She came to be a reporter in 1943. Her glory days? From the early 1950s to the late 1970s. I recall at some point in the Reagan era.....reading several of her columns over a one-month period. They were all judgmental in nature....take two facts....and somehow fitting three hundred words around them to fill up the column. It was all anti-Reagan. After about a dozen of these columns....I came to the conclusion of avoiding them.
I suspect that she basically peaked out in the mid-1980s. She was coasting along....without much in terms of four-star reporting left in her.
She should have retired in the early 1990s. She didn't.
For the past twenty years....she's been hanging on and writing columns that a 20-year old kid could write. The AP? I suspect that they were paying her in the range of $100k a year. Call it a working pension or just a "gift".....but she just lingered on.
She could have moved to Florida and enjoyed retirement....writing a book every two years. She could have the simple act of retiring at her peak back in the 1990s. But she didn't.
Her comments on the Jews? It was stupid and judgmental. It's funny....she hasn't changed since the Regan era. A reporter can't really say things like this and expect to keep their respect.
Today, she's finished. She resigned and can finally act retired. Those who defend her? Go for it. Show your judgmental side. Helen became an accomplished wannabe journalist....by going beyond the facts, and then acting judgmental. Maybe you can show your wannabe talents as well.