A Maddening Interview with Evan Thomas
By LisaB on March 14, 2009 at 1:45 PM in Current Affairs
Reporters, particularly the pundit variety, want people to believe their assorted columns or publications are valuable because they offer “critical analysis” or “news you won’t find anywhere else.” Basically, they want you to believe you just can’t get better information or better thinking than from them.
Well, fine. But assertions like that do deserve an occasional look-see. What are the bona fides? What, exactly, do you get for your “news-magazine” dollar?
Well, if it’s Newsweek, maybe not as much as you’d like. During an hour long interview on NoQuarter Radio’s Sins of Omission with Paulie Abeles, Newsweek editor-at-large Evan Thomas seemed not to be very well informed on a few issues himself.
He did admit the media was biased in favor of Obama in 2008. But he characterized it as a more or less benign bias that did not contribute all that much to the eventual success of BO.
The following are some notes taken during the interview. This is not a transcription, so you may wish to listen to the interview to form your own opinion. I have included approximate times so you can find these points of interest.
7:35 – Thomas said Obama was not well-liked by reporters traveling with him. Obama had no time for them but was much more popular with editors back at headquarters not directly covering him. (I guess to know him is not to love him?)
14:10 – BO’s memoir was a bit “loose” and he got off easy because no one really challenged him on particulars. Obama did “improve” on his own story.
15:20 – When asked about Obama’s “stretching the truth” and the Maytag employees he claimed to help near Chicago, Thomas replied that BO’s lies are hard to measure and that issues with him and issues with Hillary Clinton were “apples and oranges.”
16:30 – Thomas thinks Obama had tough questions about Rev. Wright and handled that well.
18:20 – Obama was not credible in distancing himself from Wright, but what a great race speech!
21:24 – Says it was obvious BO wasn’t a racial hater – that’s why BO got out of some of the Wright / Pfleger / Meeks, etc connections.
21:20 – When asked about how the Kennedy endorsement came about, Thomas says Ted Kennedy backed Obama because Caroline Kennedy liked him.
26:45 – HRC didn’t have good judgment.
28:35 – Said both Clintons tried to scare voters and portray Obama as the “other.”
29:87 – Abeles talked about how BO fed into the “alien” portrayal himself by not offering documentation, still refuses access to docs about him, spent $1 million (so far) litigating access to these docs and then asked Thomas what possible reason BO has to do this? Thomas replied he didn’t know enough about this to address it.
32:20 – Abeles asked Thomas about the caucases question and how caucus goers in certain places felt the BO campaign gamed the system by busing in people to shout down the locals, Thomas said he didn’t know about it or have any information.
34:43 – The South Carolina “fairy tale” comment by Bill Clinton was decisive and Bill was a “malign force” to Hillary’s campaign.
26:50 – Abeles asked Thomas about an article in TNR called Race Man that suggested the BO campaign looked for ways to exploit any potential Clinton gaffe into a racial attack. Thomas did not know the article but said that was the way things played out.
38:55 – Abeles asked Thomas about BO’s campaign chief, David Axelrod, most famous for “astroturfing” (creating phony grass roots). Thomas said Axelrod got tired of his old, bad life and was looking for a “cleaner vessel and found it in Obama.” (I am not making this up.)
40:35 – A caller to the show said the media provided awful coverage and was terribly biased during the campaign. Thomas replied the press was pro-Obama, but he wasn’t shocked and didn’t think the bias decisive. BO would have won anyway.
42:41 – A caller questioned whether Thomas’ (and others) depiction of Hillary Clinton as a demagogue was backed up by any specific events. Caller suggested that someone’s “read” or interpretation of situations often becomes a “fact” in the media and the caller did not want anyone’s opinions but examples of comments, commercials or campaign literature from Clinton that would prove the point. Thomas could not give specifics. Caller said there were no commercials, mailings, etc and it was a descriptive line that then became the story.
Thomas said it was the “general tenor” of Clinton’s campaign that was the problem. She was playing on the fears of [low-information voters].
44:52 – Caller identifying as a producer on a documentary about the democratic primary said he was suprised Thomas did not have info on the caucus problems despite press notification from HRC campaign and asked why the media did not follow the story. Thomas says he didn’t know, doesn’t know enough and can’t answer.
46:20 – A caller noted that 16% of Clinton female voters did not vote for BO – was that because of anger about misogyny? Caller also said when women complained, they were marginalized. Thomas replied he didn’t know and couldn’t say. But Thomas allowed that the cable news cycle and internet makes things so quick there is often LESS digging than there ought to be. Maybe press dropped the ball.
Says the press was superficial and “caught up in the moment” and often didn’t dig into issues. Maybe Newsweek should have looked at this stuff. Thomas also said a lot of stuff wasn’t published during the campaign.
49:18 – A caller referenced an article called Good Will Hunting and asked about the size of BO’s operation in FL and the huge sums of $ in his campaign coffers. The article profiled donors and found many of them were illegal and that the BO campaign turned off the software to check donors. Did Newsweek ask where the $$ were coming from? Thomas replied that he didn’t think there was a lot of activity in that area and it is, by the way, hard to do. They could have done more, but he just didn’t know.
Thomas did say it Interested him that BO was interpreted as a positive campaigner and McCain a negative one when they were actually = in negative campaigning. BO just ran more positive stuff so it looked like he was more positive overall. This was a function of having more money.
53:48 – A caller said, that many women felt this was a bad campaign, that women were marginalized and felt beleaguered by the press. What are some lessons for female candidates in dealing with media? Thomas didn’t agree women have any real problems, that HRCs problem was her mistakes, not her gender and that Palin couldn’t handle interviews because she wasn’t well informed.
55:29 – Another question asked why do these women get clobbered when Joe Biden gets a pass for saying dumb things? Thomas said, it’s well known BIden can’t talk and he gets ribbed all the time for it.
56:25 – Caller says why didn’t Thomas didn’t get the sexism in the media? Thomas replied that HRC just wasn’t competent.
So, here are my ideas of the takeaway from this interview.
* Obama got more favorable press coverage, but it didn’t really matter because he would have won anyway.
* Neither Hillary Clinton nor Sarah Palin were competent.
* Sexism did not play a role in how those women were characterized by the press.
* Maybe the press should have dug a little more on Obama.
* Hillary’s stretching of the truth was MUCH worse than Obama’s.
* Caucus problems? What caucus problems?
* The “tone” of a campaign matters more than real events and documentation. Evidence to back this up is not necessary since we all understand tone. (If you don’t the media will explain it to you.)
* Editors rule and reporters drool, so the fawning coverage may better reflect the opinions of those once removed from BO rather than those who actually spend time with him.
* It’s completely fine to ignore bloggers. They aren’t real journalists and don’t know how to think about news anyway.
* Double ditto for the topics bloggers cover.
What was your takeaway?
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
It appears Newsweek may be going under and are loosing readers as well as ads. After trying to comprehend the uninformed or simply ignorant responses from their chief editor I cannot imagine who would pay to read this half ass propaganda.
Lisa, you just summed up my takeaway. I was appalled by the Evan Thomas interview, the run of “I don’t knows” and “I haven’t looked into that.” These answers given by a man who in January published a book entitled:
“A Long Time Coming: The Inspiring, Combative 2008 Campaign and the Historic Election of Barack Obama”
He’s touting himself as an authority on the 2008 election and the best he can do is “I don’t know???”
Please!
I found the whole hour infuriating. But I have to say Paula did an excellent job. She was calm, civil but refused to back off.
Some of the details that stood out for me: the total lack of knowledge or refusal to discuss caucas fraud, the HRC is a big fat liar meme, the dismissal that sexism had any play in the result, the racism explanation [Hillary played the race card, Obama did not], how Bill Clinton’s loose-cannon demeanor sabatoged Hillary’s bid for the WH, and how Hillary overplayed her experience for the job [yet no mention on Obama's nonexistent record--or as a columnist wrote this week: a resume that would fill a postage stamp.].
One other thing. When Thomas was asked why journalists [and I use the term loosely] did not investigate Obama more thoroughly, Thomas whined about lack of “time, money and personnel.” And yet, we all remember how hordes of reporters landed in Alaska to run Sarah Palin and her family through the wringer.
I thought Thomas was a disingenous ass. If he thought this was a good way to boost book sales with the audience? Think again.
Sarah Palin and Hillary not comptetent? That statement is a perfect example of tone vs. content.
And that’s why I have no intention to read Newsweek in the foreseable future.
Let’s just make that “won’t read Newsweek ever again”, shall we?
What’s Newsweek?
Excellent piece LisaB. You perfectly summed up my “takeaway” (of what I managed to force myself to listen; kept turning it off in disgust).
It is appalling Evan Thomas be a “journalist” at all let alone the editor in chief of a major magazine. The guy has no capacity for objective analysis of facts or investigative journalism at all. He is just another biased and intellectually dishonest guy that pretends what he says is “fact”. Talk about competence…
Thomas the dense evaluating HRC? ROFLOL… Please.
I don’t believe any of his “I was not aware”: he either chose to be unaware or he knew perfectly well but didn’t fit his agenda.
Evan Thomas deserves and has my utmost disrespect.
I second that! He shilly-shallied his way thru the interview. He really came off sounding arrogant & uninformed. I wouldn’t touch his rag with a 10′ pole.
Full transcript at Alegre’s Corner.
Interesting, why is the transcript there, and not here?
http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=2418
Thanks LisaB. I did not hear the interview.. but your take and the responses above that clearly agree with you are appreciated. I continue to be in complete shock about what happened in this election and how the media and Obama completely manipulated the results. I’m DISGUSTED by Thomas’ responses and most particularly his take on HRC… she was treated so poorly — and what a great and strong woman she is — to treat her with such disrespect is appalling.
I don’t know how much more of the Obama adoration and worship I can tolerate.. I live in Portland, OR and it continues to be extreme here.. I am a liberal, as most everyone around me is.. but I do not worship all things Obama. While driving home last night I saw a sign in a business window that said “Hens for Obama”… WTF?
LisaB, thanks for putting this together. It was quite infuriating listening to him say repeatedly that he didn’t know or he was unaware and so on.
The other infuriating interview was with Carl Bernstein, HRC’s unauthorized biographer. He was actually rude to Ms. Aebles and her callers by dismissing their comments as “ridiculous.”
If I had a suggestion for Ms. Ables, who has a great show over all (!), it would be this: Rely on callers more to raise pointed issues and to pursue the argument. I say this because an interviewer is in an awkward position of having to disagree with her guest without alienating him altogether. In other words, callers can pursue hot-button points in a way that the interviewer cannot.
But I agree, Thomas was conveniently uninformed when it came to the more controversial aspects of the primary. He didn’t bother to ask any question that would shake the Obama boat, so to speak.
Excellent LisaB — So annoying!
Great post!
While I believe Thomas could have been called out more, I think the interview revealed very interesting aspects to Thomas’s thinking. This post highlights much of the more disturbing aspects os Thomas’s worldview.
What woman has been as negative as the president’s wife? Who “for the first time in her [adult] life was proud to be an American”, or even the president himself who refused to recognize the symbolism of OUR AMERICAN FLAG and turned his back on it? Not to mention their implementation of race/gender based campaign tactics. Thomas would essentially have to be both deaf and blind to have neither seen nor heard what went on in the campaign. I much prefer the BLOGGERS who report the facts to the REPORTERS who are DODGERS of the FACTS. Piss on him (Thomas) and them (the so called MSM reporters). Thanks, LisaB, for all the text notes because I can’t watch or listen to the videos or radio with my soooooo low speed dial-up where I live in that remote part of Texas where even the owls wont fly and my best source of news is the internet.
Where do I begin? Evan Thomas is a dumb, clueless jerk! His main answers were – I didn’t know but blamed Hillary and Sarah for being incompetent?????
What is this man smoking? Obama the Fraud cannot speak without a teleprompter. Good grief, Obama has to have it just to introduce his “own” cabinet nominee. This is Toastmasters 101. He is the first President to cancel the Press/Gridiron appearance.
Obama lies! He’s against earmarks and signs a bill with 9,000 of them and blames Bush.
He’s not raising taxes on anyone making under $250,000. Yet, he’S reducing the mortgage interest deduction. Right, only people that earn over $250,000 own a home.
He proposes all this green energy but will raise our utility/gasoline rates.
Obama is deliberately destroying capitalism to spread our wealth and Evan Thomas is talking sh@@ about the competence of Palin and Clinton.
Evan Thomas and the rest of the corrupt,cultist media – you need to be flushed out of your jobS along with OIAF. IMPEACH OBAMA AND THE MEDIA…..
Lisa
Can you rescue my post from the cellar?
Thanks
Evan Thomas is a gargler of Barack Obamas balls.
Thus “ball gargler” Thanks to Larry for the new word for koolaid drinkers.
Lisa
Obama did not have a dual press conference with Gordon Brown. Why? You guessed it because he couldn’t use his teleprompter. BO is a puppet!
Another NQ poster had mentioned that Obama is setting up a system to have facts, figures, etc fed to him during future press conferences.
Jon Stewart/Evan Thomas/Carl Bernstein – only “low information voters” would listen to your propaganda. You have disgraced the journalism/entertainment professions……
15:20 – When asked about Obama’s “stretching the truth” and the Maytag employees he claimed to help near Chicago, Thomas replied that BO’s lies are hard to measure and that issues with him and issues with Hillary Clinton were “apples and oranges.”
That was Galesburg, Il. He out and out lied to the workers. He never ever got back to them despite calls to his office by workers. My father was the environmental engineer there and was retiring. He recounts how promising and convincing Obama was. Later on, after Obama did nothing, the workers felt cheated.
Just like the poor homeless woman and her son that turned out to be a real estate agent and owned several properties which she put in her son’s name.
No mention of any of this in the MSM. No mention of the fact that it was a Republican, not Obama’s office, that provided her with a home.
If it’s not pro-Obama don’t expect to hear it on the MSM. Even if it turns out he lied. Funny the MSM had no problem pointing out that Bill Clinton was a liar. Then when it came to GWB he misspoke. Obama? Crickets.
& that was just one lie. What was so hard to “measure” about the endless lies that Obama told, and continues to tell? There was even a web site that catalogued them, and they were well over 100. Can’t Evan count?
So if you still have a Newsweek subscription, I hope you all cancel it.
Thank you Lisa B for your follow up to the Evans interview. I was infuriated by this interview and by the interview with Carl Berstein. They were both, in my humble opinion, total asses. I think they think, that they are seeing the big picture, and yet they miss it entirely. If you are writing about the race for the Democratic nomination, how could you not know about the voting fraud in the caucuses? How could you write a book, and not include the decision of the DNC on May 31st? Evans should have stated that all anybody needed to know, was that it was time we voted for a black MAN for president, and everything else is irrelavant. Carl Bernstein was also a big joke, implying that BO had been thoroughly vetted. What dream world are these MEN living in? They do not understand sexism, they do not get it. I am going to quote again something I read yesterday, as it applies to these editors, journalists, and Obama voters, “I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of ignorance.
Next time someone in an interview says that Obama was vetted, I wish someone would pose a followup question and ask: WHAT did we learn in the vetting process? And count their responses, and show them the list visually, make the point that we only know a handful of things about him. And even with those things, we don’t know the details (ie, who paid for his education, etc)
Lisa
Thomas and Bernstein are attempting to cover their tracks and scapegoat Palin and Clinton. Journalists as a rule are advocates for the public. These two have become sick, Obama hacks.
Is their a secret drug making the rounds in the Obama journalism fraternity? Memo to Evans and Bernstein – go back to your pods and the dungeon….
Yes, indeed, they are pod journalists.
Good work Lisa!
I saw the handwriting on the wall very early in the campaign, and for the most part, I have avoided a large portion of the coverage since.
We read two newspapers, sometimes listen to general news items on NPR, and I read NQ.
I have always preferred news print anyway, for I can spend more time on interest, less on information I don’t want.
I also have fun “defacing” you know who once we finish with the papers!
OMG! Do you do that, too? I keep a pen next to my Boston Globe so I can ink out the images of That One and Mrs. That One. Childish, I know, but immensely satisfying.
My takeaway was that the media takes us for complete idiots.
And that’s exactly why they are failing fast. Us “idiots” refuse to support them anymore. Good luck finding a new job Evan. I won’t buy your books either.
And that’s exactly why they are failing. I refuse to support their garbage propaganda. R.I.P.
Evan Thomas is just another media jerkoff.
Smug, self-centered preppie with the “right” friends, the “right” (affected) accent and inherited money.
He doesn’t NEED to know details; he’s way above that.
Details must be above his pay grade–haha!
Lisa — thank you for reminding me why I cancelled my Newsweek subscription last spring. I’d almost forgotten just how offensive and arrogant they are.
Benign bias. BENIGN bias. Really.
I’m furious all over again at the disrespect for Hillary. She took so much crap and still managed to maintain her composure. (Expletive deleted) all of ‘em.
Thank you Portia-Elizabeth…you just spoke for me as well.
I cancelled Newsweek last winter for the same reasons. And also because I saw, in person, the arrogance of TehOne and it was never reported, spoken of or even barely noted in print – or even in some blogs which I also discontinued reading.
And thank you Lisa for your writing on this interview.
“Benign bias” my a$$.
RE: “When asked about how the Kennedy endorsement came about, Thomas says Ted Kennedy backed Obama because Caroline Kennedy liked him.”
I don’t think so.
In the $410 Billion budget bill (with its 8,500 earmarks) that Obama just signed, there was a neat $5.8 million for planning to build a Ted Kennedy senatorial center of some sort.
Plus, they will give $22 million in taxpayer dollars to spiff up the JFK presidential library.
I think we now have the answer to WHY Ted Kennedy supported Obama even though the voters of his state voted overwhelmingly for Hillary: Obama was willing to promise Ted Kennedy the funds to build a marble palace to honor him (Ted) and also give the JFK presidential library a few million extra dollars … money that we give to NO other presidential library.
Hillary was unwilling to make such an evil bargain with Ted Kennedy, but Obama had no qualms about promising to use taxpayer dollars as a way of bribing Ted Kennedy to support him.
Mystery solved.
- – - – - – - – - -
“Feds spending millions on Kennedy legacy in Mass.”
at: http://tinyurl.com/cxpyue
Thomas said Obama was not well-liked by reporters traveling with him. Obama had no time for them but was much more popular with editors back at headquarters
That’s certainly not Michelle Malkin’s impression:
“Ogling Obama. In May, CNN posted “breaking news video” of female journalists on Obama’s press plane moaning and fawning over the Democratic presidential candidate as he talked on his cell phone. The caption listed on the network’s website: “Obama in jeans: Sen. Barack Obama surprises the press corps by wearing jeans.””
re: Portia Elizabeth
Lisa — thank you for reminding me why I cancelled my Newsweek subscription last spring. I’d almost forgotten just how offensive and arrogant they are.
Tsk tsk tsk…we’re all supposed to be socialists now…off to the gulag for you & all other thought criminals.
Hillary is not competent…
but Obama IS?!
I think we’ve very clearly seen the accuracy of those comments.
What a perfect illustration of the idiocy and bias of the press. I cancelled Newsweek long ago, along with Time. They are both on a par with People magazine at this point.
beachnan
Amen to your thoughts about Bernstein!
During Watergate, Bernstein helped uncover the Watergate break-in and connect the dots to President Nixon, his staff, and cabinet. Ironically, Bernstein is part of the Obama coverup. Once Obama is impeached, the Barack media hacks need to be held accountable too!
Correction previous post – there
Thomas says Hillary was incompetent but Obama obviously did not believe she is incompetent since he made her Secretary of State. So which is it? She was incompetent then but not now?????
I have not read Newsweek in months and now I am sure I will never read it again. I did subscribe at one time, but that was long, long ago.
yeah, I’d like to ask him, if she was incompetent and Obama wasn’t, how come she won the most votes (ever in a dem primary) and the most delegates, leading the RBC to steal some from her to award to him, to push him over the finish line????? They’re feigning ignorance in order to rewrite history.
Thanks so much for this article LisaB. I can’t help imagining Evan “I don’t know enough” Thomas with rifle range type ear muffs on, a patch on one eye and a big fat log sticking out of his other eye. It must be the going attire for all -ahem- *journalists* these days.
Still laughing about the ball gargling. Indeed, you can tell that by the telltale BO ballprint tracks on their chins. I also remember well when Hillary had to give BO her third one so he would at least have two.
My major problem with both interviews of Thomas and Bernstein was the fact these two
willfully ignorantclueless sexists opened for the first two weeks of March: Women’s History Month. How utterly depressing and maddening. It’s not a celebration when it drives you to drink. There is not enough booze in the world to dull the ear pain of listening to them. They continued to trash us and the two lady candidates. I’m sick of it.I said as much in the chat, and more. I fully hope with the millions of smart, inspiring, accomplished women we have out there that we get to hear from some acceptable role models, FEMALES, for the rest of March. Get some Goddesses on for cripes sakes! And leave the controversial, suspect, male ‘big scoops’ (if that was the reasoning) for a more appropriate time.
For anyone that missed it, the frat boys over at BlogTalkRadio Blog were so delighted with Bernstein that they not only Featured the interview in the side panel box but wrote this drivel in a post:
http://blog.blogtalkradio.com/2009/03/10/carl-bernstein-sets-the-record-straight-on-hillary-clinton-she-didn%e2%80%99t-lose-the-election-because-of-sexism/
The title says it all. Thanks a lot asshats. You are now official Blozos.
To clarify on my comment: I was calling the BTR Blog guys the asshat Blozos. Not my fave blog NQ, or Paulie. I could have worded that a tad clearer, sorry.
The one big impression I got from both interviews of Thomas and Bernstein, was that they both diliked HC, and said people in the media (’the chattering classess’ as Evan put it) personally disliked Hillary Clinton.
Thomas and Bernstein don’t see their dislike of Clinton as sexist, so they don’t think the treatment of her during the primaries was sexist.
The media should be allowed to dislike HC for reasons of their own, but I would argue that their dislike of her is rooted in sexism. Her ambition, fighting-spirit, savviness, charisma, intelligence etc. is, in their opinion, un-becoming of a woman.
THANK YOU for bringing up this interview again. Weeks later I can’t get it out of my head! I had not seen this post until now when I searched Evan Thomas to read the comments I had missed.
That man sounded like an asinine 18 year old college boy more than editor in chief of a major news magazine. NO WONDER these papers and magazines are going under!!!! Everyone who wonders why should be sent a link to this interview. The man is a complete ASS!
I doubt Thomas will ever want to come on another NoQuarter radio show but I’d actually LOVE to hear this jackass on the radio again just so that we can make fun of this idiot. Gawd, he deserves to lose his job.
I was disappointed to see the kind of main stream media hacks given yet more air time to display their ignorance and/ or bias, both of which have no place in any legitimate journalist. Oh, wait. I forgot. The term “legitimate journalist” is an archaic term, now an oxymoron.
The presence of Carl “Mr. Misogynist” Bernstein was even more offensive. His ignorance is superceeded only by his arrogance…just ask Nora Ephron. As his dubious distinction of journalist extraordinaire hit its high water mark 4 years ago while catching clues spewn from Deep Throat’s…throat…exactly what would be the reason to give THIS bag of hot, boring air more air time than he already takes up…
And, BTR is giving these ignorant hacks more air time because … WHY?
Correction: Read: 40 [FORTY] yrs ago.
[...] My takeaway (my opinion after listening) from that Thomas interview was that he believed the following: * Obama got more favorable press coverage, but it didn’t really matter because he would have won anyway. [...]
[...] Interview with Newsweek’s editor Evan Thomas, who says his intrepid reporters could find no s… [...]
[...] Newsweek, whose editor could find no sexism during the 2008 campaign, has decided Obama isn’t transparent enough. As opposed, I guess, to those of us who could [...]