“NEW NEWS” a Case Study of Two Root Causes of the Modern Scandal Coverage

Home , Claire Shipman, Marvin Kalb, Sam Donaldson, The Morning Papers, Tom Brokaw

THE RISE OF THE “NEW NEWS” A Case Study of Two Root Causes of the Modern Scandal Coverage

The Joan Shorenstein Center

■ Discussion Paper D-34 PRESS POLITICS October 1998

The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University 79 John F. Kennedy Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone (617) 495-8269 • Fax: (617) 495-8696 Web Site Address: http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/~presspol/home.htm INTRODUCTION

Never in history have the educational and in government and reporters blandly relayed his professional standards of American journalists accusations without question or skepticism. been higher; seldom in history has the perfor- Their “professional” reasoning was, “He said it. mance of American journalism been lower than It’s not my job to question it.” But say this for in the first half of 1998, when the Monica McCarthy-age journalism: When McCarthy Lewinsky scandal obsessed the nation. Rumor made an accusation, you knew the source was and opinion have been passed off as fact. Highly McCarthy and you could credit or disbelieve partisan sources have been used, anonymously, him as you chose. Contrast that with the sleazy as if they were disinterested fonts of knowledge. performance of today’s reporters who write leads Working reporters transformed themselves into like, “Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr has opinionated commentators and within minutes evidence that President Clinton suborned per- shifted back into the pretense that they were jury, lawyers with knowledge of the case said objective observers. News stories routinely yesterday.” In the McCarthy days, the source smacked of “attitude.” And that great curse of was known to be not merely a partisan but a American journalism, cynicism, covered the recklessly irresponsible one; today reporters rou- world like the label on a Sherwin Williams tinely pretend that their sources are dispassion- paint can. ate, disinterested and non-partisan. Throughout In the following analysis, Marvin Kalb uses the Kenneth Starr investigations, journalists coverage of the Lewinsky scandal to explore how have reported one side of an adversarial proceed- the press has changed—or been compelled to ing, Starr’s version of events, without revealing change—the traditional way it conveys informa- that fact to their readers or viewers. tion to the public. New information technolo- In his four-year investigation of President gies have dramatically increased the pressure to Clinton, Independent Counsel Starr has man- work fast, too often at the sacrifice of accuracy aged, as a by-product, to corrupt the American and objectivity. And Kalb persuasively traces press. He would leak information to chosen part of the lapse of standards to the profit reporters on the condition that they not identify motive. Television networks and newspapers, him as the source and not question his motives now owned by market-dependent financial inter- or his facts. One of the difficulties in appreciat- ests, sacrificed traditional objectivity and profes- ing the magnitude of this transgression is that sionalism in hopes of winning bigger audiences, many of the accusations from Starr and his allies higher ratings, more national attention and have proven to be accurate. There was, in fact, a greater profits, if only for a moment—for only semen-stained dress. Clinton did, in fact, cover the moment matters. Tomorrow is another con- up a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky test, and there is no real penalty for being wrong by lying about it to close aides. An outsider so long as the money comes in. Reporters who looking at the insidious inter-relationship would once have been slapped down for letting between Starr and the reporters who covered their opinions leak into a news story now found him (by accepting his version of events unques- themselves invited onto TV talk shows to air tionably) might conclude, “No harm, no foul.” their personal views. Television, especially, has But there is harm. Among the casualties is the blurred any distinction between reporter, com- notion of truth, which was once the objective, mentator and principal; all are just talking however unobtainable, of journalism. The quest heads. Yes, you could sometimes find “the for truth, the notion of credible evidence and press” among the faces on Meet the Press; you believable testimony have been replaced by spin. can also find maidens on Maiden Lane. The hard Today it is Starr’s spin vs. the President’s spin, part is figuring out exactly which ones they are. not Starr’s testable evidence vs. the President’s “Journalists have become too big for their rebuttal. As Kalb has memorably written else- britches,” Kalb writes. Merely reporting fact is where, journalists too often abdicate their role of no longer enough for them. Now they must ana- trying to sift this conflicting evidence and lyze and interpret. The result has been a period instead transform themselves into drama critics, far more cynical than that previous low point in interpreting for the public how one side’s spin American journalism, the McCarthy era. Then, will fare against the other’s. “So tell me, Steve,” Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (R-Wis.) made the says the TV host to his guest reporter, “how will most outrageous accusations about Communists this play with the public?” At this point, the

Marvin Kalb 1 reporter needs to know nothing at all. He can news consumers to become their own sifters of merely pontificate. evidence, their own judges of credibility, their Is there any way to restore standards? Kalb own decipherers of hidden motives and biased points out how the much-derided mainstream sources. We can no longer rely on the press to media have lost their monopoly. Instead of three give us a straight version of yesterday’s events. TV networks, there are now a variety of cable News now comes with analysis and interpreta- outlets, plus the Internet and talk radio. Inter- tion built-in, and on the worst of the networks net gossip Matt Drudge could never establish a and newspaper chains—Rupert Murdoch’s, for widely read newspaper with correspondents, example—it approaches propaganda. The only printing presses and delivery trucks to match, answer to the blurring of roles and the lowering say, the New York Times. Drudge is absolutely of standards is, “Think for yourself.” Easier said capable, however, of setting up an Internet Web than done. site that competes on an equal footing with the Times Web site. And if both Drudge and the Lars-Erik Nelson Times are playing the game of “spin,” who can Columnist judge between them? New York Daily News This new confusion and breakdown of traditional standards puts a far greater burden on

2 The Rise of the “New News” THE RISE OF THE “NEW NEWS” A Case Study of Two Root Causes of Modern Scandal Coverage by Marvin Kalb*

This study is about press coverage of the first few weeks of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It is not about whether President Clinton lied, or encouraged others to lie; he said on August 17, 1998 that he had been less than truthful but never encouraged others to lie. Nor is it a reprise of the worst in American journalism, which was on ample display during that time and which, when appropriate, will be cited.1 It is, rather, an attempt to answer the frequently asked question: what is wrong with American journalism? Asked another way: why has it lost the trust and confidence of so many of its readers and viewers? The answer does not lie in the sudden collapse of professional standards; it does lie in the rise in recent decades of a host of substantial challenges posed primarily by (1) new technologies and (2) a recent restructuring of the economic underpinning of the industry. Both of these challenges have forced a revolutionary transformation of the news business from a public service into a predominantly commercial enterprise, where profit tends to trump service at just about every bend in the road. The effect has been to change the very definition of journalism and to produce a “new news.” (This transformation has also coincided with a drastic decline in confidence and respect for political authority, growing out of the Vietnam and Watergate experiences, and with the sudden end to the Cold War, which left newsrooms without a central, organizing focus for the news. But these latter issues are for another study.) Our story follows a traditional narrative path. Part One features Michael Isikoff, an old-fashioned investigative reporter for Newsweek magazine, who finds himself scooped by the new technology of the Internet on a highly competitive story about Presi- dent Clinton and a White House intern. Next we shall explain the conceptual framework for our analysis of the emergence of the “new news.” Then, in one section after another, we shall provide illustrations and explanations of the new technology, the new economics and the “new news.” Finally, in a conclusion, we shall dis- cuss what we have learned and what yet remains to be learned.

Marvin Kalb is Director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Poli- tics and Public Policy and Edward R. Murrow Professor of the Press and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Uni- versity. *Amy Sullivan, a graduate student at the Harvard Divinity School, provided invaluable assistance in the research, drafting, and writing of this paper. She is a careful, dedicated student of press/politics. In the early months of our work, she was joined by Kendra Proctor, a graduate student at the Kennedy School of Government, who helped us with research and insights into this study. Together they composed an exceptional team and greatly enriched the study.

Marvin Kalb 3 Part One: Curtain Raiser through the voluminous records of the Federal On Saturday evening, January 17, 1998, Election Commission. He discovered that the after almost 48 hours of writing, editing and Clinton campaign had not reported any pay- ments to a private investigator who was hired to frantic phoning for last-minute tidbits about a look into the so-called “bimbo eruptions.” story linking President Clinton to a sexual rela- Isikoff later explained: “That was something I tionship with a former White House intern, fixated on. If you look at FEC reports as some of reporter Michael Isikoff argued with his us do, you can find . . . every last nickel Newsweek editors that his gangbuster exclusive reported under expenditures . . . But here was a ought to be published in the next issue. They rather substantial portion of funds going to a refused, believing that the story needed more private investigator for the Clinton campaign, work. The bulldog in Isikoff kept arguing. His and it was nowhere reported.”3 editors stood firm. Finally, exhausted, Isikoff From the Washington Post, Isikoff moved drove home and, almost immediately, fell asleep. across the corporate street to Newsweek, where Unfortunately for Newsweek and Isikoff, he pursued investigative reporting with a zeal today’s news cycle never sleeps. for scandal. Soon on Isikoff’s radar scope were On Sunday morning, when Isikoff awoke, the names of Paula Jones, who was in the his wife informed him that “someone named process of suing Clinton for sexual harassment Matt Drudge called last night,” but she didn’t in Arkansas; Kathleen Willey, a Democratic want to disturb him. Suddenly, Isikoff under- Party volunteer in Virginia; and Linda Tripp, a stood that his exclusive might no longer be staffer at the Pentagon who had served in the exclusive. There was a good chance that for the White House under Presidents Bush and Clin- second time in six months Matt Drudge, author ton. Slowly Isikoff began to connect the dots. In of an Internet gossip column called the Drudge early 1997, he learned that Willey was claiming Report, had scooped Isikoff on his own story. In Clinton had “groped” her at the White House. fact, Drudge, a thirtysomething who wears a His only confirmation was a hesitant Tripp, so Walter Winchell fedora, was the first “reporter” Isikoff therefore had no “story”—until July, to put the name “Monica Lewinsky” into play 1997, when Jones’s lawyers subpoenaed Willey. in an item he posted on the Web that Sunday They too had heard about Willey’s claim. evening. For the scorekeepers, this was a major Isikoff sensed that he was on the edge of a scoop, an illustration of the competitive power big story, and he began to write his account and speed of the Internet to beat Newsweek and when, unexpectedly, he crossed paths with the other mainstream news organizations to a story. up-and-coming Mr. Drudge. On his Web site, Once on the Internet, the story was every- Drudge wrote that Isikoff would soon report where—and everybody’s. that another woman—not just Jones—was w claiming that Clinton had sexually harassed her, and that he had done so in the Oval Office, If Hollywood were casting the role of an meaning the alleged incident took place while investigative journalist, it would have to look he was President. For the first time, Drudge on no further than Michael Isikoff. Blessed with a the Internet beat Isikoff of Newsweek with a perpetual look of skepticism, Isikoff is a rum- story. It was later estimated by a proud Drudge pled, bespectacled, dogged reporter. Colleagues that curious White House staffers, eager for say his commitment to investigative reporting every juicy detail, clicked onto his Internet page borders on the obsessive, not unlike the more than 2,000 times in one day. Interestingly, sleuthing of Woodward and Bernstein during though, most Washington reporters ignored the Watergate. Isikoff was a college student when Isikoff-Drudge report of Willey’s allegations. the dynamic duo put Watergate at the top of the When Isikoff first made contact with Tripp list of national embarrassments. Inspired by at her job in the Pentagon, she told him that she their work, he became a reporter upon gradua- didn’t believe Willey’s story and claimed to have tion and eventually landed a job covering poli- seen the volunteer leave the Oval Office after tics at the Washington Post. the alleged grope, looking quite pleased with Among other assignments, Isikoff covered herself. Later, Tripp informed Isikoff that he was the 1992 presidential campaign. Like many of “on the right trail, but barking up the wrong his colleagues, he followed the Gennifer Flowers tree.” Enter Monica Lewinsky, though at this story;2 but unlike most other reporters, he con- stage not by name. Tripp said that a former tinued digging after the election. Isikoff combed White House intern had told her that she was

4 The Rise of the “New News” having a sexual relationship with the President. Shortly before midnight, Isikoff caught the Tripp was taping her conversations with the equivalent of a touchdown pass. From a source intern. In October, 1997, Tripp introduced he still refuses to name, but who is widely Isikoff to her New York book agent, Lucianne believed to be Goldberg, Isikoff finally obtained Goldberg, and they offered Isikoff an extraordi- copies of tapes containing 90 minutes of highly nary opportunity: did he want to listen to the explosive conversations between Tripp and tapes? Though Isikoff was severely tempted, he Lewinsky about the former intern’s story of an declined. As a journalist investigating a story, affair with the President. If Isikoff had had any he did not want to become part of the story. He doubts about proceeding with his story, the tapes wanted to avoid any actions that would make erased them, even though they raised one huge him a “co-conspirator. . . . That’s not a situation problem. Nothing in the taped conversations I wanted to be in.”4 involved Jordan in a conspiracy to obstruct jus- During the fateful week of January 12, tice—a major part of Isikoff’s piece. However, the 1998, Isikoff felt two strong emotions: he was picture woven by the two women did present a getting tantalizingly close to the biggest story of stunning story about a presidential escapade his career, but at the same time, he was losing with a 21-year-old intern. Isikoff kept pressing control of it. Part of the reason was that inde- his editors to publish the story, but he encoun- pendent counsel Kenneth Starr had also been tered stiff resistance. His editors were reluctant told by Tripp about her surreptitious taping of to publish unsubstantiated allegations that could Lewinsky. Starr, who had been investigating a disrupt Starr’s still secret investigation of the number of other allegations against the White Lewinsky affair. They were under no professional House and Clinton, now received official per- obligation to cooperate with Starr, or to be mind- mission from Attorney General Janet Reno to ful of the delicacy of his investigation—“Hell, expand his mandate still further to include the it’s not like this was the Bay of Pigs,”6 Isikoff Lewinsky matter. He persuaded Tripp to tape complained. But, in fact, like any number of Lewinsky once more in a calculated effort to other editors facing controversial decisions relat- implicate the President in the scandal. ing to government secrets, they bent over back- Once Isikoff learned about Starr’s wards to be as “responsible” as possible. expanded mandate, he felt he had proper justifi- The battle between Isikoff and his editors cation to publish his story. To provide a full ran into Saturday—decision-day—but there was account of the story beyond the hearsay still no decision regarding whether or not to accounts he had gleaned from Tripp, Isikoff publish. Even though Clinton had frequently now had to listen to the incriminating tapes. been associated with rumors of womanizing, On Friday, January 16, 1998, he tried desper- this story was different. It placed a sitting presi- ately to get copies of the Tripp-Lewinsky con- dent in a sexual relationship with a White versations. He had been told about the content, House intern; and Newsweek, though locked in but he wanted to hear copies or read tran- a fierce competitive war with Time, did not scripts. At the same time, he phoned a source want to be—or appear to be—sensationalist. All in Starr’s office to ask for a comment about his day, in both New York and Washington, editors story, which contained references to Lewinsky argued the pros and cons of publication. Conver- and Vernon Jordan, a well-known Washington sations on conference calls grew increasingly attorney who had been helping Lewinsky get a hot and angry. Around Washington, reporters lawyer and a job. His source pleaded with picked up tips to the effect that Newsweek was Isikoff not to publish his story and not to call agonizing about publishing a bombshell. Time either Lewinsky or Jordan, implying that the heard that it might have something to do with independent counsel’s office was attempting to Starr’s investigation. A few newspaper reporters “flip” Lewinsky and involve her in a sting of had sniffed the same scent. And so, unsurpris- Jordan, presidential secretary Betty Currie, and ingly, had the White House, which that day, possibly even President Clinton.5 Isikoff had coincidentally, was obsessed by the President’s intended to call both Lewinsky and Jordan— deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit. they were, after all, major characters in an Normally, it is the reporter who calls the unflattering story, and they deserved the chance official source. This time it was the deputy to respond before publication. Still, Isikoff chief of staff at the White House, John Podesta, agreed to play ball with his source in Starr’s who called Isikoff, asking in effect what he office and not attempt to call either Lewinsky knew. Isikoff knew enough to substitute a ques- or Jordan until that evening. tion for an answer. What did the White House

