<........................................................................................EXPAND YOUR BROWSER FOR THE BEST READ........................................................................................>
FEATURE
<........................................................................................EXPAND YOUR BROWSER FOR THE BEST READ........................................................................................>
FEATURE
THE NEW RIGHT WING - THE NEW YORK TIMES:
LYNCHING VERNON JORDAN AND LAUGHING ALL THE WAY
Bill Clinton & Vernon Jordan 
WEDNESDAY MARCH 4TH 1998-NEW YORK-- Maybe you've been worrying about what the New York Times has been up to lately. More than a month ago, we wrote to Howell Raines, the Time's 's opinion editor and got no answer to our questions regarding young Sulzberger's coronation as publisher at the Times and the radically new approach it takes to journalism these days. 'We're not talking about the new color photos on the front page either.
No. We're talking about the almost screaming right wing bias of this paper, once a reliable source for level track discussion of American politics. Now, the Times has become little more than a festooned National Inquirer, replete with reporter 'opinions,' nuance and worse -- lies.
Take today's front page story on Vernon Jordan.
You remember Vernon Jordan. He's the President's best friend. He a Black American. He's the son of a postal worker. He worked his ass off to become one of the most respected and admired men in Washington -- in the nation.
If Vernon Jordan has an enemy we'd like to meet him, and punch him out.
So what's the headline about Jordan's testimony chosen by the venerable NYT?
"Jordan Tells Federal Grand Jury of Helping Lewinsky Job Hunt"
Of course, the real news was that the Times, and everyone else now neck-deep in the Clinton/Jordan witch hunt, was reporting absolute lies as truth for the past week -- news that Jordan had deserted his friend of 30 years and was going to "spill the beans" on Bill for not "telling him about Monica Lewinsky .. ." before Jordan went looking for a new job for her.
Nothing could have been further from the truth. Yet the Times joined slipshod rags like the NY POST, telling its readers that Jordan was going to protect himself at the expense of his friend and that a "gulf" existed between he and the President so wide as to be an impasse.
Bullshit. That's the only way to say it.
The Time's editors, along with writers John Broder and Jeff Girth are trying to pull a fast one, hardly mentioning Jordan's candid and tough chastisement to the mainstream media who has smeared his friendship with Clinton with speculation instead of reporting the facts.
The fact is, that most reporters aren't fit to wipe dog poop off of Vernon Jordan's shoes -- and that includes us.
Here's what we mean:
Let's start with the headline itself. Smack on the right side of the front page.
An honest editor might have suggested this headline instead:
"Jordan Tells Media They're all Wet" or "Jordan Tells Media I'm Bill's Friend and I'll Remain His Friend."
But no. Instead they link the words JORDAN, GRAND JURY and LEWINSKY in order to cast a negative pall over the story before it even begins.
The Times calls Vernon "cool," "elegant" -- sort of a classic description of a pimp don't you think. They call him the "confidential advisor" to the President. What does that mean -- Confidential Advisor? Aren't all White House advisors 'confidential,' or do they give the President advice out on the Mall or on a busy street within earshot of anyone who happens along?
In the next paragraph the Times asserts that it has a pipeline to Jordan's lawyers and that they know, and are eager to share with the Times exactly what he told the Grand Jury. Of course, that's not possible and, what if the lawyer that "talked" to them was lying just to twist them in the wind? They'd deserve it. Is the Times guilty of felonious conspiracy in allegedly talking with this Jordan lawyer who is not allowed to say what happened in the Grand Jury room. Only Jordan is allowed to do that.
It's the law.
Or maybe Broder and Gerth want Starr to subpoena them? WHy not, the son will become as famous the father -- although not of the same timber. Sure, what the heck, we can stretch the truth and get on national television rather than toe the line writing for the ever-shrinking audience which reads newspapers for news.
