Online NewsHour: Journalism and Politics--June 6, 1997

BLURRING THE LINES

JUNE 6, 1997

TRANSCRIPT

The decision by Susan Molinari (R-NY) to leave Congress and join CBS News has rekindled the debate over whether journalists and politicians can switch jobs and remain credible. A background report is followed by a panel discussion.

A RealAudio version of this NewsHour segment is available.
NewsHour Links
June 6, 1997
A background report on journalists and politicians switching into each other's professions.
August 13, 1996
Rep. Molinari discusses the role of women in politics.
August 13, 1996
View the text of Rep. Molinari's keynote address at the Republican National Convention.
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of media issues.

JIM LEHRER: Four views of this revolving door, including that of David Gergen. The others are those of Cheryl Gould, vice president of NBC News; Lew Wolfson, a communication professor at American University; and Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican Congressman from California and a former journalist himself.
Professor Wolfson, does the Molinari deal break new ground on the revolving door?
LEWIS WOLFSON, American University: No, but it's added to what's already happened. It's a serious problem for the press, and here is a wall between press and government that's supposed to be there that's being breached regularly now. And what it shows is the networks don't really care about what journalism really is. They care most about the bottom line. She's hired because she's a political celebrity, not because she's going to be a top notch anchor person, not in the mold of a Walter Cronkite, that sort of thing, and I think we have to ask a lot of questions about it--the public does.
JIM LEHRER: What's the most serious question that needs to be asked?
LEWIS WOLFSON: The most serious question is what's happening is to let the public know what is happening. This wall is something that a lot of journalists have dedicated their selves to preserving. They've risked their livelihoods, even their lives, to keeping this this way. And it's gradually being eroded and worn down, and people are going to say, well, I guess politicians and journalists are interchangeable.
JIM LEHRER: Congressman, is that, in fact, true? Are Congressmen and journalists interchangeable, no problem?
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER, (R) California: (Huntington Beach, California) Well, I don't see this as a--I'm sorry, I'm getting a little feedback here--I'll take--
JIM LEHRER: You can take out and talk, and then I'll talk to you again. Okay.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER: Fine. Thank you very much. I don't see this as a problem at all. But maybe if it's a problem, it's a problem, yeah, for journalists who are pretending. They don't have a point of view. The biggest problem the American people have is they've been presented this facade by the news media as if these are unbiased sources of information.
Those of us who've worked on both sides of the line realize that many journalists have very definite points of view. I personally think that most journalists come from the left--the liberal left perspective--and Susan joining ranks of journalists now will just indicate, hey, people have legitimate points of view, and I'm very happy that at least they're hiring one Republican to get their point of view across.
JIM LEHRER: Cheryl Gould, how do you feel about the Susan Molinari case and points that Professor Wolfson raised?
CHERYL GOULD, NBC News: Well, first of all, whatever issues I may have with the Molinari case have nothing to do with the fact of her politics. If she were liberal, conservative, I would have the same issues. I think on the one hand Andrew Heyward, the president of CBS News, was very smart. He was--had he not done this--had he not picked someone like Susan, no one would have paid attention to this move.
There would have been a new broadcast on Saturday mornings and maybe you would have had a few children tuning in for cartoons and seen, instead, talking heads, and no one would have been watching the Morning News. And now we have columnists; we have the NewsHour; we have Crossfire; we have everybody writing about it. Well, that's not too stupid on his part, to have--
JIM LEHRER: You're saying it's a showbiz decision.
CHERYL GOULD: Well, it certainly has drawn attention to it. I think that I have no reason to believe that Ms. Molinari can't learn the basics of journalism, of clarity and fairness. We shouldn't be judging her before the fact. But that's not where I think the problem lies. I think that there really is an issue of the blurring of the lines and that there shouldn't be such an easy exit from one arena to the other. I wish that in her case there had been a period of a cleansing, if you will, a purgatory, a time when she could prove that she really does or is able to jettison her partisan background and act as a journalist.
JIM LEHRER: But what about the Congressman's point that it was a phony boundary; that there is partisanship already in the news, and all this does is just make it a little more open and honest?
CHERYL GOULD: Well--
JIM LEHRER: I think I phrased you correctly, Congressman. All right.
CHERYL GOULD: I don't feel that there is partisanship in the news. I think that there are--is an attempt--I mean, it is the basic tenet of journalism to be fair, to be critical, to be watchdogs, and sometimes that means to take unpopular positions with one side of the aisle versus the other. But I think as an activist, as an elected official, it is very difficult for the public to then think that you're now able to--to remove yourself from that debate and act as a journalist should.