Marvin Kalb 5 know? Podesta responded that the White House From Sunday, January 19, 1998, when had heard something about “Starr tapes” and Drudge ran the bare outlines of the Isikoff scoop “obstruction of justice.” Because Isikoff knew on the Internet, until Wednesday, January 21, that Podesta had helped Lewinsky get a job 1998, when the Washington Post and the Los interview, he quickly assumed that Podesta Angeles Times published the details of an would connect Lewinsky to the Starr investiga- alleged Clinton-Lewinsky liaison on the front tion. But, much to Isikoff’s surprise, Podesta pages, Newsweek agonized about its decision to made no such connection, and Isikoff decided to delay publication. Had it made a mistake? probe a bit further. Adopting a deliberately Drudge, undeterred by the fact that he had very casual tone, Isikoff asked, “Is the name Monica few details, continued running paper-thin Lewinsky familiar to you?” Podesta replied that accounts of the scandal, generating a flood of he thought she had been an intern. “What’s the publicity for his Web site and fanning the flames deal [then] with Bill Richardson, getting her an of scandal. interview with him?” asked Isikoff. Podesta On Sunday morning, it was time for Wash- answered that Lewinsky was looking for a job ington’s press/politics junkies to gather ritualis- and he helped her. Isikoff thanked him and hung tically around their television sets for the talk up with the knowledge that at least some top shows. The topic of conversation on ABC’s This advisors at the White House had not yet made Week was Paula Jones. In a comment that must the link between the former intern and his seem painfully amusing in hindsight, former- exclusive story. Clinton-advisor-turned-ABC-pundit George On Saturday night, the battle between Stephanopoulos questioned whether the Jones reporter and editor had to end. It was decision lawsuit would have any effect on the Clinton time, and Newsweek chairman and editor-in- presidency: “What worse can come out than chief Richard Smith made the most contro- already has been out? He has been accused of versial decision of his career. Apparently murder, my goodness, from Jerry Falwell. What calculating that the Isikoff story would remain else can come out?” A few minutes later, his exclusive property for another week, Smith another roundtable participant, Bill Kristol, the decided to hold the story for the next issue—it conservative editor of the Weekly Standard, needed more work, he thought. Obviously, he became the first person to mention the Lewin- did not know at the time that Drudge had been sky story on television. Kristol told the TV briefed about the Isikoff scoop and that it would audience that “the story in Washington this shortly be all over the Internet. morning is that Newsweek magazine was going By the time Isikoff rolled out of bed on to go with a big story based on tape-recorded Sunday morning, his story was already rolling conversations, which a woman who was a sum- across the screens of thousands of computers all mer intern at the White House, an intern of over the country. Drudge had struck pay dirt—a Leon Panetta’s . . . ”—when suddenly he was titillating tale of a President with a wandering cut off by Stephanopoulos. “And Bill, where did eye and a young intern with a fluttering heart. [the story] come from? the Drudge Report.” He didn’t have the details, but he published the Stephanopoulos argued that the Internet col- headlines on his Web site. Drudge peddled umn had been discredited and should be unconfirmed information—what might be called ignored. Both men were then interrupted by gossip; Isikoff tried, as a responsible reporter, to Sam Donaldson, who ended the exchange publish news. Over a period of many months, between them with an interesting disclaimer: Isikoff had carefully cultivated his sources, “I’m not an apologist for Newsweek, but if their combed through hundreds of pages of election editors decided they didn’t have it cold enough rules and regulations, refused to cross ethical to go with, I don’t think that we can sit here lines and listen to incriminating tape recordings without—unless you’ve seen what they were and pursued this story when there were few basing their decision on—how could we say leads and little encouragement. Isikoff prided Newsweek was wrong to kill it.” himself on being a product of the old school of Nevertheless, the story gained a flicker of journalism (however in the current environment visibility when Washington Post reporter Peter that needs to be defined), but he had been Baker reported in Monday’s edition that “com- scooped by the new school and quickly learned mentators on ABC discussed reports that that he had to adapt in order to survive. And Newsweek killed a . . . sensational story alleging adapt he did! a long-running tryst involving Clinton while w he’s been president.” That evening on the CNBC

6 The Rise of the “New News” talk show Equal Time, host Bay Buchanan asked viewers on such programs as Imus In The Morn- Democratic strategist Jennifer Laszlo about the ing, The Today Show, NBC Nightly News with Kathleen Willey rumors. Laszlo promptly Tom Brokaw and The News with Brian retorted: “I don’t think that it is true. It’s been Williams on MSNBC. Undoubtedly Isikoff reported by Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff, who’s would have appeared on even more programs if also claiming that the president had sex with an he had not already had a commentator’s con- intern in the same article. My belief, Bay, is that tract with NBC. he has perhaps confused reality with the movie Isikoff understood the power of the new Wag the Dog and that they’re making up all school of journalism to propagate a story, to gen- kinds of allegations.” erate a public presence on the road to becoming Still, the story began to develop legs. a kind of talk show celebrity, to parlay a string Reporters for other news organizations called of media appearances into lucrative lectures and, every possible source for a sliver of hard infor- if possible, to use his newfound notoriety to mation about Lewinsky. Very few sources had enhance his position at Newsweek. any hard information at all. No matter. The For Isikoff, it would not have been “too Union Leader in Manchester, New Hampshire wild a dream,” to quote the late Eric Sevareid, to —not known for its Clinton sympathies—fea- imagine himself at this heady moment playing tured the rumored story on its editorial page, the role of Michael Isikoff in a movie about the labeling it another “Bimbo Eruption” in its Janu- Lewinsky scandal. ary 20 edition. By Tuesday, January 20, 1998, the pressure Part Two: Conceptual Framework cooker of Washington journalism was on the For anyone old enough to recall the role of edge of exploding. The Washington Post, helped the Washington Post in the unraveling of the by its sister publication, Newsweek, pulled Nixon presidency, the front page of the January together the strands of this sensational story. So 21, 1998 edition must have evoked familiar did the Washington bureau of the Los Angeles memories. The lead story was headlined Times. At 10:30 P.M., eastern time, as they pre- “CLINTON ACCUSED OF URGING AIDE TO pared their front pages, both newspapers also LIE.” It was as if Watergate had suddenly joined released the story to their Internet Web sites. hands with Whitewater, and a president’s fate Jackie Judd of ABC News came up with the was again hanging in the balance. Written by same story at roughly the same time, perhaps three reporters—Susan Schmidt, Peter Baker and from these Web sites, from independent report- Toni Locy—the story focused on an expanded ing or from a combination of the two. She was investigation by independent counsel Kenneth ready to broadcast the story on Nightline at Starr into the President’s private life and fea- 11:30 P.M., but anchor Ted Koppel chose to tured such legalistically ominous phrases as feature the Pope’s visit to Cuba instead. “obstruction of justice” and “subornation of per- Undaunted, she put the story on ABC radio and jury.” Highlighted were unfamiliar names, such the ABC Web site. Within a matter of moments, as Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp, that the Lewinsky story was everywhere, and would quickly come to be associated with scan- Newsweek’s beleaguered editors reached two dal, sex, corruption and—the day was still quick conclusions: they had to (1) put the entire young—possibly even impeachment. Isikoff story on the Internet, since the next issue The White House, already battle-hardened of the magazine would not hit the newsstands to embarrassments of this sort, dressed for com- until the following Monday; and (2) blanket the bat with political enemies and a press corps that airwaves with its own people, boasting not only has been ambivalent about Bill Clinton—admir- about their journalistic prowess (they had more ing his political skills and feisty determination, details than anyone else) but also about their but sharply critical of his duplicity and ethical sense of journalistic responsibility—after all, slipperiness and worried that he was, too often, they argued with questionable logic, they hadn’t taking them to the cleaners. For most of the published the Isikoff story the previous week- reporters, the Post story was like a shot of end, because they thought it needed more work. adrenaline, converting many into 1998 pop-out Isikoff took to this chore like a happy war- caricatures of Woodward and Bernstein, the two rior. On January 21, 1998, shortly after dawn reporters who, more than any other, uncovered broke in the nation’s capital, Isikoff embarked the cover-ups that ultimately forced Richard on a tour from one studio to another, telling Nixon to resign from office on August 8, 1974, the tale of Monica Lewinsky to listeners and one step ahead of almost certain impeachment

Marvin Kalb 7 Table 1. White House Press Briefings and Monicagate

Date of Briefing Total Number of Lewinsky-Related Other Percentage of Questions Questions Asked Related to Lewinsky 1/21/98 128 113 15 88% 1/22/98 97 81 16 83% 1/23/98 79 52 27 66% 1/26/98 117 84 33 72% 1/28/98 40 34 6 85% 1/29/98 100 64 36 64% by the House of Representatives. They immedi- journalism and its impact on public opinion and ately sensed that Monicagate was Clinton’s policy. Was the frenzy of the moment a journal- Waterloo; though he had survived other scandals istic aberration, an odd coming together of with relative impunity, he would almost cer- embarrassing coincidences? Did it prove that tainly drown in this one. journalism had mysteriously lost its compass— From the moment the story appeared, and, along with it, its ethical and professional reporters seemed in a rush to win Pulitzers cov- standards? Or, were we witnessing the tip-of- ering the president’s anticipated collapse. Time- the-iceberg excesses of a new journalism, pro- honored standards and practices were either duced by a combination of powerful forces? ignored or discarded with the result that in the w early weeks of Monicagate—the focus of this The daily press briefing at the White House study—American journalism hit a new low. was as good a place as any to measure press per- Questions were raised about the very nature of formance. It was a living laboratory; a besieged spokesman using his podium as a shield, scores Nightline programs on Monicagate of reporters firing skeptical questions at him and, in the back of the briefing room, which cov- • “Dark day at the White House” ers the pool once used by President Kennedy, • “Crisis in the White House” dozens of television cameras carried these tumultuous exchanges “live” to the watching • “The First Family in Full Battle Regalia” world. For most reporters, the news environment • “Scandal at Home” had already been bursting with speculation • “White House Intern” about the President’s upcoming State of the • “Who is Ken Starr?” Union address and about the consequences of • “The Clintons versus the Media and the another buildup of US military power against Right Wing” Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. These two big stories dominated the journalistic landscape—but now • “New Revelations in Crisis in Clinton came Monicagate. Within hours it dominated White House” every other story, paralyzing the political process • “Hardball Politics or Obstruction of Justice” and threatening an administration. How did the • “Battle Lines—Roots of a Scandal” White House press corps respond? • “Battle Lines—How did it get so personal” On Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of that first week of the new scandal, the Presi- • “Battle Lines—Hunt for truth in new dent’s spokesman, Mike McCurry, was asked a media jungle” total of 304 questions, an average of about 100 • “Jones v. Clinton” questions per briefing, significantly higher than • “The Developing Saga of Kathleen Willey” the norm, which in January and February ran • “The Starr Investigation—Why it’s taking about 40 to 50 questions. To be specific, on Jan- so long” uary 21, 1998, 128 questions were asked; 113 • “Ken Starr’s End Game” were about Monica Lewinsky. On January 22, 1998, 97 questions were asked; 81 were about

8 The Rise of the “New News” Monica. On January 23, 1998, 79 questions were NBC and ABC—that’s where they got most of asked; 52 were about Monica, 23 about the Pres- their information about the US and the rest of ident’s address. And so this pattern continued the world. Now they have the same three net- into the next week as well. On January 26, 1998, works—though fewer than 40 percent of Ameri- the Monday before the day of the President’s cans have been watching their evening State of the Union address, 117 questions were newscasts in recent months—but they also have asked; 84 concerned Monica, 20 the address three cable news networks, ten weekly news itself. All told, in the week beginning with Janu- magazines in primetime, three cable business ary 21, 1998, a full 75 percent of all questions news networks, two sports news cable net- directed to spokesman McCurry concerned the works, all with corresponding Web sites featur- mushrooming scandal. ing constantly updated news reports; and the The White House questions and answers number keeps growing, exponentially. flooded the newsrooms and provided nonstop Take CNN, for example. Cable News Net- chatter for the radio and television talk shows. work is not just CNN, but a cluster of CNN They also sparked a round of hot stories on Capi- offspring, such as CNN Headline News, CNN tol Hill and leaked responses from Starr’s office, International, CNNfn, CNN/SI, CNN en which found itself engaged in a roaring battle Espanol, two radio networks, seven Web sites, with the President’s minions all over Washing- CNN Airport Network, the Better Health Net- ton. The pursuit of scoops reached wild levels of work, the College Television Network and a distortion and exaggeration with one reporter syndicated news service called CNN New- out-sensationalizing another, using unchecked source. In much the same way, by acquiring sources and rarely pausing to check a “fact.” cable network affiliates, NBC and Fox try to Even the best of journalism ran with the Monica emulate CNN with mixed results. story as if no other existed. Nightline dedicated This has been called the fractionalization every program for three weeks to different of the communications market. Where once aspects of the Monica scandal. “Crisis in the there were a handful of news sources, there are White House” was the most commonly used now hundreds, each struggling to compete for a title for these programs, but others were called smaller share of an increasingly distracted audi- “The First Family in Full Battle Regalia,” “White ence. The guessing game of how to attract audi- House Intern,” “Who is Ken Starr?” or “The ence shares has become a profit-motivated Clintons versus the Media and the Right Wing.” obsession. Cable television feasts on, among It was not that Monicagate produced a new other things, talk shows, largely because talk form of journalism; it was rather that the story has proven to be the cheapest form of television accented and accelerated a trend that had been information and entertainment, the combina- apparent for the preceding 20 years. The trend tion of which has been dubbed “infotainment.” was rooted in two newly emerging factors that The effect has been that talk, unconstrained and gradually but inexorably changed the core values unchecked, has befuddled the viewer or listener of the business. One was the new technological into believing that whatever is seen or heard can revolution that started with the explosion of be equated with news. cable television in the late 1970s and continued A few years ago, some observers predicted through the rise of the Internet in the late a 500-channel universe; although this prediction 1990s; the other was the radical change in the proved to be wildly inflated, it did point people economic ownership and management of the in the right direction. There has been a huge industry. Both the new technology and the new increase in cable channels, and the public has economics transformed the news business from responded with enthusiasm. More and more one proudly tied to public service to one Americans are buying cable services and watch- unashamedly linked to the pursuit of public tit- ing cable networks—enough so that, in the first illation and maximum profit. week of July, 1998, for the first time, the 42 basic cable operations outperformed the top four The New Technology broadcasters at ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC in For the past 20 years, we have been the every category of measurement: total viewers, beneficiaries—or the victims—of a vast techno- ratings and audience share. The cables attracted logical revolution that has transformed the way 21.6 million viewers; the broadcasters, 21.3 mil- we get and process information. In the late lion. The numbers were not all that impressive, 1970s, most Americans (more than 80%) given the size of the potential audience in the watched one of three evening newscasts on CBS, US (ratings normally dip during the summer

Marvin Kalb 9 months anyway), but the trend line was clear. In but by media moguls who place a higher prior- 1994, 22 percent of the average audience share ity on the size of their profits than on the value went to cable; four years later, the number of their contributions to society. jumped to 36 percent.7 Networks became so profitable in the Perhaps even more significant than the deregulated Reagan years of the 1980s that Gen- expansion of cable has been the rather sudden eral Electric acquired NBC, Loews bought CBS emergence of the Internet as a force in national and CapCities picked up ABC. By the mid- and global communications. Once the exclusive 1990s, as one megacorporation after another resource of the Pentagon and scientists, the expanded its technological horizons, pushing Internet has now blossomed into a fairly com- profits into the stratosphere, network ownership monplace tool in industry, universities and changed hands again. Westinghouse bought many homes. It should therefore not be surpris- CBS, Disney purchased ABC for a cool $19 bil- ing that just about every newspaper and maga- lion in cash and stock, Time-Warner acquired zine has its own Web site, or two or three. CNN, Fox was created and conglomerates con- During Monicagate especially, editors and pro- tinued to wire the world, with satellites, faxes, ducers often hurried to put their stories on the cellular phones and cable television. What hap- Internet before they had even been published in pened in the US set the standard for what then the morning papers. Clearly many Americans happened around the world. have turned to the Internet for their daily dose How profitable is this new world? In 1996, of news. In 1995, only 4 percent did; now 20 NBC produced three hours of television news a percent do. day. Two years later, NBC, using its newly- A safe prognosis is that the use of this developed cable subdivisions of CNBC, MSNBC new technology will gallop along with increas- and others as markets, produced and fielded 27 ing speed. hours of news a day. The time may not be filled by the same professionally polished program of The New Economics yesteryear, but each hour sets aside at least 12 In December, 1962, William Paley, who minutes for commercial advertisements. A created CBS, outlined his ambitious plans for minute can generate $50,000 in ad revenues, or the future of CBS News to a small group of $100,000, or $1,000,000, depending on the pro- CBS correspondents. One of them, Charles gram, the time and the size of the audience; but Collingwood, cautioned that this could be very news now makes enough money to be consid- expensive. Paley responded: “You guys cover the ered a profit center. In this brave, new world, news; I’ve got Jack Benny to make money for NBC manufactures news in much the same way me.” Those were the days when news was and with much the same motivation that GE assumed to be a loss leader—serious, imposing, manufactures light bulbs. important, but never profitable. Benny and the Newspapers followed the same pattern. other entertainers were supposed to make a Most have been purchased by chains; few profit, and they did, in part so that the reporters remain in family hands. Annual profits run rou- could go about their business without having to tinely into double digit terrain. At the Los worry about money. They satisfied Paley’s Angeles Times, Mark Willes, the recently- desire for respectability and legitimacy. “My appointed publisher with no journalistic back- jewels in the crown,” he called them. ground, decided that each editorial department Thirty-six years later, the current Chair- was to be run not just by an editor but by a man and CEO of CBS Corporation, Michael H. business manager as well. Two executives now Jordan, disavows the idealistic views of his pre- made editorial decisions—the editor and the decessor: “Yes, we want to hold on to journalis- business manager. Every story had a price tag. tic and other standards. But I don’t aspire to that Every decision raised a question Paley would Paleyesque role. This is a business.”8 So it is. likely not have recognized or tolerated: can we The crown was turned on its head in the early afford to cover this story? 1980s, when it was discovered that news could not only buy respectability—it could also make The “New News” unimaginable profits; but it then had to live by This technological revolution and this the rules of any other profitable enterprise: it profit/business-centered news have—not sur- prized its stars but lost its soul to the demands prisingly—transformed the ethics, values and of the marketplace. News has become a big, big standards of journalism. Both should also be business, controlled not by powerful families, viewed against a background of massive change

