Lapdogs on the Run
Guest Columnist Chris Adams on the pack of press hounds and why they are intentionally "missing the point" of Steven Brill's "Pressgate" article
Wednesday, June 17th, 1998 -- WASHINGTON, DC -- Steven Brill kicked off his new magazine, Brill's Content, with a story that has sent Ken Starr and certain members of the media reeling.
In the inaugural issue of Content, Brill accuses Starr of illegally leaking details of grand jury testimony to special "lapdog" reporters who tell stories the way the prosecutor likes them. Starr then uses these leaks to pressure grand jury witnesses and to get his spin on news stories. While the Office of Independent Counsel has been scrambling to recover from this nightmare, the members of the media on Starr's lapdog list are trying to fight back.
Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, usually very sympathetic to Ken Starr's efforts, called him to the woodshed late Monday afternoon for a legal spanking. The Landmark Legal Foundation (funded by Richard Mellon you-know-who) spent Monday burning up the phone lines in Washington, telling anyone who would listen that Brill had donated money to Bill Clinton's campaign the last two elections.
Ken Starr's equally generous campaign contributions were not mentioned.
Meanwhile, the reporting patterns of the media seem to reflect who was and was not on the lapdog list.
Ken Starr's leaking to a list of favored reporters has been an (almost) unspoken truth in Washington for a long time. Months ago, at a seminar at Harvard University, a conservative columnist for the Boston Globe announced that he had received leaks from Ken Starr's office and no one cared. That a lapdog list exists is not a surprise.
What is a surprise is that its existence has been confirmed by Kenneth Starr, himself.
Do you recall Starr's response when Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, accused Starr of doing exactly this? Starr's angry response: "From the beginning I have made the prohibition of leaks a principal priority of this office. It is a firing offense, as well as one that leads to criminal prosecution."
Legal question: Can Ken Starr fire himself?
Don't look for Ken Starr to turn himself in anytime soon. Instead, look for the wheels of his propaganda machine to be set in motion. Look for recently-hired image consultant Charles Bakaly to begin to earn his money by attacking Brill for "recklessness" and "threatening the integrity of government." Look for the newspapers and TV networks most damaged by Brill's story to continue to run faux news stories with titles like "Starr Accuser's Motives Called into Question." But don't look for these organizations to describe the scrambling behind the scenes in the Office of Independent Counsel as "damage control," "spin," and "stonewalling." These words have been reserved for slamming the President, but they would well describe what is going on in Ken Starr's office.
Pundits will claim these allegations couldn't be true because a seasoned attorney like Ken Starr wouldn't try to get away with such behavior.
But Starr-gazers know these pundits are wrong: Starr is a paranoid zealot who will twist legal logic any way he can to justify his crusade against the President.
In February, Ken Starr went bananas because he heard White House employees were claiming prosecutors on Starr's staff had a record of past unprofessional conduct. Starr, who is supposed to be investigating Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky, used his unchecked subpoena power to try to find the source of these stories. When asked how he could expand his powers to the investigation of rumors, Starr justified his actions with a wacky legal rationale that he was entitled to do so under the First Amendment. Starr said that because the First Amendment was interested in truth and because he was faced with "misinformation and distorted information," he could do whatever it took to find the truth (which turned out to be that his prosecutors had engaged in unprofessional conduct). And what is Starr's justification for having these extensive anonymous briefings with selected reporters who tell the stories the way Starr likes it? According to Starr, these briefings are for "countering misinformation that is being spread about our investigation in order to discredit our office and our dedicated career prosecutors." Ken Starr believes he can do anything he wants as long as his mind perceives misinformation -- which is all the time.
Why must Starr counter misinformation through selective anonymous briefings (while he tells the rest of the media that he won't comment on an ongoing investigation)? Let Ken work his way out of this one.
Meanwhile, the members of the media on the lapdog list are treading water. If you want to know who is on the lapdog list, no need to buy an issue of Content. Just look for bad journalism and follow your nose.
Start with that "semen-stained dress" of Monica Lewinsky's. Where did that story come from? Why, Jackie Judd of ABC News! Lo and behold, Ken Starr has confirmed to Brill that Jackie Judd is a lapdog, getting special extensive background briefings.
How about that phony story where Bill Clinton supposedly "coached" Betty Currie on what to say to the grand jury. Who reported that? Why, it was Jeff Gerth and Stephen Labaton of The New York Times. Who did they talk to right before reporting that story? Ken Starr's office! Woof!
The Washington Post's Susan Schmidt has been known for her anti-Clinton bias for years. Schmidt's reporting during Whitewater was so slanted that Hillary Clinton asked that Schmidt's "greatest hits" of bad reporting be compiled in report form. When Schmidt was nailed for selectively reporting quotes from former Secret Service Agent Lewis Fox in an attempt to cast President Clinton in the worst light, Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie jumped to her defense, claiming her stories came from "extremely hard reporting work." Now we know the stories actually came from a certain special someone on background.
Is it safe to say Michael "Latrell Spreewell" Isikoff of Newsweek is having a rough go of it? He was flying so high after "uncovering" Monica Lewinsky, but the last few months have been tough for him. First, he is exposed by David Brock for trafficking in false smutty rumors about President Clinton. Then, he adopts the cause of Kathleen Willey, although Julie Hyatt Steele recanted her corroboration of Ms. Willey's story (apparently, Ms. Steele is now suing "Spree" for his reporting practices). Now, Ken Starr has confirmed that Mr. Isikoff is on the lapdog list. Woof woof!
[Editor's note: It should not pass unmentioned that Julie Steele was evidently not the only person to warn Isikoff of Willey's purported disingenuousness; John F. X. Gillis and Skip Fox are running a story on John's web site on evidence that Isikoff was also warned that Willey was "unreliable" by -- brace yourself-- Linda Tripp!]
With their credentials as ethical journalists on the line, the lapdogs are fighting back, but only weakly. If you watched MSNBC Monday night for an objective analysis of Brill's story, you were treated to the "objective" views of none other than "MSNBC analyst Michael Isikoff." ABC News President David Westin (president of the network that continues to stand behind the semen-stained dress story) came out against the Brill story -- but refused to explain why!
Susan Schmidt is fighting back hard, claiming she has been defamed by Brill. But is this because Brill accuses her of being biased and Ken Starr's lapdog? No. Schmidt is claiming that she is being defamed because Brill says that Schmidt revealed her sources to him. Not a strong denial. Schmidt's Washington Post dutifully ignored this blockbuster in Monday's paper, but came back fighting Tuesday with two strongly anti-Brill stories. One of these stories, under the byline of Howard Kurtz, parrots the LLF campaign donation charge and carries some supportive quotes from others in disagreement with Brill.
By the way, Kurtz, the well-liked ersatz media writer for the Post, is a figure to watch. As a commentator on the work of journalists working for other papers, he is expected to be a future contributor to Content. As a Washington Post employee, Kurtz has been called into duty more than once to write a piece in defense of the questionable journalism in his paper. The two hats of Howard Kurtz will likely be in conflict as Kurtz makes his appearances on the pundit shows.
What will happen to Ken Starr? Don't count on Norma Holloway Johnson to stand up to him. At worst, Starr will perhaps receive another slap on the wrist.
What will happen to the reporters involved? Perhaps they can work with disgraced former Washington Post Pulitzer Prizewinner Janet Cooke at a department store.
What will happen to the media coverage of this story? We will continue to be inundated with bad legal opinions from the same pundits who were sure Paula Jones had a good case.
The situation is a complete mess, but there is a lesson to be learned. Reporters who serve as lapdogs could learn something from William C. Sullivan, the right hand man to J. Edgar Hoover: in his 1979 book, "The Bureau," Sullivan discussed misdeeds of Hoover at the helm of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and described how a powerful, quirky, paranoid man was able to get away with so much. A key, according to Sullivan, was the plethora of lazy reporters. They would happily submit stories handed to them by the FBI and were reluctant to print anything critical about Hoover, lest they be cut off from this supply of these easy stories.
Sound familiar?
— Chris Adams
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot |
