Crazy Talk --- It's Good to Be the Bureau Chief --- and more...

The story last week wasn't the judgement from the Court of Appeals. It was the manifesto attached to it!

WASHINGTON -- July 20, 1998 -- The events of last week were not so unpredictable. The zealous Secret Service takes their case all the way to the Supreme Court. The courts are reluctant to recognize a special privilege. Most lawmakers believe that such a privilege probably should exist and begin drafting a law. In the meantime, Secret Service agents will testify before a grand jury.

This presents a media problem. In a court case not directly involving President Clinton, in which there are no surprises, when Congress actually seems to agree with the President, how can reporters find a Clinton-bashing story? Turns out, it was made easy for them.

Attached to last week's Court of Appeals decision not to hear the case from the Secret Service, was a statement from one Judge Laurence Silberman. Silberman calls the claim of the Secret Service a "Constitutional absurdity." In his statement, Silberman constructs an elaborate legal proof that if the Attorney General is in a case against a Special Prosecutor, then we have the United States against the United States. It is strange. It is not a part of the Court decision. And according to my best legal sources, it is wrong.

But Silberman doesn't stop there. His ramblings take on a more conspiratorial tone, with talk of the pressures of politics and an accusation that "the President 's agents literally and figuratively 'declare war' on the Independent Counsel." It is quite a manifesto.

The media, of course, ate the story up and it made front-pages all over the country. A judge gives Clinton a legal lesson! News organizations were so hungry for the anti-Clinton quotes that they didn't even both to ask themselves about the impropriety of allowing an unethical extremist to grab headlines in this manner.

"Unethical extremist"? That wasn't in your local paper or on your network news?

Anyone who has covered Washington over the last 20 years should know about Laurence Silberman. His name has been linked with multiple right wing scandals. He is also a member of the extremist Federalist Society (hey -- Ken Starr's a member, too!).

A sampling:

In 1980, former Reagan National Security Advisor Richard Allen met with a representative of the Iranian Government in a hotel room in Washington. They discussed the early release of the hostages being held in Iran. Allen has claimed that he rejected the Iranian's offer to try to prevent the hostages from being released before Election Day. However, many still believe there was some kind of deal made to prevent an "October Surprise" that would have helped President Jimmy Carter's election chances. Allen's companion in the hotel room: Reagan campaign advisor Laurence Silberman.

Oliver North's convictions for his activities in Central America were successfully appealed. Who shaped the Appeals Court decision? Judge Laurence Silberman. Despite being involved in negotiations with Iranian agents in 1980, Silberman neglected to recuse himself from North's case. He also had a personal conflict with North trial judge Gerhard Gesell, which, according to Lawrence Walsh should also have been grounds for recusal.

Until recently, Judge Silberman's antics could be seen in the Microsoft antitrust case. When a fellow jurist took a hard line against the software giant for violating a 1994 consent decree, Silberman tried to have the judge stripped of the case. Fortunately, Silberman's antics in the Microsoft case ceased when he was notified that his owning Microsoft stock and his involvement in the antitrust case were incompatible.

It was not big news last week when the Court of Appeals decided against the Secret Service. The real news last week was that a known right wing crazy was able to grab headlines by attaching his personal extremist political views to an important court decision.

CONSENSUS IN WASHINGTON: IT'S GOOD TO BE THE BUREAU CHIEF

Two senior Washington D.C. journalists, who rarely agree on anything, gave the exact same answer last week when asked about the now-notorious smear from Tim Russert: "If he weren't the D.C. bureau chief, he would have been fired. No question." And when asked the logical follow-up question if they thought NBC would be looking for a new host for "Meet the Press", they gave the same assessment: don't count on it. The decision to relieve Russert of his duties would have to come from way up -- people who tend not to be as concerned with journalism as they are with business.

A troubling issue for NBC News (of which APJ readers are fully aware) is that this is not the first black eye "Meet the Press" has received courtesy of Russert. His coverage of the Monica Lewinsky scandal earned him a scolding in Columbia Journalism Review. His unsuccessful attack on Steven Brill on "Meet the Press" last month was an unmitigated embarrassment. Tim Russert reached a low point that morning when he angrily denied to Brill having said something --that Clinton had 24 to 48 hours to come clean or get out of town -- that was easily found in Rivera Live transcripts.

"Meet the Press" has been a longtime source of pride for NBC News. But the prestige of the show has been seriously harmed by Russert's recent choice of guests. Especially harmed in journalistic circles. One nationally syndicated columnist put it well when he said, "I turn on Meet the Press one morning and I see a flack for Cuomo [Russert], a guy who got fired from the Washington Post [Michael Isikoff], and Matt Drudge! Where's the press?"

And that last week's cherry on top: Tim Russert takes a piece of gossip, he improperly attributes it, and then reports the gossip as news. This is particularly offensive behavior in light of Brill's article criticizing this particular practice of turning gossip and rumor into news (didn't Tim learn anything from Brill?). And in retrospect, it is tough to say what is worst. Was it the action itself, the incredible defense (my critics are attacking me for political reasons), or was it the very lame
non-apology? Tough call.

If Russert is such an embarrassment to NBC News, why does he stay? First and foremost, he is an insider, a "good fellow", and he has many longtime friends and allies in Washington who will stick up for him. It could also be that Russert was chosen precisely because he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. After years of delivering brainy Marvin Kalb's anti-Semitic hate mail, NBC officials may have decided to turn to a friendlier face for the television viewers. It's hard to argue with good ratings. And keep in mind that the mere act of asking the host of "Meet the Press" to step down might be perceived as an admission of guilt on the part of the network.

If Tim Russert is smart, he will stop making news and return to reporting it. For now, his job seems to be safe. A veteran of the Washington media told me that the only way he saw Russert being deposed would be for Tom Brokaw to go to higher-ups and demand it.

Ironically, the following day, a Washington Post article carried Brokaw's response to accusations that his "Nightly News" broadcast had perpetuated the Russert smear. Brokaw's defense was that White House spokesman Mike McCurry had talked about the smear in his morning briefing, making the story fair game. When it was mentioned to the anchor that it was NBC's Tim Russert who had actually put the story "in play", Brokaw replied, "Talk to Tim."

Tim, unfortunately, was unavailable for comment.

Well, maybe he should make sure his resume is up-to-date. Just in case...

POT. KETTLE. BLACK.

Speaking of Steven Brill's June appearance on Meet the Press, the journalists on that show, including the well-liked ersatz media writer Howard Kurtz, castigated Brill for not disclosing that he had donated money to Democratic candidates. One would have got the impression that these men were particularly zealous about disclosing conflicts of
interest.

Well, now that it's July, it looks like the rules have changed. Kurtz has been writing on the CNN "Tailwind" scandal for the Washington Post and he has neglected to mention in his articles that he is on the CNN payroll.

Tsk tsk!

Chris Adams