In my essay entitled “Support Our Troops” I said, “Thank God for the Washington Post” for exposing the scandal at Walter Reed Hospital. But maybe the real story is how rarely the media exposed government scandals until Bush’s popularity began to fall. Even now the Washington Post exposé leaves questions unanswered. Members of Congress had been complaining to the Army's surgeon general, for more than three years. Why did it take the Post three years to pick up the story and where was the rest of the media? Finally when the story broke it was confined to Walter Reeld. Now it turns out such conditions are endemic throughout all the veterans’ hospitals. A few generals are made scapegoats and the media praises the Defense Secretary for swift action, but very little is said about the fact that the conditions were brought about by the Administration and it’s cohort in the Republican Congress cutting the budget for veterans care, firing many of it’s experienced staff and outsourcing the work to a subsidiary of Bechtel. Maybe Kudos to the Washington Post and certainly to the rest of the media has been overblown.
Let us take the NY Times! That paper broke the story of warrantless wiretapping. They have been subjected to all kinds of invective by the White House and Right wing publications and pundits. So is this a case of journalistic courage. But it turns out the paper sat on the story for more than a year before releasing it and refuses to say why it delayed letting the public know of this major violation of the U.S. Constitution. Better late than never, but is this the kind of journalism that informs as soon as it knows?
If these papers, the best of the best in the media field fail us, what is the story with regard to the rest of the media?
Let us go back to the Watergate scandal. The burglary of Democratic Headquarters occurred on June 17, 1972 reported by the Washington Post on that day. By June 19 Woodward and Bernstein were on the case and reported that a GOP security aide was among the Watergate burglars and that former attorney general John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denies any link to the operation. From then on the two reporters filed one story after another reporting ever-clearer evidence that the Nixon reelection campaign was behind the burglary and that the F.B.I. had found a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage. Yet during this whole period leading up to the election no other paper reported on the story, causing the Post reporters to wonder why their spectacular story had no resonance with the rest of the media. Had the broad media picked up the story it may be that Nixon would not have been reelected. Within three month after the election former Nixon aides G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. were convicted. From then on events moved to the impeachment and resignation of the President. But where was the media when the Post was reporting spectacular events prior to the election. There was a conspiracy of silence.
Contrast this to the media’s behavior during the campaign leading up to the election of Bill Clinton and throughout the Clinton Presidency. There was a crescendo of media allegations about sexual peccadilloes. Gennifer Flowers alleged a twelve year affair with Clinton, which received wide press coverage. Her revelation lead to her getting a nude centerfold in Penthouse magazine and the ownership of a cabaret in New Orleans. On the other hand an allegation, corroborated by many sources, that George Bush had an affair with one Jennifer Fitzgerald at least since 1974 and until at least the 1992 election received scant notice from the press.
Even more press coverage was given to the saga of Paula Jones who probably would never have come forward but for an article in the Right wing Spectator magazine written by David Brock. (Brock also wrote the slanderous book, “The Real Anita Hill” and later an article for the Spectator in which he called Anita Hill "a bit nutty and a bit slutty." Subsequently Brock apologized and said that everything he had written was a lie for which he had been well paid.) Brock had written, “On this particular evening after her encounter with Clinton, which lasted no more than an hour as the troopers stood by in the hall, the troopers said Paula told him she was available to be Clinton’s girlfriend if he so desired.” Paula who until then had never spoken of an encounter with Governor Clinton was outraged, and wanted a correction and an apology” But from this sprang Troopergate and the belated suit against Clinton which Paula wanted to settle, but by then had became a tool of the Right who paid her expenses, sponsored her appearance with the troopers (who also indicated they wanted payoffs) at the “Political Action Conference” and kept pushing on all fronts with the SUPPORT AND PUBLICITY OF THE MEDIA until pay dirt in the Monica Lewinsky affair.
But this wasn’t all! The Right took a minor investment of the Clinton’s with one Jim McDougal, in which the Clinton’s lost money, into the notorious Whitewater affair pursued by the partisan ideologue, Kenneth Starr, who in the end found no wrongdoing. If not for the baying of the media there would have been no independent counsel and no endless investigation.
When Vince Foster, suffering depression from the tensions in the White House took his own life, after he was attacked by the Wall Street Journal, the press questioned the suicide and suggested murder. A sensational story but with no basis in fact.
When the Clinton White House fired fourteen employees engaged in making travel arrangements for White House staff, a matter that could hardly be considered of National significance, it became TRAVELGATE and the media ran with it.
When Clinton stopped to get a haircut at an airport the cost of the haircut and the possibility of planes being delayed became grist for the media’s frenzy.
The favorite of the “neutral press” was their adaptation of the pejorative reference to the President as “Slick Willie.”
I can’t possibly do justice to the hatchet job done with the willing, enthusiastic collaboration of the press, which treated Hillary Clinton’s correct charge of a “Vast Right Wing conspiracy” with disdain. However, the facts bear her out. The Arkansas Project is known to have undertaken a four-year effort organized through the American Spectator magazine to discredit the president. Scaife foundation money, as Salon has reported, has also allegedly been used to pay key Whitewater witness David Hale and to help bankroll Paula Jones' sexual harassment case against Clinton.
