Friday, January 30, 1998

Race for headlines tramples standards

By Martin Schram

The troubling case of the President and the Intern has revealed a Sliding Scale of Standards and Scruples in the news media.

It is a sight for sore eyes. Which is to say, it is a case in which the media began by conducting itself as the picture of professionalism; but under pressure of competition some allowed their standards to slide until it became difficult for readers and viewers to distinguish the exemplary coverage from the eyesore. Even the best in the news biz wound up recycling thinly sourced or prejudicially sourced allegations -- and rushed to air unsubstantiated accusations. Journalists knew their stories were sensational but had no idea if they were true.

This controversy began as a classic example of responsible journalism. On Saturday, Jan. 17, Newsweek's editors knew they had the makings of a sensational story that could topple a president, but withheld publication of their scoop so they could do more verifying. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, a fine reporter, had gathered information about a young woman, Monica Lewinsky, who was said to have told a friend (ex-presidential aide Linda Tripp) that she'd had a sexual relationship with President Clinton while she was a White House intern. However, this was not a story about presidential gossip, but allegations of presidential crimes and misdemeanors that special prosecutor Kenneth Starr was investigating.

Four days after Newsweek withheld its story for more substantiation, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and ABC News broke the news, carefully, responsibly. They'd been tipped off by that Internet bottom-feeder, Matt Drudge, publisher of unverified leaks and whispers, that Newsweek had killed its story.

The good news for all responsible journalists is that Newsweek is today given credit for the scoop. The sad news is that within hours, the media was in full, quasi-responsible frenzy. At some news organizations, standards of sourcing and verifying gave way to pressure to out-scoop the competition.

Example One -- The Dress: Some TV news people seem to feel that standards of reporting and verifying before publicly airing apply only to print journalists. On NBC's Today Show, host Matt Lauer seemed impressed when Drudge (why was he even on the show?) dredged up something he of course never verified: that Lewinsky allegedly had a dress that could be linked to the president by DNA because it allegedly had stains of his semen. Lauer, thinking this unverified sleaze is a scoop, asks Newsweek's Isikoff if he, too, had heard of the stained dress. Isikoff says: "I'm not going to report anything I haven't confirmed."

Lauer doesn't get the hint; he presses on, noting that Isikoff isn't denying that he's heard the rumor. Finally, Isikoff cuts him off: "But you don't go on the air and blab them unless you know they're true."

In less than a news spin cycle, journalists everywhere were talking and writing about the DNA dress allegation -- so sensational, so unverified.

Example Two -- The Peeper Trail: It is an old tabloid device -- if you can't verify it as fact, just say it -- and put a question mark in the headline. As in: "Did Secret Service See 'Intimate Acts'?" That was on page one of the Post -- and what is sad for journalism-as-we-know-it is that this was not the tabloid New York Post but the Washington Post, the establishment paper which maintained scrupulous standards in breaking the first scandal story just a few days earlier.

The lead said the obvious -- that the special prosecutor's investigators are looking for evidence that someone may have seen the president and the intern. But in the 27th paragraph, the Post noted that this story, first reported on ABC News and "confirmed" by the Post was not exactly solid. "But details of what, exactly is alleged to have been seen by whom were sketchy and sometimes conflicting. Sources told the Post that Starr's investigators were trying to determine whether at least one secret service agent who came upon such a scene later talked to a senior White House official and was told not to discuss the incident further."

In other words: Maybe true, maybe false. But heck, ABC already had a piece of it, so standards, shmandards -- just stick a question-mark into the sub-head and slap it onto the front page.

In a profession already running short of legendary lions, the last thing we need is more sheep. Sadly, the bleat goes on.

Scripps Howard News Service