Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.comment From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Behind a what's new figleaf Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 15:23:03 EST Message-ID: \SE G;COMMENTARY \SS (WS) \HD Behind a what's new figleaf \BY Mona Charen Switch on C-SPAN these days, and you will see a virtually nonstop procession of journalists participating in panel discussions about press coverage of the 1992 election. I was interested to hear a reporter for National Public Radio, Mara Liasson, say at one of those gatherings that with the advent of a Democratic administration, the press now gets a chance to prove that it has no liberal bias but is merely tough on the powers that be. This ought to be interesting. Actually, it is perfectly possible for the press to be hard on a Democratic administration and still remain liberal in bias. They can attack him from the left. They can accuse him of poor leadership, or sloppy management, or a dozen other nonideological flaws, proving only that the press is critical, not that it is centrist. But frankly, in the year just past, the press has not only been biased toward the left, but it has been openly and shamefully partisan on behalf of the Democratic candidate for president. Some honest journalists have admitted as much, but claim that this preference arose not from ideology but from a bias in favor of a new story to cover. Does that fly? Look at the media's performance in the days just following the election. Two events in the final days of the campaign can arguably be described as partisan abuses of official power. The first, a State Department search of the passport files of Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, has received wall-to-wall coverage. Five times in one week, stories about the State Department episode - Who requested the files? What were they looking for? Was the White House involved? - appeared on the front pages of The Washington Post and The New York Times. A State Department political appointee, Elizabeth Tamposi, was fired for her role in the affair, and she has since pointed the finger at the White House and, indirectly, James Baker. At his press conference last Thursday, President-elect Bill Clinton was asked about the State Department's handling of the matter. This gave Mr. Clinton an opportunity to exult over Miss Tamposi's dismissal and to expound, at some length, about what a pure, nonpolitical State Department he would run. What about the other abuse of official power? Four days before the election, the office of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh issued a new indictment of Caspar Weinberger that included a gratuitous reference to George Bush. According to The Wall Street Journal, the reference to Mr. Bush's support of the arms-for-hostages swap was legally irrelevant. Further, a little digging by the Journal unearthed the fact that the prosecutor who is actually responsible for this fresh indictment is one James Brosnahan, a liberal Democrat with ties to the Clinton campaign. Mr. Brosnahan contributed $500 to said campaign. His law firm donated $22,000. In years past, Mr. Brosnahan was an active opponent of the Supreme Court nominations of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork and even testified against the elevation of William Rehnquist to chief justice, making accusations of wrongdoing against the justice that were never supported by evidence. One more thing. The date of the indictment was Oct. 30, 1992. But the Clinton campaign - obviously thrilled to capitalize on this new weapon against President Bush - issued a press release trumpeting the news, a press release dated Oct. 29, one day earlier. Did the campaign have inside information? Was there perhaps collusion? Does anyone hear the words "dirty trick"? We'll never know, because while the press did ask about the press release, they let the matter drop when George Stephanopoulos explained that the date was merely a typo. No one in the press corps asked President-elect Clinton, at his Thursday press conference, about the interesting timing of the Weinberger indictment, nor did they follow up with questions about Mr. Brosnahan's ties to the Democratic Party and to the Clinton campaign in particular. One searches in vain on the front pages of the New York Times and The Washington Post for investigative stories about possible corruption in the special prosecutor's office. If the press is going to prove that it isn't biased, it's off to a very slow start. Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM