MediaWatch: December 1993

NewsBites: Clinton on Quayle, Take 2

Clinton on Quayle, Take 2. Last year, Bill Clinton criticized Dan Quayle's now-famous speech on family policy that happened to include a mention of Murphy Brown. In May, Clinton said "The Vice President's address is in my view cynical election year politics." In his convention speech, he stepped up the attack: "Frankly, I'm fed up with politicians in Washington lecturing the rest of us about family values. Our families have values, but our government doesn't."

So when President Clinton changed his tune in early December in interviews with NBC and Newsweek and said "I thought there were a lot of very good things in that speech," including "it's certainly true that this country would be much better off if our babies were born into two-parent families," the rest of the media jumped on the flip-flop, right? Wrong. There wasn't a word of it in the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, or The Washington Post. ABC's Charles Gibson asked Dan Quayle about it on Good Morning America December 6, but CBS totally ignored it.

Gutting HUD? Knight-Ridder reporter Reginald Stuart thinks the Department of Housing and Urban Development has been starved for funds. On C-SPAN's Journalists' Roundtable November 5, Stuart asserted: "(Henry) Cisneros got good grades for running HUD. And HUD is an agency that was gutted by the Republicans in 12 years and then under the Clinton/Gore performance, it's going to be gutted some more. So he's doing a good job of running an agency that's being gutted successively by administrations."

But federal budget outlays to HUD grew from $12.7 billion in 1980 to $22.8 billion in 1991, meaning HUD has grown 18 percent more than inflation. And the number of people served by housing assistance grew 31 percent from 1981 to 1989. If that's "gutted," what's expanded?

Darling Democrats... Newsweek examined the first year in the careers of three House freshmen in the November 29 issue: Democrats Cynthia McKinney and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky and Republican Terry Everett. To Senior Writer Bill Turque, the Democrats' shortcomings showed they were learning the congressional game.

In "The Learning Curve," McKinney learns the way things are done in Congress. This self-described outsider's attempt at playing an insider's game is handled matter-of-factly: "And despite her problems with the pork-friendly Appropriations Committee, she quietly lobbied the panel to secure a $200,000 research grant for Savannah State College." Her cynical attempt to game the system by refusing to take a hard stand on NAFTA is described with pride. "A White House in desperate search of Congressional support on big votes also helped her learn to play the system... Was she holding out for a deal? She just smiled and said `You never want to be so definitive that you can't take advantage of a changing situation.' Cynthia McKinney may find a home in the House after all."

...Irresponsible Republicans. But in the section titled "Pork, Peanuts, and Promises," Terry Everett, who ran for Congress on a Perot-like no-business-as-usual platform, is a hypocrite for accepting PAC money: "Beneath Everett's reform fervor lurks the soul of a career politician. He insists he was clear during his campaign about the no-PACs pledge -- that it was a one time offer, good only for 1992. But Everett's caveat was tantamount to the fine print on the side of a cereal box...Until Congress passes new limits on PAC contributions -- which he supports -- Everett intends to play the game by the same rules as his opponents." Turque also disdained Everett for securing the peanut subsidy: "Reform was on Everett's agenda only when it caused pain in someone else's district.

Rush to Judge. When Gennifer Flowers' allegations threatened Bill Clinton's campaign, the media pronounced it sleazy to report sensational charges. Skeptical about Flowers' evidence, they held off reporting the story.

A different standard applies to Catholic clergy. All the networks immediately ran reports on the charges made against Chicago's Joseph Cardinal Bernardin by a 34-year-old AIDS patient, who had just remembered he was sexually abused 18 years after the alleged event, and by the way, wanted $10 million for his anguish. Connie Chung's sensational introduction on the Nov. 12 CBS Evening News typified media reaction: "The Roman Catholic Church in America was rocked today by charges of scandal against one of its most prominent leaders and reformers."

CNN ran a one-hour special on sex abuse in the Catholic Church two days later, Fall From Grace, which continued the sensational coverage of unproven allegations. Host Bonnie Anderson reported "Charges that a Prince of the Church, a man eligible to become Pope, a Cardinal on the forefront of reforming how the Church deals with clergy's sexual abuse has himself fallen from grace."

Envy the French. "If the French can do it, why can't we?" ran the headline over Steven Greenhouse's story in the November 14 New York Times Magazine. What do the French do so well? Day care. Not just day care, but a system that offers children "poached fish and cauliflower mousse, parsleyed potatoes and Camembert cheese -- not bad compared with the peanut butter sandwiches served at so many American preschools."

According to Greenhouse, the food is just one advantage of "a free, full-day, public school or école maternelle," because, "In France, 99 percent of the 3- 4- and 5-year olds attend preschool at no or minimal charge." By comparison, "Many New Yorkers, Washingtonians and Californians pay $8,000 to $14,000 a year to send a child to preschool or a day-care center, if they are lucky enough to find a place." He continued, "Comparing the French system with the American system -- if that word can be used to describe a jigsaw puzzle missing half its pieces -- is like comparing a vintage bottle of Chateau Margaux with a $4 bottle of American wine."

