accusing Iraq of having these kinds of weapons. It would have, you know, enhanced our ability to go in and check, because we didn't want any inspection of our laboratories, plants. So -- Many, many treaties. They just ignored the U.N. They scoffed at the U.N. and international law. I mean -- The biggest, of course, incredible fallacy is the ignoring of the Geneva Conventions at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. The abuse -- We are stained for life with that, historically. The treatment of those prisoners -- not charged -- not tried -- not convicted, but held -- also in Guantanamo.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Building up to the war in Iraq, there seemed to be -- The administration had a very disdainful view of the inspections, and they almost didn't want them. Can you speak about that a little bit?
THOMAS: Well, they had already made up their minds, I think, to go to war. And so, anything they could to repudiate what was going on, and say that they were being -- Saddam, you know, kept saying he didn't have them. I'm not saying he had told the truth. He’s very deceptive himself. But that still didn't give them the excuse. If you want to do something, you do it. You just can do it.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. --
THOMAS: I mean, he was an enemy enough. He had committed so many horrors that nobody was about to defend Saddam Hussein.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Do you have a sense that -- This regime change policy -- Do you have a sense of the legality of it within International law or within domestic law?
THOMAS: Well, I think it was absolutely illegal under the U.N. Charter. Under the U.N. Charter, and under self-defense, you go to your own defense when you're attacked -- or if you have a treaty with another country to go to their aid if they're attacked. Those are the only reasons. You do not -- Pre-emptive -- Preventative war, the oxymoron -- No. That's not -- Under International law, that's not acceptable. If it was, everybody would have the right to go into any country that they decided. And it's wrong -- No matter how bad their leader. I mean, unless they really violate -- and unless the U.N. said, "We're going to war." We had no right to do it. Sure, they said there would be "serious consequences" in the last resolution, but did not sanction going to war -- the United Nations never did -- against Iraq.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Did you get a sense from the other correspondents that they thought it would be legal? They weren’t – seemed to be challenging that.
THOMAS: I didn't ask them. I don't know what they thought. All I know is that they should have asked more questions. And maybe they'll think the same thing of me. So, I don't know what – We -- There's a lot of give and take, but there isn't that -- Every reporter prides himself or herself on their own ability to think things through. And – Well, I think that everybody pulled in their arms -- in a crisis, you always do for your country. I can't change that. But somewhere, there is truth. And -- I don't think there's any reporter who didn't know in the White House Press Room for the six months in the run-up that they definitely were headed -- the administration was headed in the direction of a conflict.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Did you say that everyone in that six months knew that war was inevitable?
THOMAS: If they didn't, they had to be blind, deaf, and -- (laugh) I mean, I don't see how you could avoid it when every day, all of a sudden, they're bringing up Saddam Hussein -- every day. It was fixed in our minds.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So at what point do you think that you thought that. You say, when they first came into the office, but after Labor Day of 2002, they started to really --
THOMAS: There was never really any doubt in my mind, they had an agenda to go to war. Everything they did pointed to that. I mean, you could hardly avoid the factors. And you wondered, "Why?" – "Why did they need it? Why did they want it?" And then when he kept saying, "My daddy-- He tried to kill my daddy." There was nothing that didn't make you feel you were on one course.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: In your evaluation, why did we go to war? Why did the United States do this?
THOMAS: I don't know. I don't know. I think oil had a -- was a big factor. You know, the whole fact that we are so dependent on foreign oil. Iraq has the second largest reserves. And -- I suppose it was genuine fear of that. And -- Maybe they didn't realize what the cost of war was. None of them had been to war, except for Colin Powell. Not that you have to go to war to know it's hard, but --

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: From your senses, did Israel have anything -- our policy toward Israel – is there anything -- to reshift the balance?
THOMAS: I honestly do not know. I mean, we were told -- We were told that we were threatened, that there were weapons of mass destruction, and there were ties to the terrorists. Those were the three major reasons given for the war.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And then after --
THOMAS. Anything else, you can speculate on. There are a thousand reasons that he might have -- You could say that he had a personal vendetta, or anything else -- It's hard for me to believe that anybody would take us into war for that.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: I think the main reason that they use now is the human rights justification, that he had committed all these horrors --
THOMAS: That's a fallback position, and you can --
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: I’m sorry, what --
THOMAS: The human rights aspect was, of course, a fallback position. But you could go into many countries -- I mean, go into Afghanistan. Go into Pakistan. Go into all of these places where you want human rights. Who knows?

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: The administration did seem to have a very negative viewpoint toward the United Nations, and then in January there was a shift -- where they were going to go after a second resolution. Can you talk about -- Why do see that there was a shift to try to get this explicit authorization from the U.N.?
THOMAS: Because they're out there alone. The US wanted --
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: I’m sorry, what –
THOMAS: The United States wanted an exit strategy. It's gotten deep into the quagmire, so it needed the U.N. backing. And the U.N. knew that it had to come to the U.S. aid, but we crawled back.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: There was a lot of attacking on isolating France as a country, individually. Can you speak to that?
THOMAS: Well, I think that was wrong. Because I think France tried to warn us – France tried to warn us not to go into Vietnam after Dien Bien Phu where it was solidly defeated in South Vietnam. And we went in anyway. It tried to warn us not to go into Iraq, and so forth. But it wasn't just France. It was many countries in Europe who really felt it was a folly.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So when you look back on this time period, what really sticks out to you as you’re --
THOMAS: Pardon?
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: When you look on – from like August ’02 up to the lead up to the war – what really sticks out when you think about this time period?

THOMAS: What sticks out is that "If you want to go to war" – "If you want to give a war, you can give a war, but someday people might not come." (laugh) Unless you can justify it a little better -- I shouldn't laugh, but -- Isn't that the old saying, "Someday they're going to give a war, and nobody's going to come?"
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay.
THOMAS: I'd like to see that day.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. Since you've covered so many presidents, how do you evaluate this current president overall with the other ones that you've covered?
THOMAS: Not at the top of my list.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: I’m sorry – Go ahead.
THOMAS: This president is not at the top of my list in terms -- The word "peace" doesn't cross his lips enough. And I think that we should give peace a chance, first and always, as long as it's an option.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Do you have a vision for peace? What's it going to take for use to achieve peace from this point of where we're at? What does the United States have to do in that role?
THOMAS: Pull the troops out by January after the Iraqis have their election. They'll solve their problems. They’ve got -- Vietnam did. And we've made friends with them, obviously. We'll have good relations and so forth. Stop the killing! War is killing and being killed.