The Times goes on to write that Jordan "paints himself as a faithful friend to the President who provided help for a young woman without knowing precisely why his assistance was sought"
The term "paints himself" is a dead giveaway for the continuing tone of the piece. It happens that Jordan IS a faithful friend, not only to the President but to nearly all that come in contact with him. That's one of his best known traits -- inside and outside the Beltway. Sure he's a shaker and mover, but no one deserves it more, and a dozen Fortune 500 companies don't put Jordan on their Boards because he's a liar or a cheat. "Paints himself" should have been out and "IS" inserted in its place. Then the "young woman" reference. Hey! Wake up white people! Monica wasn't so young. She was a spoiled Beverly Hills / Madison Avenue brat who knew which way was up before she could wear nylons. So stop this ingenue routine -- It's BORING!
Broder and Gerth go on. "Mr. Jordan's questioning by the aggressive prosecutors of the independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, posed a test of his loyalty to the President ... "
Huh? Gee, "aggressive prosecutors" - "independent counsel" -- could they be more wrong. How bout "lynch-mob prosecutors hanging by their fingernails" and "total right wing whore for the ultra-right faction of the Republican Party, General Motors, and Big Tobacco -- Kenneth W. Starr." Wouldn't that be more on point and in line with the facts as the majority of the American people see them?
And how come the Times fails to mention that a well-respected lawyer is now accusing Starr of obstructing justice in the General Motors case which revealed that an executive perhaps with the aide and counsel of Starr buried a memo which "valued" human life for GM as lower than bothering to fix a fuel problem which caused the GM vehicles to explode in fire.
"Test of loyalty?" What about "test of truth." The word loyalty implies Jordan would lie for his friend and casts another shadow over his and the President's character and credibility. Did Vernon Jordan sweat those exams in law school and rise to make millions a year only to lie to a Grand Jury? We think not. He's an officer of the court. He respects that law. And that, my friends, is why he's where he is and Broder and Gerth are where they are.
The Times does quote Jordan's barbed attack on the press in its hideously biased coverage of the Lewinsky affair: "As to those of who cast doubt on my friendship with President Clinton, let me assure you that ours is an enduring friendship, a friendship based on mutual trust, respect and admiration. That was true yesterday, it's true today and it will be true tomorrow."
Heavy stuff. All of us wish our best man had said that at our weddings.
But Broder and Gerth just ignore the statement and leave it hanging, seguing into a kind of - isn't is unbelievable that things are going on as normal at the White House?
The writers say he made these brief remarks before "getting into his car and gliding away." Of course there was no reason to say anything about getting into his car. Of course he had to get in his car to leave the courthouse.
No. The reason the line was inserted was to take another swipe at Jordan summoning images of 35 foot long black limousines with evil men hiding behind smoked glass or worse. Yeah, Jordan's kind of car. Nope. Jordan is not a status seeker, not by a long shot. He'll take as much time with a wayward teen as he will with a President. That's just his style. And everyone knows it.
The Times piece goes on to label Jordan as a "consummate Washington insider" -- again using the pejorative slant, rather than writing that Jordan is the kind of man that most mothers wish their sons would grow to be and is an insider because of his intelligence, wit and kindness.
"Mr. Jordan has acknowledged using his contacts in corporate America... ," they write in reference to his helping Monica Lewinsky find a new job. How 'bout "Mr. Jordan has himself, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of friends and admirers holding influential positions in American business." Rather than USE them, perhaps they enjoy doing things for him, like we all enjoy doing things for our buddies and loved ones.
Is this something new -- that friends help friends get a better job?
Of course the Times uses the phrase "land" a job instead of "find" a job, another way to blur reader confidence in the subject Jordan.
They also call Jordan "a back channel advisor" to the President. Well, we don't know what that means except to again put a sinister light on the friendship.
In the same paragraph the Times writes that Jordan is "a discreet friend" paying yellow-journalistic homage to a term normally used when discussing sexual indiscretion. But they outdo themselves as muckrakers by going on to say that Jordan and the President "share off-the-record talks about their mutual regard for attractive women."
Oh, I see, Mr. Jordan may have said something like this in a less-guarded moment, but here Broder and Gerth twist its meaning into a couple of school boys sharing dirty-talk behind the bleachers at junior high school football game -- a far uglier picture than need be.
