On April 27, the GAO's Bernard Ungar finally informed Rep. Barr's office that there wasn't any damage to the White House, or, to be precise, there were "no records of damage." It took three more weeks for Barr to finally respond, citing his dissatisfaction with the investigation but, ultimately, giving up. According to Ungar, an inspection of the White House by the General Services Administration, the federal government's property managers, did find "that there were papers all over the place, and that it was really messy." But there was scant proof of active mischief.

In an interview with Salon, Ungar stopped short of claiming that all the vandalism rumors had been proven false. "There was a sign or two here or there that had been altered," he said, declining to detail the alterations, "but that type of thing was not extensive." In any event, Ungar said, there was not enough information to justify a continued probe.

The GSA's inspection covered only the "real property" in the White House -- the walls, the carpet, heavy furniture and doors. Records of damage to other property, such as office equipment, computers and phones, were to be provided by Bush's White House staff. But Ungar was told they did not have detailed records. "They do have reports of repair work being done," Ungar said. "But those wouldn't show the cause of the damage, whether it was intentional or accidental."

So rumors of extensive damage inflicted on the White House by rowdy Clinton staffers in the end turn out to be just that -- rumors.

The vandal scandal that wasn't has left former Clinton aides angry and bitter. Says former Clinton press secretary Jake Siewert, "The media left a very damaging and false impression. I'd hope the reporters [would] go back and try to figure out what went wrong." Siewert is less critical of the Bush administration's role in the scandal, saying that "it's hard to put any blame on the administration." Siewert is even reluctant to blame his successor, Fleischer, "especially if the guidance he got on the story was wrong."

But Post columnist Grove, whose item launched the entire saga, firmly lays the blame with the Bush press secretary. "The person who really needs to explain what he was doing was Ari, why he let the story percolate, and why he juiced it with his coy responses," Grove said. "I think it's a fair point to ask to what extent Mr. Fleischer's credibility has been damaged by this."

In his Tuesday briefing, following the release of the GAO review, Fleischer said he had in fact tried to dispute the vandal scandal allegations that first appeared in the Drudge Report. "I was trying to knock that down and draw everybody back and away from this story because it was not something the White House was pursuing," Fleischer told reporters. "And I indicated that there was no investigation going on, because there wasn't. I said, if anything, somebody is cataloging this. And the next day I further explained that meant that somebody was just keeping mental track of what was taking place."

Fleischer refused to acknowledge how he stirred press interest in the vandal story, finally urging the press to drop the matter. "It was the White House's goal then, and it remains the White House's goal, not to live in the past," he told reporters. "And those things that took place as this administration entered office were not things that this White House was ever focused on."

Apparently, just like the White House, the media that reported on the vandal scandal so aggressively in January doesn't want to "live in the past" either -- and has largely ignored the GAO review that cleared the Clinton team. Last Friday, the Kansas City Star ran a story on the vandal scandal that wasn't, and the story moved on the Knight-Ridder and Associated Press wires. Other than that, the country's newsrooms have remained nearly silent. "The New York Times never gave the story much play, so they didn't really have the same obligation to correct it," says Siewert. "But the Washington Post -- they didn't even bother to have one of their own reporters do a follow-up on [the GAO report]."

The Post did run the AP wire item on the GAO review in Friday's print edition, and also ran a two-paragraph mention the same day in the Internet-only "Political Insider" column written by Charles Babington. The Post's failure to correct its vandalism coverage didn't escape the attention of media critics, including its own Howard Kurtz. On Monday, Kurtz mentioned the dearth of his paper's coverage in his online column.

But the Post wasn't alone. With the exception of Fox News, none of the media outlets that hyped this nonstory have moved aggressively in the past week to rectify their errors. The conservative cable news channel mentioned the vandalism story in 13 separate programs or segments in the first week after it broke. To its credit, Fox acknowledged on Friday -- the same day the GAO report became public -- that there had been little evidence to support its vandalism claims. Later "Fox News Sunday" host Tony Snow went even further, apologizing to former Clinton staffers for his error. "OK, I'm sorry," Snow said on the program. "The ex-president's pals have a legitimate beef."

In contrast, NBC News, which ran two reports about the vandalism scandal in January, has not yet covered the latest developments. The Los Angeles Times, which also ran two stories mentioning the scandal -- one just a 118-word item about an offer by Clinton to investigate the charges -- has yet to run anything about the new GAO conclusions. USA Today reported one story on Jan. 26 about White House vandalism, but has since not followed up.

The New York Daily News ran stories on Jan. 25 and 27 that repeated some of the more damaging vandalism rumors -- including the tale of the "sobbing" telecommunications worker. Tom DeFrank, the Daily News Washington bureau chief who reported both stories, said he has made calls to his original sources and that the GSA statement had "raised his eyebrows." But so far, DeFrank has written nothing, though the Daily News ran the Knight-Ridder wire story.

"Somehow," complained Siewert, "there's a reward system. Reporters get big play on a story. But when it's reported that it's not true, it gets buried somewhere."

According to Podesta, news organizations that gleefully covered the trashing of the White House story "ought to be asking two questions. The first: What on earth possessed them? The other: Why is it being corrected by a Knight-Ridder wire story?"

At least one White House reporter is less inclined to blame the Bush administration than turn the criticism inward. "We're often such willing co-conspirators," the reporter said. "They don't have to hatch anything."

Recent Stories