JIM LEHRER: Would you challenge that, Congressman, that thesis?
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER: Well, sure I would. I remember when I was a young journalist--to take this out of my ear again--I remember when I was a young journalist, making very little money, I might add, the Los Angeles Times hired Robert Scherer on and Robert Scherer at that time was a radical leftist and came from Ramparts Magazine, and he was given an enormous salary, and a lot of the other fellows who worked for the Los Angeles Times were over at the Press Club complaining about it.
Well, I thought, okay, at least Robert Scherer is somebody who they know where this man is coming from. And this myth--it's been a myth all along that journalism and politics are separated. In fact, in our country's history, as you are well aware, you used to have Republican papers and Democratic papers. Well, I think the media right now is controlled by people who are of the liberal left, and I think it's about time the public realize they don't have an unbiased source of information.
JIM LEHRER: Is that a concern that you share, Professor Wolfson?
LEWIS WOLFSON: Absolutely not with the way he's putting it. I don't think this is an issue of partisanship. I think this is a different kind of problem. Both Democrats and Republicans have been crossing this line. And I don't think that's the point. I think he has something--he has a point of view that he wants to sell and he's convinced of. The real problem here is that there is this crossing of the line, and it is very dangerous because this is a time when the press has fallen in the eyes of the public, and it almost desperately needs to show that it is credible, that it does have standards, and that it does stand for its independence.
JIM LEHRER: David Gergen, you are cited even in our own piece as an example of somebody who's made this trip many times. What do you think about what--do you feel--do you feel that you've done something wrong?
DAVID GERGEN, U.S. News & World Report: No, but my head is spinning sometimes when I watch the revolving door. Jim, I think those of us who come out of politics into journalism do carry a burden of proof. And I think that burden is lighter for some than for others. Steve Haas of Brookings makes a distinction between those who come out of politics and go into commentary or opinion writing. It seems to me the burden of proof is lightest for them because they are there to present their opinions and--
JIM LEHRER: And clearly labeled as commentators.
DAVID GERGEN: Clearly labeled.
JIM LEHRER: Wasn't Robert Scherer hired as a columnist, Congressman, rather than as a reporter? Congressman Rohrabacher, do you hear me?
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER: Excuse me. I'm having trouble with my ear--Robert Scherer sort of crossed the boundary line. Sometimes his copy was in the regular part of the newspaper.
JIM LEHRER: Okay.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER: Other times it was put on the opinion page.
JIM LEHRER: My impression--
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER: On the opinion page, I have no problem with that.
JIM LEHRER: All right.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER: And, in fact, I guess what I'm saying now is I think that people who work in journalism have distinct points of view. We shouldn't be trying to tell the American people that they don't have distinct points of view, and instead just try--insist that they be fair, even though they have their own political background.
JIM LEHRER: All right. Go ahead, David.
DAVID GERGEN: Well, in terms of opinion, you look at the New York Times editorial page or op-ed page, and you've got Bill Safire came out of politics with the Nixon administration, and Anthony Lewis, who comes out of journalism. I think they're both strong columnists, and the fact that Bill Safire came out of politics should not in any way change the weight of his opinion. In fact, in so many ways I think his experience is strengthened, his capacity as an analyst. There's a second group of people who were reporters, went into government for a while, came back out as reporters, it seems to me they have a somewhat higher burden of proof.
They've been around for a long time. Steve Haas did a study in 1985, going to Professor Wolfson's point that this just started, 1985, he went back and looked at the New York Times bureau. He found 11 people who had worked in that bureau over the last few years who'd come out of government, in the New York Times bureau, so this has been going on for a while. I do think there's a heavier burden of proof on them.
The heaviest burden of proof--and I think what's new--is on those who leave politics and instantly try to go into--without a reporting background--instantly become or try to take objective positions. And I think that's what Cheryl would point out. And I think that's the tough call. And I think that's what Susan Molinari is running up against, and why it makes people feel uncomfortable. Tim Russert of NBC took time out and I think proved himself.
JIM LEHRER: He took time out. He left Moynihan and what did he do, Ms. Gould, he became the Washington bureau chief for NBC?
