Press Spins One Story the Wrong Way, Ignores Another

Friday, August 21, 1998 -- LAS VEGAS -- You just knew that some
of Clinton's most obnoxious opponents wouldn't be able to resist.
But you start to suspect that the VRWC (that's chatroom-and-
newsgroup shorthand for Vast Right Wing Conspiracy ) are running
the show when EVERY evening newscast and major paper find a way
-- ANY way -- to compare yesterday's big story to a pretty lame
Hollywood movie.

The big story: the US missile attack on installations in Sudan and
Afghanistan tied to billionaire one-man "jihad" Osama bin Laden.
Ever network had a different pronunciation of his name. How the
heck you pronounce the guy's last name: lah-DEHN? lah-DEEN?
LAY-den?

But I digress already.

The movie: oh, c'mon, you know!

Instead of reporting on the growing tensions spanning the entire
region from east Africa to Afghanistan, or the importance of
electronic intelligence gathering in responding quickly to the
bombing of two American embassies in east Africa, or the
destabilizing effect bin Laden's efforts have had on some Middle
eastern nations, MSNBCBPBSABC made hay of multiple mention of
"Wag the Dog," first by a reporter in the Pentagon's press room
during a news conference by Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen.

Cohen was steamed. You could see it on his face. His answer --
"The only motivation driving this action today was our absolute
obligation to protect the American people from terrorist activities"
-- did not hide the fact that he looked like he wanted to punch the
reporter's lights out.

He should have added to his reply what Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)
said -- "I know some are suggesting this was a decision made...
because of the Monica Lewinsky investigation. To those people I
have one thing to say: either put up or shut up." -- then punched the
jerk's lights out.

Not much later, Senator Dan Coats (R-IN) decided he'd take a "spin" at the issue, saying "The danger here is that once a president loses
credibility with the Congress, as this president has through months of lies and deceit and manipulations and deceptions, stonewalling, it
raises into doubt everything he does and everything he says, and
maybe even everything he doesn't do and doesn't say... Why did he
wait until now?... I just hope and pray the decision that was made was made on the basis of sound judgment and made for the right reasons,
and not made because it was necessary to save the president's job."

What a joke. Coats, who has been demanding the President's
resignation at every opportunity this week, found himself on the
receiving end of some fierce questioning from the press and
deflecting questions regarding the very strong support Clinton
received from such GOP stalwarts as Newt Gingrich and Jesse
Helms.

He'd been reliably hawkish on American intervention in similar
crises, but in one brief, sliming moment, he revealed the truth about himself: he's nothing more than an intellectual Neanderthal who
lacks understanding of the semantic difference between the
President's credibility in the areas of his policy positions and what is
essentially his personal life -- two mutually exclusive areas.

But Coats was not alone -- every Conservative pundit and pundette on the news channels was making every effort to bring up the
comparison.

You just have to believe that the only reason all of these suspiciously swift "criticisms" of the missile attack were the result of an
emergency GOP "Theme Team" fax to the schlock troops in the media trenches.

One of the current cadre of blonde right-wingers, Jennifer Grossman, has been particularly snide during the last week, spewing nonstop bile regarding Clinton's peccadilloes and his forceful four-minute speech
regarding his mistakes -- a speech clearly calculated to make Clinton
and America appear strong and on track to an international audience,
especially those parties bent on doing our nation harm and killing our citizens.

So go ahead and wag the jaw, Jennifer -- and consider it a good thing
the topic is Clinton and not your friend and fellow Bush
Administration alumnus Linda Tripp, because Little Miss Judas may
be in more hot water than we had been led to believe. Your open
defense of Linda's amoral and probably criminal taping -- and
subsequent betrayal -- of her "dear friend" Monica shows you for thesanctimonious hypocrite you are.

It seems that between the missile attacks and dog-wagging, one story
slipped through the cracks: the investigation into Ms. Tripp is making rapid progress.

And the grand jury and set of prosecutors running the show take little things like rule 6e seriously. About the only thing we learned in
yesterday's AP story is that according to a spokesperson for state
prosecutor Stephen Montanarelli, he was at the county courthouse
yesterday on one of the two days each month the grand jury meets,
and that he had no other business in the courthouse today besides this case.

The only other facts we do know are that Monica Lewinsky has
agreed to cooperate in the case and that Linda Tripp has not been
called to appear -- a likely indication that she is at least one target of
the investigation .

And while Tripp's lawyers continue to assert that Tripp did not
violate Maryland's wiretapping statutes, there is speculation in the
Beltway that Montanarelli and the grand jury may be investigating
and developing a case involving charges of broader wrongdoing by
Tripp and her associates.

Weeeeeeeell -- maybe that explains why Ken Starr is in such a rush to "wrap up" his investigation of the President's immaterial so-called
perjury... he doesn't want his star witness (and possibly others)
tainted by indictments before he can present a report to Congress!

But don't count on the press wagging this dog during the evening
news... not enough sex!

Finally we turn from canines to feline combat -- here's a local story
from New York that also came in below the national radar.

It seems the fur was flying on and off the air yesterday between
former VP candidate and Senate hopeful Geraldine Ferraro and
WCBS-TV political reporter Marcia Kramer when she started to ask
Ms. Ferraro specifics about exactly why she turned down invitations
to debate fellow Senate Democratic primary hopefuls Mark Green and Chuck Schumer.

According to this morning's New York Times:

The two women continued to talk over one another, with Ms. Kramer
challenging Ms. Ferraro to agree to a debate right on the spot. The candidate finally turned to her host and said, "Do you think you're doing a disservice to your viewers by focusing on the politics of
debates, rather than where I stand on issues?"

When the segment ended for an advertisement, Ms. Ferraro turned up the tenor of her complaints to Ms. Kramer. "What attack issue are
you taking next?" she inquired archly, her off-air remarks blaring over the speakers in the control room. "I was curious which
campaign you are working for."

As Ms. Kramer defended her question as legitimate, Ms. Ferraro
shook her head in disagreement. "Unprofessional," she said.
"Unprofessional. Let's move on."

Meeeeee-oww! The entire scratch-fest sounds like Pundit-Pap-
meets-Aaron-Spelling-catfight, and is scheduled for broadcast on
CBS's New York affiliate this coming Sunday morning. The Doc
doesn't know about you, but he'll be back in New York -- and
wouldn't miss this for anything.

-- Dave "Doctor" Gonzo