10 The Rise of the “New News” in two other areas: the decline of mutual trust information and still others used flimsy, ques- between the White House and the press, and the tionable sources, such as the reports of other end of the Cold War. Vietnam and Watergate news organizations or anonymous individuals served as harsh wake-up calls to journalists who whose bias or identity was almost never charac- previously gave the benefit of the doubt to terized. The new practice clashed directly with politicians and presidents who professed to tell images of the old journalism typified by Wood- the truth. The “kerosene journalism” that has ward, Bernstein, and Bradlee. The result was a grown in the post-Watergate decades has dra- lack of clarity in the press—where were the alle- matically altered the relationship between pub- gations, leaks, details coming from? Readers and lic officials and the people who cover them—and viewers were left to wonder while journalists nowhere is this difference more pronounced promised total anonymity to sources in return than in White House coverage. for the latest crumb of information. Additionally, the end of the Cold War has 2. “Out There” left news outlets with what appears at first Once the Monica story was “out there,” it glance to be a vacuum. It isn’t actually a vac- fueled a prairie fire of copy-cat journalism. For a uum. History continues; but journalists have period of time, a dress stained by presidential concluded from poll data that the American peo- semen was highlighted in the news. Oral sex ple aren’t interested in foreign and serious was discussed on normally serious newscasts. A news—and they tend to ignore it. Without one White House valet—named—was widely identi- central story around which to focus and compare fied as someone who had actually seen the Pres- other stories, a free-for-all followed. While this ident and Monica in a compromising position. absence of an overriding focus has had some pos- Was there confirmation? No. Were there itive effects—the coverage of education and denials? Yes. Did the denials discourage health issues has risen dramatically in news cov- reporters from returning to the same stories— erage—the opportunity is mostly being squan- and rerunning and repeating them time and dered by the domination of tabloid stories. In again—with videotape? No. this world, anything goes and, more often than In January, 1992, after a tabloid broke the not, scandal is king-of-the-hill. story of Clinton’s affair with Gennifer Flowers A “new news” has surfaced in this sharply (she said they had a twelve-year-long affair; after changed atmosphere. Although the appearance first denying it, he later admitted to one of this “news” is familiar, its content has sub- instance of romance), a producer for NPR’s “All stantially changed. Things Considered” proposed to anchor Linda What are some of the characteristics of the Wertheimer that they use the story, too. Why?, “new news?” Wertheimer asked. Because it’s “out there,” the 1. Sourcing—or the Lack Thereof producer argued. The anchor’s response was a In one of their books about Watergate, classic line from another era: that doesn’t mean Woodward and Bernstein relate a conversation it has to be “in here,” she said. with their editor, Ben Bradlee, regarding the In the ensuing six years, the distinction sources they were using to write their ground- between “out there” and “in here” vanished in breaking stories. Although Bradlee understood the crush of competition. The Chinese wall that the need to keep promises of anonymity to used to separate tabloid from traditional news sources, he wanted to be certain that his repor- was breached and in some places shattered. Dur- ters were not relying on “people who have. . . [a] ing the O. J. Simpson trial, the New York Times big ax to grind on the front page of the Washing- used a tabloid as its source for a major story. ton Post.” Getting the story was important, but During Monicagate, ABC used Matt Drudge. making sure the sources were reliable and hon- The “new news” has emerged on television as est was even more important. The two reporters endless, coifed chatter and in print (in newspa- write that the discussion “satisfied Bradlee’s pers and on the Internet) as the highly commer- reportorial instincts and responsibilities as an cial and homogenized packaging of information, editor.”9 whose reliability is often uncertain. One of the most noticeable casualties of NBC anchor Tom Brokaw has spoken of good journalism during the first weeks of the the “big bang theory of journalism.” Defined Lewinsky story was sourcing. Many news orga- roughly as follows: a rumor or hint of official nizations dropped the unofficial industry-wide wrongdoing is heard on a morning talk show, practice of requiring two solid sources for repeated at the office water cooler, echoed on

Marvin Kalb 11 later talk shows, mentioned at an editorial Newsweek, Kennedy, a friend from their days in meeting and at the White House, gossiped about fashionable Georgetown. This closeness allowed in offices, overheard on the bus or metro, until Bradlee to get some sensational inside scoops, later in the day it is transmogrified into “news” but it also obliged him—for the sake of a friend by simply being “reported” on an evening news he honored—to look the other way on a few program. According to this theory, a reporter embarrassing tales. TV anchor Walter Cronkite can even check and confirm the existence of of CBS, once described as “the most trusted man such a rumor, and once checked and confirmed, in America,” also maintained friendly relation- change the rumor or hint into a fact, or a sort of ships with a number of presidents, including fact—suggesting a very odd journey through a President Johnson. Drinks and dinner were often maze of whispered talk and gossip until ulti- on their agenda, and just as often the President mately it is transformed into perceived truth, or made comments, which were assumed to be off- something close enough to the truth to be the-record even if they concerned hot issues accepted as a reliable piece of information, a such as Vietnam and race, largely because, as fact. But, in this world of the “new news,” what Cronkite later wrote, “it was clearly private is a fact? And how reliable is it? time, and it should remain such.”10 There were rules, and the rules were respected. 3. Rush to Judgment The election of Richard Nixon marked the These days, cynicism and distrust are the beginning of the end of this era of relative good- middle names of Washington journalism. But it will between president and reporter. Nixon was was not always this way. During hot and cold paranoid about the press, imagining every wars, presidents and reporters were reading reporter to be a member of an enemy camp. essentially from the same sheet of music. The During Watergate, he even produced an “ene- Nazis were a common enemy, and patriotism mies list.” He developed a communications bound the press to the cause of “unconditional strategy specifically designed to bypass the surrender.” On December 7, 1941, for example, national press and—through televised speeches the date President Roosevelt said would “live in and carefully circumscribed appearances—talk infamy,” Edward R. Murrow of CBS joined the directly to the American public. Nixon’s vice- president for a late dinner at the White House. president, Spiro Agnew, prior to his forced resig- No reporter had yet been briefed on the devas- nation on corruption charges, delivered a series tating dimensions of the Japanese attack on of speeches viciously attacking the credibility Pearl Harbor, but Roosevelt told Murrow every- and integrity of the mainstream media. Nixon thing—without any inhibiting groundrules. As conducted a campaign aimed at undermining Murrow walked back to his hotel, he considered the press—but he failed abysmally. The people doing a broadcast—the news, after all, was sen- had a right to know the truth about their presi- sational, important, and he had it from a superb dent, and they ultimately learned the truth. The source. There is little doubt that the modern Washington Post’s reporting of the Watergate equivalent of Murrow would have rushed to a scandal led to Nixon’s resignation. The Post, the studio and broadcast his exclusive, assuming, press and the American people won—a journal- quite properly, that in the absence of any cau- istic triumph of historic proportions. tionary groundrules, the President intended to But there was a down side of equally his- disclose the extent of the catastrophe—but toric proportions. Watergate fostered a climate didn’t want to do so officially; but Murrow was of cynicism about the political process, affecting operating at the time on a different set of ethical not only the public but the press, which seems and professional standards. He returned to his only to have deepened with each administra- hotel and retired. News of that magnitude tion. Martin Tolchin, a former New York Times could—in those days, anyway—wait. reporter who now publishes the Hill, a weekly Then, for more than four decades after newspaper, has expressed the unhappy view that World War II, the Russians were the bad guys, journalists now assume that “public officials and the West the good guys. Relations between and those in authority are per se dishonest, reporters and politicians were not always incompetent, untrustworthy and more inter- smooth during these rocky and dangerous times, ested in their own careers than in the problems but neither were they as strained and adversarial of their constituents.”11 Tom Brazaitis, Washing- as they appear to be at this time. Ben Bradlee ton bureau chief of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, maintained a close friendship with President is even blunter. “Hell, we’re the cheerleaders of John Kennedy—Bradlee the enterprising editor at cynicism.”12

12 The Rise of the “New News” With widespread cynicism came a loss of line between journalism and politics. A govern- respect. During the Ford administration, ment official leaves his White House job and reporters joked about whether the president becomes a commentator on PBS’s NewsHour or could walk and chew gum at the same time. ABC’s This Week. David Gergen and George During Ronald Reagan’s terms, reporters Stephanopoulos are two prime examples. So ridiculed his apparently limited command of what?, one may ask. The apparent answer is detail and fact, as he frequently resorted to note- that the public, after a while, has difficulty dis- cards for information most presidents were tinguishing who’s who among the Washington expected to know. There was criticism of power elite—who’s the reporter? Who’s the offi- George Bush’s awkward windmill hand motions cial? Who’s telling the truth? Who’s shaving the and stilted speaking style; and when in the early truth? Indeed, what is the truth? In a democ- days of the Clinton administration, reporters racy, the truth-teller holds the keys to the king- were arbitrarily banished from easy access to dom. The journalist used to be the truth-teller, the spokesman’s office, they ripped into the new but now? president, and haven’t stopped since. Everything Former Washington Post editor Russ was considered fair game, from the trivial to the Wiggins was one of the first to spot the prob- towering, until finally the Lewinsky saga, for lem. “Journalists belong in the audience,” he’d which the President bears ultimate responsibil- often tell his reporters, “not on the stage.” At ity, brought him to ruin. the time, in the early 1970’s, many journalists The sad result is that, in recent administra- would have agreed with Wiggins—that is, until tions, the residual respect between president they saw their real-life colleagues, Bob and press lingering from earlier times appears to Woodward and Carl Bernstein, portrayed in the have vanished. A presumption of presidential movie version of their best-selling book, All The guilt and complicity in wrongdoing now satu- President’s Men, by such Hollywood stars as rates journalistic copy about the White House Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. Suddenly, and its occupants. We have reached a point the honorable but hardly lucrative craft of jour- where, until the president can prove that he is nalism created new horizons; instead of a pat on telling the truth, reporters presume that he is the back for a story well done, journalists began lying, dissembling, cutting corners for the pur- to search the rainbow for a pot of gold. The pose of evasion. In this age of contrived images, placement of a good story on the front page used Clinton has always wanted to be seen as one of to be regarded as the highest form of reward; the boys—not an aloof leader, but an ordinary now a good story can also be seen as a stepping citizen, a baby boomer not above disclosing his stone to an occasional TV appearance, maybe a choice of underwear on television. Time maga- book, even a movie. Reporters now appear regularly in movies, sometimes simply playing zine once ran a cover story about Clinton called, the role of a reporter, at other times playing “The Incredible Shrinking President,” raising themselves. a question about the relevance of the chief Ben Bradlee, in his memoir, wrote that executive and suggesting the shriveling up of coverage of the Nixon scandal converted the presidential power. When communication is reporter into a star. “Watergate,” in his words, instantaneous, and the clamor for comment is “marked the final passage of journalists into the constant, commentators comment—endlessly, best seats of the establishment.”13 Once in the whether they are informed about the subject or best seats, journalists were expected to produce not. The rush to judgment is now an more than just good, clean copy; now they were inescapable feature of the “new news.” also expected to deliver their opinions, and their 4. Blurring the lines opinions carried weight in a universe dominated For a long time, journalists were by televised celebrities, strong personalities, observers—they were not the observed, they controversial insights, right or wrong. The were not celebrities. Now they are both the upshot for many is that journalists have become observed and the observers—they have lost their too big for their britches. For journalists who distinctiveness as journalists but gained another want to offer commentaries on television, kind of distinctiveness as instantly recognizable deliver speeches for hefty fees, even appear in personalities. No longer will the new technol- the movies in cameo roles, the once glorious if ogy allow them to be flies on the wall of his- somewhat mundane pursuit of the truth now tory. Television, more than any other tool of seems too humble a calling. The temptation to communication, facilitates the blurring of the perform, to pontificate, to rise above the story

Marvin Kalb 13 becomes irresistible; and as the editorial walls blurring the lines between journalism on one separating straight reporting from commentary, side, and politics and government on the other.” political participants from political observers, Speaking from an ethical podium of unblem- crumble in a heap, journalism is transformed ished accomplishment, Broder added: “We all into a profitable profession. know them. The journalists who go into govern- Journalism, largely because of the lure of ment and become State Department or White money and glamour, has become an attractive House officials, and then come back as editors alternative to politics. Susan Molinari, a rising or columnists. . . . One day, he or she is a public GOP star from Staten Island, leaps directly from official or political operative; the next, a jour- politics to an anchor’s chair at CBS. After a year, nalist or television commentator. Then they slip the ratings, which she was expected to boost, do into the phone booth and emerge in their origi- not revive, and she goes down in television his- nal guise.” tory as a flop. Bill Bradley, a respected Demo- There are other characteristics of the “new cratic Senator from New Jersey, leaves Capitol news,” including a fluffy lightness to the presen- Hill, partly to prepare for a presidential run. But tation of serious information and a predisposi- he needs frequent exposure on television to be tion to emphasize sex and sensationalism in an considered a live option; he talks himself into appeal to higher ratings and circulation. The ten- filling the role of “liberal commentator” on dency to go downscale is too painfully obvious CBS. His pieces are well-written, they make and persistent. During the Cold War, the sheer sense, but his voice is flat and he too is dropped, awareness on everyone’s part that nuclear war rather embarrassingly. But many other politi- was a possibility kept our eye on the sparrow’s cians take to playing reporters or commentators fall. Survival was a central concern in determin- with ease. Superficial similarities abound. Both ing a priority for news. Now anything goes. enjoy the publicity, both love television, both play to the crowds, both happily give their opin- Part Three: New Technology ions on anything from Bosnia to baseball. So it In the first two weeks of Monicagate, there is no surprise really that when Mario Cuomo were many illustrations of the power of the new vacates the Governor’s mansion in New York, technology to affect the nature of news cover- he practices law but also hosts a radio talk age. We shall focus on five of them. show. Pat Buchanan shifts between presidential campaigns and CNN’s Crossfire without miss- 1. The Elusive Blue Dress ing a beat. Bill Press, leader of California’s Matt Drudge’s contribution to the frenzy of Democratic Party, and Geraldine Ferraro, Demo- January 21, 1998, was an exclusive item on his cratic vice-presidential candidate in the 1984 Internet Web site to the effect that Lewinsky campaign, represent the left (to Buchanan’s had a dress with “potential DNA” evidence right) on Crossfire. CNN is also home to Jesse pointing directly to the President. Drudge, who Jackson, when he is not running for president, had introduced Lewinsky to the public, now but it is also home to hundreds of first-class seemed to be suggesting that the former intern reporters, who are usually overworked and had a dress stained by presidential semen. Most underpaid. CNN stands for Cable NEWS Net- reporters could not yet focus on this explosive work; it is not supposed to be a televised item, because they were still catching up with waystation for politicians between campaigns. the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times David Broder, dean of political columnists and ABC on the original story; and for the better in Washington, watched the turnstile between part of a day, the story of the stained dress politics and journalism, and on November 19, remained a Drudge exclusive. 1988, he expressed his alarm at the National If Drudge does, in fact, become the Walter Press Club. “We damn well better make it Winchell of the age of the Internet—and he clear we are not part of the government,” he shows every sign of becoming Winchell and declaimed, “and not part of a Washington more—he will forever have Monica Lewinsky to insider’s clique where politicians, publicists and thank for his success. For it was this story that journalists are easily interchangeable parts. put Matt Drudge and the Internet on the map of Once we lose our distinctive identity, it will not American journalism.14 Within a matter of be long before we lose our freedom.” He spotted hours, he was being invited to cross the moat a “new hybrid creature” slipping suspiciously separating Internet gossip and information from between the two worlds of politics and journal- mainstream journalism and to appear on pro- ism—an “androgynous political insider . . . grams such as Meet the Press on NBC. And, of

