Network Anchors
Carry White House Spin that Voters Hate Investigations
Page One
Whatever You Say, Mr. Clinton
Shortly after the election Clinton's aides told
reporters that the voters wanted an end to congressional investigations.
They didn't have to convince reporters of anything. They already agreed.
NBC's Tom Brokaw noted on election night: "There is also a theory,
however, that if the Republicans begin to engage once again in a lot of
investigations that it will not do well for them four years from now.
Because the country in all the exit polling that we're seeing so far is
saying, `Hey let's get on with the business of solving the real problems
that we have out there.'"
Over on CBS, Dan Rather echoed Brokaw, asking Senator
Trent Lott: "True or false, that part of the Republican agenda is now to
try to paralyze the White House with so-called ethics inquiries?" The
next morning, NBC Today substitute co-host Matt Lauer asked RNC Chairman
Haley Barbour: "Exit polls show us that the economy was still the number
one issue on people's mind last night. And although character and trust
play a role, people choose candidates based on their handling of the
issues. With that in mind, what do you say to people now who look to
Republicans in Congress and say, `Hey, move forward on key legislation.
Don't get bogged down on investigations into the Clinton White House?'"
When Sen. Al D'Amato announced he would back off his
Whitewater probe in the Senate, reporter Jim Miklaszewski concluded on
the November 7 NBC Nightly News: "White House officials are under no
illusions and still expect Republicans to vigorously pursue
investigations on other fronts. But they're also encouraged that
D'Amato's announcement may signal an end to any high-profile political
witch hunts." Tom Brokaw returned to his theme on the November 7 Don
Imus radio show, but added a new twist: it's in the Republican leaders'
self-interest to halt the investigations. He claimed "A lot of these new
Republican leaders, Trent Lott and others, have their own presidential
aspirations four years from now. They'll want to get things done because
I think that's the underlying message from the country here -- solve the
problems. And yes there are some real problems within the administration
that need to be investigated, but there are agencies and ways of doing
that without tying up Congress in these expensive hearings."
A post-election Pew Research Center poll of voters
determined that while thirty percent said Congress had "gone too far" in
investigating Clinton, the majority did not: 31 percent thought Congress
had not gone far enough and 35 percent indicated that "it has handled
the matter about right." If only the media were that evenly split.
In the Media
Slow Growth Hailed in '96
But Four Years Ago...
In late October 1992 the government announced the 3rd
quarter GDP jumped up to 2.7 percent. Four years later, on October 30,
the 3rd quarter number fell to just 2.2 percent. But what was bad news
for Bush escaped such scorn this year with Bill Clinton in the Oval
Office. Indeed, NBC's Tom Brokaw positively spun this year's drop: "The
economy was slow, but steady going in the last quarter. Many economists
were encouraged by that because it means inflation is under control and
interest rates will stay low." On the CBS Evening News Ray Brady noted:
"There's one irony here. On election day 1992 the economy was starting
to pick up, but voters hadn't felt it yet. Remember that expression,
`It's the economy stupid'? And George Bush went down to defeat. On
election day 1996 the economy seems to be slowing, but not enough so
that most voters will be feeling it." Why hadn't voters in 1992 "felt
it"?
Maybe because Brady and his colleagues put a negative
spin on 1992 economic news? On October 27, 1992, CBS reporter Susan
Spencer filed from the Bush campaign: "He crowed today at upbeat news of
a third quarter growth rate of 2.7 percent, though some economists
warned that may not hold." She was correct, but not in the direction she
thought. It was later revised upward to 3.9 percent. On September 4,
1992 anchor Connie Chung led the show by explaining: "The nation's
unemployment rate is down slightly for the second month in a row. But
the latest decline is a result of a summer jobs program for teenagers.
That program is about to end, and as Ray Brady reports, the picture
ahead is bleak." Brady concluded: "After hitting a high of 7.8 percent
for June, then dipping a tenth of a point again last month, most
economists now predict next month's jobless rate could hit 7.8 percent."
One month later, the rate fell from 7.6 to 7.5
percent. On the October 2, 1992 CBS Evening News Brady skipped his
mistake and offered a new reason to dismiss the good news: "Those
unemployment lines did become a bit shorter last month, but economists
say that's largely because many Americans simply stopped looking for
work, so they're no longer counted as unemployed." CBS wasn't the only
culprit. On ABC's World News Tonight October 30 Peter Jennings gave
equal weight to both sides: "President Clinton...noted that many
economists say a cooling off is necessary to keep inflation down and
therefore, he thinks, the numbers were good news. Senator Dole on the
other hand was in Tennessee earlier today, along with Mrs. Dole. He says
the numbers are cause for concern. He went on to say if Mr. Clinton is
re-elected there could be a recession."
But four years ago Jennings insisted the 2.7 percent
GDP is "more than economists had projected, but in many cases, less than
meets the eye." Bob Jamieson then reported that "many economists say the
report is not proof the economy is taking a sharp turn for the better."
The next day, October 28, 1992, Jennings warned: "The President may
complain about the news media, but the economic growth figures which he
is so pleased about are not that definitive, according to a great many
independent economic analysts." All this matches the Center for Media
and Public Affairs finding that "In September, fully 91 percent of
sources said the economy was healthy," but "in September 1992, 98
percent of all sources on the [ABC, CBS and NBC] evening news criticized
the state of the economy
Page
Three
Networks Lay the Blame
The GOP Shutdown?
The networks had a ready answer for why Bob Dole lost,
suggesting it happened because the public bought the Democratic spin
that House Republicans were responsible for the government shutdown. Of
course, the media kept repeating that Democratic spin in its own
reporting, neglecting to mention that President Clinton refused to sign
any budget resolution to keep the government operating. It started
before the election. On the October 18 World News Tonight, ABC's Cokie
Roberts relayed without challenge: "With the help of millions of dollars
from organized labor, Democratic challengers constantly remind voters
that these freshmen supported Newt Gingrich and that together they shut
down the government."
In a roundtable on the November 3 This Week with David
Brinkley, ABC's Sam Donaldson asked fellow panel member George Will:
"Are you going to shut down the government again? Did that strategy
work?" (Donaldson repeated himself on election night, saying Dole's loss
wasn't his fault because Gingrich "helped engineer a shutdown" that
"scared the country.") Looking back at the 1996 campaign on the November
4 This Morning, CBS's Bill Plante contemplated: "You think the campaign
began here, at the Democrats' made for TV convention? No way. It really
began with this year's State of the Union address. The President already
knew he'd have no opponent in New Hampshire and the Republicans had just
stumbled badly by shutting down the government."
The bias continued on election night. CNN's Bernard
Shaw declared: "The Republican Party actually helped William Jefferson
Clinton in that comeback, especially when they voted to shut down the
Congress [sic]. The American people said they Republicans went too far.
We did not send you to Washington to shut down the federal government."
On the morning after the election, CBS This Morning anchor Troy Roberts
theorized: "Often abrasive, Gingrich never mastered the fine art of
compromise. Less than a year after he rode into Washington in triumph,
he was on the defensive. His gambit to shut down the government over the
budget backfired. Seizing the moment, President Clinton quickly became
the voice of centrist reason."
Janet
Cooke Award
Frontline Devotes An Hour to the Press, But Ignores
Conservatives -- and Liberal Bias
Money is the Root of All Media Evils
Earlier this year, journalists bashing journalists
became a fad. Atlantic Monthly editor James Fallows' new book Breaking
the News: How the Media Undermine Democracy led a new, liberal attack
on the media: too stardom-obsessed, too enamored of power, too wealthy
from lecture fees, too distant from the common people -- even too
conservative on economics. On October 22, Frontline aired a
documentary titled "Why Americans Hate the Press," a co-production
with the far-left Center for Investigative Reporting. Correspondent
and producer Stephen Talbot never really attempted to answer how
people feel about the press in the hour-long program. Instead, he
centered his program around Fallows arguing for the "sedate high
church" of journalism, as opposed to the reporters who've lost touch
while cashing in on Sunday morning "food fight" fame.
This thesis originated from Fallows -- and Bill
Clinton. As Bob Woodward explained on Frontline: "Clinton makes that
point in my book, that he believes that the Washington press corps is
so out of touch that it is absolutely inconceivable that reporters
will understand the issues that people are really dealing with in
their lives, and Clinton feels a profound alienation from the
Washington culture here, and I happen to agree with him."
For probing the press from the left without
balancing the show with press criticism from the right, Frontline
earned the Janet Cooke Award. Among the questions raised by a viewing
of the program:
- Where were the conservatives?
One thing that makes many Americans, and tens of millions of
conservatives, hate the press is its liberal bias, but it went
absolutely unmentioned. Questions about bias surfaced in Talbot's
interviews with several of the talking heads (presented in full on
the PBS website), but they never made the show. With the exception
of Fred Barnes (who didn't comment on bias), not a single
conservative appeared. Instead, PBS presented a left-wing stable of
media scolds. First and foremost came Fallows, echoed by Washington
Post reporter/columnist David Broder and media reporter Howard
Kurtz, and even far-left critics Christopher Hitchens and Mark
Hertsgaard, whose book On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan
Presidency argued the press was incredibly soft on Ronald Reagan.
Curiously, instead of investigating the press in its daily work on
print and television, Talbot began the show with Fallows attacking
The McLaughlin Group, a PBS program, and its commercial imitators,
even interspersing them with footage of professional wrestling. Said
Fallows: "That is something I would like to see done away with."
Broder argued: "What bothers me is the notion that journalists
believe, or some journalists believe, that they can have their cake
and eat it, too, that you can have all of the special privileges,
access, and extraordinary freedom that you have because you are a
journalist in a society that protects journalism to a greater degree
than any other country in the world, and at the same time, you can
be a policy advocate, you can be a public performer on the lecture
circuit or on television. I think that's greedy." Kurtz added: "It's
certainly true that the more journalists have become part of the
affluent upper middle class, they have started to identify more with
the elite in our society rather than the people who plunk down their
quarters at the news stands for newspapers. I think that's a real
problem."
- Where was the evidence?
Talbot decried the influences on reporters who make large sums in
speaking fees from corporations, but never provided a single example
of content altered by them. As Fred Barnes suggested, "I haven't
ever had anybody point out to me where that's happened." PBS didn't
either. Fallows complained that corporations and trade associations
expect a "subtle immunization," that before "doing you in," a
reporter will say: "Oh, gee, I know old Joe from the tobacco lobby,
maybe I should call him, see what he has to say." But isn't it the
job of any decent reporter to include the business side of a
dispute?
- What about nonprofit groups?
Talbot touted ABC's July 1994 decision to ban reporter speaking
conflicts: "To avoid these potential and embarrassing conflicts of
interest, ABC imposed a new policy banning speeches to lobbying
groups by its reporters." But the rule doesn't apply to nonprofit
advocacy groups. For example, in May 1994, ABC's Carole Simpson
hosted a fundraiser for the liberal NAACP Legal Defense and
Education Fund. Why is it a conflict of interest to speak to the
tobacco lobby but not to raise money for liberal lobbies like the
NAACP? ABC told us its policy covered "groups with a political
purpose," which they felt didn't include the NAACP. PBS didn't bring
this up.
- What does the revolving door prove?
Talbot decried the revolving door between journalism and politics,
focusing on famous revolvers like Tim Russert and David Gergen. But
he failed to mention what the revolving door proves. For years,
MediaWatch has documented how almost four times as many liberals and
Democrats have revolved into the media as have conservatives or
Republicans, which should have raised a question about whether
liberal bias results.
- Isn't this hypocrisy?
Except for Woodward, who Talbot interviewed and then counted on
Hertsgaard to bash as an insider, Talbot never challenged his stable
of liberal critics. Fallows insisted he despises buckraking
revolving-door journalism, but keeps David Gergen at U.S. News.