Just what are the "minimal" charges? "The French spend $7 billion a year to make sure every child -- rich, middle class or poor -- gets off to a good start. They feel the benefits outweigh the cost." France is showing some strain on their "free" system. Politicians are feeling the crunch to keep taxes (which are already "almost half of their gross domestic product") down. Greenhouse's answer to keeping taxes down and keeping the level of day care up: "charging parents, especially the rich ones, more." 

Hunger Hype I. The liberal Urban Institute released a report on November 16 claiming that "Between 2.5 and 4.9 million elderly Americans -- many living well above the poverty line -- suffer hunger and food insecurity." ABC, CBS and CNN all promoted the study, but none of them interviewed a conservative skeptic to question it.

Eugenia Halsey's Nov. 15 CNN World News report featured some complaining elderly; a social worker; Martha Burt of the Urban Institute; and Rep. Tony Hall (D-Ohio). On Nov. 16, CBS Evening News put together nearly the same story, with extra hype. Sandra Hughes interviewed elderly people; a social worker; Rep. Hall; and Burt.

Connie Chung introduced the piece as a "disturbing report tonight about older Americans in this country. Millions of them, even some living above the poverty line, don't know from day to day where their next meal is coming from." Then Hughes revised upward the Urban Institute's high estimate: "Up to 5 million Americans over the age of 65 at some point worry about whether they'll have enough food to survive."

On Good Morning America November 16, Joan Lunden interviewed -- Tony Hall and Martha Burt. Lunden's questions were PR softballs: "Well, this study does say we do need to spend more money, in fact it says `We need to shift public resources from the affluent to the low income elderly through higher Social Security taxes and other means.' But would that not be a political bombshell?"

Hunger Hype II. On Thanksgiving Day 1988, CBS Evening News reporter Bob McNamara claimed: "Today, soup kitchens feed more people than ever, and sadly, more families, more children." The story ended: "For more and more young families," there is "little to be thankful for."

Five years later CBS found another category of hungry people. This Thanksgiving night, Giselle Fernandez and Randall Pinkston claimed middle-class and affluent families are suffering, too. Fernandez began: "A lot of Americans are going hungry, and not just in the inner city." Pinkston explained: "Hunger is showing up in the most unlikely places. This is affluent Columbia, Maryland." Forwarding only anecdotal accounts from food banks, Pinkston concluded that "middle-class Americans are forced to look to others for food." Why can't the networks balance stories on hunger with a conservative expert?

Pork Prince's Integrity. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd is well-known in Washington as the "prince of pork." Since the former Senate Majority Leader has moved to chair the Senate Appropriations Committee, Byrd has tried to move any government agency that's not tied down to his home state of West Virginia. But during the Senate debate over the Packwood diaries, the media pictured Byrd as the Senate's voice of integrity.

"Like it or not about what you say about Senator Byrd's background, and his policies, and his politics, he has a very high sense of integrity," declared the Chicago Tribune's Elaine Povich on C-SPAN's Journalists' Roundtable on Nov. 5. Two days before, Washington Post staff writer Helen Dewar had written: "`None of us is pure or without flaw, but when those flaws damage the institution of the Senate, it is time to have the grace to go,' said Byrd, widely regarded as the Senate's foremost defender of its traditions and integrity." Bernard Shaw also joined in with this question on Inside Politics: "What was Byrd trying to do given his esteem?" It's a good thing Byrd doesn't have any skeletons in his closet, like former membership in the KKK.

Hurray for Halperin. With a newly acquired vigor for the pursuit of fairness to presidential nominees, Time reporter Kevin Fedarko chronicled the confirmation difficulties faced by Morton Halperin, President Clinton's nominee to a newly created Pentagon position for peacekeeping operations. In a November 29 article, Fedarko rhetorically asked, "How did Halperin manage to get himself caught between the cross hairs of a confirmation hearing so savage it resembled a drive-by shooting?"

The answer? "Halperin's liberal views have achieved their most ardent expression in defense policy, a piece of hallowed conservative turf." These liberal views seem to be offset, in Fedarko's mind, by Halperin's work for the ACLU, where he was involved in "defending the constitutional rights of Oliver North, Lyn Nofziger and the conservative student writers at the Dartmouth Review."

"Despite such ideological balance," Fedarko lamented, "Halperin has suffered from a hit-and-run campaign by conservative ideologues." While Halperin's views at the ACLU may be interesting, opposition to him is based on his radical positions on military and intelligence issues. But Fedarko mentioned nothing conservatives found objectionable about Halperin's work as head of the leftist Center for National Security Studies, his role as an accomplice in releasing the Pentagon Papers, or Halperin's well-documented beliefs that "Secrecy...does not serve national security...Covert operations are incompatible with constitutional government and should be abolished."

Featured Posts

Bozell Slams Hillary’s Shills in Media: ‘They Are Covering for’ Her

Get the Latest News From CNSNews

Get the Latest Media Analysis on NewsBusters