14 The Rise of the “New News” course, he accepted one invitation after another, this point it was not clear whether Goldberg had becoming in a very brief period of time the per- concocted a story about a stained dress, or sim- sonification of the route by which an item on ply leaked a true story in order to get press the Internet makes the journey to, among other attention. There might be a dress; there might destinations, ABC’s World News Tonight with not be such a dress—what was relevant was that Peter Jennings. an Internet gossip-page item had suddenly Stop one was the Today show on January appeared in mainstream journalism, another 22, 1998, Drudge sitting opposite host Matt question added to the bushelful of other unan- Lauer—one Matt to another—on the highest- swered questions demanding immediate rated news program on morning television. answers. Drudge was determined to impress not only Goldberg, though unnamed, was also the Lauer and other big-name television personali- source of Peter Jennings’ lead story on World ties, but also the many millions of potential News Tonight on January 23, 1998—a report Internet customers who might be enticed to that came to ABC after numerous stopovers at visit his still relatively unknown Web site. “I radio, TV talk shows and the Internet. By this have reported that there’s a potential DNA trail time every news junkie knew about an incrimi- that would tie Clinton to this young woman.” nating dress, and every reporter wanted to With this one statement, uttered with total self- advance the story. Jackie Judd, who had quickly confidence, Drudge introduced his “dress” story become ABC’s star reporter on the scandal, to a national audience. By its very mention on thought that she had new and solid information. the Today show, it acquired a semblance of jour- Jennings, in his introduction to Judd’s report, nalistic legitimacy. characterized the source as “someone with spe- Lauer seemed sufficiently impressed to cific knowledge of what it is that Monica raise the allegation with his next guest, Michael Lewinsky says really took place between her and Isikoff. Lauer later explained the Drudge-Isikoff the President.” Judd stated that “according to sequence by saying that he had to pursue the the source, Lewinsky says she saved, apparently story—even if in the process he gave it extraor- as some kind of souvenir, a navy blue dress with dinary exposure on the Today show—because, the president’s semen stain on it.” Was there he said, it was “out there. People were starting such a dress? Was it stained by presidential to talk about it.” But at this point a question semen? Judd’s report strongly suggested that the could easily have been raised: which people, and answer to both questions was yes. Everything in how many? Was Lauer really talking about only Judd’s report depended ultimately on the relia- his executive producer? His writer? Other col- bility and accuracy of her source—the ubiqui- leagues on the program? In fact, only a handful tous Lucianne Goldberg. And did she have of readers of the Drudge Report were even aware firsthand information? Did she have unimpeach- of it, until Drudge took advantage of his appear- able evidence? No, she too was relying on a ance on Today to push the story. Isikoff refused, source. Months later, in a groundbreaking article at least at this point, to join Lauer in heady by Stephen Brill in the inaugural issue of his speculation about Lewinsky’s wardrobe. “I have new magazine, Brill’s Content, the source was not reported that, and I am not going to report identified as Linda Tripp. Goldberg was quoted that until I have evidence that it is, in fact, as saying that she was not sure whether the true.” Lauer pressed Isikoff with a few more dress story was actually mentioned on the questions, but to no avail. famous Tripp tapes. “In fact,” Brill wrote, Of course, Drudge never mentioned his “Goldberg is not sure that Tripp said Lewinsky source, and Lauer never asked him for a source, had talked about having saved a dress, as apparently on the rather questionable assump- opposed to a dress simply having been stained. ‘I tion that a tale-teller, unlike a journalist, had no might have added the part about it being saved,’ obligation to have or disclose one. A few days Goldberg told me.” later, the New York Daily News reported that Early Saturday morning, January 24, 1998, the source was none other than Tripp’s New many newspapers across the country carried a York book agent, Lucianne Goldberg, who had UPI report from Washington that quoted the actually been talking to both Drudge and Isikoff. unnamed ABC source on World News Tonight In an interview, she acknowledged, “The dress as having said, “Lewinsky saved a navy blue story? I think I leaked that . . . I had to do dress stained with President Clinton’s semen.” something to get their [the media’s] attention. UPI offered no qualifications, no sources other I’ve done it. And I’m not unproud [sic] of it.” At than ABC, no reservations—meaning UPI added

Marvin Kalb 15 no independent reporting of its own to this news outfits. To be considered reliable, story. The story of the dress had undergone a reportable news, it should be independently revealing metamorphosis—from an unsourced verified. Drudge item on the Internet to an unnamed, The dress story stood as an example of single-sourced hearsay report on an evening journalistic excess diminished over time by the news program to a definitive statement of fact absence of any hard evidence and by the rise of on a wire agency. new and distracting issues. Only much later in That evening, as Time and Newsweek were the reporting of Monicagate, when the endgame putting the finishing touches on their latest began in late July, 1998, did the dress re-emerge issues, Time’s Web site, foreshadowing what as a presumed fact. Lewinsky was reported to would appear in the magazine itself, reported have delivered a navy-blue dress to Starr as part that “a source familiar with the investigation” of an immunity agreement. Several journalists said that “Lewinsky once unfurled a dress soiled used this disclosure to vindicate their earlier by what she said was the President’s semen. reporting, conveniently forgetting that all of Holding the garment like a trophy, she told those stories were based on one highly question- Tripp, ‘I’ll never wear it again.’ ” Who was able source. Even Michael Isikoff—he of the Time’s source for this quote? Only a source Today show dismissal of the dress story—told loosely and vaguely described as one “familiar Hardball’s Chris Matthews on August 3, 1998: with the investigation,” hardly hard journalism, “As you know, when it was first reported in Jan- which suggested Time wanted the appearance uary, there were a lot of snickers and a lot of of something original, and it settled on the cynics saying, ‘Oh come on’. . . skeptics that the “unfurled” dress. dress really existed and you had people like In the chaotic frenzy of the first weekend of Steve Brill talking about the phantom dress and Monicagate, the talk shows on radio and televi- how horrible it was that the media would go sion greeted the dress story as a dream come with such stories. I mean, the fact is that the true. The alleged dress inspired irresponsible dress has a lineage and, in fact, it was first dis- punditry as well as tsk-tsk commentary on the cussed, first shown, by Monica Lewinsky to dangers of sourceless news. Newsweek’s Linda Tripp late last fall.” Revisionism runs Jonathan Alter provided an excellent example of deep in today’s newsrooms. sober commentary in a journalistic environment gone wild. On MSNBC, which in fact converted 2. “Breaking News” in the 24-hour News Cycle the scandal into a nonstop series of reports, he Once upon a time, in that quaint era of argued against wild speculation. “We don’t know journalism preceding the emergence of the where [the dress story] comes from, and yet it’s 24-hour news cycle, reporters did, on rare occa- in the bloodstream now and it’s very, very diffi- sions, open a television report by declaring cult once it gets into that national conversation “CBS News has learned . . . .” It was, for its to get it out again.” Alter then quoted an appro- time, an arresting phrase—a way of capturing priate aphorism from Winston Churchill—“a lie the audience’s attention for a story of major makes it halfway around the world before the importance. It was usually an exclusive story, truth can get its pants on”—as a way of under- the result of an exhaustive investigation or an scoring the speed with which rumors can enter illuminating leak. Only on CBS, the announce- the national consciousness and gain a degree of ment seemed to be shouting, could you get jour- acceptability. nalism of this quality and insight. Overused, the A week after the story first broke, the catchy phrase (“CBS News has learned . . . ”) CBS Evening News tried to put the dress genie could have lost its value; properly used, it only back in the bottle. It reported that “no DNA served to underscore the special nature of the evidence or stains have been found on a dress report that was about to be aired. that belongs to Lewinsky.” CBS, in this way, But now, in the era of the 24-hour news continued to confirm the existence of a possi- cycle, as competition among the various cable bly incriminating dress but not one containing networks has reached levels of ferocious com- Drudge’s “DNA” nor ABC’s “semen stain.” bat, the urge of even the best reporter to Again, evidence was flimsy to non-existent; and announce exclusive ownership of a fact or even yet when a story of such mass interest erupts, of a rumor has become almost irresistible. All- it ought to be justified as “news” by more than news networks and Internet Web sites have its appearance on the Internet and its subse- been posting an inordinate number of bulletins quent pick-up by CBS and other mainstream (“news flashes,” as they are sometimes called),

16 The Rise of the “New News” partly because they want to show off their tech- and advisors, both in and out of government” nological and journalistic prowess and partly believed that (1) he had an affair with Lewinsky because they want to discourage their restless and (2) he would have to resign as a result. viewers from migrating to other places. The Using language alternately so condemning and effect has been to dilute the value of a bulletin. yet so qualified, Blitzer reached for the presiden- On CNN, it is not the word “bulletin” tial jugular, only to seem at the same time to be but rather the phrase “BREAKING NEWS,” pulling back. He said the President’s friends splashed across the screen to the accompani- “don’t know for sure and they were, of course, ment of a Beethovian musical coda, that is used not present, if in fact it did occur. They think to introduce a host of major (and not so major) that it’s probable; it’s almost certain, that it news stories, such as assassinations, election occurred, probably, for the most part. And I got results, wars and earthquakes. Properly used, the different explanations talking to these people— dramatic phrase (“BREAKING NEWS”) can for one, they say they think there is a track attract an audience for important news. Over- record. This is probably not the first such used, it can easily lose its appeal and be seen as alleged incident, and they say that the informa- a PR device of little value. tion that they’ve been gleaning from various On Saturday, January 24, 1998, at 6 P.M., sources appears to be very, very compelling.” “BREAKING NEWS” suddenly filled CNN Throughout the evening and on into Sun- screens, and the bearded and respected Wolf day morning, CNN led its news and talk pro- Blitzer, a correspondent of uncommon ability, grams with variations of Blitzer’s “exclusive” appeared with the White House as backdrop. He story. Unnamed FOB’s (Friends of Bill) thought looked exceptionally serious, perhaps because that it was “almost certain” that the President he realized that he was about to step into had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky “proba- highly treacherous terrain with the first author- bly, for the most part.” The affair was first itative report that the President might have to described as “alleged” but then later the “infor- resign as a result of the alleged affair. “Despite mation” was described as “very, very com- the President’s public and carefully phrased pelling.” From the beginning, the story lacked public [sic] denials,” Blitzer intoned, “several of the hard edge of a news bulletin. It was presented his closest friends and advisors, both in and out as a breathless expose, typical of the times and of the government, now tell CNN that they perfect for talk show fodder. And, indeed, it was believe he almost certainly did have a sexual feverishly debated on one talk show after relation[ship] with . . . Lewinsky, and they’re another, acquiring, through sheer repetition, the talking among themselves about the possibility appearance of established fact. There was never of a resignation . . . .” any confirmation, but that hardly mattered. White House officials watched Blitzer’s There was no salon in Washington that had report in their offices, learning for the first time not heard and discussed a rumor about the Presi- about the resignation rumors with astonishment dent’s womanizing. The Blitzer story, packaged and anger. They could—at the same time—see as “BREAKING NEWS” in the hothouse envi- Blitzer on CNN and on the White House lawn ronment of a 24-hour news cycle, merely rein- only a few hundred yards away. Several wanted to forced the already widespread perception that wring his neck; a few later expressed their out- the President was a morally corrupt leader—a rage to him personally, truly disgusted by the fact man of superior intellectual capabilities mixed that a reporter of Blitzer’s stature would air a with an uncontrollable sex drive. Normally this report on CNN so loaded with innuendo, rumor, would have been the story discussed around the ambiguity and a strong sense of presidential guilt. office watercooler or at cocktail parties and, Because Blitzer was presumed to have increasingly, on a succession of talk shows that excellent sources in and out of the White House, thrive on endless chatter about the rich and his report picked up an instant following among powerful. But it would not have been the journalists with less imposing contacts, and it rapidly made its way through the food chain of essence of a news bulletin—at least, not until Washington journalism. It marked a high (and recent years when the line separating commen- low) point in scandal coverage, a superb illustra- tary from news seems to have melted in the tion of the misuse of bulletins for the dissemina- competitive heat of the “new news.” tion of gossip and rumor. 3. A Super Bowl Bulletin First Blitzer elaborated on his comment Nothing is more sacrosanct in American that “several of [the President’s] closest friends television than coverage of the Super Bowl.

Marvin Kalb 17 Networks battle for the privilege of carrying this every nuance of this developing story. Brokaw premier sporting event. Commercials produce later admitted that competitive pressures drove hundreds of millions of dollars. No one—but NBC to its extraordinary decision to interrupt absolutely no one—is allowed to break into this Super Bowl coverage. “I guess it was because carefully constructed extravaganza, preparations of ABC’s report,” he explained. “Our only ratio- for which run two uninterrupted weeks. But on nale could be that it’s ‘out there,’ so let’s talk Super Bowl Sunday, January 25, 1998, even the about it.”17 nation’s most sacred sports ritual proved vulnera- One of Brokaw’s colleagues, who refused to ble to the hyped bulletin. If anyone needed addi- be identified, characterized the network’s moti- tional evidence that mainstream news was being vation a bit more cynically. “Our anchor and forced to change its underlying values to compete White House reporter come on the air and say, with the new technology of cable, the Internet here’s something that we don’t know is true, but and the 24-hour news cycle, it was provided dra- we just thought we’d tell you anyway just for matically by NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw— the hell of it, so we can say we reported it just he of the “big bang theory of journalism.” in case it turns out to be true.”18 The story actually began a few hours ear- Is his cynicism misplaced? lier. On ABC’s This Week, Jackie Judd, citing 4. An Embarrassing Retraction sources unnamed and perhaps even unknown, The story of a “witness” to a private meet- disclosed that one or two witnesses might have ing between the President and the intern, seen an “intimate” encounter between the Pres- already reported by ABC and NBC, led to an ident and Lewinsky. How would the Sunday embarrassing retraction. pundits handle the possibility of witnesses? They loved it. A few even predicted that trapped On Monday evening, January 26, 1998, the in this manner, a deer frozen in headlights, the Dallas Morning News posted a story on its Web President would have to resign—and soon. NBC site, which ran in Tuesday’s early edition, say- felt that it had “no choice” but to do the ing that there was indeed a “witness” to a improbable, and what up to that moment would “compromising” meeting between Clinton and have been deemed the impossible. At exactly Lewinsky and that two “attorneys familiar with 4:30 P.M., less than two hours before kickoff, the obstruction-of-justice investigation,” anchor Tom Brokaw and White House corre- vaguely linked to Starr’s office, were the spondent Claire Shipman broke into the Super sources for the story. The Dallas Morning News Bowl buildup with a bulletin. said, “There is at least one witness who saw Brokaw popped up on the screen and [the president and Lewinsky] together in a com- declared, “there’s an unconfirmed report that, at promising situation.” Once on the Internet, the some point, someone caught the president and story spread like wildfire through every parched Ms. Lewinsky in an intimate moment.” The newsroom in Washington. Almost immediately, usually unflappable anchorman then turned to it was picked up by the Associated Press. Larry Shipman for more details. Normally he would King on CNN interrupted his interview show to have provided them himself, but he didn’t have read the AP dispatch. Geraldo Rivera on CNBC, any. Nor, for that matter, did Shipman. “Well,” not to be outdone, read it to his audience, too. she replied, “sources in Ken Starr’s office tell us A few hours later, Ted Koppel opened Nightline that they are investigating that possibility but with the same report. This story was clearly that they haven’t confirmed it.” news. It was obvious to anyone that NBC had Yet, when Nightline went off the air, nothing to add to ABC’s story, and the ABC shortly after midnight, the Dallas Morning report was based only on unnamed and unknown News did what no news organization had yet sources. Undoubtedly NBC tried to generate done—it issued a retraction. With obvious independent confirmation, but failed, leaving it embarrassment, the paper acknowledged that in the painfully embarrassing position of having “the source for the story, a longtime Washington to echo a rival network’s claim before one of the lawyer familiar with the case, later said the largest audiences ever to gather around the tube. information provided for Tuesday’s report was Such a story would not ordinarily merit time on inaccurate. The source is not affiliated with Mr. NBC Nightly News, much less justify a breaking Starr’s office.” There were supposed to have news bulletin, but in the crazy, competitive mad- been two sources; now suddenly there was one. ness of scandal coverage, NBC felt that it had no We know that the Dallas Morning News choice but to demonstrate that it was on top of was not the only news organization to run with

