Site Presented By
Thursday, Nov 26, 2009
Why were official Washington and the media establishment so anti-Clinton?
They didn't share his commitment to shaking up the old order. And then, at the beginning of his administration, he was too embroiled in political conflicts -- over the economy, gay rights, healthcare and trade issues -- to sufficiently stroke the Washington and media gatekeepers. The Bush administration's attitude of utter contempt toward the press seems to work better. The press is sociologically much closer to the Democrats. Everyone's always going on about the liberal media. It's no mystery -- there's a natural selection process that goes on, the profession attracts certain people for the same reason that some people become heads of pharmaceuticals. Why get all exercised about it -- it's like accusing bankers of having conservative leanings. But as a result of this sociological affinity, the press feels both closer and more competitive with Democratic administrations than they do with Republican ones. The competitiveness inherent in journalism was brought to bear on many of the media's peers in the Clinton administration.
Many Washington journalists felt -- and in some cases, still do -- a special antipathy toward you, particularly after you crossed over from the working press to the Clinton White House. Do you understand this hostility?
There's a lot of confusion about my role -- I stopped writing about the Clintons in '94.
When [New Yorker editor] Tina Brown took you off the White House beat because she felt you were too close to the Clintons.
Correct. My sin was I broke with the Washington press corps over Whitewater. That's when I got into trouble -- because I thought Whitewater was bogus. I looked into it, as I tell in the book, and I came to the conclusion there was nothing there. Hillary gave me a two-hour explanation of her side of Whitewater -- she did the same with a couple of other Washington journalists, including [Washington Post executive editor] Len Downie. I was inclined to believe her -- and, as I say, I looked into it for myself to make sure. Over time, everything she said turned out to be true. Downie, on the other hand, took another position, and he decided to launch the Washington Post on a tireless and fruitless investigation. The press pack became so frenzied in its hunt for Whitewater crimes that they turned on anyone who didn't share their enthusiasm as a traitor.
This saga was much more damaging to journalism than anything that Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass did --- the New York Times' and the Washington Post's persistent pursuit of the empty, politically manipulated story of Whitewater. The fact that these leading papers adhered to this hoax over the years by suppressing contradictory, relevant and exculpatory facts that disproved their premises, including the Pillsbury report and many other facts -- that's the real journalism scandal of the past decade or more. And the top editors at these newspapers arrogantly confused all efforts at correcting the facts with assaults on the integrity of their institutions. They couldn't think their way through the Watergate syndrome -- they'd lost their ability to reason. This was Watergate turned on its head -- they became part of the dirty tricks. When the Clinton administration objected to these groundless probes, these journalists simply got their backs up and redoubled their efforts.
The review of my book by [former New York Times executive editor] Joe Lelyveld that recently ran in the New York Review of Books was a defense of the Times' Whitewater coverage -- which he was responsible for. And in the course of the review, he repeated a number of the mistakes and errors made by the press during Whitewater. He used the review to justify one of recent history's most egregious cases of journalistic irresponsibility.
After their Wen Ho Lee debacle, the Times attempted to set the record straight. They did the same with Jayson Blair. It's long past time for the Times and Post to review their Whitewater coverage, and to learn from the experience, in order to avoid being used politically in the future.
There are many reporters and editors who share these sentiments within the Times and Post. But now we've moved from journalism to history. If journalism is a first draft of history, well, it was extremely rough. But now it's time for history to set the record straight on Whitewater.
Who in the media got the story right?
Lars-Erik Nelson, the late New York Daily News columnist, was a hero of mine, Gene Lyons, Bob Scheer, Joe Conason. The Wall Street Journal did its job and reported at length on the exculpatory Pillsbury report on Whitewater. The Los Angeles Times printed a number of reports that over time undermined the myth of Whitewater. Just good, basic reporting. The Washington bureau of the L.A. Times was not caught up in same frenzy that other news institutions were. And I know it's Salon that's doing this interview, but Salon got it right, too.
Why did you abandon journalism to join the Clinton team?
I believed in what Clinton was doing and it was a great chance to be a participant at the heart of a presidency I believed in. I was friends with both Clintons, I believed in the administration's policies, its political struggle, I thought I could make a big difference.
Can you go back now to your old trade?
Well, I believe that serving in government really informs you in ways that you can never be on the outside. For one thing, you quickly learn how little you know even at the center of governmental power.