Broder deplored reporters as "policy advocates," but for many years
has been a reporter and a columnist. Kurtz proclaimed reporters
sympathize with politicians rather than the public, yet Kurtz has
regularly complained about Bill Clinton's supposed maltreatment at
the hands of reporters, talk show hosts, and comedians. When
MediaWatch called the Center for Investigative Reporting in San
Francisco for comment, Talbot was in Italy. CIR executive Sharon
Tiller, listed as a producer on the Frontline program, did not
return phone calls. Perhaps the most interesting sub-theme of the
show is how a PBS program could point out media buckrakers like
Cokie Roberts (of NPR), Steve Roberts (a PBS Washington Week in
Review regular), and David Gergen (of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer),
but didn't suggest that PBS is a breeding ground for buckraking --
that the network spawned out of a contempt for commercialism is now
awash in profiteering opportunities for those who are chosen to
grace its airwaves. The worse hypocrisy of all belongs to Frontline
itself. It deplored reporters being too close to power, but after
years of leveling discredited allegations at the Reagan and Bush
administrations, it hasn't done a single investigative program on
the Clintons in four years.
NewsBites
California's Clock
NBC's Maria Shriv-er and CBS's Jane Robelot laid into the California
Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209, after it passed by a wide
margin on November 5. The measure banned the state from awarding
preferential treatment to anyone on the basis of race, sex, or religion
-- to liberal reporters, an obvious step backwards. Shriver tossed Jesse
Jackson a loaded softball on election night: "Affirmative action was a
hotbed issue in this country, still a big race on that subject going on
about that in California. Did you feel at times like we've turned back
the clock on some of these issues?" On CBS This Morning the next day,
Robelot attacked initiative sponsor Ward Connerly for touting an end to
preferences: "But that's sort of living in an ideal world. I mean it's
nice to say it on paper. If you look around at corporate offices in
America and in CEO's offices, you're gonna see very few minorities and
few women. Are we really ready to backtrack on civil rights now, or on
affirmative action?"
Gore vs. Gingrich
Rarely have the media's double standard toward the two parties been more
evident than in the Today show's interviews in the first week in
October. On October 8, substitute co-host Matt Lauer hit Newt Gingrich
with six ethics questions, including: "Do you envision any
circumstances, Mr. Speaker, under which you might be forced to resign
based on the investigation?....So if the ethics committee comes back and
says Newt Gingrich was not truthful with us in supplying information?"
Gingrich responded: "I don't think they can say that." Lauer eagerly
countered, "If they did, would you consider resigning?" The next
morning, substitute co-host Ed Gordon tossed bouquets at Al Gore: "Many
can see that you have indeed been the most powerful Vice President in
our history. You satisfied with the role that you played for four
years?" And: "The debate is coming up. What do you want people to come
away with, after they watch you and Jack Kemp? What should they know
about Al Gore?" Gordon also asked: "You want to be the best second guy
you can. You're there to help the President. Now having said that, do
you want the job in 2000?"
Cuddling Carolyn
The national media have never been in love with the National Rifle
Association, so when anti-gun Democrat Carolyn McCarthy beat freshman
Republican Rep. Daniel Frisa in New York, media praise soon followed.
The morning after the election, McCarthy made the talk show rounds. On
the November 6 Today, Katie Couric went straight to the NRA: "What do
you think the lesson is for the National Rifle Association? Of course,
one of the cornerstones of your campaign was to maintain the ban on
assault weapons in this country." Over on Good Morning America, ABC's
Joan Lunden claimed: "McCarthy turned her rage over the availability of
assault weapons into political activism and last night this ultimate
outsider, a former nurse and homemaker, defeated incumbent Daniel Frisa."
After McCarthy, who has never held political office, made some broad
comments about various government programs, Lunden praised her: "Sounds
like you really educated yourself too. Are you at all daunted by this
task that lies before you?" On November 8, World News Tonight picked
McCarthy as the Person of the Week because, as anchor Peter Jennings put
it: "We have chosen her because the people who chose her were so
impressed by her notion of public service." McCarthy was the first
politician selected as Person of the Week this year.
Hating Helen
GOP freshman Rep. Helen Chenoweth won re-election despite being targeted
by the Democrats, labor unions, environmentalists and...Tom Brokaw. On
the October 24 NBC Nightly News, Brokaw chose Chenoweth's Idaho
congressional race as the subject of his "In Depth" report on big money
from special interests. Brokaw opened: "From sunup til late night, the
sounds of politics are in the air in Idaho like a migraine headache with
a voice track. And this is why: Helen Chenoweth, a controversial first
term Republican Congresswoman." When Chenoweth claimed: "I don't have a
clue why they would target me. I come from an innocuous state. I'm just
a plain-spoken Western woman," Brokaw countered: "Not exactly. In her
first term Chenoweth was a cheerleader for the New Right. Voting against
an increase in the minimum wage, trashing traditional environmental
organizations. She was a hard-liner on gun laws. So, she is a target of
big labor and conservationists." While Chenoweth was labeled as a
"hard-liner" and portrayed as extreme, her Democratic opponent Dan
Williams drew no labeling from Brokaw, nor was he depicted as being
beholden to special interests, despite the thousands of dollars big
labor and liberal environmentalists spent on his behalf.
Return of the Gorbasm
NBC's Tom Brokaw has put Mikhail Gorbachev in his personal pantheon of
heroes. On the PBS talk show Charlie Rose May 2, Brokaw paid homage: "I
think Gorbachev is a great man in the 20th century because he forced his
country to look at the hypocrisy and the fraudulence of communism and to
begin slowly to make a turn away from it. He can still light up any room
that he walks into." Brokaw refused to call Ronald Reagan a great man:
"You can look at the economics of Reaganism, for example, or some of the
bombast of his foreign policy, and find all manner of flaws in there."
Five months later, on MSNBC's InterNight October 29, Brokaw interviewed
Gorbachev, proclaiming: "It's likely that your view of Mikhail Gorbachev
depends on your point of view. From the perspective of the West, the
former President of the Soviet Union of course was a courageous,
far-seeing prophet whose reforms set in motion the collapse of the
Soviet dictatorship and the end of the Cold War." At interview's end,
Brokaw gushed: "Perhaps one day we'll see you again in political office
in Russia. We know that you've devoted your life to peace and to
changing your country and those of us who have gotten to know you count
ourselves among the privileged."
Willie Horton Stalks Cyberspace
For eight years reporters regularly insisted Republicans used racial
issues, as symbolized by the Willie Horton ad, to divide America in
order to win the 1988 presidential campaign. But this year, raising
Willie Horton suddenly had become a symbol of toughness for one
politician. In a VP debate preview piece posted October 8 on the CNN
website AllPolitics.com, reporters Bob Franken and Marc Watts applauded
the use of Willie Horton by Al Gore in 1988: "Gore can also fire off the
tough question. In 1988, as a Senator, he first raised what became known
as the `Willie Horton issue' with Michael Dukakis during a primary
debate." A dimmer view was advanced by CNN in a February 1992 special on
race and the presidential campaigns. CNN reporter Ken Bode sounded off
about the pro-George Bush independent expenditure ads featuring Willie
Horton: "David Duke's exploitation of white working class fears about
blacks echoes a theme from the 1988 election. This is the Maryland State
Penitentiary. Inside resides the most politically notorious convict in
America. William Horton, Jr., the focal point of a major national
campaign designed to exploit white fear of black crime....The Horton
case illustrates the readiness of political leaders to exploit the
racial divide."
Peter's Slippery Science
Scientific studies usually get a respectful hearing -- unless reporters
disagree with the results. Take Peter Jennings on the October 11 World
News Tonight: "There was a study released at Penn State University today
that you may hear a lot about this weekend. It purports to show a
connection between women who have had abortions and the risk of
developing breast cancer. And if you see it around, remember this. It is
not original research, but an analysis of 23 earlier studies. And the
National Cancer Institute says those individual studies were actually
inconclusive, and because of that, various other scientists say today
the Penn State report is flawed." Some criticism of the study attacked
the author, Joel Brind, who is personally opposed to abortion.
But in the past Jennings has had no such doubts about
the validity of meta-analysis, a method of research which draws
conclusions by combining data from other studies. In a syndicated
column, Reason magazine Science Editor Michael Fumento pointed out that
a 1991 report, by Dr. Stanton Glantz, an anti-smoking activist and
founder of the American Nonsmoker's Rights Foundation, found a "30
percent increased risk," the same factor of increase as found in the
recent breast cancer study. On January 9, 1991 Jennings had no
disclaimers for the secondhand smoke study: "A new warning today about
the dangers of passive smoking, breathing someone else's cigarette
smoke. A report in the American Heart Association journal Circulation
says passive smoking kills an estimated 53,000 people every year."
