Bad Show

John J. Pitney, Jr. from the July 1998 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

Spin Cycle does a fine job of explaining how McCurry and other Clintonistas apply these lessons. Unlike Show Time, it depends mainly on original reporting instead of Nexis searches. Kurtz is especially perceptive in laying out the elaborate effort to defend Al "No Controlling Legal Authority" Gore against accusations of illegal fund raising. Among other things, Kurtz says, the battle involved the generation of sympathetic op-ed pieces. Good point: One of the open secrets of journalism is that many (perhaps most) op-eds and letters to the editor result from professional public relations campaigns.

In spite of the book's virtues, its own "spin cycle" will be brief. Kurtz focuses mainly on White House response to scandal news in 1996 and 1997, and he does not purport to cover most other aspects of the relationship between the president and the press. And within the narrow scope of his research, he had only fragmentary access to important information. For legal and political reasons, White House aides were probably not inclined to volunteer the whole truth. What's more, the story is still unfolding: Just before the book went to press, Kurtz had to add a sketchy epilogue on the Monica Lewinsky affair.

For people interested in how Clinton has spun the news, many questions remain open. Here are a few.

Why have the media overlooked so many harsh personal attacks on conservatives and free market advocates? When Hillary Clinton testified at a 1993 congressional hearing on health care, Rep. Dick Armey (R-Tex.) said he would like to make the debate as exciting as possible. She answered: "I'm sure you will do that, you and Dr. Kevorkian." In most contexts, such a remark would merely be snide, but in this case it was cruel: As White House opposition researchers undoubtedly told her, Dick Armey's father committed suicide. Newspaper stories reported Armey's flustered reaction, but none explained the reason.

How has President Clinton gotten away with gaffes that would have sunk other politicians? On August 6, 1994, he said in Detroit: "The interests--the violent, extremist interests in this country that are trying to keep health care out of the reach of ordinary American working people--are a disgrace to the American Dream." Three days later, a few reporters asked press secretary Dee Dee Myers if she could name any health care groups that were committing violent acts. When they scoffed at her initial answer--that he must have been talking about anti-abortion protesters--she said: "I don't have any better explanation for you." Yet apart from stories in the Boston Herald and a handful of other outlets, Clinton's bizarre outburst got very little ink.

How did the president and his allies manage to put Republicans on the defensive on affirmative action? In 1996, liberal leaders such as Jesse Jackson hinted at a "cultural conspiracy" linking church burnings with efforts to roll back racial preferences. Fearful that some would brand them "racist," Republicans began backing away from the issue, thereby yielding a point that was both principled and popular. Did the White House coordinate the attack?

A final question arises from the opening line of one of Kurtz's chapters: "The White House war against Kenneth Starr was a curious and covert operation." So what are the elements of this "covert operation"? The answer to that question might come out only in court, if it comes out at all.

As of early 1998, Clinton's spin wars were still succeeding brilliantly. One could sum up his performance in six simple words: He lies. He cheats. He wins.