Pundit Pap for Sunday, June 21st, 1998

FEATURE

Brill Wars!
Pundit Pap for Sunday, June 21, 1998
The Media Elite Strikes Back -- and Strikes Out!
Tripp Trips Up Again!!

Monday, June 22, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- Sure, there was plenty of prognostication about President Clinton's upcoming China trip, the possibility that Monica Lewinsky's lawyers might seek to reach an agreement with the Office of Allegedly Independent Council, and explosive revelations in this week's U.S. News & World Report on one of the tapes Linda Tripp made of her many "conversations" with Lewinsky.

But all of it was overshadowed by continued talk about Steven Brill's explosive Pressgate piece and the revelation that Ken Starr himself was talking to a hand-picked cadre of press contacts -- contrary to repeated claims made by Starr to the contrary.

Brill himself appeared in the best gloves-off Sunday morning action we've seen so far this year.

Brace yourself…

C-SPAN Sunday Washington Journal

If you're a Sunday earlybird and don't feel like being entertained by Jimmy Swaggert, Japanese sci-fi cartoons or infomercials for the Bass-O-Matic 3000, you might want to grab your remote and head on over to C-SPAN. Their live call-in show, Washington Journal, may not have the most well-known purveyors of pap, but if this last Sunday's program is any indication it's worth far more than a passing look.

This particular Sunday, Ron Brownstein, a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report, fielded calls from viewers. C-SPAN provides three separate call-in lines for liberals, moderates and conservatives. It's worth noting that quite a few so-called "moderates" took swipes at Clinton on the ever-popular "character" issue. Before commenting on character, these callers should reflect on their own and call in on the proper line.

That said, Brownstein fielded calls from mostly anti-Clinton and pro-Starr callers who seemed surprisingly well-versed in selected "factoids" of the type Frank Luntz faxes and emails around. To one caller who felt Starr was running a fair investigation, Brownstein replied "It is very important that [Starr] be seen as unbiased and that is simply not happening."

Another caller discussed the situation surrounding tech transfers to China; Brownstein pointed out that launching US satellites on Chinese missiles began under Reagan and "most of the companies that benefited from this gave to Republicans… my own instinct is that this is more of a political dispute than a scandal… today everything in Washington gets fit into a frame of scandal."

Talk about hitting the nail squarely on the head! There are more than a few journalists who would take umbrage with Brownstein, but most of them have an interest in seeing this "scandal" get as much airplay as possible.

In response to a caller commenting on the hot-button issue of human rights in mainland China, Brownstein pointed out the strange bedfellowship of religious conservatives joining liberal Democrats in opposing the center of both parties and Clinton on the China trip.

Brownstein also got a call regarding the "Pressgate" article in Brill's Content: "Brill has done something very courageous… it's remarkable seeing members of the press being very thin-skinned."

We don't find it remarkable in the least -- most of these journalists have cast their lot and their career destiny with Starr, and must deny any contact with Starr or his office in an effort to "protect" their source. And given the combination of their "piling on" and Steven Brill's penchant for fighting fire with fire, don't be surprised if Brill calls the bluff of those journalists he has characterized as Starr lapdogs, or goes even further on the offensive -- as he did with Tim Russert later on Sunday.

Brownstein also commented on the "Crossfire"-ization of the press in the de facto matter of Starr v. Clinton: "The level of frustration and side-taking is truly damaging to the press and the public."

And we wouldn't see all of this side-taking if the print press and news divisions of networks were not motivated by a bottom-line mentality to flog phony "scandals" and generate higher circulation numbers and ratings points.

It should be mentioned that we caught only 45 minutes of the two-hour program, but given the ground covered -- and the blessed absence of commercial interruptions -- we will be checking back.

Fox News Sunday

FNS topic one was China: "Trade will top the agenda." We The guest: Commerce Secretary Bill Daley. The segment, while dominated by wonkspeak, did deal with issues of technology transfers, launching US satellites on Chinese missiles, and allegations of some vast breach of US security -- which Daley gingerly skewered. Stabilizing Asia's recession-plagued economy, the most crucial problem Clinton faces in his upcoming trip, was mentioned only in passing.

Daley supported Clinton's policy on maintaining most-favored nation (MFN) trading status for China, pointing out that "The fact of the matter is this debate over 'MFN' -- this probably greatest misnomer in policy -- that is, that there's something 'special' we're giving China. It's not -- it's the normal trading relationship. There is nothing favored about this. It's strictly what we give all but a few rogue nations as far as a trading relationship."

