Reading between lines of latest scandal tale
Media coverage of Juanita Broaddrick's story speaks to a
changing definition of 'news.'
Alexandra Marks (marksa@csps.com)
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
NEW YORK
News, as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary, is "information
about important or interesting recent events." So how did Juanita
Broaddrick's allegation about a sexual attack that she says occurred
21 years ago - an event that was never reported to any authority, was
recently denied in a legal affidavit, and may be impossible to ever
substantiate - how did that come to the sudden attention of the
nation's media during the past week? The answer, say many media
critics, is that in today's hotly competitive media environment the
definition of news is not what it used to be.
In fact, some say, the media's handling of Mrs. Broaddrick's
allegation against Bill Clinton may have finally obliterated any
traditional notion of what constitutes "news."
Such notions have been eroding for some time, under pressure of
intense competition brought by a proliferation of media outlets and
fueled by the Internet's gossip mongers. But the Broaddrick story is
serving to redefine news, especially for much of the national press. "If
journalists believed that news by definition was something that had to
be serious and had to impact people's lives, the Juanita story would
not be in the paper," says Marvin Kalb, a media analyst at Harvard
University. "But since news today merely has to titillate, appeal to the
curiosity factor - sex - then Juanita is the story."
Others argue that the seriousness of the allegation does constitute
news in the traditional sense, particularly because Broaddrick's story
was a factor in several House members' decision to vote to impeach
President Clinton. Still others say it reaches that threshold because it
reflects on the president's character.
But media critic Ed Fouhy says the most interesting fallout from the
debate could be about the media themselves. "It's been a lesson in the
differences among news organizations, and the values and news
standards that they have," he says. "And that has played out in public,
when it usually plays out in private."
Editors and producers around the country this week debated, argued,
and in some cases agonized over how to handle the story that had
lived quietly in the media's shadows as rumor and innuendo since
1992.
Broaddick's allegation was first revealed publicly as part of an
extensive legal filing last spring by Paula Jones's lawyers. NBC News'
Lisa Myers then reported on the allegation in detail. But Ms. Myers
wanted more - an interview with the mysterious woman who had
come to be known as Jane Doe No. 5. Myers regularly called and
pleaded, finally landing an interview in January, at the height of the
impeachment trial.
Nbc News then sat on the story, checking and cross-checking facts,
it says. But Matt Drudge, the media's Internet nemesis, got wind that
NBC was holding the interview and began beating the cyber-drums,
indignant that such an explosive allegation had not aired.
Then Robert Bartley, editor of The Wall Street Journal's decidedly
anti-Clinton editorial page (The Columbia Journalism Review once
called it "Bartley's Believe It or Not"), heard on CNN that NBC was
holding its story. Mr. Bartley bypassed his news editors and sent
columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz to interview Broaddrick.
And so last Friday, in the guise of an editorial piece about NBC's
decision to hold the story, The Wall Street Journal laid out in detail
Broaddrick's allegation. The wire services picked up the story, and
so did The Boston Globe and The Washington Post. The Post
followed the next day with a front-page story that characterized the
allegation as "sensational yet ancient and unproven." "When I read
that, I thought, 'So what's it doing on the front page?' " says Professor
Kalb.
With the genie out of the bottle, White House lawyer David Kendall
issued a statement denying that Mr. Clinton had ever assaulted
Broaddrick. That gave the story an official patina, and many regional
papers ran wire-service stories about the president's lawyer's denial.
But many also refrained from publishing anything about it. The San
Jose Mercury News only mentioned it Wednesday in a short piece
about NBC's decision to finally air the interview, which it did that
night. Managing editor David Yarnold said the story lacked
corroboration and had too many holes to rush into print.
"We also asked how we would handle it if it was a local story. So
often, the national stories get treated differently - our values can get
challenged," says Mr. Yarnold.
The New York Times held off running the story until Wednesday as
well. Then it ran a story about the unusual route the allegation took
before becoming public - laying out in detail the unsubstantiated
charges. The editors said they felt it was "news" because it was a
factor in the impeachment debate.
Steve Brill, founder of media watchdog Brill's Content, finds good
and bad news in the handling of the Broaddrick allegation. He does
not believe that the story passes the test as "news" by any definition.
But he's encouraged by the fact that there are a host of alternative
news organizations that "can drop a dime on NBC" if it holds a
legitimate story.
"That's very good," says Mr. Brill. "The downside of that is that we've
all been in a situation where an editor holds a story for very legitimate
reasons, and the person who's done the story conjures up all kinds of
conspiracy theories, when in fact it's just not a good story. Then you
have to be vigilant about your reporting." |