Civil Rights or Social Programs?
Opening an October 20 New York Times story reporter Steven Holmes
declared: "In his nearly four years in office, President Clinton has
amassed a civil rights record rivaling that of any President in the last
30 years." His proof? Clinton "stoutly defended the government's
affirmative action role."
But the newspaper's style manual apparently contains a
broad definition of the phrase "civil rights." Holmes laid out what he
considered to be Clinton's 1992 campaign promises concerning civil
rights: "Work to pass the Motor Voter bill" and "support statehood for
the District of Columbia." Plus two items with no relation to
discrimination or voting: "Require every employer to spend 1.5 percent
of payroll for continuing education and training," and "expand the
Earned Income Tax Credit." Expanding the definition let Holmes give
Clinton credit for two "civil rights achievements" that passed, Motor
Voter and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Depraved Clinton
Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas had a change of heart on
the credibility of Paula Jones. Prompted by former New York Times
Supreme Court reporter Stuart Taylor's November article in The American
Lawyer, on the November 3 Inside Washington, Thomas explained: "There
are two friends of Paula Jones that she spoke to right after the alleged
incident....Taylor has gone back and talked to them and they paint a
pretty bad tale." Back on May 7, 1994 Thomas disparaged Jones as "some
sleazy woman with big hair."
Taylor found that "the evidence supporting Paula
Jones's allegations of predatory, if not depraved, behavior by Bill
Clinton is far stronger than the evidence supporting Anita Hill's
allegations of far less serious conduct by Clarence Thomas." In the
three weeks after the article appeared it didn't get a sentence in
Newsweek or the other newsweeklies. Other than a brief citation as an
example of media bias by ABC's Jeff Greenfield on the October 31 World
News Tonight, it drew not a second on the networks.
Only One House?
Clinton has saved America's cities from the evil Reagan years, ABC News
argued before the election. Over video of a building being torn down, on
the October 14 World News Tonight ABC's Dean Reynolds asserted from
Detroit: "Twenty five housing developments have started here since the
Clinton Administration took office." Following a soundbite from Detroit
Mayor Dennis Archer, Reynolds charged, without rebuttal, "A decade ago
during the Reagan era, according to the Mayor, only one new house was
built in the entire city."
Study
Networks Send Voters to the Polls Without Much
Mention of Clinton Newspaper Scoops
A Continuing Pattern of Omission
Six days after the election, Washington Post media
reporter Howard Kurtz noted that several print media outlets had pieces
of the Democratic National Committee's foreign fundraising in hand, but
didn't think they had enough for a major story -- until the pieces came
together in the person of John Huang in October. Just as MediaWatch
found last month, front-page newspaper scoops failed to attract much
network interest or intensity, even in the final days of the campaign. A
MediaWatch review of October morning (ABC, CBS, NBC) and evening news
coverage (ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN's The World Today) found the networks
were slow or missing in action on critical campaign stories in the last
few weeks before the election.
The networks aired only 26 explanatory or
investigative pieces by non-campaign correspondents (8 on CNN, 7 on ABC,
6 on CBS, and 5 on NBC). To review the developments:
- October 8: The Wall
Street Journal front page introduced the story of John Huang and his
resume: the Lippo Group, an Asian conglomerate with ties to Little
Rock, followed by Ron Brown's Commerce Department, and then the
Democratic National Committee, where he raised large amounts from
Asian donors. Network coverage? None.
- October 14: Three days
after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called for an independent counsel to
investigate and one day after Newt Gingrich said the Indonesian story
"makes Watergate look tiny," two networks arrived on the story. ABC's
Jackie Judd led off World News Tonight with it, while on CBS, Eric
Engberg had the newscast's number two story. The morning shows had
small mentions in their Clinton stories.
- October 17: The
Washington Post reported on the front page that the DNC acknowledged a
"mistake" in holding an $140,000 fundraiser at a Buddhist temple in
April organized by John Huang and attended by Vice President Gore.