"A finger-pointing epidemic swept Capitol Hill soon after the Senate killed tobacco legislation." The second topic, kids' health and smoking, showcased the Sooner from Hell himself, Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK). His opening snide comment on the murder of the tobacco bill: "I think it's hog-wash. We turned our back against a whole big expansion of government."

Not only was the bill killed; so were thousands of Americans who will become addicted to tobacco and die prematurely as a result of Congress' caving to big tobacco.

Of course, Nickles went into no detail whatsoever about the complexities of the bill and the disbursement of increased tax dollars derived from sale of tobacco products. Instead, he peddled the same phony line the tobacco industry did in their "Call your Senator" ad campaign, a blitzkrieg not aimed at Joe Average but at Republican members of Congress.

The fundamental fact is that the bill was not a "big expansion of government," but its defeat is an expansion of big tobacco's power.

He next said "We're frankly interested in doing some things that are going to help reduce teenage consumption and addiction of not only tobacco, but drugs."

Well, you idiot, if you want to do something about kids taking those illegal drugs, you'd better do something about the biggest "gateway" drug of all: tobacco. Nickles' hypocrisy is beyond the pale.

Nickles has problems keeping fundamental facts on other issues straight: "[Johnny Chung]'s talking about how he was solicited. According to the press, he hasn't told this to Congress, but according to the press he's saying the administration knew that there was illegal contributions."

Brit Hume: "Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! WHOA!! He says the Democratic National Committee, that's not necessarily the same thing, is it?" [Hume was dripping with sarcasm. He seemed genuinely torqued at Nickles. What's gotten into Brit? You'd almost think he was sticking up for Clinton!]

Nickles: "That may be, good point."

As Plato might have said, "Well, duuuuh!"

And lest you think Nickles is weak on the issue of "homosexuals," catch this exchange!

Juan Williams: "[Trent Lott said] homosexuality is an affliction, much like kleptomania or sex addiction. Do you think that Senator Lott's comments are dividing the party over a major issue here?"

Nickles: "I wouldn't say he's dividing the party. I think his comment that got most of the attention was he was asked, is homosexuality a sin. I happen to agree with that. I think that's what the Bible says. The Bible also says adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, sex outside of marriage is a sin and I think that's correct." [Nice, Don, change the subject to Clinton's alleged faults without acknowledging that we're STILL talking allegations!]

Juan: "But don't you think it's fairly established?"

[Everybody talks over one another]

Brit: "That isn't really what -- I mean, despite what you say, that isn't really fair to say that's what got the attention. What infuriated people in the gay rights movement is the idea that homosexuality is an affliction of some kind. And, the question to you is, do you agree with that?"

Nickles: "I don't know that much about it. [We're pretty sure he doesn't know much about anything after the Johnny Chung gaffe except what Trent and Frank Luntz tell him] I think it's immoral behavior. I don't -- and I think a lot of other behavior is immoral. And shouldn't be treated as acceptable behavior."

Tony: "Along those lines, Senator Al D'Amato has called for the confirmation of Charles Hormel as an ambassador. Should it go through?"

Nickles: "I don't think so. And not because he happens to be gay, but because he has promoted that lifestyle. And promoted it in a big way and a way that is very offensive, for example, he was involved in a parade that was very offensive to Catholics and to others."

Nickles' intolerant, provocative and hostile comments need no further elaboration.

The segment that followed returned FNS to a semblance of civilized debate, with House Policy Committee Chairman Chris Cox (R-CA) and Rep. Norman Dicks (D-WA) squaring off over "American companies [selling] sensitive technology to China, while the Clinton administration looked the other way."

Well, that's one way to twist the issue, Tony. When we ran the slogan in your current TV campaign -- "We report, you decide." -- through the American Politics Journal dis-Spin-tegrator, we got the following:

"We spin, you'll realize it instantly."

Tony's line of questioning was tailor-made to make the issue of satellite and missile technology look like some sort of huge security debacle ("There's been a lot of discussion about a proposed satellite sale by Hughes that features a very special antenna that might even be able to monitor cell phone conversations back here on earth… Does it bother that you that Hughes hired as part -- one of it's project managers, the son of one of China's leading military men?").

In a lengthy response to a question by Tony, Cox said "What we think happened in the Loral example is that not only did the satellite go atop the launch vehicle, but when the satellite and the launch vehicle crashed, Loral then contributed additional information that helped perfect the long-march rocket beneath."