(As an aside it should be noted that between 1985 and 2001, the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation donated $15,860,000 to the Heritage Foundation; $7,333,000 to the Institute for Policy Analysis; $6,995,500 to the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace; $6,693,000 to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); $4,411,000 to the American Enterprise Institute; $2,575,000 to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; $1,855,000 to the George C. Marshall Institute; $1,808,000 to the Hudson Institute; and $1,697,000 to the Cato Institute.)
Next time, the media’s hatchet job on Al Gore and John Kerry, and its cheer leading the President’s march to war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Just an aside: David Brock, who explained (if not apologized) for the lies he promoted as a journalist for the right, wrote a book called "Blinded by the Right." As Scaife knows, and as you report so thoroughly, it takes a lot of money to do the blinding. The think tanks who have been so successful in seeding doubt about all our democratic principles will still be in place as the campaign for the presidency unfolds. There is no comparable organized effort on the part of the Democrats. A sobering thought.
Thanks for your informative pieces.
Well said! I hope you try to get this published. You should bring it to the attention of the Ombudsman at the Times whose column calls the Times to task. I hope you bring this to the attention of many other publications too. Even if no one publishes it with your byline, hopefully, someone will carry the torch. This is a message that needs telling.
I don't know why the NY Times or Washington Post delayed the publication of the Walter Reed and wiretapping stories, and will not speculate about Watergate since it happened 35 years ago. However, I think that those two newspapers stand well above the others in this country in terms of fairness and informing the public. They are certainly not part of any concerted effort by the right to distort or hide the news. As you point out, the Times has been the target of much invective by the White House and the right wing.
I will take the NY Times anytime in preference to TV news and its obsession with Anna Nicole Smith and similar stories.
Unfortunately most people get their news from TV, so it is no wonder that the American people took so long to discover that Bush and Co. had led us into disaster in Iraq.
In response to Bruno Lederer's comment I would like to say that we are essentially in agreement. That is exactly the point. The NY Times and the Washington Post are heads and shoulders above the rest of the media. So when we consider their shortcomings what does it say for the rest of the media. Why do they fall short? I don't know! I can only speculate. Maybe they are afraid of being labeled liberal. Maybe they don't want to give up on a reporter who has good contacts inside the Administration, like Judith Miller, or one who writes sensational stories like Walter Reed (the guy whose articles in the Times turned out to be fictional.) See the Times Public Editor from this Sunday Times. It can be found at:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/opinion/11pubed.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
I am not suggesting that we are not better off with the media than without it. Without the media we would have no independent source of news-just government propaganda. WE NEED THE MEDIA AND WE CERTAINLY NEED THE POST AND THE TIMES, but too often of late the media has been nothing more than a megaphone for Administration contentions.
I just insist that we are entitled to something better. A democracy can not function without courageous and independent news reporting. We just aren't getting that. Exposing what we are getting is the first step to reform.
Apropos the phony attacks on Clinton, you may recall the stories that "departing Clinton staffers had gone on a wild rampage and "trashed" or "vandalized" the White House, even looting Air Force One." These allegations swept through the media. However, an official government investigation, revealed one major problem with these stories: They never happened. According to statements from the General Services Administration that were reported on May 17, little if anything out of the ordinary occurred during the transition, and "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."
Ironically, the investigation came in response to a request from Rep. Bob Barr (R.-Ga.), and many conservatives who had assumed that the wild rumors would be confirmed by an official inquiry. That wasn't the case. (The "looting" of Air Force One had also been denied by officials at Andrews Air Force base -- Kansas City Star, 2/9/01).
How can you question the media bias when you compare the media coverage of Clinton with that of Bush.
I want to add to my previous comment The Right keeps screaming liberal media. The point is the opposite is true. The deck is stacked against the Democrats in the media. Yes Thank God for the Times and the Post and until recently the Los Angeles Times which has been destroyed by its owners. But even they are cowed or something. It is tough to be accused of being unpatriotic for reporting the news. It is intimidating, as is the threat of being cut off from all Administration sources, or being rewarded with scoops if you "stay on message" as was the case with Judith Miller who having left the Times now writes for the Wall Street Journal and the NY Sun.
Why are we not getting some kind of debate over whether Iran is likely to get the bomb and how dangerous it would be for them to get it? Since we coexisted with the Soviet Union having a huge arsenal of bombs and the ability to deliver them, why is Iran so much more dangerous? It isn't even being discussed. On PBS's Washington News, Gwen Ifill referred to a comment by France's Jacques Chirac suggesting that the danger is overblown, which he quickly retracted, with 'What was he thinking?" thus making such comments beyond the pale. We are having another blackout on discussion.
I have to add that on last Sunday's "Washington News", which is one of my favorite programs, Pete Williams, the anchor for NBC News seemed to be making light of the firing eight US Attorneys by saying, "All Presidents frequently change their US Attorneys around". Either Mr. Williams was shockingly ignorant, or he was deliberately making misstatements about facts. While it is true that a new incoming President (including Clinton) usually fires all the incumbent Attorneys and appoints his own, it is almost unprecedented for any US Attorney to be fired during the course of the same Administration absent misconduct.
This is another instant how the media misleads and misrepresents in the cause of this Administration and as previously indicated, in the cause of the Republican Party.
Post a Comment