Stop dissing the Washington Times! It's not just 'that Moonie paper' anymore - Sun Myung Moon's newspaper is not influenced by the Universal Church very much today - Cover Story

Washington Monthly, May, 1997 by Nurith C. Aizenman

The Post has a lot to learn from reporters like Duin. The paper displayed its sensitivity to religion in 1993, when one of its reporters wrote that evangelicals were "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command," Apart from insulting large segments of American society, this kind of social liberalism often blinds the Post to significant news--like the rise in teen abstinence programs, on which Times reporter Cheryl Wetzstein has done extensive reporting. Ultimately it's the reader who suffers: You don't have to agree with these kinds of developments to want to be aware of them.

The Times emphasis on stories that appeal to conservatives also makes it an excellent place to pick up news of what White House spokesman Mike McCurry calls "the entrails of the conservative movement." Although, McCurry does not recommend the Times for those seeking "factual reporting on the news of the day," he concedes that the Times "chronicles the ups and downs and sideways and byways of the movement better than any other newspaper I know?' Public appreciation of the Times shot up significantly after the Republicans took over the House in 1994. `At the beginning, the other papers didn't know who any of the [newly empowered] Republican members were," explains congressional bureau chief Nancy Roman. But since the Times had been covering them all along, "we not only knew them, but we were familiar with their ideas, the bills they had put forward and the legislation they favored....We had a competitive edge." The Times became an invaluable tool for anyone who wanted to know what the Republican leadership was thinking. That year, circulation went up by 9 percent.

Although Roman admits that the other papers have closed in on the Times's advantage since then, the paper remains the best place to read about internal Republican politics because its reporters are so plugged in to party sources. Ralph Hallow is among the best-connected. Just a few weeks ago, he revealed that in a heated meeting with 32 conservative activists, Newt Gingrich had been assailed for backing away from his commitment to tax cuts. Hallow's story--and the multitude of letters contesting it that followed--made for a highly entertaining read.

The Bad News

But if Hallow demonstrates the benefits of the Times's conservative tilt, he also typifies its drawbacks. Hallow has switched back and forth between the paper's editorial and news pages, and it shows. He has been known to interrupt Republicans he is interviewing with statements like, "Come on, don't you know if you want to get somewhere with this WE have to--." Hallow maintains that this is just an interviewing technique, one he says he also uses with Democrats. But he is the first to admit to having a clear point of view, and it comes across in his writing. A perfect example was his March 19 story, headlined "Rules Committee chief calls for impeachment preparations," about the fact that two members of the House committee were studying impeachment procedures "in case there is a `smoking gun' in the fund-raising inquiries involving Clinton and Gore." Apart from the pseudo-news aspect of the piece--no actual impeachment proceedings are underway--the article did not include a single quote from the Democratic perspective, or even a stock denial of wrong-doing by the Administration. "I hate [writing] 'on the one hand, on the other hand' because it's boring and formulaic? says Hallow. "I rather like the idea of trying to get in what I think is really important."