What he failed to say is that the Chinese forked over detailed plans, schematics and specifications for the Long March missile to Loral -- scoring an enormous intelligence coup for the US. He also didn't have much to say about reports that the NSA has wanted more Chinese satellite deals to provide a back door to Asian cellular and microwave communications.

Dicks took a moment to spin a favorite canard of "Red Scare" Republicans inside-out: "The Chinese have 18 ICBM's that can reach the United States. They are clearly a second strike force. The United States, we have 18 Trident submarines with 24 launchers, which includes about several thousand warheads. We have 550 land-based ICBM's. So in terms of the overall military equation, not to count the B-52's, the B-1's, and the B-2's that can reach China! I mean, even if there's a slight increase in accuracy, in terms of the overall balance the United States has massive nuclear superiority over China!"

The roundtable started with the "breaking" news on the U.S. News article on the latest Tripp tape. Tony Snow couldn't resist saying "Also they say there is a sexual component to the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship" -- which in all fairness is not exactly what the article said. Tony couldn't resist plugging Matt Drudge's new show on the Fox "News" Channel by playing a clip of Lucianne Goldberg saying "This is the beginning of the trashing of Monica Lewinsky."

Yeah, Lucianne, as if you care about Monica. Linda Tripp tried to play Monica like a Steinway "D" Concert Grand -- and you knew all about it.

Of course, this line comes from the same program which Drudge claimed was on the six-month anniversary of the Monica Lewinsky "scandal." Jeez, he couldn't even get THAT fact straight -- it's FIVE months. Can the guy count?

In response to polling numbers showing that most Americans don't trust Ken Starr, Brit got in a cheap shot at Steven Brill: "That's shows you how effective the campaign spear headed by James Carville, participated in by many, many others including people on the White House staff, plus things like the now, rather badly discredited Brill article, have combined to really hurt Ken Starr."

Discredited, Brit? By reporters who have gambled the house on cozying up to the Office of "Independent" Counsel? I don't think so.

Meet the Press

Tim Russert got the choice guests this week. He led with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, asking most of the predictable questions on China, but getting some surprisingly substantial answers.

Tim: "It seems that in this administration, Vice President Gore once called the leaders of China 'the butchers of Beijing.' The president accused President Bush of coddling dictators. They have changed dramatically in their rhetoric and they're now soft-pedaling human rights."

Albright: "The administration?"

Tim: "Mmm-hmm."

Albright: "No, I don't think so. Let me just say I think that in your opening, while he was on, I was thinking about something that I think needs to be said. There have been the most astounding changes in the world in the last 10 years or 20 years. And it would be wrong for American foreign policy leaders not to recognize the changes and react to them accordingly. So what we are doing is dealing with a period of the greatest transition that we've had, and if we had a completely static policy, we could be accused of not doing our job. So we are looking at the changes in China."

This succinct debunking was targeted at both "red scare" purveyors and the many special interest factions on both sides of the aisle that oppose the trip.

Andrea Mitchell asked about the proposition of "[getting] licensing of nuclear and other technologies -- that whole area -- out of the Commerce Department."

Albright's reply: "Well, Andrea, I think again, here, the facts are not quite as stated. What happens -- the commercial sales, I think, belong in the Commerce Department, but that does not mean that the State Department, the Defense Department and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency does not have a voice."

Funny. I don't recall Dan Burton ever bothering to point out this fact.

The second segment offered spectacular pundit fireworks with guest Steven Brill. Russert's tone and gestures telegraphed absolute disdain for Brill, and Tim tried to come across as some sort of great defender of "journalistic integrity and honesty" while attempting to paint Brill as a failure and hypocrite from the word go.

Instead, Russert ended up looking like a defensive buffoon. Some choice thrusts and parries follow --

Tim: "Susan Schmidt of The Washington Post said you manufactured quotes. Michael Isikoff [Newsweek] said you doctored transcripts a la Dan Burton. [Meeeee-ow! Clever, Tim... but don't forget who you're up against.] Walter Isaacson of Time said you mischaracterized his conversation. David Bloom of NBC said you just got your facts wrong. [Bloom has been conspicuous in his absence for the last week on MSNBC.] The Wall Street Journal said you violated ground rules and misquoted and you have apologized. Rather a dubious debut for a so-called 'media watchdog,' wouldn't you say?"

Brill: "No -- I think it's actually quite a predictable debut! I'm quite proud of this article -- I'm prouder this week
even than I was last week. Everybody has now had a chance to pick through it and I think the reaction is what I would have thought it would be in the press… Now, I have 'admitted' so far -- you use the word 'admitted' -- that I have misspelled one name and that I got a sequence wrong with regard to when The Wall Street Journal decided to push the button and run its inaccurate story. Those are the mistakes I 'admitted.' [Brill might have added The Wall Street Journal's own press release essentially saying that Brill was not completely responsible for this minor error.] And I think the difference between me and everybody else in this, frankly, Tim, is that I haven't heard you admit any mistakes. I mean, are you willing to tell your viewers today, for example, that you were wrong when you said the president had 24 to 48 hours to explain himself completely or else he'd have to get out of town? Was that a mistake, Tim?" [Is the Pope Catholic, Steve?]

Tim: "No. Mr. Brill. As you would have known if you'd read the transcript in its entirety, I was quoting a White
House official as saying that."

Brill: "Well, you weren't."

Tim [stammering]: "I -- I…"

Brill: "The transcript doesn't say that!"

Tim: "Well, Mr. David Bloom -- on MSNBC, you said that David Bloom had been debriefed by Jackie Bennett of Ken Starr's office. Mr. Bloom has said, categorically, he has never spoken to Jackie Bennett."

Brill: "No. What I said in my article, if you read it carefully, is that NBC was briefed by Jackie Bennett! Now, I
don't know if it was David Bloom or Claire Shipman or one of your producers. No one's denied that. I'll ask it one more time: Has NBC made any mistakes so far in its coverage? Has it published any corrections? Maybe the difference, and maybe the difference the American people are going to understand, is that I'm willing to admit a few of my mistakes. I am proud of this article, but I am willing to admit my mistakes, and I have a reputation for that. And one of the reasons I started this magazine is that the rest of the media never seems to be willing to admit even the smallest mistake."

It was an incredibly intense exchange. Brill was tough and held his ground, leaving Russert looking like a bumbler in his refusal to admit that NBC might, just might, have made "mistakes" in their reporting on the continuing crisis.

In a way, I almost felt a bit sorry for Tim -- Brill has an astounding memory and command of facts, and Russert had been shrewdly put on the defensive.

And what could he do? How would it look to his corporate masters if he admitted -- say, a là Gore -- that "mistakes were made?"

Russert shifted to the minor brouha, ha over Brill's contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign and tried to drop a new "bombshell" on Brill:

Tim: "We have a Cynthia Brill from Brill Media Ventures, $1,000 to Mark Green, a Democratic liberal candidate as recently as March of this year. Again to the Democratic National Committee, just six months ago, another $1,000. And then $2,250 from Steven Brill to Chuck Schumer, a candidate for the Senate, a Democrat, and Melinda Katz, candidate for Congress, Democrat. [Of course, none of this is "news" -- anyone who knows how to look up information on the FEC web site can get this information along with all of Rupert Murdoch's contribution data.] There is a pattern of giving by you to Democratic candidates. Are you a registered Democratic voter?"

Brill [knowing where Russert is going with this, he launches his first counterthrust]: "First of all, that pattern there -- half of that pattern sounds like my wife, and if you want to have her on the show and ask her to talk about that, you can. She has nothing to do with the editorial content of our magazine."

Tim: "But she is…"

Brill: "I've said…"

Tim [losing patience]: "Excuse me. She is Executive Vice President and General Counsel to Brill Media Ventures."

Brill: "That is correct." [In other words, so what?]

Tim: "OK."

Brill: "That is correct. I have said…"

Tim [cutting Brill off]: "Are you a registered Democratic voter?"

Brill: "Are you?" [Though Tim says no, you'll see where Brill would have gone with this -- he'd clearly anticipated the question.]

Tim: "No, sir. I'm a registered independent. Are you?"

Brill: "OK. Yes, I am. And should I have disclosed that? Do you think I should have disclosed that? I've said I should have disclosed the contributions. Do you think that all journalists ought to disclose how they're registered? Or better yet, Tim, how did you vote in the last election? Should you disclose that? Is that a political agenda that you have? Do you need to disclose, whenever you have someone on, that you worked for Mario Cuomo?"

Brill had anticipated the question, and Russert had fallen for Brill's gambit. Brill was emphatic but self-assured; Tim continued to seem short and petulant.

Not long thereafter, Brill said with respect to further campaign contributions "Once I'm writing about politics, I shouldn't and I haven't."