18 The Rise of the “New News” the original ABC story, but it was the first to whether she would consider representing the rush into print with additional details that were “witness” if this person decided to talk to Starr. inadequately checked and confirmed. Were it Husband DiGenova happened to overhear wife not for the excellent reputation of the Dallas Toensing discussing this possibility, and he then Morning News, it is likely that its report would conveyed his understanding of the situation to not have echoed through the corridors of jour- Dallas Morning News reporter David Jackson. In nalism on Monday evening. Larry King later other words, DiGenova’s overheard and unsub- explained, “You get handed something, you read stantiated understanding was fifth-hand. it . . . it wasn’t the New York Post. It was the AP “I thought they’d check it,” DiGenova and the Dallas Morning News.”19 later explained. “All I did was give them a vague Editor Ralph Langer took on the confusion tip of what I had heard Vicki talking about on about whether there were one or two sources. In the phone.”20 From “vague tip” to hard news. the formal retraction, he said that the paper had Journalism often follows a helter-skelter “unwittingly relied on only one source to pub- libretto, in which a chance occurrence can play lish its original story. Because of a ‘miscommu- as prominent a role in a news story as a care- nication’ between Dallas and the Washington fully researched analysis. For example, on Mon- bureau, senior editors mistakenly believed a sec- day afternoon, January 26, Toensing told friends ond source existed.” Even more embarrassing to in Starr’s office that they might soon be hearing Langer and his colleagues was the fact that the from a possible “witness” to a Clinton-Lewin- original source proved to be unreliable, initially sky encounter. Jackson, meanwhile, checked confirming the story when it was read to him on DiGenova’s information with a source in Starr’s the phone, but later calling back in a panic to office; he was told that one of Starr’s colleagues deny it. had also heard about a “witness.” Jackson then As the official explanation by the Dallas felt that he had not only two sources but also Morning News evolved, the two people who the making of a good story. Unbeknownst to originally served as sources for the story only him, at just about that very time, Toensing later to retreat into anonymity have since been heard that the “witness” had decided not to go identified as one of Washington’s famous cou- to Starr. She then assumed that this part of the ples—Joseph DiGenova and Victoria Toensing. unfolding drama was dead. Both are veteran Washington insiders, currently But it wasn’t. Shortly after 5 P.M., Jackson acting as outside counsel for the Republican telephoned DiGenova to double-check his staff of a House committee investigation of the story. DiGenova was not in his office; he was Teamsters union and its ties to the Democratic away doing a television interview program—so Party. In addition, DiGenova and Toensing rep- Toensing took the call. When she heard Jack- resent GOP congressman Dan Burton in a con- son’s tale, she told him that it was not true. “If troversial ethics probe, and Toensing also my husband told you that, he’s wrong,” she represents Marianne Gingrich, wife of House said. Jackson faced an awkward dilemma: to go Speaker Newt Gingrich, on yet another ethics with the story, or to kill it. He decided, after probe. In other words, if anyone needed a model consultation with his editors, to go with it. He couple for an advertisement about committed wrote the story for Tuesday morning’s paper, Republican operatives in Washington, DiGenova and he posted it on the Dallas Morning News and Toensing would have perfectly fit the bill. Web site, where, as we know, it made a splash. Yet, in their many TV appearances, their politi- The AP bulletined the information about a cal affiliation often goes unnoted—they are usu- “witness” to a possibly compromising ally introduced simply as “legal analysts.” More encounter. to the point, the Dallas Morning News never At 9 P.M., Toensing happened to be watching mentioned their GOP ties either. CNBC’s Geraldo Rivera. She was stunned to hear An x-ray of these sources for an especially Rivera read the AP dispatch about a “witness.” sensitive and important story is quite revealing. That evening, as the story picked up momentum Toensing first learned about a possible “wit- in Washington, Jackson called Toensing once ness,” when she was approached by a friend of again; and she told him, in no uncertain terms, a former White House staffer who had heard that if he had only her and her husband as another White House staffer claim to be the one sources, the story was essentially sourceless—it who saw Clinton and Lewinsky in an “embar- was wrong. Jackson brought the depressing news rassing” situation. The information—at this to his editors, and the decision was made shortly point—was third-hand. Toensing was asked after midnight to kill the “witness” story.21

Marvin Kalb 19 The “witness” saga demonstrated that the his admission. According to Brill, he also Internet had transformed the news cycle for “acknowledged that his paper had just com- most newspapers. In the old days, the publica- pleted a joint venture agreement with NBC to tion of “exclusives” had to wait for the morning provide editorial content to its CNBC cable net- (or afternoon) edition of the newspaper. No mat- work and that, ‘yes, it was in my mind that we ter how tempting it might have been to publish could impress them with this.’”22 the news earlier, there was no place to do it. The steward story bore a striking resem- Tabloids, many years ago, ran special editions— blance to other “witness” accounts, but, surpris- “extras”—with the latest news, but economic ingly, it did not spawn a rush of similar stories, considerations reduced this option to a distant perhaps because after two weeks of sensational memory. The new technology now allows news- tale-telling, the Washington press corps, rapped papers to scoop themselves by putting exclu- sharply for lousy reporting, began to grow a bit sives on the Internet before they are actually cautious about sourcing. ABC’s World News published in the papers themselves. In turn, this Tonight mentioned only that the steward had breakthrough encourages editors and reporters to been called as a witness before Starr’s grand jury go on radio and television talks shows to sing and that “he might have been in a position to their own praises before many of them have observe Mr. Clinton without the president’s even checked and double-checked the accuracy knowledge.” NBC’s Tom Brokaw said that of their stories. Nightly News decided that the story, while com- The Dallas Morning News had the courage pelling, “didn’t have legs.”23 Finally, on Monday, to check and to kill its “exclusive.” But it had to February 9, The Journal retracted its story of pay a damaging price in the form of a retraction. February 4–5, saying only that the steward “told 5. Even the Wall Street Journal a grand jury he didn’t see President Clinton alone with Monica Lewinsky, contrary to a After two weeks of scandal coverage, even report in the Wall Street Journal last week.” the respected Wall Street Journal fell victim to Managing editor Paul Steiger apologized for the the temptations of the Internet. error. “We deeply regret our erroneous report.” On Wednesday afternoon, February 4, two star investigative reporters for the Wall Street Part Four: New Economics Journal, Brian Duffy and Glenn Simpson, drafted an incendiary story to the effect that a White New technology changed the physical char- House steward had told Starr’s grand jury that acter and reach of journalism. Changes in the he had seen Clinton and Lewinsky alone, pre- economic structure of journalism precipitated an irrevocable transformation of the nature of sumably in or near the Oval Office, and later, news—marked, most recognizably, by the rise of after they had left the room, he found tissues “soft” news, the proliferation of pundit televi- with “lipstick and other stains” on them. The sion and the power of ratings. reporters tried checking their story with the White House press office, but they did not wait The Bottom Line for a response. The Journal posted the story on Somewhere during the merger-mania of the its Web site and prepared it for publication in 1980s, as family-owned businesses all but disap- Thursday’s edition. In less than an hour, Wash- peared, news organizations became less involved ington bureau chief Alan Murray, a highly with disseminating information and more con- respected reporter, began promoting the Duffy- cerned with turning profits. Critic David Shaw Simpson story on a CNBC talk show. It was of the Los Angeles Times, one of the sharpest now “out there.” students of journalism’s bottom line, wrote: But, by the time the story appeared in “There is little question that the shift from indi- Thursday’s paper, it had been changed. Instead vidual and family-ownership to public owner- of the steward telling his tale to the grand jury, ship has increased the demand for higher he was now telling it to Secret Service agents at short-term profits.”24 NBC Nightly News is now the White House—a small but important dis- expected to generate revenue in the same way tinction in a criminal investigation. Why the that ER makes money for the network. By using hurry then? Why put the story, which appar- news divisions to generate the same type of ently still needed checking, on the Journal Web profits produced by entertainment programming, site? Murray admitted to Brill that “he had network executives have required news organi- heard that ABC was also on the story and that zations to restructure their format. PBS’ News- he wanted to beat them.” But there was more to Hour may be the best place to find straight,

20 The Rise of the “New News” serious news—“it takes courage to be boring,” newsmagazines. This trend held constant during said ex-anchor Robert MacNeil; other networks the summer re-run months, even though the can no longer afford the luxury of being simply newsmagazines themselves were airing old pro- serious. Colorful graphics, new sets and easily grams—or updated versions of old programs. An digestible “soft” segments compete to attract additional incentive is the relatively cheap cost today’s rushed viewer. of these shows—an hour of Dateline costs NBC Newspapers have also joined this new eco- about $450,000, compared with the $1.2 million nomic world. Walter Cronkite has bemoaned the that networks pay to produce the average hour- fact that “stockholders in publicly held newspa- long drama. per chains are expecting returns similar to those The proliferation of newsmagazines is they’d get by investing in industrial enter- not on its own a sign of declining journalism. prises.”25 In addition, financial incentives are 60 Minutes used to be synonymous with hard- now linked to the performance of many newspa- hitting reporting and investigative work. How- per editors and reporters, blurring the line ever, in the crowded field, newsmagazines now between public service and personal gain. As a rely on “soft,” human interest stories to attract result, more print organizations are inching viewers. In the first six months of 1998, 60 Min- closer to the USA Today model of “news lite,” utes aired 22 episodes—a total of 62 different ironically at the same time that USA Today is stories. Of this number, an astounding 60 per- trying to be more like the Washington Post. cent were celebrity profiles, “can you believe?” All of this economic pressure comes at a investigative reports, or lifestyle pieces. Only a time when competition from cable networks small amount—13 percent—would qualify as and the Internet has splintered the reading and “hard” news, and every one of those stories viewing audience. These new technologies fit dealt with international issues. The remaining smoothly into the world of profit margins 17 stories, including the problematic Kathleen because of their easily created products. Internet Willey interview, would normally be defined as Web sites are inexpensive to maintain, so a man falling between “hard” and “soft” news. like Matt Drudge, who was once described as having no real job, can operate out of a one-bed- Table 2. 60 Minutes Story Segments— room apartment in Hollywood and suddenly January Through June, 1998 become the buzzman around which a corner of the political world revolves.26 Cable news net- Quality of Number of Percentage of works fill their programming schedules with Segment Shows Shows pundit talk shows, instead of relying upon expensive field reporters. Even with a small rat- “Soft” News 37 60% ings percentage or readership, these outlets can “Hard” News 8 13% make money simply because of their low cost and niche market. Remainder 17 27% In stark contrast, broadcast networks have Total 62 segments 100% been consistently losing viewers for the past decade. In an effort to stay above the swirling The same “softening” of news has taken waters of the new economic system, networks place inside print newsmagazines. The focus have been forced to restructure their conceptions has shifted significantly from foreign and of news and its place within programming. News domestic policy news to “lifestyle” and “news must not only inform, but entertain and attract you can use” coverage. While 45 percent of viewers who are “shopping” for news alternatives. newsmagazine covers in 1987 featured straight “Soft” News news topics, the total number dipped substan- Out of this whirlwind mix of news, enter- tially to only 20 percent by 1997.27 Straight tainment and profits has emerged the television news fails to generate the type of newsstand newsmagazine. Once limited to 60 Minutes on sales that follow covers featuring Princess CBS, the genre has exploded. In the fall of 1998, Diana or the cast of Seinfeld. And in the new the three major broadcast networks plan to air news market, the consumer knows best. A sur- newsmagazines six nights a week—up from just vey of network news, magazines and major two nights in 1983. It’s not hard to see why. papers, conducted by the Project for Excellence During the week of August 10–16, 1998, six out in Journalism concluded that celebrity, scandal, of the top ten shows in the Nielsen ratings were gossip and other “human interest” stories have

Marvin Kalb 21 increased from 15 percent to an astonishing 43 made-for-Monica nightly show White House percent of the total media coverage in the past in Crisis, starring ex-ESPN anchor Keith twenty years.28 Olbermann. NBC’s business news channel— CNBC—has found politics more profitable than Pundit Heaven business and economic talk. Its schedule is As the broadcast networks have battled to packed with shows like Hardball with Chris recapture a share of the viewing audience, all- Matthews, Equal Time, Rivera Live and Tim news cable networks have fine-tuned their own Russert. From 7:30 P.M. to 3 A.M.—with the specialized product—political talk. The tantaliz- exception of a 30-minute break for business ing combination of low cost and acceptable rat- news—CNBC is all politics, all the time. ings has nourished a growing slate of political Compared to the traditional broadcast net- news and opinion shows. And while the genre works, which normally only have an hour or two displayed its potential during earlier events like of punditry per week, cable networks can fill 24 the Gulf War and the O. J. Simpson trial, it has hours a day with political talk, enhancing their found its fountain of youth with the Lewinsky ability to capitalize on a scandal. These huge sto- story. ries do not just boost ratings for one evening or CNN, the veteran of 24-hour news, boasts one show—they create a market that never ten shows devoted to political talk and news, before existed. As Steve Brill has noted, a single including the incredibly successful Inside Poli- scandal can “ignit[e] a rocket under the entire tics. IP began as an outlet for following cam- revenue structure of the enterprise,” doing for a paign news, but now stays on-air even between network what coverage of the Iran hostage crisis election cycles to lend its particular brand of did for ABC and Nightline in the late 1970s.29 political insight to any kind of news. No matter The day the Lewinsky story broke on January 21, what the legislative or policy issue of the day, 1998, MSNBC producers immediately discussed on IP it can easily be cast in purely political using this new scandal to create a new show. terms, with winners and losers. “What’s going White House in Crisis debuted on February 3, a on up on Capitol Hill today?” We may not learn mere two weeks after the scandal coverage began, about the day’s policy debates, but we will cer- and quickly signed on respected journalists, tainly get the latest information on Newt Gin- including the Washington Post’s E. J. Dionne, to grich’s struggle for control of the GOP. The act as commentators for the nightly program. more recent additions to the cable news line-up have copied this approach to politics as a model Sharing the Wealth for forming both straight news and discussion The only requirements for a basic political programs. talk show are a studio, a few chairs and a stable The newest kid on the block, Fox News of guests willing to share their opinions. That Channel, was launched in October 1996 and can cast is never hard to find in a loquacious city already be seen in 33 million households around like Washington, but it is even easier when the country, because of incentives owner Rupert newsweeklies use the shows for self-promotion. Murdoch offered to cable operators. Ordinarily, a Print and television organizations have entered start-up news channel would not automatically into a marriage of convenience to fill seats on be added to the basic offerings in a cable pack- pundit shows and enhance the visibility of cer- age, but by making it profitable for cable opera- tain newspapers and magazines. Fifteen years tors, Murdoch established his access to a large ago, New York Times reporters and columnists viewing audience from the beginning. The new were not allowed to appear on television inter- network has six full-time political talk shows, view programs; now they are encouraged to including the scandal spawn Matt Drudge Show appear. The Wall Street Journal has an agree- and a summer addition, The Beltway Boys, star- ment with NBC to provide information and ring veteran pundits Fred Barnes and Morton reporters to CNBC. Several newspapers employ Kondracke. media consultants to coach their Washington NBC’s sister channels round out the cast correspondents for television appearances. Print of cable news networks climbing aboard the reporters are courted by networks for exclusive Lewinsky bandwagon. MSNBC operates as both contracts as political commentators. The rules an on-line site and a cable news channel, using of the game are to be witty, quick and get the political talk as a springboard for filling its company name out. programming schedule. Nine hours of purely Newsweek has been the most blatant and political news and talk every day include the adept at this venture. Editor Evan Thomas has

22 The Rise of the “New News” described how the magazine’s “PR department cable, indifferent results for the broadcast net- decided to do a blitz on television and get all of works. During the first three months of 1998, us out there . . . It’s something the newsweek- CNN’s primetime programming jumped 22 per- lies always want to do nowadays—get men- cent to a 1.1 rating, representing 802,000 house- tioned and get noticed—and in this story we holds. CNBC’s overall schedule also increased really wanted to be identified with it because it viewership by 40 percent, equaling a 0.7 rating. was our story.”30 Michael Isikoff identified a The newer networks of MSNBC and FNC were direct financial tie-in for reporters when he not monitored by Nielsen last year, but Fox revealed that “Newsweek actually pays you to executives say that their 0.3 rating for the first go on [political talk shows] . . . because they quarter is three times higher than last year’s consider it a promotion for the magazine.”31 In numbers, while MSNBC’s rating for just the first the span of sixteen hours on Thursday, January day of coverage jumped 131 percent, eventually 22, Newsweek reporters and editors appeared settling down to a 0.4 rating. 40 times on television or radio. Editors and It is important to keep the ratings in per- reporters, and even correspondents with no spective. Although the all-news networks have direct connection to the story, trooped around clearly benefited from the Lewinsky story, they town to remind everyone of Newsweek’s exclu- still trail many other cable outlets in the ratings sive role in the saga. competition. Comedy Central, for example, The media blitz by PR departments may be earned a rating of 0.7 for the first quarter of paying off —in anticipation of increased news- 1998, with Nickelodeon at 1.9, and Lifetime at stand sales, Newsweek increased it press run by 1.8. Even so, combined cable outlets have been 50 percent for its February 2 issue. Its main steadily gaining ground on the big four broadcast competitor, Time, published 100,000 extra networks. Just four years ago, broadcast net- copies of the January 25 magazine.32 The cover works had a 3 to 1 advantage in attracting view- images of Lewinsky hugging the president may ers, but that gap is now just under 2 to 1. have more to do with sales than the television In stark contrast to the rise in ratings for appearances of a handful of reporters and editors, cable networks, broadcast networks did not ben- but these talking heads seem to be in their new efit from all-Monica coverage during the first roles for good. days and weeks of the scandal. In fact, during the first two days of coverage in January, CBS The Elusive Rating Evening News showed absolutely no rating Now that journalism revolves more around change, NBC Nightly News posted a 2 percent generating profits than performing a public ser- increase and ABC World News Tonight gained vice, success is judged by sales and ratings. Tele- the most with a moderately impressive 6 per- vision seems particularly susceptible to the lure cent increase. The total audience share for the of a pot of gold at the end of the ratings rainbow. first two weeks of coverage showed virtually no While “soft” news provides ratings stability, it is change for any of the three networks. Ratings the sensational, scandalous story that provides were actually higher for some of the networks the spike in the ratings. Every story with even during the first week of January, for reasons the potential of becoming a ratings winner is obviously unrelated to the Lewinsky story. Even pursued by networks in the hope that it will so, network executives continued to trumpet translate into profits. Even if the story does not the call of “ratings” in order to justify the domi- pan out, failure to cover it could result in lower nation of scandal stories, special programs, and ratings for a network. Dan Rather candidly breaking news reports. explained: “The answer is fear. That everybody The executive decision to require news is afraid that a story will take off and be ‘a stone divisions to become profitable has caused an cold ratings winner’ and fear runs rampant in unstoppable chain reaction in news. Pressure every newsroom in America.”33 It all seems to to produce profits has led to a reliance upon have started with coverage of the O. J. Simpson ratings and sales. How do news organizations trial. “If I went to our research people,” Rather “sell” their product? Often, by watering it said, “the first thing they would do is pull out down to attract a common denominator—“soft” their hole card ace, which is, well, look what news television programming, magazine spreads happened in the O. J. Simpson case when the and USA Today-style newspapers reflect this ratings went up.”34 strategy. In addition, executives look for pro- So what do ratings numbers tell us about grams that are easy to produce, cost very little the power of the Lewinsky story? Good news for and are capable of attracting significantly large

Marvin Kalb 23 audiences. Throw the ingredients of Monicagate vaguest possible terms—“sources said”, into this cauldron and a new breed of journalism “sources told our news organization”—than emerges. with a specific job description or indication of political/personal bias.35 Part Five: “New News” As the first adrenaline rush of Monicagate The new news is more immediate, more wore off, the press took a collective breath and sensational, more market- and profit-driven than began to revert to more traditional practice. previous incarnations. It is not merely the Between the first frantic weeks in late January appearance of news that has changed, however; and the slower pace of March, the use of two or the very nature of journalism has been altered. more named sources rose from 1 percent to 4 Never has this been more apparent than during percent of all reporting—still nothing to write the early coverage of Monicagate. We shall look home about. The use of two or more anonymous at four characteristics of the new news, magni- sources dropped from 15 percent to 8 percent of fied through the lens of scandal. the total coverage, as dependence on anonymous sources declined.36 1. Sourcing Cyberspace has generated a corresponding Monicagate broke in a story on the Inter- cyberspeed for the new news—if journalists take net, written by a man widely ridiculed within a few minutes to track down an additional the journalism community. Matt Drudge told a source or double-check their information, they squeamish audience at the National Press Club risk losing their exclusive story to any number in June, 1998, that the editorial review and over- of competitors. Exacerbating this new competi- sight of the Drudge Report consists solely of his tive speed is the breakdown in traditional editor- personal judgment regarding the credibility of a ial safeguards that have resulted from new source. He almost never requires more than one economic pressures. Many news organizations source for a report and rarely gives any distin- have been forced to cut or eliminate fact- guishing clue about the origin of his informa- checker positions that might wave red flags at tion. While this total reliance on anonymous shaky sources. The Wall Street Journal and Dal- sources is not a fixture in American newsrooms, las Morning News are just two of the most it is a disease that is catching. Within recent prominent news organizations to be embarrassed years—most dramatically in Monicagate cover- by inaccurate information or inadequate sourc- age—viewers and readers have noticed substan- ing. Both relied upon anonymous sources for tial changes in how reports are (and are not) their reporting and were burned for their efforts. sourced. Even with a story containing charges as The no-holds-barred premiere of Monica- explosive as Monicagate, an alarming number of gate on the Drudge Report was an embarrass- journalists were less likely to abide by tradi- ment to traditional journalism, but it was the tional “Woodward-and-Bernstein” standards of type of tenuous reporting that was expected of journalism. Matt Drudge. In contrast, the first television The Committee of Concerned Journalists report of Monicagate on ABC’s Good Morning conducted a study of how sourcing was used in America should have been rock-solid. Instead, at print and television during the first two weeks 7 A.M. on January 21, 1998, Jackie Judd used one of Monicagate. Their findings should disturb anonymous, uncharacterized source as the basis anyone who cares about the future of journal- for the explosive charge of an obstruction of jus- ism. Only 26 percent of the stories during this tice investigation involving President Clinton. period were based upon named sources—the Half an hour later, her story was bolstered by most open type of reporting. The remainder— the appearance of another source. Did it matter the vast majority of reports—were based on that she had not felt comfortable enough with anonymous sourcing. Although anonymous this source thirty minutes earlier to use it in her sources are acceptable and sometimes necessary, original story? The explosive nature of the story stories based entirely on such sources leave obviously persuaded Judd to air her report with readers and viewers with as many questions as just one source in order to break the news. That answers. Even so, a full 40 percent of reports very quality and substance of the charge, how- based on anonymous sourcing relied on a single ever, should also have urged caution. Sources are source for the information. And although anony- not mere items on a check-off list that are nec- mous sourcing dominated reporting during the essary before an unsubstantiated report can first few weeks of the scandal, journalists were become a “story.” They are important guidelines more likely to characterize these sources in the that journalists ought to respect.

24 The Rise of the “New News” 2. “Out there” I’m not, but they are—I would imagine that we In the not-so-distant past, stories entered would not be as graphic as we would let her be the national dialogue only after extensive cover- on the air.”39 What Hewitt does not say is that age in major newspapers, nightly reports on one speculation about impeachment was being gen- of the major television news shows and subse- erated almost exclusively by television com- quent analysis in barbershops and water coolers mentators. Up to that point in mid-March, most around the country. With the advent of new members of Congress and other public officials technology, an item can emerge on an Internet had studiously avoided the term. The American Web site, worm its way into a late-night come- public did not seem focused on the possibility at dian’s act, appear as a topic on a morning radio all. Hewitt’s decision seems based more on a show and catapult onto the pages of the New media-created maelstrom than a national con- York Times—all within the span of a few hours. sensus. The number of outlets available to track news Many editors and producers use the lofty reports gives some sensational items the appear- excuse that they are providing a public service by ance of being “everywhere.” And if it’s on the reporting stories that their audiences have radio and television, and in the paper and news- already heard about and expect to be covered. magazine—everywhere you turn—it seems that George de Lama, an editor at the Chicago Tri- it must be true. bune, said that his paper picked up the ABC In other words, many news outlets feel story of a witness to an encounter between compelled to report a story not because they Lewinsky and the President, because “we figured have individually followed it or have even veri- that our readers had seen it and had access to it. fied the sources, but simply because it exists in So we had to acknowledge that it existed.” How- the public domain. Stuart Taylor, of the ever, de Lama also acknowledged that “in retro- National Journal, calls this phenomenon “creep- spect, I wish we had not published it . . . It soon ing relevance,” explaining that once such a story became clear to us that there’s gonna be all kinds moves from tabloid rumor to mainstream news of stuff out there floating around and we should item, it acquires authority simply because of its just publish what we know independently.”40 37 widespread currency. The more an item is None other than Michael Isikoff echoed reported, the more entrenched and “out there” it this sentiment when he was pressed on the becomes, until the pressure on most news out- Today show to comment on the dress story min- lets to cover it is intense. Dan Rather has com- utes after it first made its television debut. “I’ve mented on this urgency to report questionable heard a lot of wild things, as I’m sure you have,” stories by explaining that “the basic fear, the gut he told Lauer, “but you don’t go on the air and fear is if we don’t do it, somebody else is going blab them.” Maybe not, but a common practice to do it. And they’re going to get on a ratings during Monicagate has been to blab first and rocket up and you’re going to look stupid and be verify later. selling insurance or real estate. That’s the basic fear.”38 His explanation has less to do with a 3. Rush to Judgment news organization’s responsibility to share Copies of the Washington Post hit the breaking news with its audience than with the streets of Washington early on the morning of competitive fear of losing viewers to a news January 21, 1998, bringing the names “Monica organization that is willing to cover a sensa- Lewinsky” and “Linda Tripp” to doorsteps tional story. across the city. A short time later, before the One danger of the “out there” justification sun had even risen at 7:21 A.M., Sam Donaldson is the tendency to mistake what is often referred issued the first impeachment prediction. to as “elite opinion” for general public interest. Appearing on ABC’s Good Morning America, This can be even narrower than the stereotypi- Donaldson declared that “if sufficient evidence cal “inside the Beltway” mentality and repre- exists to really prove that [the President sub- sent the views of a small number of political orned perjury], well, clearly an impeachment junkies within journalism. Read closely the investigation will begin on Capitol Hill of a very explanation Don Hewitt, executive producer of serious nature.” 60 Minutes, gave for the decision to allow Donaldson’s comments were followed in Kathleen Willey to share her detailed allegations short order by those of George Stephanopoulos, against President Clinton on his show: “If it his ABC colleague who had been one of wasn’t the Oval Office and it wasn’t a subject Clinton’s closest aides. An obviously rattled that people were talking impeachment over— Stephanopoulos—he managed to confuse Cokie

Marvin Kalb 25 Roberts for Donaldson—told the nation that On the January 26 broadcast of This Week “there’s no question that, as Cokie said, if [the on ABC, Bill Kristol, who worked for Vice Presi- allegations] are true, they’re not only politically dent Dan Quayle in the Bush Administration, damaging, but it [sic] could lead to impeachment offered his candid assessment of President Clin- proceedings.” Stephanopoulos regained his com- ton’s veracity: “Everyone knows he’s lying . . . posure long enough to caution that the media lies beget lies. Washington is now, I think, was focusing on “just questions right now, and drowning in deceit and it cannot go on long.” that’s why I think we do all have to take a deep Kristol’s presumption of guilt is characteristic of breath before we go too far here, without under- the journalism that has emerged since Water- estimating their seriousness.” The warning was gate. President Nixon’s unconcealed contempt appropriate, but Stephanopoulos and his col- for the press, combined with the discovery of league had already gone “too far” by submitting his deception, only reinforced the skeptical the concept of impeachment for national consid- component of American journalism. Former eration. Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wrote that ABC legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted that “journalism was forever changed by the assump- speculation can give a dangerous validity to tion—by most journalists—that after Watergate ideas that are really just being tossed around by government officials generally and instinctively journalists. Toobin himself refused to engage lied when confronted by embarrassing events,” questions about impeachment possibilities and admitted that he was not immune to this because of the inherent risk of prematurely dis- altered mindset. “I found it easier to cope with cussing such serious issues. “The problem,” he Washington by assuming that no one ever told explained, “is that if, for example, you engage in the complete truth.”43 The disconnect between a . . . long discussion about the legal elements of politicians and the press has only worsened obstruction of justice, you are presupposing that since Watergate; for his book, Out of Order, there was an obstruction of some kind.” In addi- Tom Patterson asked reporters why they consis- tion, “a discussion about the elements of tently portray presidential candidates as liars impeachment presupposes that there’s some rel- and was given the answer, “Because they are evance to an impeachment discussion. Worst of liars.”44 all, all of the Lewinsky discussions were based This conviction, combined with President on the one hundred percent certainty that they Clinton’s record of shading the truth, spawned a had a sexual relationship, and there is pressure collective rush to judgment that was best exem- in that direction because it makes the discus- plified by the White House correspondent for 41 sion interesting.” ABC News. On the January 25 broadcast of This While debates about worst-case scenarios Week, Sam Donaldson informed his round-table of impeachment or resignation add spice to colleagues that the end of the Clinton presi- political talk shows, when they are based on dency was imminent. “If he’s not telling the unconfirmed allegations, the speculation is at truth, I think his presidency is numbered in best moot and at worst irresponsible. According days,” Donaldson predicted. “Mr. Clinton, if to the Committee of Concerned Journalists, a he’s not telling the truth and the evidence majority of the allegations leveled against the shows that, will resign, perhaps this week.” President in the first few weeks of Monicagate were voiced by commentators and not by their 4. Blurring the Lines sources. The opinion that “Clinton is in trou- Are there any rules in the “new news” to ble” was attributed to “administration”, “con- govern the growing field of punditry and its ten- gressional” or other sources only 32 percent of uous relationship to straight reporting? Should the time, while the other 68 percent of allega- audiences be able to differentiate between the tions were made by pundits or reporters. Simi- words of a reporter who appears on the evening larly, the idea that “Clinton is dissembling” was news and the opinion of that same reporter later reported as the opinion of sources only 23 per- in the evening on Larry King Live? Should it cent of the time—Sam Donaldson and Co. were matter that individuals leave politics and walk responsible for three-quarters of the charges that right into contracts with news organizations? the President was intentionally misleading the Should readers be wary of the fact that the country.42 Journalists may feel vindicated by the author of the column they’ve just read about the President’s subsequent admission that he “mis- scandal of the day is currently in negotiations to led people,” but the speed at which they reached work for one of the major players in the story? this conclusion is still a valid issue. The following examples from Monicagate raise