The Times, even after Jordan's carefully-phrased rebuff of such garbage, lays it on thicker writing "the relationship (between the President and Jordan) has been strained" paying little attention to the fact that 30 year friendships are not strained because of fools like Malibu Ken Starr. The Times may have meant to say that it was tough on the two old pals because they could not talk about the instant case for fear that Klansman-like Starr would then accuse them of collusion and conspiracy to obstruct justice, and Broder and Gerth, to be fair, did point that out. But in a different, darker way.
Gee. I'd say that having a geek like Starr wiretapping your allies and peeking over your shoulder at all hours of the night would be tough on both men, but certainly not a "strain" on their relationship. Perhaps Broder and Gerth don't realize that tough times build even stronger friendships.
The Times claims that Jordan's testimony may have been "a signal" to the President that he wouldn't say anything to put him in jeopardy.
How arrogant can you get?
How about the fact that Bill Clinton never had a doubt that Jordan would tell the truth, and that the truth couldn't hurt him or Jordan? That seems more likely. Old friends don't need to "signal" each other about such things. They just know.
We've seen Vernon Jordan and Bill Clinton together many times; and in informal situations. They love each other like brothers. To intimate that the President was breathing a sigh of relief over Jordan's testimony is reaching at best. To imply that either man would lie in court -- which is exactly what this paragraph attempts to do -- is unforgivable under any but the lowest standards of journalism.
Broder and Gerth paint Jordan as a potentate. They write that he "was trailed by a cordon of aides and guards" and that "three federal security agents stood vigil with their backs to him" as he ate a simple cafeteria lunch. Do the writers mean that Jordan hasn't earned respect and somehow gets his "aides" undeservedly.
Do they imply that the security agents 'turned their backs' out of respect, or disgust? You be the judge, but we think the lines are superfluous, misleading and designed to picture Jordan as an overprivleged punk.
He is anything but.
To add insult to injury, the Times, in the next paragraph draws a sappy parallel, writing that Starr's henchmen -- Co-lynchers Bittman and Beinert -- the Heckle and Jeckle of new American gestapo judicial terrorism, were "huddled quietly over their meals"
Oh gosh, those poor boys. They're just trying to do their jobs. Look how QUIET they are, huddled over there in the corner. Do you think they're cold? Do you think they've had enough to eat.
It's enough to make us puke.
Broder and Gerth go so far as to point out that Jordan's lawyer is a smoker. They tell us this by explaining Attorney Hundley told them that Jordan's mood was fine "as he stepped outside for a cigarette."
The mind's eye visual? A "mouthpiece" hunkering in the shadows puffing on a cancer stick."
The Times ends this fable with a three-year-old quote from Bill Clinton about Vernon Jordan:
"The last thing he'd ever do is betray a friendship. It's good to have a friend like that," said Clinton about Vernon Jordan.
We'll second that.
Broder and Gerth put this line at the end as an irony not as a moral, They do it as a presaging of that which was to come -- like a ghost story. We were meant to laugh and cringe, thinking "Aha, sure, Jordan will lie for the power and the money that comes from it."
But it is factually the opposite. We know Vernon Jordan.
In the 1970's he labeled California's Proposition 13 - a 50% tax cut aimed at programs for the poor -- as what it was... "America's dirty little secret - racism."
He was right and he took a chance to say that. He took the chance that all those Directors in those dozen board rooms would turn their backs on him. He took the chance that the clawing and scratching we all have to do to get ahead would be lost to him because he dared defend the poor and the minority who too often are interchangeable.
Yes, he's a friend of Bill Clinton's and of most leaders in our country and in many other capitols of this world.
Thank God. We'd be proud to be his friends as well.
- The Editors.
 Provided by Hot Bot | Searchfor |
"JK, a client, a friend, and one of the keenest minds in American politics, told me one afternoon: 'A good place to begin thinking critically about American and Western European democracies to ask yourself: What kind of man or woman would choose to run for public office? Think about that.' - I did."
- Eliot Janeway ,1991 New York
From an Introduction to JK's essay and speech, "Washington - The New American Babylon"
Copyright©AMERICAN POLITICS JOURNAL INC 1996-1998 Reader Services Post Office Box 0409, Navesink, NJ 07716 FAX: 908.872.7604
NEED HELP? E-MAIL: reader@americanpolitics.com