CHERYL GOULD: Prior to that he was an executive in New York for several years helping to run the news division.
JIM LEHRER: --immunized--
DAVID GERGEN: No. I think you have to prove yourself, Jim. I think all of us bear a burden of proof. I just think it's the heaviest when you go into that position, but I think all of us--I don't care where you go--have a burden of proof with our viewers, our readers, our listeners, whatever they may be--to prove that we have some--we have fidelity to the facts, and we understand we have a new master. It's no longer someone working for a political party or a White House or anywhere else. You're working for the public now, and you're accountable to the public. And I think that's--I think that's an important burden of proof, and if you don't meet it, you shouldn't be there.
JIM LEHRER: Yes, Professor.
LEWIS WOLFSON: I think, Jim, David is making this come out the way he wants it to come out. He's a person who went into government, came out in the press, and, in fact, I interviewed him for a study on this subject, and he said, no, I will never go back into government. And he did. And I think the point about columnists and commentators is one that's often made, but to the public out there, we tend to forget the people beyond the beltway, the people in this country look at this and say, they're all journalists.
JIM LEHRER: It doesn't matter whether they're doing what I do, or doing what David does, or doing what Bill Safire does; they think everybody's the same?
LEWIS WOLFSON: You and Susan Molinari--Susan Molinari and Walter Cronkite are journalists together.
JIM LEHRER: Do you buy that--
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER: I remember back in the 1976 primary I had dinner with Walter Cronkite when he explained to me that he was a social Democrat, and we had a long conversation. He's a fine man. I respect Walter Cronkite; as a former journalist, I like him very much, but he's a social Democrat, and that's what he called himself. Do the American people know what a social Democrat means? Do they know that it means a socialist in the European concept and that was the man who'd been giving them their news over the years?
JIM LEHRER: Now, let me go back to--
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER: The fact is we've had liberal Democrats over the years--
JIM LEHRER: Right. You made your point.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER: --presenting the news to the American people as if it was an unbiased point of view. I would just as soon have everybody labeled and say I'm going to try to be fair. By the way, I believe Walter Cronkite tried to be fair. But let's not--let's not hide the fact that he was an opinionated person, just like the people who run our networks are opinionated people right now.
JIM LEHRER: Back to the point, Cheryl Gould, that I was asking Lew Wolfson--Lew Wolfson's point that the public out there sees all journalists--it doesn't matter; they don't care about the labels--they see everybody as the same.
CHERYL GOULD: I don't think so at all. I think that sells the public short. I think that the American people are smart enough to figure out the differences, the quality level of difference of one kind of reporter versus another. I think, though, that it is incumbent on the networks and all newsrooms to make sure that people are labeled for what they are.
If they are commentators, they should be listed as such. I think that, you know, the problem with an anchor position is that she or he is going to be called upon to be doing tough interviews of people that in the case of Molinari, that she was a close associate of. But I don't think that the public has any confusion about it. I think the issue is in our newsrooms.
JIM LEHRER: Let me go back to the general point before we go, David Gergen. What about Lew Wolfson's point that all of this is hurting the credibility of journalism and everybody's suffering because of it?
DAVID GERGEN: I think that there is a--I think his point is right in general in the sense that the public sees an aristocracy in Washington that's made up of the press, and the people in politics, and we all sort of dine together, bed together, whatever, and I think that that is hurting Washington, and I think it's because there's so much money in this town now, there's so much power in this town, and I think it behooves all of us to get out of the town and be more humble about it.
If I may just have as a point of personal privilege, because he impugned my integrity, if you will check, sir, your notes, I think you will find I said I did not anticipate going back into government. I didn't say I wouldn't. In fact, I wrote a letter to George Bush saying, please don't--don't consider me. It never occurred to me to write a letter to Bill Clinton saying, please don't consider me. (laughing)
JIM LEHRER: And the point--that's what you were talking about.
LEWIS WOLFSON: Yeah. It wasn't quite that way, but David, you know, and I, we can talk about this further. This is not the point. I don't think that's what he's actually said, but we'll leave it at that. But I want to make a point. I wasn't saying Americans don't know the difference between journalists. What I was saying is they don't see a difference between a columnist being a journalist or a reporter being a journalist.
JIM LEHRER: Okay.
LEWIS WOLFSON: And I wanted to correct that.
JIM LEHRER: We have to leave it there. Cheryl Gould, gentlemen, thank you all very much.
DAVID GERGEN: Thank you.

Program
Support
From: