|
|
 |
UNFIT TO PRINT?
Has the media gone too far in the Monica Lewinsky case? September 18, 1998 |
|---|
NewsHour Backgrounders
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of Media issues.
Outside Links
The Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Terence Smith has joined the NewsHour as a correspondent and senior producer of a unit devoted to media coverage. The new unit is made possible by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts.
In his first assignment, Mr. Smith reports on what he calls the "three-ring circus [that] was the culmination of seven months of exhaustive – and frequently exhausting – media coverage of the White House sex scandal."
It is that media circus that has drawn the ire of many in the public. A recent poll show that
74 percent of the American public have come to view the media's coverage of the scandal as poor. What conclusion have you come to?
Terence Smith answers your questions about the media's coverage of the Monica Lewinsky story.
Questions asked in this forum:
If it is a felony to leak grand jury testimony, why isn't it a felony to print or broadcast the leak? Is it just a story about sex? How do you as a journalist balance the need to follow a story with the desire of the public for you to drop it? What has the media become? How have people's views changed of the news brokers since Watergate? Did the Starr report "vindicate" journalism? Ronda Rice of Livonia, MI asks:
If it is a felony to leak grand jury testimony, why isn't it a felony to print or broadcast the leak? How does the press get around this privacy protection?
Terence Smith responds:
Dear Ronda Rice:
It may or may not seem fair, but the crime is the leak, not publishing the leak. The now-famous Rule 6E of the Federal Criminal Code makes it a felony for prosecutors, court reporters and grand jury members to leak testimony they take in secret. Witnesses -- and their lawyers -- are free to divulge their own testimony. And the press is free to publish what they can learn about the grand jury sessions.
Back to the top....
Holly Filippi of Springfield, IL asks:
In your discussions with reporters covering the Monica Lewinsky, do they say they think this is a big story or are they concerned that they are really covering a story just about sex?
Terence Smith responds:
Dear Holly Filippi:
By this stage in the Lewinsky story, reporters feel strongly that it is no longer just a story about sex.
Clearly, it now involves important issues about this President, his future in office, the Presidency, the Congress and the functioning of this divided government. It has implications for the upcoming election and longer-term significance for the Presidential election in 2000. By any measure, it is an important story.
But does it require the wall-to-wall coverage it gets, particularly on the 24-hour cable news channels? No it does not. There is a self-promoting, exploitive quality to this kind of coverage.
One solution for the viewer/reader is to be a critical consumer. If what you are reading or watching is old news, turn it off. The clicker is the public's most lethal weapon in a situation like this.
Carl H. Simpson of Arlington, VA asks:
There is much debate over whether the media should drop the Lewinsky story because no one cares. How do you as a journalist balance the need to follow a story with the desire of the public for you to drop it?
Terence Smith responds:
Dear H Simpson: As I said in the previous answer, the story has clearly taken on momentous proportions. In a situation like this, journalists have to exercise their best judgement when it comes to running an additional item: Is it news? Is it new news? Is it important? Does it move the story forward? If a development meets that standard, then it should be covered. The fact that the public is -- understandably -- sick of the story is not the only criterion journalists should consider in making their decisions.
Rose M. Tomasulo of Fairbanks, AK asks:
As many American citizens I feel that we are bombarded with a media out-of-control. As a journalism major at the University of Alaska Fairbanks I feel embarrassed by what the media has become... to the extent that I am considering changing my major. Is there anything that I can do?
Terence Smith responds:
Dear Rose Tomasulo:
Ask yourself some questions: what are you "embarrassed" about? Is it the salacious, distasteful nature of the Lewinsky story? The media did not originate or manufacture that. News organizations are covering the story -- not making it up.
Nor is the Lewinsky morass the first offensive story to grip the nation. Remember the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill fracas. If you don't, look it up. Much of that testimony was X-rated as well. But it was an important development in an important process -- the Senate's approval of a Supreme Court justice.
So, before you abandon your major and give up on a profession that plays an important role in our democracy, ask yourself some questions.
Chuck Japely of Portland, OR asks:
Until the Monica scandal, I had an inherent trust in the media - a flawed but strong system of information gathering. Now I wonder if other Americans are as cynical of the media as I am. Are the polls showing that people are hopping mad at virtually all news people and news organizations? How have people's views changed of the news brokers since Watergate?
Terence Smith responds:
Dear Chuck Japely:
Indeed, polls show the media are not very popular these days. They seem to rank somewhere between lawyers and used-car salesmen. But I wonder if the problem is the messenger -- or the message? Have some news organizations exploited this story? Of course. But others have been responsible in covering something with clearly important implications for our democratic system.
You say you have become cynical about the media. Spare me. There is an important difference between cynicism and skepticism. The latter is recommended, the former destructive.
Noel Lehr of San Juan Capistrano, CA asks:
I take offense that the moderator speaking with two journalists re: The Starr Report allowed remarks that indicate that "We now know the truth" and that "Journalism has been vindicated" to go unchallenged. Is it not true that the information we have in the Starr Report is only one side of the truth? Unlikely as President Clinton's position is that he did not commit perjury or knowingly lie, shouldn't this his right to present facts as he sees them also be considered?
Terence Smith responds:
Dear Noel Lehr:
I think there is some honest confusion here, perhaps the result of inexact language. I checked with Geneva Overholser in response to your letter and others and she confirmed that what she meant was what I understood her to say: not that the allegations in the Starr report are necessarily true, but that the media and the public finally had the actual report in front of them, as opposed to speculative stories about what was believed to be in the report. She has no more information than the rest of us as to whether the allegations are true or false. I took that to be her meaning at the time, so I did not challenge her statement. But you are not alone in your reaction, so perhaps the meaning was not as clear as it should have been. Apologies all around.
The NewsHour Media Unit, including this site, is funded by grants from:   |
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
