Kill the Messenger! The Public Condemns the News Media.

• Author: BELL, STEVE
• Position: Brief Article

"How can the public outrage with the news media be reconciled with the circulation and ratings figures that show a ravenous appetite for the most sensational tidbits about Princess Diana, O.J. Simpson, and Monica Lewinsky?"

IT WAS the kind of irony the news media loves to feast on, if someone else is the target. When the impeachment trial ended, Bill Clinton was still in the White House; Monica Lewinsky was on the celebrity circuit; and the popularity of the news media had dropped to a new low. Was it the ultimate case of media overkill?

True, coverage of the Clinton scandal saw its share of shoddy journalism, especially during the early feeding frenzy. In retrospect, though, the establishment news media was right far more often than wrong. There was an affair with an intern; there was a stained dress; and, most important, the President had lied to everyone, possibly while under oath.

Many media critics had simply had it with saturation coverage of a sensational story. Yet, much of the criticism seemed partisan, only this time liberals tended to be the complainers instead of conservatives. For that kind of criticism, try applying the "Clarence Thomas test." If it had been the much-maligned Supreme Court justice who had been discovered with an intern under his desk while he took important phone calls, what would and should the media response have been?

Because of the accusations of sexual misconduct that arose during the Thomas nomination hearings, justified or not, it would have been a huge story. The same standard applies to Clinton, only more so. Not only was the President accused of outrageous conduct in the Oval Office, he did it knowing he already was suspect and vulnerable on the issues of infidelity and possible sexual harassment.

In fact, looking back, much of the news media had cut Clinton a lot of slack prior to the Lewinsky story. When Gennifer Flowers made her charges in a tabloid environment, most of the mainstream media downplayed it. When Paula Jones made her charges with the help of conservative Clinton-haters, she was trashed by the media.

When the Lewinsky contretemps broke, it was a different story. Now the issue was alleged improprieties while on the job, in the White House, that involved, at the very least, a frightening recklessness on the part of the President. Moreover, he had lied to a news media that reacted with some of the same fury that marked Watergate coverage. Many journalists who had accepted the White House "spin" in response to earlier accusations were embarrassed and energized.

Was it overkill? Not for reporters and news organizations who take their jobs seriously. When the President is accused of this kind of conduct, it's a story. When the President is shown to have lied and possibly perjured himself, it's a story. Once the President is impeached, that's just about as big as a story gets.

Given the circumstances, the mainstream news media produced much outstanding reporting that has stood the test of time. Yet, there is no doubt that a majority of Americans were ready to kill the messenger, and the discontent amounts to more than an image problem. In a Pew Research Center poll, 72% of those surveyed accused the media of propagating scandals, and two-thirds said the press shows disregard for the people it covers. In a poll by the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University taken shortly after the impeachment trial, 53% believed the press has too much freedom. That was an increase of 15% just since 1997.

The problem is, numerous culprits have been identified, and researched, as possible sources of the news media's loss of trust and support. However, the evidence is growing that a combination of forces, including systemic changes in the media industry, are driving both news media performance and public perceptions. In an attempt to provide an overview of the news media's dilemmas, and to show their interrelationships, the following is offered as a catalogue of potential culprits:

Deregulation. For many years, the Federal Communications Commission was a force to be reckoned with by broadcasters. Because the only television programs came from over-the-air signals, a broadcast license issued by the FCC was the sole ticket to one of the most profitable investments around. The FCC required applicants to make substantial promises that they would serve the community with their broadcast programming.

For most stations, especially those affiliated with the three networks--NBC, CBS, and ABC--the promises focused mainly on news and public affairs. Consequently, news programming was not looked on as a profit center, but as a necessary investment in gaining and holding a broadcast license.

Today, thanks to...