26 The Rise of the “New News” these questions and more, while providing very more controversial debate. Margaret Carlson, a few answers. columnist at Time and a regular on the pundit circuit, admitted in a Washington Post inter- Commentators or Reporters? view that on television, “the less you know For decades, the line between covering sto- about something, the better off you are.” Carl- ries and commenting on them stayed fairly son explained: “What’s good TV and what’s clear. Most newspapers confined analysis to the thoughtful analysis are different. That’s been op-ed pages and television networks tradition- conceded by most producers and bookers. ally delegated editorial comment to one particu- They’re not looking for the most learned person; larly prominent correspondent. Today stories they’re looking for the person who can sound labeled “news analysis” can commonly be found learned without confusing the matter with too on the front pages of America’s major newspa- much knowledge. I’m one of the people without pers and, on television, White House reporters too much knowledge. I’m perfect!”47 Monica- often conclude their pieces with a catchy (and, gate, with its few on-the-record statements and, more often than not, cynical) comment. until the release of the Starr Report, even fewer This disintegrating line between reporter facts, was the perfect know-nothing scandal for and commentator is of particular concern to the know-nothing pundit class. those who work in politics and find their actions analyzed more often than they are sim- Journalists or Politicians? ply reported. White House advisor Paul Begala, a Washington Post political reporter David master spinner for the Clinton administration, Broder’s warning in 1988 of the rise of “an voiced a concern shared by many when he said: androgynous blending of politician and journal- “I think what is . . . troubling are those who ist called The Washington Insider”48 has been move from commentary to coverage, sliding echoed by Howell Raines, editorial page editor back and forth from opining to reporting. That of the New York Times, who has written about becomes very difficult for me to deal with when “the flooding into journalism of people whose I watch a reporter or columnist offering very formative experience is in politics.”49 Both wor- harsh opinions about me or my boss, and then ried that the shuttling back and forth of individ- they’re on the phone with me the next day try- uals between journalism and politics was ing hard to be objective, but you can’t.”45 blurring the lines that separate the two worlds, Michael Isikoff has defended the use of corroding the barriers that allow both “estates” reporters as commentators by declaring that to keep each other in check. objectivity can be retained even in a discussion Movement between the worlds of politics format. “I generally don’t express opinions,” he and journalism is not new. John Chancellor and said about his appearances on political talk Bill Moyers held positions in both worlds; and shows. “I’m talking about stories I’ve already Henry Kissinger and Jeane Kirkpatrick, once out written about, and I’m giving a context, and an of government, took to writing newspaper analytical perspective on stuff that I’ve already columns. However, this shuttling has acceler- reported on.”46 Whether or not this is actually ated in recent years, as government officials true, most of Isikoff’s colleagues do not pretend move from politics to journalism, back to poli- to be objective. Sam Donaldson morphs from tics, and then again back to journalism. Pat White House correspondent by weekday to head Buchanan seems to live with one foot on each knight of the roundtable by weekend. Similarly, side of the fence, and critics of White House viewers would be hard pressed to recall if a piece aide Sidney Blumenthal dubbed his transition of information they heard on CNN came from from New Yorker columnist to presidential advi- Wolf Blitzer the reporter or Wolf Blitzer the host sor as a change “in title only.” of The Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. Those who leave the Clinton White House It is certainly not a new occurrence for have been particularly blessed with media journalists to wear two hats—Washington Week rewards and employment. George Stephanopou- in Review has been on the air for 31 years with los has an exclusive contract with ABC News the same format of print and television journal- and is a weekly participant on This Week, for- ists who report and then analyze the news. mer White House press secretary Dee Dee However, as political talk shows have risen in Myers served as co-host for CNBC’s Equal Time popularity and number, many programs have before joining Vanity Fair and free-lancing on dropped this old-fashioned concept of journalis- other networks, and former White House chief tic areas of expertise in favor of encouraging of staff Leon Panetta is a contributing editor to

Marvin Kalb 27 the on-line magazine IntellectualCapital.com. News Sunday, Sunday Journal, Meet the Press Even disgraced former advisor Dick Morris and Reliable Sources between June 14 and proved that there is life after politics and scan- June 22. As with Isikoff’s round of appearances dal when the Fox News Channel hired him as a in January, the reporter became newsmaker, political commentator. for at least one news cycle. Yet are these political pros equipped to • Regular viewers of the NewsHour on PBS are move seamlessly into the world of journalism? well aware that the program is a more serious, While their political insight can provide valu- thoughtful alternative to the “new news” ver- able context and background to events, politicians-turned-journalists do not always have the sions on broadcast networks. Even so, those same instinctive objectivity that newsrooms watching April 14, 1998, might have been sur- still try to foster. Raines expressed concern prised by the quaint formality of the “editor’s about the increasing tendency in news organiza- note” that ended the hour-long show. With his tions “to accept people who have been in the earnest demeanor, anchor Jim Lehrer told his political world as arbiters of what constitutes audience: “It’s about Stuart Taylor, who’s been good journalism. The problem is that people doing regular and superb reporting on the whose values were shaped in the government NewsHour about the Supreme Court. He will offices . . . view the world in a fundamentally no longer be doing such reports, and I wanted different way from reporters and editors whose you to know why.” What followed was an values were shaped in the newsroom.”50 The dis- explanation of traditional journalistic principle tinctive identity of the press as outside observer and practice that sounded strangely unfamiliar is changed when the individuals who make up and old-fashioned in the era of “new news.” the press come from inside the halls of Congress Like a parent patiently explaining the or the White House. Can Stephanopoulos and difference between right and wrong, Lehrer Myers—two intensely loyal former staffers who said that at the NewsHour, “we have always have admitted feeling deeply betrayed by Presi- separated those who report the news from dent Clinton—effectively provide commentary those who analyze or . . . comment on it . . . about an Administration they once helped lead? The distinction is very important to us. We And even if they can, what is to stop other believe Stuart’s recent commentaries in print White House aides from promoting their own and other TV programs about the Starr investi- visibility and “spinning” ability with an eye gation have caused some blurring of the lines toward a future career on television or in print? and some confusion about his role with us.” Nothing, of course.51 What could have possibly prompted this public scolding? Reporter or Participant? Stuart Taylor writes a weekly column Monicagate has been unique in the number for the National Journal, contributes pieces to of journalists who have become involved as Legal Times and Newsweek and has been a direct or indirect participants in the story. In regular correspondent on PBS’s NewsHour addition to Michael Isikoff, who has attracted since 1993. In March, Taylor was approached criticism for his involvement with sources who by someone in Independent Counsel Starr’s arguably used him as much as he used them, office about the possibility of joining the staff other reporters and commentators have joined to craft the Counsel’s report to Congress on the dubious cast of characters. the President. Although these secret negotia- • Steve Brill, whose magazine Brill’s Content tions fell through, Taylor wrote a favorable premiered with an in-depth look at press cov- National Journal column about Starr the next erage in the first weeks of the Lewinsky inves- week, without disclosing to his editors or tigation, used an exclusive interview with readers that he had been in contact with Starr Independent Prosecutor Kenneth Starr to hype concerning a job offer. his magazine in the mainstream media. Trum- Once the news broke, Taylor was ini- peting the “revelation” that Starr had leaked tially defensive, telling Howard Kurtz: “Did information to reporters, Brill became the I owe it to my readers to disclose [the offer]? most sought-after man on television for one I didn’t think of it.”52 He eased his stance week in early summer. In a whirlwind of the next week, apologizing in writing to his appearances that would be a publicity depart- colleagues and readers for failing to disclose ment’s dream come true, Brill was interviewed that he had seriously considered Starr’s offer. on Today, Face the Nation, Late Edition, Fox The apology was not sufficient to breach the

28 The Rise of the “New News” standards required on the NewsHour. Taylor by her current occupation as GOP House has had no shortage of requests for television investigator.54 appearances, putting him in the running for It is not unusual for networks to hire “most ubiquitous pundit”, but at least one political players who have left their positions news organization drew the line on reporters in government, but they rarely pay commenta- becoming part of the story they were assigned tors who are still receiving government pay- to cover. checks. Similarly, individuals who are arguably involved in investigations are rarely • In March, 1998, in an episode of strange self- hired to comment on the situation. After flagellation, reporter David Brock used an arti- thinking about these potential conflicts of cle in Esquire to apologize to President interest—and following a huge uproar from Clinton for his part in creating the feeding livid Democratic congressmen—NBC with- frenzy of sex scandal coverage. Brock is most drew the contract and declined to hire the famous for writing a December, 1993, article controversial couple. in the American Spectator that alleged sexual misconduct by Governor Bill Clinton and Part Six: At the End of the Day . . . cited “a woman named ‘Paula.’” The article led to the discovery of Paula Jones, prompted This case study has focused on journalistic her lawsuit and precipitated a string of official excesses in the early weeks of Monicagate, and unofficial investigations into the Presi- explained by the rise of new technology, includ- dent’s personal life. ing cable television, the 24-hour news cycle, the In an article advertised on the cover Internet and other modern electronic wizardry; of the magazine as, “Dear Mr. President: the new economic underpinning of the news Oops,” Brock changed his tune, arguing that industry, highlighted by the absorption of net- investigation into the private lives of public works into megacorporations and newspapers officials encourages journalists to bring down into national syndicates, producing an over- politicians over moral peccadilloes instead of riding dedication to the bottom line rather than looking for actual corruption and deceit. “I to public service; and finally, the emergence of . . . know that if we continue down this the “new news,” which features “lite,” fluffy, path, if sexual witch-hunts become the way often sensational coverage of trivial and serious to win in politics, if they become our politics issues. At the end of the day, it seemed to many altogether, we can and will destroy everyone journalists that they were being driven in public life.”53 It was a valiant attempt inescapably by technical and economic impera- to reclaim a piece of his stake in the new tives to sacrifice news values for profit maxi- scandal, but David Brock faded from interest mization. after the obligatory week of hoopla over his Technology and Economics “apology.” Andy Rooney, humorist for CBS’s 60 Min- • On April 30, several months after Joe DiGen- utes, found nothing funny in the “new news,” ova and Victoria Toensing unwittingly served even as practiced by the Tiffany network. “The as the sources for the retracted Dallas Morn- emphasis is so much more on money than con- ing News story, Howard Kurtz reported that tent in every decision that’s made,” he said, the couple had signed a deal with NBC “that it’s discouraging to be here.”55 Geneva to make regular appearances on CNBC and Overholser, now a columnist but once editor of MSNBC. Although the two were still officially the Des Moines Register, where she was named on the majority staff of the House Govern- “editor of the year,” echoed Rooney’s lament. ment Affairs Committee, conducting a politi- “Too often by far,” she said, “being an editor in cal investigation, the network apparently had America today feels like holding up an no qualms about hiring them for political avalanche of pressure to do away with this piece commentary. According to Kurtz, an NBC of excellence, that piece of quality, so as to spokeswoman said, “as long as we clearly squeeze out just a little bit more money.”56 identify what their association is, there’s no News has always been a money-making conflict and we’re not doing any disservice to operation—it is a highly-competitive business. our viewers.” Kurtz noted, however, that in at But, up until recent years, the quest for profit least one newscast, Toensing was introduced did not define the pursuit of news. Now in the only as “a former deputy assistant attorney lofty suites of managerial power in newspapers general” and “an MSNBC legal analyst”—not and networks, there is rarely an executive with

Marvin Kalb 29 journalistic credentials, and everyone measures of The Oregonian and former president of the success by ratings points and bottom lines. Pub- American Society of Newspaper Editors, they lic trust is important but hardly a priority in a might see the light. Speaking at an ASNE gath- newsroom. ABC News recently hired a lawyer, ering in Washington, DC in April, 1998, Rowe David Westin, to replace a legend, Roone pleaded with the editors to take the “high road.” Arledge. The satisfaction of stockholder greed, “Other media that do not share newspaper stan- especially in a marketplace of uncertain dards,” she said, “are recasting the definitions of prospects after a long run of unbelievable opti- news. But we do not have to be pulled along . . . mism, determines the outcome of many news New media will not adopt our standards. . . . decisions. It is no longer the general satisfaction The high road is there if we will just take it. of the public interest. The model shaped by pub- The notion that readers have created the lisher Mark Willes of the Los Angeles Times, demand for lowest common denominator jour- bringing the money manager into every editorial nalism is false. We are doing that ourselves. We decision, has been copied by dozens of other can and must stop.” Editor Rowe was lustily newspapers. applauded. Her logic was unassailable. Her mes- Networks followed the same pattern. After sage was resonant and powerful. But there have the deregulation of the Reagan years, the Big 4 of been few takers. Many of her colleagues realized ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC rushed into the vac- that they were under pressure to expand tabloid- uum, pushing for profit—and, it seemed, their style coverage from the O. J./Monica-type story public obligations be damned! And following to more mainstream stories about politics and passage of the sweeping Telecommunications economics, and they could do little if anything Act of 1996, they continued to take advantage of to break the momentum. the huge financial opportunities built into the Whenever there has been a choice in recent legislation. Radio ownership, for example, no years between the old news and the new news, longer had any limitations. Own a dozen, own a the new news has often won. Jonathan P. Wol- hundred; one day you could own a thousand or man, Washington bureau chief for the Associ- several thousand, and dominate a radio market of ated Press, concluded unhappily that there was some 16,000 stations. That appeared quickly to an “imbalance” in contemporary journalism be the goal of Mel Karmazin, a rising star of CBS between factual reporting, on the one side, and management, who began buying up stations with trashy, loose-lipped TV talk and published com- determined discipline until now CBS stands as a mentary, on the other. “The reporting has often giant in the radio industry. William F. Baker and been swamped by the commentary,” he said. George Dessart, co-authors of “Down The Essential Truths and Good Journalism Tube,” a study of what they call “the failure of Still, though there were glaring examples television,” rip into the Federal Communications of journalistic irresponsibility in the early days Commission for failing to uphold the public of Monicagate, the American people learned the trust and consistently finding a way to accom- essential truths about the scandal, suggesting, modate owners and managers of radio and televi- ironically, that poor journalistic practice, while sion stations. The FCC is guilty, they charge, of deplorable and distasteful, did not necessarily “misregulation and the failure to regulate at deny them the information they needed to all.”57 The incentives in the news business, as function in a free, open and raucous society. currently arranged, run in the direction of a fur- Even in the high-pitched roar of competitive ther maximization of profit and minimization of journalism, they were able to read, hear and public concerns. Nothing on the economic hori- watch each episode of the scandal unfold in zon suggests that news will awaken one day dramatic form. Moreover, there were shiny soon, as though from a dark, disturbing dream, instances of solid, ethical and reflective journal- and decide to be virtuous pursuers of truth. ism—rare in the early weeks of the scandal but Choice there nonetheless. Must it be this way? The evidence at the • The New York Times was ready to publish a moment shouts yes; and yet the evidence is only bombshell about the mysterious “witness.” the accumulated result of many decisions by Michael Oreskes, Washington bureau chief of reporters, editors, producers, writers and com- the Times, had, he thought, more than the req- mentators. If they were to change their ways, uisite number of sources and confirmations. the evidence would change. If they were, for “By the time I came in that afternoon,” he example, to listen to Sandra Mims Rowe, editor later recalled, “we had four sources. And we

30 The Rise of the “New News” were preparing to lead the Times with it the located in Los Angeles, obviously the Los next morning.” But, after cross-checking, Angeles Times tried to convert the rumor into Oreskes found out that his reporters were hav- a confirmed story. “The allegation required a ing second thoughts about their sourcing. It high level of confirmation,” said Doyle turned out that their four “sources” had all McManus, Washington bureau chief. His learned the same “facts” from the same “wit- reporters could not get confirmation from ness,” who acknowledged that he personally Monica or the teacher; nor was McManus per- had seen nothing at all. Everything was at suaded that the story, even if confirmed, was least second-hand. Oreskes and his reporters relevant to the White House scandal. The decided to “kill” the story. “Sometimes,” he story was not published. Later, the high school reflected, “the story you’re proudest of is the teacher decided to tell his story; and only then story you don’t run.”58 did the Los Angeles Times publish it. Accord- ing to a report by the Committee of Con- • NBC Nightly News was sorely tempted to cerned Journalists: “The story eventually pick up the Wall Street Journal story about the broke when the teacher went public.”60 steward who saw the President and Lewinsky in a “compromising” position. Anchor Tom • Sometimes, the same journalist was guilty of Brokaw checked with Washington bureau hasty judgments on some days and very sound chief Tim Russert. The story had not yet run ones on others. On the Sunday before the in the newspaper; they were discussing its Lewinsky story broke on January 21, 1998, publication on the Internet. Did they have Sam Donaldson told his This Week audience: confirmation—on their own? No. Did NBC “I’m not an apologist for Newsweek, but if have any independent information on the their editors decided they didn’t have it cold steward’s tale? No. Brokaw later told Brill: enough to go with, I don’t think we can here.” “The Journal’s Web site story was moving Later, he explained: “I hadn’t heard anything toward a full-blown story. But we decided, about Drudge or anything else about this story. after talking to Tim, that it didn’t have legs.”59 I just decided we shouldn’t go on our air with a story that Newsweek had decided it couldn’t • Nina Totenberg on Nightline provided an go with.”61 excellent example of the importance of identi- fying a source. The story focused on how, The Dewey-Lippmann Debate allegedly, President Clinton had briefed his What then is the essential obligation of assistant, Betty Currie, on what she should say journalism? Obviously, it is to provide the before Starr’s grand jury. The suggestion was truth—or as much of the truth as can be that she had been “rehearsed” by the Presi- obtained; and if truth were an easily definable dent, which, if true, could have been seen as commodity, it would be quickly accessible. But the equivalent of “obstructing justice.” Toten- it isn’t. For much of the twentieth-century, an berg explained: “This story . . . is fairly clearly old argument between the philosopher, John a leak from the prosecutor’s office and with Dewey, and the journalist, Walter Lippmann, the exception of [the gifts] . . . It is their char- has echoed through the corridors of journalism. acterization of what Betty Currie has said. Complexities reduced to generalities, the argument could be framed as follows: should the • Sourcing, as we know, has been an aggravating press educate the public, or should it cater to problem from the first day of the coverage of the public’s taste? Should it, it might be asked, Monicagate. Every news organization commit- go high-brow, or low-brow? Lippmann envisaged ted one sin or another—running with stories journalists as belonging to an elite corps of spe- that had no independent sourcing, or broad- cially trained reporters and commentators—for casting information that was second- or third- example, political or diplomatic experts who not hand. Only the NewsHour on PBS used no only reported on public policy but also provided anonymous sources during the early period of editorial guidelines for elevating the entire the scandal—the first two weeks researched process, for making policy better. Dewey and analyzed by the Committee of Concerned objected to any form of journalistic elitism, Journalists. believing that the best newspapers had only • There were rumors, in the early weeks of to reflect popular interest and curiosity to be Monicagate, that the former White House fulfilling their fundamental responsibility to intern had had an affair with her high school society. Journalistic legitimacy, in his view, drama teacher. Since the high school was was the natural consequence of tapping into the

