MediaWatch: March 1992
Table of Contents:
Protecting Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton's popularity with the major media's political reporters is becoming legendary. In the March 9 New Republic, Senior Editor Hendrik Hertzberg wrote of the Clinton boomlet: "The group of people I'll call The Press -- by which I mean several dozen political journalists of my acquaintance, many of whom the Buchanan Administration may someday round up on suspicion of having Democratic or even liberal sympathies -- was of one mind as the season's first primary campaign shuddered toward its finish. I asked each of them, one after another, this question: If you were a New Hampshire Democrat, whom would you vote for? The answer was always the same; and the answer was always Clinton. In this group, in my experience, such unanimity is unprecedented."
Hertzberg went on to explain why: "Almost none is due to calculations about Clinton being 'electable'....and none at all is due to belief in Clinton's denials in the Flowers business, because no one believes these denials. No, the real reason members of The Press like Clinton is simple, and surprisingly uncynical: they think he would make a very good, perhaps a great, President. Several told me they were convinced that Clinton is the most talented presidential candidate they have ever encountered, JFK included."
So, has this overwhelming preference had any impact on campaign coverage? To determine the answer, MediaWatch analysts compared the coverage of four evening news shows (ABC's World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News, as well as CNN's Prime News from 1988 and World News from 1992,) during times when Clinton and Quayle were under scrutiny over possible draft evasion and other personal issues.
In the ten days following revelations about the two candidates, 1988 Quayle stories outnumbered 1992 Clinton stories by a margin of almost four to one. In the first ten days of Quayle's National Guard controversy (August 18-27, 1988), the four networks did 51 news stories solely on Quayle's National Guard service. (This counts only evening news, not any of the 158 times the networks raised questions about Quayle's controversies during the prime time coverage of the Republican Convention.) By contrast, in the first ten days of Clinton's draft flap (February 6-15), the four networks aired only 13 stories.
When the February 6 Wall Street Journal broke a story questioning Bill Clinton's draft record, how did the networks react? ABC made it story number five. CBS and NBC completely ignored the story. Two days later on the CBS Evening News, reporter Bruce Morton declared: "When attacks are made on character, the press ought to report them and then let the voters decide who's right and who's wrong." (Memo to Morton: watch your own newscast.) By contrast, on August 18, 1988, the four networks aired 15 stories on Quayle. ABC did three stories, and CBS and NBC each broadcast five. The Quayle news led all four evening newscasts.
On February 12, one of Clinton's ROTC officers, Clinton Jones, released a 1969 letter from Clinton thanking the ROTC for "saving me from the draft." The response was again protective. None of the evening newscasts began with it, and each aired only one story. CBS outdid the others: reporter Richard Threlkeld referred to Clinton blaming the Republicans for leaking the letter four times, even though the other three networks corrected him by reporting that Jones sent the letter to ABC, not GOP officials. The CBS Evening News never corrected its misinformation.
But the other networks aren't blameless. On February 15, CNN replaced its 10-11 PM (ET) World News with a special titled The Battle to Lead. Political reporter (and former Morris Udall aide) Ken Bode narrated an eight-minute profile of Clinton. Though Bode reviewed Clinton's personal history, he completely omitted the draft scandal.
ABC reporters seemed apologetic for having to report the controversial aspects of Clinton's record. On February 14, Chris Bury reported: "In the campaign's final crunch, questions of Clinton's character, his personal life, and the draft are pursued daily, almost always by the press. And that is the trouble for Clinton: the press hounds him about his character; voters seem more worried about other things." Again, Bury must not have watched his own newscast, which did just four stories in ten days.
All the networks have so far failed to do any investigative work of their own on Clinton, and have offered no new details. But in 1988, the networks not only reported on Paula Parkinson, but also questioned the truth of Quayle's resume and whether personal influence helped his admission to law school. These investigations caused another 13 stories on Quayle's personal life during the ten-day study period. (From January 24-30 this year, the four networks did 14 stories on Gennifer Flowers.)
Clinton's draft record isn't the only story the networks are ignoring: the networks have whistled by the New York Post report that Clinton's campaign has a two-million dollar credit line from Jack Stephens, who's been linked to the BCCI scandal. Of all the major media, only Reuters reported it, and The Boston Globe let Tom Harkin raise the issue. But AP and UPI, the major newspapers, the news magazines, and the networks passed. On February 28, The Washington Post devoted a story to Bush campaign aide James Lake's ties to BCCI, but left Clinton out of the story.
Similarly, the media have ignored new details about Gennifer Flowers. New York Post gossip columnist Cindy Adams interviewed a Flowers roommate named Lauren Kirk. Kirk says she shared an apartment with Flowers from 1983 to 1985, and that Flowers entertained Clinton there three times. In the Dallas Morning News, reporter David Jackson found another Flowers roommate, Marilyn Roberts, who also insisted: "It's true." If Clinton were treated like Clarence Thomas, Kirk and Roberts would be "corroborative" witnesses demonstrating that Clinton lied.
Bias by omission can make an enormous difference in campaign season. At a Columbia University seminar in February, CBS reporter Betsy Aaron explained the dangers: "We're always going to have this argument between 'do we have an opinion, don't we have an opinion' -- we have an opinion because we're breathing, and the largest opinion we have is what we leave out. I mean, it sounds simplistic, but I always say worry about what you're not seeing. What you are seeing you can really criticize because you are smart and you have opinions. But if we don't tell you anything, and we leave whole areas uncovered, that's the danger."
