I admit it; I have no idea what the mainstream media needs to find a scandal interesting enough to cover.
I, for example, foolishly thought the Plame Game scandal would be a dominating political story — we had a vindictive White House illegally leaking word about a political enemy’s wife, we had dishonest spin from Bush aides, we had weapons of mass destruction, we had international intrigue, and we had a felony being committed by at least two White House officials. What’s not to like? Apparently, plenty; the media never sunk its teeth into the story and most Americans probably have no idea that the Bush White House continues to be under a criminal investigation.
Maybe, I thought, the problem is the lack of sex. Reporters’ interest will wane when it comes to boring matters of public policy, but if you can throw some salacious personal details into the mix, it’s usually enough to keep the media interested indefinitely.
It’s what makes the relative silence over the Guckert/Gannon story such a mystery. As the Center for American Progress noted today, it’s a story “flush with intrigue — CIA secrets, White House malfeasance, hidden identities, even male prostitution.”
The media couldn’t ask for a better political scandal to harp on. Reporters wouldn’t even have to do any work — bloggers have been doing all of the heavy lifting.
And yet, as Salon’s Eric Boehlert noted today, there’s next-to-nothing in the mainstream media.
On Feb. 17, “NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams introduced a report on controversial White House correspondent James Guckert by informing viewers that the saga was “the talk of Washington.” Nine days later the mysterious tale of an amateur, partisan journalist who slipped into the White House under false pretenses remains the buzz of the Beltway. Yet most mainstream reporters have opted not to cover the story. Two of the television networks, as well as scores of major metropolitan newspapers around the country, have completely ignored it.
“It’s stunning to me that there are questions about the independent press being undermined and the mainstream press doesn’t seem that interested in it,” says Joe Lockhart, who served as press secretary during President Clinton’s second term. “People in the mainstream press have shrugged their shoulders and said, ‘It’s a whole lot of nothing.'”
This has made less sense as time has gone on.
Take today, for example. Yesterday we learned from Editor & Publisher magazine that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is circulating a letter among his colleagues that asks President Bush to launch an investigation into how Guckert gained access to White House press briefings over two years despite having no journalism background and using a false name. Durbin is the second-highest ranking Dem in the chamber, so his interest is indicative of pretty serious Dem concern.
How many newspapers reported on Durbin’s letter today? Two — the Kansas City Star and the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Not exactly a media frenzy.
Boehlert has checked the network news and has found even less interest.
Ordinarily, revelations that a former male prostitute, using an alias (Jeff Gannon) and working for a phony news organization, was ushered into the White House — without undergoing a full-blown security background check — in order to pose softball questions to administration officials would qualify as news by any recent Beltway standard. Yet as of Thursday, ABC News, which produces “Good Morning America,” “World News Tonight With Peter Jennings,” “Nightline,” “This Week,” “20/20” and “Primetime Live,” has not reported one word about the three-week-running scandal. Neither has CBS News (“The Early Show,” “The CBS Evening News,” “60 Minutes,” “60 Minutes Wednesday” and “Face the Nation”). NBC and its entire family of morning, evening and weekend news programs have addressed the story only three times. Asked about the lack of coverage, a spokesperson for ABC did not return calls seeking comment, while a CBS spokeswoman said executives were unavailable to discuss the network’s coverage.
Boehlert’s newspaper analysis is just as discouraging.
[O]n the newsstands, through Thursday, there had been no meaningful coverage in USA Today or in the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Detroit Free Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer, San Francisco Chronicle, Indianapolis Star, Denver Post, Oakland Tribune and Philadelphia Inquirer, to name a few that have effectively boycotted the White House press office scandal.
What’s more, as Jeffrey Dunbar notes, online, left-leaning press is hardly any better.
Here are few more journalism heavyweights who have hardly touched it: The New Republic (no coverage), The Washington Monthly (two posts), Slate.com (one post), The Nation (two posts), Mother Jones (nothing outside of its discussion groups) … The American Prospect (one post waaaaay back when this all started in January).
Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page recently wrote, “If America’s mainstream media really were as liberal as conservatives claim we are, we would be ballyhooing the fiasco of James D. Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, with Page 1 banner headlines and hourly bulletins.” But it’s not liberal and there is no coverage.
I wish I had some insightful comments to shed light on this phenomenon, but frankly, I’m stumped. Some might argue that the media is more interested in serious issues (Social Security, Bush’s Europe trip), but we know that’s nonsense; Michael Jackson’s jury selection has received more attention than either.
The only conclusion I’m left with is that the mainstream media dismisses this as “a blog story.” It’s gossip, they figure, so they’ll leave it to the “amateurs.” This is total nonsense — high-ranking members of Congress are pushing for investigations because they see this has a real story, not online chatter — but it’s the only rational explanation I can come up with. If anyone has a better explanation, I’m all ears.