Neither that nor an October 25 Post front-page follow-up drew a
network news story. Also on October 17, ABC's Brian Ross investigated
Yogesh Gandhi, a $325,000 donor to the DNC, noting he owed the state
of California $10,000 in back taxes. which raised the question if the
$325,000 was really his money, or someone else's. No other network
developed this story. (None of Ross's reports were replayed on Good
Morning America.)
- October 19: The
Washington Post reported on its front page that the DNC removed Huang
from his money-raising duties and asked the Federal Election
Commission to investigate the legality of Huang-solicited
contributions. All four networks ran about a sentence-long update in
the middle of their campaign coverage -- CBS on the 18th, the rest on
the 19th. NBC's Today read two briefs on Huang's suspension. That same
day, the Democrats returned a $20,000 contribution from convicted
Miami cocaine smuggler Jorge Cabrera, admitting they do not
systematically check the background of donors None of the networks
reported the story that night. ABC's Brian Ross did a full report on
October 22, noting that while Cabrera was convicted of possessing more
than 5,000 pounds of cocaine in July, the DNC did not give the money
back until Newsweek began asking about it. CNN and NBC followed on the
24th. CBS did not. In the morning, Cabrera drew only two brief
mentions on NBC's Today.
- October 23: Expanding
on Brian Ross, the Los Angeles Times reported that Yogesh Gandhi, the
$325,000 donor to the DNC, claimed pauper status in not paying the $20
filing fee for his divorce. Network coverage? None. Federal judge
Royce Lamberth issued an order for the DNC to produce Huang. Only NBC
Nightly News reported the subpoena. October 24: Lamberth issued
another order demanding the DNC produce Huang. Only ABC's World News
Tonight reported on the story. After Brian Ross focused on the effort
to locate Huang, Asia-based reporter Mark Litke reported on the
Clintons' ties to the Riady family, the Indonesians who run the Lippo
Group. The morning shows were absent.
- October 25: A panel of
federal judges asked independent counsel Kenneth Starr to investigate
whether former White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum lied about Hillary
Clinton's role in the hiring of Craig Livingstone. Two days later,
NBC's Tim Russert insisted on the Sunday Today: "This is dead
serious....I don't know how we can dismiss it nine days before an
election." But only CNN's Bob Franken filed a full report. ABC and NBC
had their anchors read briefs. CBS aired nothing. Other than one
anchor brief on Saturday's Today, the morning shows reported nothing.
- October 29: The
Washington Post published a front-page story reporting the DNC would
not file a pre-election contributions report with the Federal
Elections Commission, and John Huang surfaced after 11 days in hiding
to testify. All four networks arrived on the story that evening.
(While ABC's and NBC's morning shows reported the DNC's failure to
file in anchor briefs, CBS This Morning aired nothing until the next
day.)
- October 30: The Los
Angeles Times reported that Mark Middleton, "a little-known,
34-year-old ex-White House aide from Arkansas," arranged a meeting
between President Clinton and the chief financial manager of Taiwan's
ruling party. The Times reported that the official, Liu Tai-Ying,
offered to donate (illegally) $15 million to the Clinton campaign.
Only CNN and NBC reported the story that night. ABC didn't even report
a full campaign story. CBS followed the next day. NBC's Today, with a
full report by Andrea Mitchell, was the only morning show on the
story.
- October 31: "DNC
Fundraiser Huang Visited White House Often," reported the front page
of The Washington Post, 78 times since July 1995. ABC and CBS reported
the story, but NBC did not. ABC's Good Morning America covered the
story, but CBS This Morning and NBC's Today did not. ABC's Charles
Gibson suggested "if Republicans had done this, the press would be
killing them."
- November 3: The
Associated Press reported former Clinton CIA Director R. James Woolsey
criticized Democrats for inviting foreign businessman Grigori
Loutchansky to a 1994 DNC dinner, where he was photographed with the
President. Clinton's own CIA Director, John Deutch, had testified that
Loutchansky's company, Nordex, is "associated with Russian criminal
activity." Network coverage: None.
- November 4: The
Detroit Free Press reported on an October 21 Detroit fundraiser that
netted $800,000 from Iraqi Christians who lobbied the President to
lift the embargo against Iraq. CBS and NBC threw in brief evening news
mentions. ABC and CNN did not. The morning shows were silent.
On
the Bright Side
Ross Stands Alone
With the revelations of questionable contributions to
the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party, one would assume the
media would be all over the story. Not so. But ABC's Brian Ross stood
apart in October for focusing on Democratic fundraising. On the October
22 World News Tonight, Ross first put Jorge Cabrera, a twice convicted
drug dealer who was invited to the White House after giving $20,000 to
the DNC, onto network TV: "As to how Cabrera got inside the White House,
the Democratic Party said today it did not know of his criminal record
and he had been referred to them as a prominent member of the
Cuban-American community in Monroe County, Florida. Tom Cash, the former
top drug agent in Miami, says the only thing prominent about Cabrera is
his criminal record." Two days later Ross filed the first broadcast
network piece detailing John Huang's flight: "A federal judge ordered
Democratic Party lawyers into court and told them to produce John Huang
to testify in a civil lawsuit alleging favoritism at the Commerce
Department for big Democratic contributors." Ross showed how Huang could
not be found and explained how he "was suspended by the Democratic Party
this week as a fundraiser when some of his contributions were found to
have been illegally given by people who were not U. S. citizens."
Ignored...Until Sunday
The network evening shows largely ignored Democratic
financial scandal news, but two Sunday shows picked up on them. On the
October 13 Meet the Press host Tim Russert put VP Al Gore off balance
with his continual barrage of questions: "But isn't character a fair
issue to bring up? Why can't Republicans say, `Listen Bill Clinton
promised, quote, the most ethical administration in history, and it
hasn't been that. Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater.'" And, "But what
about the appearance, Mr. Vice President, of a gentleman, John Huang,
working for a Lippo Company, then joining the Commerce Department, where
he works on their behalf, lobbies on their behalf; then goes over to the
DNC and raises money for them?" Russert even noted "there's a perception
the President is dangling pardons out there in order to silence people."
CNN's Frank Sesno pressed White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta on the
October 27 Late Edition, questioning him about Ron Brown allegedly
"selling seats" on his trade missions. Sesno brought up how Huang
"raises $4 to $5 milion from Asian-Americans, some of it raised
illegally. Money that came from South Korean business had to be
returned. A quarter of a million dollars, $400,000 from these Indonesian
gardeners who since have gone away....Where's the outrage from the White
House?"
Back Page
Media Highlight Brinkley
But What About Them?
David Brinkley's election night comments that
President Clinton is "a bore" and that his acceptance speech delivered
"goddamned nonsense" generated wide newspaper coverage. Brinkley
apologized to Clinton during a This Week interview, but other reporters
have never apologized or been condemned for comments about
conservatives. NBC's Bryant Gumbel called Pat Buchanan "Mr. Puke-anan"
on the Feb. 20 Today. In 1994 he asked House Minority Leader Dick
Gephardt: "You called Gingrich and his ilk, your words, `trickle-down
terrorists who base their agenda on division, exclusion and fear.' Do
you think middle-class Americans are in need of protection from that
group?" On David Letterman in 1987, Sam Donaldson advised how to measure
President Reagan's success in an upcoming press conference: "I think he
is going to have to pass two or three tests. The first is, will he get
there, stand in front of the podium, and not drool." Just after the 1994
election Donaldson asked Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich on This Week: "A
lot of people are afraid of you. They think you're a bomb-thrower.
Worse, you're an intolerant bigot. Speak to them." On a January, 1995
Sunday Morning John Leonard declared: "From the pronunciamentos out of
Washington, you'd think the new Congress were a slash-and-burn Khmer
Rouge." NPR/ABC reporter Nina Totenberg issued a death wish on Inside
Washington in 1995 after Sen. Jesse Helms said too much is spent on AIDS
research: "I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the
Good Lord's mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get
AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
Home | News Division
| Bozell Columns | CyberAlerts
Media Reality Check | Notable Quotables | Contact
the MRC | Subscribe
|