All Plame, all the time?

October 13, 2005

Sidney Blumenthal said something yesterday about the Plame scandal that got me thinking.

From the steakhouses of the lobbyists to the cloakrooms of the Senate, from book launch parties to news bureaus, the main subject in Washington is who will be indicted and when.

It’s a common sentiment; people I know in DC tell me the same thing. For nearly everyone — on both sides of the aisle — it’s all Plame, all the time. Indeed, earlier this week, ABC News’ The Note, which generally does a good job at capturing insider perspectives, said the political establishment is spending 90% of its time “thinking about this, talking about this, and doodling on [their] jeans about this.”

I’m wondering, though, why we haven’t reached a point of saturation coverage. The scandal is obviously on the political world’s mind — but it’s sometimes hard to tell.

Hardball with Chris Matthews, for example, did a terrific segment the other day on the controversy. Matthews explored what it’s all about, who’s involved, what’s at stake, the words. The piece was truly excellent, and I don’t mean to sound picky, but why, 22 months after the investigation started, is a major political show just now explaining the scandal to viewers? It was presented under the assumption that most Americans simply didn’t know what this was all about. With possible indictments against high-ranking White House officials due sometime this month, Hardball’s producers figured it was probably time folks started caring.

Given the circumstances, shouldn’t similar stories be everywhere? Where’s the wall-to-wall coverage? The breathless speculation? The Good Morning America segment on what we’ll tell America’s children? (GMA did this, several times, during the Lewinsky saga)

Consider the major network’s evening newscasts (ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News). While the political world is borderline-obsessed with the story, the three newscasts combined spend exactly zero minutes on the Plame controversy this week. Zero.

Are my expectations off or is something amiss? If we were this close to indictments with the Clinton White House, would there be more coverage?

Could it be that Its not sexy enough for the general American public?

  • They aren’t covering it because they are part of the story. When the American people find out they were lied to by the President, his administration and the media, they will get angry. Then they will start asking questions and the roaring silence we get from the NY Times will be deafening compared to the sudden stillness from the entire mediascape.

    The media will have to own up to their actions and explain why they were complicit in the now festering mess in Iraq.

    If they were capable of shame, they would be red.

  • well, we all expect politicians to be crooked, so who cares. now, if this involved sex, why, that sells.

  • Not to give too much credit to MSM, but there just aren’t many facts to work with. FItz has handled his GJ like a true pro. Even the stuff that leaks out is largely opinion and conjecture.
    By comparison, Starr was a political assassin. In the Whitewater investigation, every word was leaked, every day. Hell, you could get the day’s play by play from Howard Sterrn. MSM had no shortage of material to work with. That seemed to be the entire point of Starr’s exercise.

    I’m not giving MSM a pass. They overplayed the WW investigation even more than they’ve underplayed Plame. But ultimately, I think the main reason it’s of such interest, is that we know so little about it. It’s a pretty damned compelling mystery.

  • If you put stock in Sid’s book, there was a clear strategy from inside the Starr investigation to leak to the press. (Indeed, the basic premise of the book, The Clinton Wars, was that Starr’s guys, if not Starr himself, knew they were never going to get enough to take Clinton down before Congress or the courts, but if they leaked to the press public pressure would build for Clinton to resign; they simply misjudged the stubborness of Clinton). Those leaks are not occuring in this case, and the Washington media, not used to being spoonfed, have nothing to report.

  • Not to give too much credit to MSM, but there just aren’t many facts to work with. FItz has handled his GJ like a true pro. Even the stuff that leaks out is largely opinion and conjecture.

    This is an important point, with which I’m inclined to agree. Starr kept his story alive on purpose; Fitzgerald is a professional who takes his responsibilities seriously.

    But there have been developments of late that, at least if we go by the major network’s evening newscasts (ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News), have been deemed unimportant.

    Were they stop-the-presses stories? No. But if the story had reached saturation coverage, they would have gotten airtime anyway.

  • The Watergate break-in happened in June 1972 yet it didn’t really capture media attention until the Senate hearings the following spring made Sen Sam Ervin a household name.
    In this case we haven’t even had the galvanizing effect of Congressional hearings to focus media attention – and there have been so many blondes gone missing, not to mention Michael Jackson…

  • One of my right-wing co-workers said something a couple of months ago about conservative blogs claiming that Democrats routinely outed CIA operatives in the 60s for political purposes. This sounds a bit dubious to me, but does anyone know what the basis of these claims might be, and whether there’s any truth to them? (Not that it really makes a difference to the legal or ethical implications of the Plame scandal whether the Democrats did something similar 40 years ago or not, but I’m just curious as to whether there’s any basis for this claim at all.)

  • Maybe the reason the mainstream media hasn’t yet covered this issue as much as some of would want is because if they cover it in depth, and then no charges come of it, it would be wasted air time. If they wait until an indictment comes, then can then cover it in depth as people tune in to find out what these crazy indictments are all about.

    Them covering it (in theory) won’t actually shift the story or affect it, since the investigation isn’t based on public opinion. The public’s outcry AFTER indictments, however, would be worth covering.

  • I have to got with yam and say that one of the reasons they aren’t reporting is because they are part of the story as well. No one likes to look too closely into the mirror.

    As to why know I think you are also onto something. This is going be tied up soon and if it turns out there are indictments news stations aren’t going to want to look like they weren’t reporting (i.e. caught without the scoop or with their pants down). I don’t know why so few have caught on to this beyone the point I made in the first paragraph.

    And your are right – if this was Clinton we would barely know there was a earthquake in Pakistan for all the news on the coming investigation results/indictments.

  • Yeah, the press is part of the story, and they’re scared. So Chris Matthews does a great hour on it… almost two years after Karl Rove called him and told him Plame was “fair game”. And did we hear that from him? No, we heard it from Joe Wilson.

    There were at least 6 reporters besides Novak who were contacted by Libby and/or Rove and peddled this story. We know who at least a few of them are. And yet all this time when there’s been all this speculation — by their own newspapers/networks, sometimes by they themselves– about who leaked, they KNEW. And they decided not to share it with us, and also not to say, “I know, but I can’t tell you, and that’s why we’re not pursuing this.” They kept coming up with reasons why this wasn’t a real story. Thank goodness for Walter Pincus and Murray Waas and the many blogs that kept on it. And especially, of course, for P. Fitzgerald, who kept his head down and his staff at work. And DAG Comey, who was probably pressured to fire Fitz, but didn’t.

  • As usual, everyone’s going to come up with excuses for how the MSM is acting, when it is so obvious for anyone with eyes to see that they are Republican stooges. It’s not about sucking up to power – this would be all over the news if it was Clinton. It’s not sex – the media regularly ignores stories of male prostitutes put in the WH press pool by this administration. It’s not about ratings – people would be glued to the TVs right now. They are GOP lackeys. Plain and simple. And they are implicated in this story as well BECAUSE they are Republican lackeys.

  • …. but why, 22 months after the investigation started, is a major political show just now explaining the scandal to viewers? It was presented under the assumption that most Americans simply didn’t know what this was all about.

    First I’ve got to admit one thing: Carpetbagger your damn good.

    Second…

    This is a cut and paste from one of my old posts:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The following bullets were lifted and sifted from a recent USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll:

    25% of the American public have never heard of Karl Rove.
    20% of the American public are not following Plamegate.
    19% of the American public have not heard of Roberts.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    So yeah CB… most Americans don’t know about Plame.

    Which is to say: Ours is a culture that tunes out politics….

    Why that is… is an extraordinary deep subject… one not at all touched on by any of the main stream blogs that have political junkies as readers….

  • There are two primary reasons the story hasn’t bloomed.

    First, the failed necessary condition: the Plame story only has meaning to those who know something about the federal government and the laws/regulations under which it operates; that alone would prevent nearly all Americans from having any interest whatsoever.

    Second, the failed sufficient condition (probably far more important): so far as we know, nobody seems to have given anybody a blowjob.

  • Good points, all. (When WILL Matthews, Russert, Mitchell et. al. come clean about their roles in this??)

    And let’s not forget an additional factor here: In the MSM, it’s all about the narrative, about the sound bite. “News” works best when reduced to a few catchy advertising-type phrases that are then repeated over and over until they BECOME the story. No one ever knew what “Whitewater” was, but it was a catchy sound bite that, when repeated endlessly, had ominous echoes of “Watergate.”

    Later, the narrative for Clinton became simpler: “Blue dress.”

    Plamegate is a complex narrative with a House-That-Jack-Built quality to it that the MSM finds too clumsy: “The reporter told the jury/ about the official/ who we think has lied/ who exclaimed to the columnist/ who outed the name/ of the agent who wed/ the diplomat who went/ to Africa to find/ the truth to the story/ about the uranium/ that might have been shipped/ to the evil dictator/ and thus helped to start/ the war that Bush built.”

    It’s a story that isn’t geared to the current dictates of TV news (breathless, photogenic, dumbed-down), but is well suited to the written thrusts and parries of the blogosphere.

    The indictments, if they come, will force the story, but not until then.

  • James, for the record, your right-wing friend is utterly full of crap.

    IIRC, Ramparts, in the david horowitz left-wing incarnation, might have made some effort to “out” cia agents, and possibly other new lefties got in on the act, but democrats routinely?

    crap, just the usual right-wing bullshit. tell your friend to put up or shut up.

    • Comments are closed.