News organizations devote little attention to NSA spying story On January 22, the day after The Washington Post first broke the Lewinsky story, the paper ran the following stories: 1. "FBI Taped Aide's Allegations; Seeking Cooperation, Bureau Confronted Ex-White House Intern," a 2,663-word front-page article by Peter Baker and Susan Schmidt 2. "Clinton Scoop So Hot It Melted; Newsweek Editors Held Off On Scandal Story," a 1,098-word Howard Kurtz article about reporting of the matter, on the front page of the Style section 3. "FBI Taped Aide's Allegations; Clinton Denies Affair, Says He 'Did Not Urge Anyone' to Lie," a 1,474-word front-page article by John Harris, with contributions by Terry Neal 4. "Clinton Tie to Va. Woman Led to Probe's Latest Angle," a 605-word article about Kathleen Willey by R.H. Melton 5. "Kindred Spirits' Pentagon Bond; White House Exiles Shared Lively Chat, Confidences," a 1,620-word front-page article by Dana Priest and Rene Sanchez with contributions by Ceci Connolly, Judith Havemann, Susan Glasser and David Segal 6. "Jordan: Power Broker And 'FOB' Without Peer; Lawyer Is Now Key Figure in Starr Probe," a 782-word article by Thomas Edsall, with contributions by staff researcher Ben White 7. "THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS; President Imperiled as Never Before," a 933-word article by Dan Balz, with contributions by Helen Dewar 8. "Affairs of State," an 833-word column by Mary McGrory 9. "THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS; Allegations Against Clinton Could Lead to Impeachment, Prosecution," a 1,042-word article by Ruth Marcus 10. "The Allegations," a 420-word editorial 11. "The Reliable Source," a regular multipart feature of the Style section that dedicated 374 words to the Clinton investigation by Ann Gerhart and Annie Groer. That's a total of 11 articles, written by or using contributions from at least 20 reporters, and comprising 11,844 words dedicated to allegations that the president lied about a consensual relationship. The New York Times gave the story similar treatment: 1. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE; In Interviews, President Denies Affair With Intern," a 1,067-word article by James Bennet 2. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE FRIENDS; Friendship of 2 Women Slowly Led to the Crisis," a 1,881-word front-page article by Jill Abramson and Don Van Natta 3. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE OVERVIEW; SUBPOENAS SENT AS CLINTON DENIES REPORTS OF AN AFFAIR WITH AIDE AT WHITE HOUSE," a 2,202-word front-page article by Francis X. Clines and Jeff Gerth 4. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE; Independent Counsel Cites Deceit Pattern," a 419-word article by Sephen Labaton 5. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE CONFIDANT; In Fair Weather and Foul, a Friend to Clinton," a 563-word article by Richard Berke 6. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE; Excerpts From Statements by White House and President on Accusations," a 1,465-word article 7. "A Crisis From Petty Sources," a 755-word editorial 8. "Essay; Presume Innocence," a 692-word column by William Safire That's a total of eight articles, written by at least eight reporters, comprising 9,044 words. Now, here's what the Post did on December 17 -- the day after the initial disclosure of the Bush administration's use of the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct domestic surveillance that has been widely described as an illegal trampling of the Constitution: 1. "On Hill, Anger and Calls for Hearings Greet News of Stateside Surveillance," a 1,372-word front-page article by Dan Eggen and Charles Lane, with contributions from Carol D. Leonnig, Barton Gellman, and R. Jeffrey Smith, and researcher Julie Tate 2. "Renewal of Patriot Act Is Blocked in Senate," a 1,073-front-page article dealing tangentially with the NSA matter, by Charles Babington 3. "At the Times, a Scoop Deferred," a 782-word article by Paul Farhi That's all. Three articles, eight reporters, 3,227 words -- and that's generously including the USA Patriot Act article in the tally. And from the Times, which had broken the NSA story the day before: 1. "SENATORS THWART BUSH BID TO RENEW LAW ON TERRORISM," a 1,875-word front-page article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Eric Lichtblau, with contributions from James Risen 2. "Behind Power, One Principle," a 1,201-word front-page article by Scott Shane That's it for the Times: two articles, four reporters, 3,076 words. All told, on January 22, 1998, the Times and the Post ran 19 articles (five on the front page) dealing with the Clinton investigation, totaling more than 20,000 words and reflecting the words of at least 28 reporters -- plus the editorial boards of both newspapers. In contrast, on December 17, the Times and the Post combined to run five articles about the NSA spying operation, involving 12 reporters and consisting of 6,303 words. On February 25, 1998, 35 days after the story first broke, the Post ran four articles and an editorial about the Clinton investigation, totaling 5,046 words, involving 11 reporters, and the paper's editorial board. The Times ran four articles, two opinion columns, and an editorial -- seven pieces in all, totaling 5,852 words and involving at least six reporters and columnists, in addition to its editorial board. The papers combined for 12 articles, columns, and editorials, involving 17 reporters and columnists, as well as both editorial boards. On January 20, 35 days after the NSA story first broke, the Times ran one 1,324-word article about the NSA operation written by two reporters. The Post ran one 945-word article written by one reporter. Combined: two articles, three reporters, 2,269 words. We could go on and on with comparisons like these, and bring in other news organizations, but it should be clear by now that the nation's leading news organizations haven't given the NSA spying story anywhere near the coverage they gave the Clinton-Lewinsky matter. And, based on available evidence, they haven't dedicated nearly the resources to pursuing the NSA story that they dedicated to the Lewinsky story. So, some questions for the Times, and the Post, and ABC, and CBS, and NBC, and CNN, and Time, and Newsweek, and other leading news organizations: 1)How many reporters, editors, and researchers did you assign to the Lewinsky story when it broke? How many remained assigned to that story one month later? 2)How many reporters, editors, and researchers did you assign to the NSA story when it broke? How many remained assigned to that story one month later? 3)How do you explain the disparity? We assume many news organizations would respond by saying that they aren't devoting as much attention to the NSA matter because it hasn't captured the nation's attention the way the Lewinsky investigation did. But that's a canard; as we demonstrated above, the Times and the Post ran a combined 19 articles totaling more than 20,000 words just a day after the Lewinsky story first broke -- long before they could have known whether the public was interested. If the story captured the nation's attention, it's because the media forced it down our throats. And if Americans aren't captivated by the NSA matter, it may be because the media aren't hyping it nearly as much as it has much lesser stories. The Post's Howard Kurtz effectively -- if unintentionally -- illustrated this bizarre tendency by news organizations to pretend that they merely reflect what people are talking about rather than shaping the national conversation. In his January 18 online column, Kurtz responded to criticism by Media Matters for America and others that he gave unwarranted attention to ages-old, baseless right-wing attacks on Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) by writing an article recounting the attacks for the January 14 edition of the Post. Kurtz noted that the attacks are, indeed, old, but added they are now "getting national play." But the attacks aren't "getting" national play -- Kurtz is giving them national play. Prior to his article, the only "play" the allegations were getting came in a hatchet job by the Brent Bozell-operated Cybercast News Service upon which Kurtz based his article.
I'm no american media expert, but I can tell you one thing.. President getting a BJ from an intern > Illegal wire-tappings Welcome to the unbalanced priorities of the American political conciousness.
This whole comment has been beaten a thousand times. Why do people insist on missing the point? I know its not stupidity. This isn't even about comparing apples and oranges. Its more like comparing apples and a books. The only thing these have in common are proof that presidents are not perfect. Totally missing the point....as usual.
If we had a Democratic House, you would see one hell of a lot more coverage. Why? Because the chairmen of the committees that would investigate this would be asking serious questions regarding an impeachable offense, the House and Senate leadership would be asking serious questions about an impeachable offense, and the press would be all over it, because it would have a serious chance of occurring. The impeachment of a President would get huge coverage. It's the lack of a viable threat of impeachment, due to the Republican control of Congress, that is limiting coverage, in my opinion. It is also my opinion that the current Republican leadership is corrupt, ineffective, and gutless. During Watergate, many Republicans in Congress were leaders in the fight to impeach Nixon. Many Republicans in Congress were moderates, and true conservatives with principals, unlike today. This could change: Poll: Public Uneasy With GOP Leadership By WILL LESTER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON — Dissatisfied with the nation's direction, Americans are leaning toward wanting a change in which political party leads Congress — preferring that Democrats take control, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Democrats are favored over Republicans 49 percent to 36 percent. The polling came as disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to tax evasion, fraud and corruption charges and agreed to aid a federal investigation of members of Congress and other government officials. President Bush's job approval remains low — 40 percent in the AP-Ipsos poll, with only one-third saying the country is headed in the right direction. Bush also remains low on his handling of Iraq, where violence against Iraqis and U.S. troops has been surging. "I just don't like the direction our country is going in," said Steve Brown, a political independent from Olympia, Wash. "I think a balance of power would be beneficial right now." Republicans are watching the situation unfold with some nervousness. "I don't think anyone is hitting the panic button," said Rich Bond, a former Republican National Committee chairman. "But there is an acute recognition of the grim environment that both parties are operating in." "If the Democrats had any leadership or any message, they could be poised for a good year," Bond said. "But in the absence of that, they have not been able to capitalize on Republican woes. Because of the size of the GOP majority, Democrats have to run the board, and I don't see that happening." The public's unease with Republican leadership in the White House and Congress creates a favorable environment for Democrats, said Democratic consultant Dane Strother. "The problem is you don't vote for a party," Strother said. "You're voting for a member of Congress. And we're a year away" from the midterm elections. About a third of the public, 34 percent, approves of the job Congress is doing, and nearly twice as many — 63 percent — disapprove, according to the poll of 1,001 adults taken Jan. 3-5. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points. Public opinion of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress has been mixed, recent polling found. "Neither one of the parties has done a very good job so far," said Cristal Mills, a political independent from Los Angeles. "They get away with murder, they get paid to pass certain things. It's the good ol' boy syndrome." In the Senate, 33 seats will be on the ballot in November, 17 of them currently in Democratic hands, 15 controlled by Republicans, and one held by Sen. James Jeffords, a Vermont independent. Democrats now have 44 Senate seats, and need to pick up seven to gain a majority, six if Vermont independent Bernie Sanders replaces Jeffords. All 435 House seats are on the ballot this fall, and Democrats need to gain at least 15 to become the majority party and take control of the House. While many House races are noncompetitive, Republican strategists fear that fallout from the Abramoff scandal will give Democrats fresh opportunity for gains. But they dismiss suggestions that Democrats could take control of the House. Republicans became the dominant party in the House in 1994, when the GOP picked up more than 50 seats held by Democrats. In that midterm election, Democrats won four open seats that previously were held by the GOP. Carl Forti, a spokesman for the GOP's congressional campaign committee, said about 30 House seats are competitive this year, compared with more than 100 a dozen years ago. Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who heads the Democrats' campaign efforts, put the competitive number in 2006 at 42, and he suggested ongoing scandals improve Democratic recruitment of candidates by "making the environment more conducive. It helps move them along in the process." Some say they want new leadership in Congress because of strong dissatisfaction with current policies. "I get the strange feeling that we're being sold down the river," said Paul Oulton, an independent from San Ramon, Calif. "We may be in line for some very severe financial problems. "Give me somebody conservative with common sense. There's too much left and too much right. Give me somebody in the middle of the road." http://www.statesman.com/hp/content/shared-gen/ap/US_Congress/Politics_AP_Poll.html Keep D&D Civil.
So what point am I missing? That the amount of coverage given to Lewinsky-gate was unfair and completely outweighs other, more important, more HARMFUL things going on? I dont think I missed a damn thing. "News organizations devote little attention to NSA spying story" followed by "2 dozen newspaper headlines about the Lewinsky scandal" seems to prove my point.