Marvin Kalb 31 people—it was a bottom-up process. Lippmann many journalists still profess an allegiance to saw journalistic legitimacy as a top-down the old adage, “We’re not in it for the money,” process—editorial copy that mirrored the edu- because a higher education has not necessarily cated vision of an elite group of reporters, who produced a very high salary—at least for those knew how to organize and explain information reporters who work for small or modest-sized of the sort they felt the public needed. newspapers with a circulation between roughly Dewey’s vision opened the door to tabloid 30,000 and 70,000 readers. They are earning, on journalism, though the respected philosopher average, $23,000 a year.64 US News & World could never have imagined such an outcome; Report warned graduating college seniors in Lippmann’s vision led, in a way, to the best of 1997 that journalism majors were starting their the New York Times, PBS and NPR. Both visions careers with salaries as low as $22,000 a year.65 imply, however, that the journalist is sovereign Between a local newspaper and a local TV in his/her capacity either to broadcast street- station, salaries were about the same—the aver- corner gossip or to publish sophisticated analy- age salary for a local TV reporter in 1995 was ses of foreign wars, but even the best of the $21,915 a year.66 Major newspapers and net- journalists find that they now have to bend to works pay a lot more. For example, in April, the demands of the new technology and the new 1997, if you were a reporter with two years of economics. Neither vision is an accurate reflec- experience, the New York Times would start you tion of the complicated reality of the business— at $67,000 a year. With five years of experience, at least, not at this time. “There’s always been a the Boston Globe and the Chicago Sun-Times balance,” said Norman Pearlstine, editor-in- would start you at $61,000 and $57,000 respec- chief of Time magazine, “between educating tively.67 And if you were an experienced reporter your reader and serving your reader.” True, but in Washington, DC, where many star journalists the balance in recent years (certainly since the work, you’d be doing quite well indeed—espe- O. J. Simpson trials, the paparazzi assault on cially if you were working for a network, where Princess Diana, and Monicagate) has tipped dra- salaries for a beat reporter could range from matically in the direction of “serving” the $100,000 to $350,000 a year, depending on the reader or viewer; and in the process journalistic beat. But even if you worked for a newspaper or standards have fallen steadily. a magazine but somehow managed to break into the television talk show circuit, you would also The American Journalist be in six-figure terrain, because you’d be open to The profile of the American journalist has such additional benefits as television contracts become decidedly Lippmannesque, perhaps not and lecture fees—in other words, you’d earn yet in salary terms but surely in educational very handsome salaries indeed, comparable to achievement. In 1935, Leo Rosten, a graduate those of US Cabinet secretaries. Howard Fine- student at the University of Chicago, deter- man earns a reported $160,000 a year from mined that roughly 50 percent of the Washing- Newsweek, where he is a senior political ton press corps had college degrees, but less than reporter, but he has also signed a new $65,000 50 percent of the national press corps had fin- contract with MSNBC.68 ished college, or even attended college. These In the old days, such moonlighting was dis- numbers immediately suggested that journalism couraged; now it is encouraged by Newsweek, was a profession or a craft that required a high because it believes that it benefits from the free degree of educational training. By 1971, almost publicity generated by Fineman’s appearances on 60 percent of all journalists had college degrees. television. By 1982, almost 100 percent of the Washington A quick survey suggests, therefore, that press corps had college degrees, 75 percent of the journalists these days tend to reflect Lippmann’s national press corps had college degrees, and a elitism much more than Dewey’s populism. third of them had even obtained advanced They are among the best educated and best paid degrees. By 1992, more than 82 percent had col- in the land, more powerful as an institution lege degrees, and a significant number of them than at any other time in American history. had advanced degrees.62 And yet, in their daily and hourly product, they The White House press corps has a very produce, for the most part, not an elitist formula special pedigree. While 80 percent of Americans for better government, not a detailed analysis of with college degrees attended public colleges, 53 social security or Kremlin intrigue, but rather an percent of reporters covering the President increasingly fluffy, sexy and sensationalist attended private schools.63 It is a good thing that vision of society, in which vice among our

32 The Rise of the “New News” leaders can be (and has been) converted into the same organization. At that time, the leg- profitable enterprises. The cream of the crop has endary newsman had chastised the industry for produced a harvest of shame. failing to utilize “this weapon of television” in the battle against “ignorance, intolerance and The Hollywoodization of the News indifference.” Of television then, Murrow used Journalism is among the most analyzed and words now familiar to many: “This instrument self-analyzed professions in America. From the can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even Annenberg School of Communications at the inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that University of Pennsylvania to the Shorenstein humans are determined to use it to those ends. Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, one box.” academic institution after another has been cre- Rather looked the 1993 news directors in ated in the past decade or so to critique the the eye. “We’ve all gone Hollywood—we’ve all media’s impact on society and public policy. This succumbed to the Hollywoodization of the reflects, in part, the media’s enormous power and news,” he charged, “because we were afraid not importance. In addition, by 1998, as many as 20 to.” Fear was one of Rather’s central themes and foundations were providing support for media explanations. “Just to cover our rear, we give the studies; nineteen industry groups and 46 profes- best slots to gossip and prurience.” Corporate sional organizations were engaging in forms of executives and sponsors “got us putting more journalistic self-policing; and, in addition to the and more fuzz and wuzz on the air, cop-shop Columbia Journalism Review and the American stuff, so as to compete, not with other news pro- Journalism Review, which publish excellent grams, but with entertainment programs reports on the pros and cons of journalistic prac- (including those posing as news programs) for tice, there are the Media Studies Journal, Brill’s dead bodies, mayhem and lurid tales.” The Content and the Harvard International Journal “post-Murrow generation of owners and man- of Press/Politics, among others, which publish agers,” Rather continued, “aren’t venal—they’re scholarly studies of the media and its impact on afraid. They’ve got education and taste and good society. Dozens of media critics direct their fire sense, they care about their country, but you’d at any infraction of journalistic ethics or practice never know it from the things that fear makes as soon as one is spotted on the near horizon. them do—from the things that fear makes them CNN’s Reliable Sources is a weekend salon for make us do.” intelligent criticism of the media; and at other Rather is the $7-million anchor, the heart networks and in newspapers and magazines, and soul of CBS News, and yet he acknowledged such criticism has become routine. then and since that “fear” of ratings and bot- Yet something is profoundly wrong. For, tom-line “slippage” has forced him and his col- while there has been more self-flagellation and leagues to “freeze” in the face of corporate anguished navel-gazing, more scholarship and pressures to do infotainment rather than hard analysis, more foundation support, more news. He quoted one news director as ordering unabashed care and criticism of the media than his staff to do more stories on Madonna and her at any other time in American history—in other sex life than on a papal visit to America. Rather words, more pressure and encouragement to all but begged them to put together “a few good clean up its act—the effect on the practice of men and women with the courage of their con- journalism has been very problematic. Indeed, victions to turn [the news industry] around.” though some journalists have argued that the Rather spoke these words in 1993. The relentless criticism of the press is a sign of Oregonian editor Rowe spoke her words in strength and self-confidence, the evidence is 1998. “We can and must stop,” she said. But overwhelming that standards have continued to nothing positive happened between 1993 and fall. All of this well-intended criticism has 1998; indeed, the situation only worsened. Is the apparently fallen on deaf ears—or journalists battle irreversible? Are the news directors, the have heard the criticism but can do little to corporate managers, the journalists in fact pow- nothing to improve their ways. erless to change their course for the better? Are In September, 1993, Dan Rather delivered a they simply corks on an ocean of technological remarkably candid and forceful keynote address and economic turmoil? Both Murrow and to the annual meeting of the Radio and Televi- Rather, straining to see a silver lining, quoted sion News Directors of America. He based his Cassius: “Men at some time are masters of their address on Edward R. Murrow’s 1958 speech to fates: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

Marvin Kalb 33 but in ourselves.” If Cassius meant, to update her clothes, make-up and hair—and the press. the analogy, that journalists can transform their Andy Bleiler, Lewinsky’s high school drama craft into an agent of positive change for the teacher, enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame at a whole society, then the evidence strongly indi- press conference on his front lawn, orchestrated cates that he was wrong. If he meant, on the by a California PR guru, Michael Nason, who other hand, that journalists can do no more than happens to be the uncle of Bleiler’s wife. Ken- reflect society, then he was right. neth Starr has learned to smile in the presence In 1962, columnist George F. Will wrote of any camera, and he too has hired a press that we live in “an echo chamber lined with spokesman, who appears regularly on Sunday mirrors.” Today, it is only worse. We live in a talk shows. And Bill Clinton confesses to infi- national version of The Truman Show. The delity in a nationally televised speech. White House has become a virtual photo-op— Monicagate is not the fault of the press, populated by teams of lawyers and media advis- which only reflects society. Monicagate is a symp- ers. Monica Lewinsky has lawyers, consultants tom of a society that gets the press it deserves. and a spokeswoman. Linda Tripp has advisers on

34 The Rise of the “New News” ENDNOTES

1. On September 11, 1998, the Starr Report and a 15. Brill, p. 135. White House rebuttal were released to the public, ushering in a period of extreme political uncertainty. 16. Ibid., p. 136. That, too, is not the focus of this study. 17. Ibid., p. 141. 2. In January, 1992, at the beginning of the presidential campaign season, Gennifer Flowers sold a story to 18. Ibid., p. 141. a tabloid called The Star saying that she had had a 12- year affair with Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, 19. Ibid., p. 142. then a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton denied the story, but it kicked 20. Ibid., p. 143. off a series of allegations about womanizing that followed him into the White House. Later, Clinton con- 21. Ibid., p. 143. firmed that he had had only one sexual encounter with Flowers. 22. Ibid., p. 146.

3. “Anatomy of an Investigative Story”—a Brown bag 23. Ibid., p. 146. lunch with Michael Isikoff, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, John F. 24. Neil Hickey, “Money Lust: How Pressure for Kennedy School of Government, April 21, 1998. Profit is Perverting Journalism,” Columbia Journal- ism Review, July/August 1998, p. 31. 4. Brown bag lunch, April 21, 1998. 25. Ibid., p. 30. 5. From an interview at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, Kennedy 26. Scholars such as Lance Bennett of the University School of Government, April 21, 1998. Interestingly, of Washington argue that the Internet may open the in the September, 1998 issue of Brill’s Content (p. 18), door to direct democracy. It may simplify the process Isikoff denies having any conversation with members of campaigning by providing the voter with easy of Starr’s team concerning the possibility of a sting access to the candidate and his/her policy positions. operation. 27. Ibid., p. 31. 6. Stephen Brill, “Pressgate,” Brill’s Content, August, 1998, p. 129. 28. Ibid., p. 31.

7. From CNN Web site (www.cnn.com), July 7, 1998. 29. Brill, p. 134. 8. Ken Auletta, “The Invisible Manager,” The New 30. Brill, p. 133. Yorker, July 27, 1998, p. 42. 31. Brown bag lunch, April 21, 1998. 9. Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, All the Presi- dent’s Men (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1974), p. 146. 32. Brill, p. 144.

10. Walter Cronkite, A Reporter’s Life (New York: 33. “The Present and Future of Investigative Journal- Ballantine, 1996), p. 235. ism”—the Goldsmith Awards Seminar with Dan Rather, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics 11. Stephen Hess, The Washington Reporters and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Govern- Redux,1978–1998 (Washington, DC: The Brookings ment, March 13, 1998. Institution, 1998). 34. Ibid. 12. A speech reprinted in Media Power, Professionals and Policies, 1998. 35. From the Committee of Concerned Journalists’ report, “The Clinton Crisis and the Press,” February, 13. Ben Bradlee, A Good Life (New York: Simon & 1998. Schuster, 1996), p. 207. 36. Ibid. 14. The Starr Report was released to the public by way of the Internet. Journalists that day had only one 37. Freedom Forum and Newseum News, vol. 5, no. source—the Internet. 5, June, 1998, p. 3.

Marvin Kalb 35 38. Goldsmith Awards Seminar, March 13, 1998. 60. “The Clinton Crisis and the Press.”

39. Jon LaFayette, “Indomitable Don—60 Minutes 61. Brill, p. 129. and 50 years at CBS,” Electronic Media, March 23, 1998, p. 1. 62. David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s (Mahwah,NJ: L. Erl- 40. Brill, pp. 141–142. baum, 1996), p. 29.

41. Ibid., p. 135. 63. Stephen Hess, News & Newsmaking, (Washing- ton, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1996). 42. “The Clinton Crisis and the Press.” 64. Hickey, p. 33. 43. Bradlee, p. 406. 65. US News & World Report Web site (www.- 44. Thomas Patterson, Out of Order (New York: usnews.com/usnews/edu/beyond.grad/gbgrid18.htm), Alfred A. Knopf, 1993), p. 9. September 10, 1998. 45. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Poli- 66. Vernon Stone, “Paychecks and Market Baskets: tics, vol. 3, number 3, Summer 1998, p. 10. Broadcast News Salaries and Inflation in the 1990s,” Missouri School of Journalism Web site (www. 46. Brown bag lunch, April 21, 1998. missouri.edu/~jrivs/sals90s.html), September 10, 1998. 47. Howard Kurtz, “Thinking Out Loud: Journalism’s Talking Heads Find it Pays to Have an Opinion,” Washington Post, October 4, 1994. p. C1. 67. Lori Leibovich, “The Scoop on Newsroom Salaries,” Salon Magazine (www.salonmagazine.com/ 48. David Broder, “Beware the ‘Insider’ Syndrome,” media/1997/10/28money.html). Washington Post, December 4, 1988, p. L2. 68. Brill, p. 134. 49. Howell Raines, “The Fallows Fallacy,” The New York Times, February 25, 1996, p. D14.

50. Ibid.

51. There are rare exceptions. Bernard Trainor left the Marine Corps to become an accomplished reporter and analyst for the New York Times. A number of other generals signed contracts with networks during the Persian Gulf war, but they were primarily commentators on military strategy, rather than reporters. The main point remains valid.

52. Howard Kurtz, “Clinton Critic’s Brief Starr Turn,” Washington Post, April 4, 1998, p. C1.

53. David Brock, “The Fire This Time,” Esquire, March, 1998, p. 144.

54. Howard Kurtz, “DiGenova & Toensig, Partners At Jaw,” Washington Post, April 30, 1998, p. E1.

55. Hickey, p. 34.

56. Ibid., p. 31.

57. Jonathan Yardley, “Time to Change the Chan- nel,” Washington Post, March 29, 1998, p. X3.

58. Brill, p. 141.

59. Brill, p. 146.

36 The Rise of the “New News”