Russert went so far as to imply that brill had a political agenda and sloppily tied it to President Clinton "plugging" the advance issue of Brill's Content. Brill's reply: "That surprised me as much as it surprised anybody else. In fact, it made me cringe because I already knew what my article was going to say..."

Tim: "Where did the president get the prototype of your magazine?"

Brill: "Well, that would have been very easy. There were 4,000 or 5,000 of those things that were floating around… Also, the picture that he had, he didn't have the prototype of the magazine there. He has the picture of the cover of the prototype, and it's pasted on to another magazine. That picture was distributed to only three and a half million people who got our direct mail effort that we'd sent out in early March! So he could have gotten it any of those ways."

Tim: "Did you speak to anyone at the White House in preparing this article?"

Brill: "Yes, I did. They're quoted in the article."

Well, duuuuuuuuh, Tim! Didn't you read the damn thing? Russert proceeded to grill Brill on who at the White House he had spoken to -- to no effect except to try unsuccessfully paint Brill as some sort of White House crony. His last question -- about claims Brill made in the "Pressgate" article that Starr had violated federal law -- was answered with a careful explanation of the rules and statutes in question.

Russert then turned to his roundtable -- Howard Kurtz, Newsweek's Evan Thomas, and Fred "The Weasel" Barnes on the right, and New York Daily News' Lars Erik Nelson on the left (3 to 1 -- talk about balance… NOT!).

The expected litany of nitpicking ensued, save one surprising comment from Kurtz regarding the thrust of the article: "I think [attention to Brill's revelation Starr leaked] has taken the focus off this sort of symbiotic relationship between journalists and prosecutors. Every cop reporter in the country knows what I'm talking about: They want to whisper information into journalists' ears because it makes them look good and it puts pressure on witnesses. We want to get inside information. So I think to the extent that we're talking about some of these other details, we are missing the focus on the press' behavior here, which has been far from exemplary."

It may be a small element of the greater problem, but it's not every day that any journalist expresses this kind of critical candor about this particular motivation for reporters.

This Week

This Week was largely a snore, short of a few zingers from former white House counsel Jack Quinn.

The first segment featured Sandy Berger staying "on message" but revealing little in the way of surprises. Berger did fire a small volley at the punditocracy:

Sam: "Mr. Berger, you say the president will speak out about the events of 1989 in Tiananmen Square. What will he say? Will he simply say something like 'We all regret what happened' or will he say 'That was wrong and we don't expect you to ever do it again'?"

Berger: "Let's not fast-forward the next two weeks. I think that he will address human rights in general. He'll address the…"

Sam: "Don't you think people will be watching to see his what his tone is, and it won't be good enough to say 'Well, we brought up the subject.' A lot of people expect him to bring it up forcefully and very directly."

Berger: "I guess my answer is: judge us after the fact rather than before the fact."

Hey, Sam -- thanks for telling the President how to do his job. Your suggestions are duly noted.

The second guest was Chinese human-rights activist Harry Wu. His description of modern "Communism" doesn't seem to square with what certain hard-righters would like you to think, even in Wu's less-than-perfect English: "I agree that the money, and the investment can improve the living condition and change the whole society. But this is a one-sided story. Because the profit from the trade, profit from the investment not only benefits the common people. It also benefits the Communist regime. That's why the Communist government today has so much money. Upgrade their military facility, and put a lot of money in their control of people."

Sounds more like Germany circa 1930 than ol' Mao's "Red" China.

The third segment asked that favorite question of the pundit elite: "Will Monica testify?" Jack Quinn debated the -- er, merits -- of the question with Jonathan Turley, Professor of Law at George Washington University.

The weird aspect of the segment was some discussion of the "Pressgate" article by Steven Brill but not a word regarding the U.S. News article. How is it that ABC failed to mention this article?

Quinn had the best and most succinct description of Starr's leak dilemma: "The story that's out there is -- and by Ken Starr’s own admission -- he and his office have leaked information. Now, leaks are wrong. Leaks are against the law because they may pressure people inappropriately. They may pressure people, God forbid, to say things they wouldn't otherwise say -- or even that are false. That's why they're illegal. And what were faced with here, George, is the possibility that an unaccountable prosecutor might violate law in pursuit of an elected president. Our Constitutional system wont stand that. We have to get to the bottom of it. It must be investigated."

Couldn't agree more, Jack.

-- The Editors

Search American Politics

Provided by Hot Bot

Searchfor