Partisan smear called investigative reporting

0 Comments | Insight on the News, July 21, 1997 | by Jamie Dettmer

When I arrived in Washington half a decade ago, I was surprised to discover the disdain harbored by many journalists for the Washington Post. Like most Brit writers without an intimate knowledge of the newspaper, I'd assumed that a publication responsible for breaking the Watergate story must still offer the very best of American journalism. I soon learned though the veracity of the inside-the-Beltway saying, "What's news to the Washington Post isn't news to anybody else."

What struck me was the Post's habit of picking up exclusives from other publications without even a passing nod of acknowledgment. And for all its claims of "objectivity" I noticed a wide vein running through its coverage of a quality that can only be described as perverse. Stories that should have had front-page play were to be found buried inside or weren't to be found at all. Despite its staid character, there also was a noticeable hyping of some stories -- generally those that cast Republicans in a poor light.

Consistent reading of the Post the last few years hasn't improved my initial assessment of a paper that far too often allows its political agenda to shape its news coverage. I'm bound now to have a certain bias against the paper, working as I do for the Washington Times Corp. But as evidence that I have not suddenly had a change of heart dictated by employee loyalty I point to an article I wrote in the London Evening Standard more than a year before I joined Insight. "The Post is the godfather of political investigation, the paper of All the President's Men fame, the liberal broadsheet whose Watergate reporting helped bring down a president," I wrote. "Now, that seemingly unassailable reputation is under threat -- thanks to Whitewater."

The Post's position when criticized for its mere dipping of a toe into the shallows of Whitewater positively was magisterial: Because of the paper's exceptionally high standards much time had to be spent on verifying information, executives regularly sniffed. Hmm. Remember that little spat in the Post newsroom prompted by reporter Michael Isikoff's complaints that editors were intent on burying his story on Clinton-accuser Paula Jones? Recently, the bulk of Isikoff's excellent work appeared in Newsweek -- and was applauded widely. The Post could have had that article three years earlier. No doubt the esteemed newspaper still was trying to verify Isikoff's information when it was scooped by its sister publication.

As writers we all want more time on stories, but there are limits. Though not necessarily for Bob Woodward -- that is, if the mistakes contained in his latest "big" front-page offering headlined "Starr Probes Clinton Personal Life" are anything to go by. Woodward's June 25 "revelation" that Whitewater prosecutors this spring questioned Arkansas state troopers about the president's rumored extramarital affairs is a classic example of the Post's journalistic perversity. One would have to be very charitable to avoid concluding that it was partisan driven -- and if it wasn't I'd humbly suggest Woodward be fired on grounds of incompetence.

Woodward was rough on independent counsel Ken Starr and was cavalier with the facts. He also was pretty mean to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, which disclosed way back in February that Starr's team was probing Clinton's past extracurricular activities. In accordance with the Post's normal generous practice, the veteran Watergate reporter chose to avoid acknowledging the Little Rock paper in his 1,500-word story.

Late though Woodward's story was, the four-month verification process didn't help the Post gain much accuracy "The nature of the questioning marks a sharp departure from previous avenues of inquiry in the 3-year-old investigation," Woodward and cowriter Susan Schmidt announced. Wrong. State troopers who served in Clinton's gubernatorial security detail were first questioned about "Bill's Women" years ago -- Starr's Democratic predecessor as Whitewater counsel, Bob Fiske, didn't hang back looking under that particular stone, and ever since Starr took up the reins the troopers every now and again have been asked what they know of Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, et al. Insight back in 1995 disclosed that Starr attorneys were trawling widely and in interviews with nearly 50 state troopers and others fired off questions about the women in Clinton's gubernatorial life.

Of course, any mention of Fiske by the Post would have undermined the implication in the Woodward story that Starr now is up to some nasty Republican tricks and engaged in some kind of personal vendetta against Clinton. Democrats were not slow to pick up the scent left by Woodward and launched blistering and orchestrated attacks on the hapless Starr.

Heaven knows, the former Bush solicitor general and would-be Supreme Court justice has screwed up seriously his inquiry and his credibility. His bizarre decision to quit as independent counsel earlier this year, only to be followed by his equally astounding volte-face, quite rightly earned scorn and raised questions about his personal judgment. And his failure to release his report on Vince Foster's death -- Starr concluded last year that the former White House lawyer did commit suicide -- only serves to torture the Foster family and build up resentment. But his inquiry into "Bill's Women" is not an error of judgment and Woodward, an experienced investigator himself, should know this. Money, sex and lies were intertwined in Bill Clinton's Arkansas.