What's The Frequency, Sidney?
by DOUGLAS BARRICKLOW
Coffee Shop Times
Wednesday October 7, 1998
Throughout the last ten months, the nation has
become increasingly familiar with a small clutch
of analysts in the national media whose
embarrassingly unapologetic brand of advocacy
for the Clinton Administration would make
former employees of Pravda blush.
Noteworthy among their number are CNN's
Greta Van Susteren, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift
and Salon's David Talbot.
No matter how ridiculous the argument may be, if
it's written on White House letter head, then you
can count on this group of sell outs to parrot it ad
nauseum.
In fact, if these guys witnessed President Clinton
molesting a squirrel on the D.C. mall, they'd
immediately gather his record on environmental
issues and then try to beat deadline.
Jump to the
FRONT PAGE of...
Also, don't miss our...
.
You'd like to think that journalists should draw the line somewhere short of ripping and
reading their favorite political party's press releases. Unfortunately, the brazen
independence of say, Sam Donaldson, Carl Bernstein, Norman Solomon or I.F. Stone,
is in short supply in 1990's corporate journalism.
You're far more likely to encounter David Gergens and Sidney Blumenthals, who have so
little respect for their craft that they spend their careers in revolving doors between
government and media employ.
We can only hope that Mr. Blumenthal, who has proven to be a particularly despicable
participant in President Clinton's cover up, will forever retain the title, former journalist.
Any newspaper, magazine or television network that chooses to hire the likes of Sidney
Blumenthal somewhere down the road, deserves every bit of credibility loss that will
doubtlessly come its way.
If you haven't been keeping up with Sidney Blumenthal's recent handiwork, then here's a
run down.
Salon Magazine's recent story on a past Henry Hyde extramarital affair was assumed by
many to have been made possible by leaks from Mr. Blumenthal. This assumption
proved wrong, however, with Salon's announcement that it had not communicated with
"anyone in the White House or in Clinton's political or legal camps."
Sidney Blumenthal himself bristled at these accusations and released a statement saying
that he "was not the source or in any way involved with this story on Henry Hyde." He
went on to explain that he did not "urge or encourage any reporter to investigate the
private life of any member of Congress."
The key to Mr. Blumenthal's statement is probably his definition of "private life." Since
many Republicans, columnists and organizations such as NOW have argued that the
Clinton-Lewinsky relationship was clearly not a part of the president's private life, it
would follow that Mr. Blumenthal could have pitched the Hyde story to members of the
media without personally considering it a part of the congressman's private life.
The Blumenthal camp is apparently extremely happy with its little play on words. In an
appearance on ABC's "This Week", William McDaniel, Blumenthal's lawyer, could
barely contain his giddiness -- nor could he conceal his confident smirk -- at every
mention of Blumenthal in relation to the spreading of Henry Hyde rumors. Even when
Sam Donaldson put the full "faith and credibility of ABCNEWS" behind his report that
Blumenthal indeed discussed the Hyde story with certain reporters, McDaniel stuck by
his guns challenging Donaldson's sources to come forward.
Of course, McDaniel knows full well that Blumenthal's conversations with these reporters
were completely off the record and thus can't be repeated publicly without Blumenthal
first giving the thumbs up.
ABCNEWS didn't stop here in its investigation of Sidney Blumenthal's ill-spirited public
utterances.
Last summer, Blumenthal did everything but bloody his palms and feet in an effort to
portray himself as being persecuted by the Starr legal team while before the grand jury.
When Blumenthal emerged from the court house after his testimony, he lashed out at
Starr, saying that his "prosecutors demanded to know what [he] had told reporters and
what reporters had said to [him] about Ken Starr's prosecutors."
If true, then Blumenthal had just witnessed an effort by prosecutors to trample the First
Amendment of the Constitution.
But after the latest round of Ken Starr document releases, ABC's "Nightline" decided to
look into Blumenthal's accusations. Here's what it found:
Blumenthal Grand Jury Transcript Excerpt...
QUESTION: "Has the White House produced any document like a talking
points document relating or referring to the Monica Lewinsky matter?"
BLUMENTHAL: "I've seen talking points from the Democratic National
Committee."
QUESTION: "And you received this from the DNC?"
BLUMENTHAL: "Yes."
QUESTION: "Did you distribute it to anyone outside the White House?"
BLUMENTHAL: "If reporters called me or I spoke with reporters, I would
tell them to call the DNC to get those talking points. And those included
news organizations ranging from CNN, CBS, ABC, New York Times,
New York Daily News, Chicago Tribune, New York Observer, Los
Angeles Times."
It's now obvious that Ken Starr's team wasn't the least bit interested in Blumenthal's
relationships with reporters. It was simply pursuing a line of questioning that might reveal
the origin of Ms. Lewinsky's "talking points". At the time, though, the White House's
political need to bash Starr outweighed its obligation to tell the truth while standing on the court house steps.
I predict that the truth will continue to elude Ken Starr, at least in areas that concern Sidney Blumenthal. Even if the Supreme Court rules that Blumenthal's conversations with the president are not protected by privilege, it's doubtful that Starr's investigation will reap any benefit.
With the Starr Report now in the public domain, Blumenthal, and incidentally, Bruce Lindsey, both have thorough road maps for safely navigating through future grand jury appearances. They know what Starr knows, and so, if they have anything to conceal, they'll know exactly where they can get away with concealing it. In this sense, Clinton's many privilege claims have worked like a champ.
I suppose there's a chance that Starr foresaw this quandary and has withheld certain bits of information from his report. Maybe such bits would serve as trump cards if he ultimately wins his court battles against the White House privilege claims.
My gut tells me to doubt it, though.
Unfortunately, many aspects of the White House's summer cover up have been quite successful. And unless Blumenthal or Lindsey decide to turn a fast buck with a future tell-all book, many parts of a story the public deserves to hear will probably remain untold. |
