When former FAIR staffer Sam Husseini found out that Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal al-Sa’ud would be speaking at the National Press Club, he thought it might be a good chance to ask a tough question. The National Press Club apparently didn’t like that idea.
Husseini writes:
Before the end of the day, I’d received a letter informing me that I was suspended from the National Press Club “due to your conduct at a news conference.” The letter, signed by the executive director of the Club, William McCarren, accused me of violating rules prohibiting “boisterous and unseemly conduct or language.”
Want to know what the National Press Club thinks is unseemly conduct? Watch for yourself:
For the record, the National Press Club has been taken other actions distinctly at odds with a free and aggressive press. In 2001, Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman wrote about how the Press Club seemed to want to protect Henry Kissinger from critical questions. The moderator explained that if questions about war crimes were asked, it “would take so much time to explain all of the context.”
In 2005, Mokhiber attempted to go to a U.S. News & World Report event at the Press Club celebrating “America’s Best Leaders.” The sponsor? Oil giant BP.
Mokhiber was blocked from entering the event–which, for the record, was being held in the First Amendment Lounge. Why? Probably because Mokihber had attended another U.S. News event at the Press Club earlier that month that was sponsored by tobacco giant Altria. That time Mokhiber asked a question:
Senator Hagel said transparency is critical. What’s the deal exactly between U.S. News & World Report and Altria? What are the details of the sponsorship? Members of the social responsibility community refuse to invest in tobacco companies. Did you find it a little odd that a panel on corporate responsibility is being sponsored by a tobacco company?
You can see why the Press Club might not want to have these people in the room. They ask the wrong kinds of questions.
Nice post. It’s silly that the reporter was suspended from the Press Club for asking an aggressive multi-point question. The question was good, and it afforded the Saudi representative an opportunity to volley back an interesting reply (while, of course, ducking the thornier bits about interference re Bahrain, which is telling in and of itself.)
Apparently Husseini and Mokhiber didn’t notice the sign posted at the entrance:
Please check your principles with the attendant.
You can retrieve them at the end of the program.
Please provide a telephone number for the National Press Club so they can be contacted to protest this nonsense.
“Hey… it ain’t cool to be a Turki, this close to THANKSGIVING!” ^..^
i really like the petroleum halo! ^..^
Sam Husseni isn’t a journalist per se. He’s a shrill progressive who only wants his political beliefs validated. He claims to be asking hard questions but he’s really expressing what he believes and when he hears what he doesn’t want to hear, he badgers them like a child. No journalism outlet or organization with any sense of integrity and knowledge of journalism take people like him seriously. He doesn’t even take these shallow journalism skills of his and apply them to people he does agree with. That would give at least some sort of shred of credibility.
He’s not worth supporting and he’ll remain marginalized because people are smarter than we give them credit for. They know and understand that Husseini bastardizes the journalism profession.
I applaud Sam Husseini’s guts in asking his question, but if he has the same opportunity he should whittle down his question to a single question. His Royal Heinie, unfortunately, had a point when he asked if Husseini wanted to come up to the podium and give a speech because it did kind of sound like that’s what he was doing (and perhaps he should have gone up to the mic to inform his colleagues of the issues he was asking about).
Less is almost always more. Ask a single question in a way that won’t allow the questionee to get away with a yes or no answer. I was glad to see that the prince was so dense that he decided to counter-attack the United States instead of answering the questions at all, using the slow progression of cultural “evolution” – of all things! – to justify continued human rights abuses.
As for the National Press Club, they’re a bunch of jokester snobby-wobbies who are afraid they won’t be invited to some exclusive snobby-wobby fundraiser or dinner party with the prince or president or whoever’s ass they need to kiss to get an invite. A true journalist would be proud to be snubbed by jerks like this prince and any other speaker with a history or corruption. Instead, they treat them, well, like princes and princesses, even when they’re really the scum of the earth. Pigs that play together…
Peter, professional journalism outlets Poynter, Neiman, the Society for Professional Journalists, and other organizations give a damn about freedom of the press and they support journalists who unjustly get “banned” from press briefings. How many of these organizations are getting behind Husseini and seeing to it that Husseini gets his suspension lifted? I rest my case.
There’s a reason why they won’t get behind him. It was juvenile behavior, not legitimate journalism. It was no different than what the O’Reilly Factor does when they ambush politicians Fox News or O’Reilly hates. It’s amazing how progressives put on the blinders when it applies to people of the same political ideology.
Sorry, but I think Husseini’s attitude went beyond appropriate adversarial questioning to belligerence.
If he had stopped at his first statement – in which he listed what I think are completely legitimate points about the Saudi’s backing of Egyptian, Bahraini and other dictators, and the restrictions on citizen rights within Saudi Arabia, he would have been fine, and I wonder whether NPT would have thrown him out. But when the guy tried to answer he barely got a word out before Husseini interrupted him and continued what I can only describe as a diatribe – not an ‘aggressive question’. It seemed he did wasn’t even interested in hearing the guy’s response. Then the guy asked him if he had been to his country, and instead of simply answering yes or no, he started to recapitulate his same diatribe. I actually wanted to hear how the prince would respond, but apparently Husseini wasn’t interested. In the end I think the Prince’s response was not that bad. He might also have reminded us that the U.S. supported the same dictators. If Husseini had been able to ask the same question of Obama would he have been so belligerent? I doubt it. I am highly critical of the Saudi regime and highly sympathetic to the points Husseini made (and repeated about three times too many), but I honestly felt more sympathy for the Prince then Husseini in this exchange. Look – ask your aggressive question – once – and then let the man respond! Don’t freaking lecture him endlessly unless you want to reclassify yourself from reporter to protester.
I agree with you Greg, 100%. Husseini is more of a protester, not a reporter. Look at his tweets and that will give you a better indication.
I disagree with ctrenta and Slatert. Journalists often ask several-sentence questions, and legitimately so. Husseini’s questions were totally legitimate. The main point was the legitimacy of the prince’s regime, and Husseini gave some examples of why one may wonder about its legitimacy. When the prince asked him if he’d been to Saudi Arabia, it was also legitimate for Husseini to ignore the question. The prince was just beginning his oft-heard spin on why Saudi Arabia shouldn’t be condemned for their continuing to live in the middle ages.
The National Press Club has lost ITS legitimacy, as far as I’m concerned.
Like I said Jaime H, let’s see how many journalist organizations – who know shit from Shinola about real journalism and freedom of the press – rally behind lifting Husseni’s suspension or speak out in his support.
FAIR blog has a new troll, and this one has a basic command of “written” (typed) English.
Onewhoreads
Don’t worry .Few people of a conservative(counter liberal) nature would waste time commenting on the idiocy rampant on these blogs.You moles will have less trolls, due to the attrition of that stupidity.I stay because at least one counter voice to your rigid lockstep mentality must be offered up.Bad command of the “written”(typed) English and all
While I agree with most of what Husseini said in his exchange with al-Sa’ud, he wasn’t asking a question as a reporter, he was making a political statement. He should have asked a shorter question, rather than trying to give a diatribe. al-Sa’ud showed himself to be a capable interlocutor, and successfully parried Husseini’s accusations. Maybe Husseini should put more thought into his questions next time.