Crybabies
The sewers of Washington are overflowing with (sob!) the tears of disappointed pundits!

Thursday, August 20th, 1998 -- WASHINGTON -- Those poor pundits.

They came to work on Monday expecting an evening of high entertainment. Some got to sleep in and show up for work late, in anticipation of a late night. Many of them brought bag lunches so they could eat their homemade turkey sandwiches and carrot sticks while having a good chuckle at the President's expense. These days are always exciting ones.

Most of the press corps had read Bob Woodward's weekend Washington Post piece claiming that the President would put himself at the mercy of Ken Starr (what a joke). The pundits were looking forward to seeing the President of the United States do a Jimmy Swaggart, on the knees, tears rolling down the cheeks, "Jesus help me!" variety of an apology.

Boy, were they disappointed. And you can see that disappointment in their angry commentary on television and in the papers.

President Clinton got on television Monday night and told it to the American people straight: he made a mistake and for that must answer to his wife and daughter and his supporters. His testimony in the Paula Jones case was truthful. His testimony on Monday was truthful. He didn't obstruct justice or suborn perjury. And then, Bill Clinton let down all the boobs who had wanted to see him on his knees: he told the truth. He told them that while he was responsible for the embarrassment brought to his family and others close to him, Ken Starr was responsible for the turmoil and damage done to the Presidency and the country.

On Tuesday, we get the barrage from the media. Commentators across the political spectrum felt ripped off. Conservatives had tuned in to see Jimmy Swaggart, but instead saw their buddy and news source Ken Starr vilified. Boo hoo!

Moderates who felt they had adequately supported the President whined, "The President should resign! We wanted an apology!"

Are they really making the argument that a President should resign because he mislead the public on a matter that was none of the public's business to begin with? No. They are making this argument because they are embarrassed. Only in Washington is embarrassing a journalist an impeachable offense. Double boo hoo!

And you know what really pisses off these journalists? That the American people don't care. It upsets them so much that Americans know the facts most journalists do and still refuse to get swept up in the press meltdown. They are really hoping Americans will turn on the Presidentjust as they think President Clinton turned on them seven years ago when he wouldn't give them access to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who visited the Oval Office. Boo hoo hoo!

CNN STRATEGY: IF YOU'RE LOSING, CHANGE THE GAME

Networks were tired of trying to cover the story while reporting poll numbers showing people didn't care or didn't agree with their "get-Clinton" attitude. What did they do? They loaded the poll questions to get answers in agreement with their wacky reporting!

CNN reported on Tuesday that President Clinton's approval rating had fallen by 20 points. Gasp! Shock! Horror! Not mentioned was that the network of Wolf "if I had a normal name, I'd be selling men's suits" Blitzer had reworded their Presidential approval poll. On Monday, respondents were asked if they approved of President Clinton "as a person," as if he was going to move into their condo or borrow their car. CNN compared these results to previous results obtained when people were asked to evaluate the man AS THEIR PRESIDENT -- which had been 60% favorable! To no one's surprise, people like Bill Clinton as a President more than they currently approve of him as a person.

Sorry, CNN, but the President still seems about as popular as he has been since he has been under siege from an out-of-control prosecutor and from 24-hour cable networks. The President would be pleased to know, however, that his "personal" approval rating did jump by four points on Tuesday. Just in case he needed a place to live or a car to run some errands.

OUR MAN ON TOP OF THE HOT NEWS!

Tuesday was an exciting day in the newsrooms. Like kids home after an evening of Trick-or-Treating, reporters were able to compare the illegal leaks each had received from the Office of Independent Counsel. Some had leaks about a dazed and confused President, some had reports of an angry President who refused to answer important questions. And Tim "Charlie Brown" Russert had a rock. Russert reported that Clinton staffers were trying to guess what word would be used by the President to characterize his relationship with Monica Lewinsky ("inappropriate," for those who care). Too bad Tim isn't eligible for a Pulitzer -- he's a shoo-in!

Could it be that this man is out of the loop? Now, how could that be? Why isn't he reporting news from his hot sources? Why no reprise of his big "scoop" on Secret Service agents recruiting women for the President?

The answer could be Tim's gaffe a couple weeks ago on Meet the Press.

Tim tried to embarrass White House staffer Rahm Emanuel. On national television, Tim announced that he had called Emanuel and asked him to confirm that Ken Starr had subpoenaed the President (he had). Emanuel said he couldn't confirm it and Tim essentially called him a liar. Turns out, Emanuel probably didn't know about the subpoena, but that's almost beside the point.

Question to Tim Russert: If Starr subpoenas the Presidentand you are calling the White House to confirm, then where are you getting this information to begin with?

Second Question: Why are you announcing this in public -- on national television -- when Judge Johnson is scrutinizing the leaking by the OIC?

Could it be that Tim was kicked of the Ken Starr/Jackie Bennett gravy train for a bit?

Naaah!

-- Chris Adams

The concluding paragraph of today's Slate Briefing, compiled by Scott Shuger, contained a bit of a bombshell:

"In the days since The Speech, the papers have been fairly spattered with editorial complaints that Bill Clinton should have come clean seven months ago -- he shouldn't have had to be cornered first. Well, the same goes for the papers themselves. Many of them know that they are harboring on their staffs fiction artists and plagiarists. Today's Papers knows about a few of them, still drawing fat salaries, still writing with undeserved reputations -- and will print their names here if it comes to that. So Today's Papers issues this challenge to America's press: Come clean about the Mike Barnicles still in your midst before you have to."

A bid for publicity? Of course. Slate has already achieved a respectable level of attention on the media radar screen, but has been looking for ways to generate even more media buzz in recent weeks -- and a profit for Microsoft.

A genuine threat? We believe so. When the "holier-than-thou" corporate press decided to cast their sanctimonious lot with Ken Starr and his assault on the Presidency -- in what is quite clearly a distinct and futile attempt to tell Americans what they "should" be thinking about President Clinton -- they simultaneously set themselves up for scrutiny of their ethics, standards and honesty.

To borrow a phrase from the corporate patron of the internet magazine, where does Slate want to go today? Public, we believe, with a database of fake "news" and borrowed "commentary" that the Slate staff has painstakingly assembled. We believe some of their primary targets could be writers the notoriously right-wing, Murdoch-owned News Corporation, whose papers take second place, if any at all, to the "big 4" -- The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today and The Los Angeles Times -- usually covered by Slate Briefing.

But at least they are giving the owners and publishers a chance to clean house. We say give 'em two weeks -- more than sufficient time to notify the guilty and arrange low-key, dignified departures.

And if they don't, we sincerely hope that Scott Shuger and Slate follow through on their challenge and name names if the owners of dailies across the country fail to do so.

-- The Editors