|
|
|
|
http://www.salon1999.com/news/1998/02/26news.html
Toothless hounds
Now that Kenneth Starr's crusade has turned upon the press itself, his loyalists at the New York Times and Washington Post have finally raised a meek and begrudging protest. BY ANDREW ROSS | A government law enforcement official doesn't like how he's being criticized in some corners of the press, so he hauls a perceived enemy into court to explain how such criticisms appeared. A judge sees nothing wrong with the procedure, so the government official's target is forced, under oath, to testify about contacts he may have had with the press, and even to submit phone records of his conversations with reporters. If the person demurs at such an invasion of privacy, he will be slung in jail. The Soviet Union in the time of Beria? No, it's the United States in the age of Kenneth Starr, the apparently unstoppable "independent counsel" who has now decided to drive a tank through the Constitution if that's what it takes to get President Clinton. But as most of the nation's elected representatives stand mute in the face of such grotesque assaults on basic rights, and the vast legal machinery that is supposed to ward off such threats remains frozen in uselessness, there are signs that the press may, at long last, be rethinking its Pravda-like role as the unquestioning mouthpiece of the Inquisitor-General. Belatedly, tentatively, the agenda-setting organs of the Fourth Estate, the Washington Post and the New York Times, have suggested that there may be something wrong with Starr's pursuit of White House aide Sidney Blumenthal, who was scheduled to go before a grand jury, phone logs in hand, on Thursday. A Washington Post editorial on Wednesday daringly suggested that Starr's actions may be -- may be -- "an abuse of power." As the Post bravely observed: "A grand jury investigation is supposed to focus on allegations of criminal conduct, and a subpoena is not meant to be used as a retaliatory gesture. There is, at this stage, no public evidence suggesting that Mr. Blumenthal's media campaign or his documents related to Mr. Starr are germane to any criminal allegations. Mr. Starr's explanation yesterday -- that the 'misinformation' spread about prosecutors may be 'intended to intimidate prosecutors and investigators, impede the work of the grand jury, or otherwise obstruct justice' -- seems pretty thin." Under the heading "Ken Starr's Misjudgments," the New York Times editorialized Wednesday that the independent counsel "has failed in his obligation to the law itself. The effort to collect the name of every journalist who talked with a White House communications specialist amounts to a perverse use of the prosecutorial mandate to learn what the Nixon White House attempted to determine through wiretaps." If Starr has indeed "failed in his obligation to the law itself," one might expect trumpet calls for his resignation to blare from West 43rd Street. If, as the Post states, Starr's actions could justify criticisms that his inquiry is "a reckless and partisan attack on the president," then that paper's investigative hounds, led by Bob Woodward, will at long last be set loose on the office of the independent counsel. Right? Don't hold your breath. Both newspapers have a great deal to lose should they now choose to storm Starr's ramparts. People might start to wonder where the Times and the Post have been all this time. Embarrassing questions might be asked about their sloppy, biased, error-filled and just plain vengeful coverage of the "Clinton scandals." Too many high-paid reporters and editors at both papers nailed their flags to the scandal mast and they'll be damned if they're going to see their reputations reduced to tatters. So vested are they in the notion of Clinton's villainy that both papers are now forced into painful contortions to account for Starr's misdeeds. In its Wednesday editorial, the Post describes the clash between the Clinton and Starr camps as "a race to the bottom," and goes on to aver that "the president's defenders have decided that smearing investigators -- rather than answering questions -- is the appropriate means of defending Mr. Clinton." What "smearing" and which "investigators" is the Post referring to? Private detective Terry Lenzner, who quite legitimately has been hired by President Clinton's defense team in the Paula Jones civil suit? Or do they mean the published stories about prior goon-squad behavior on the part of two of Starr's prosecutors, Bruce Udolf and Michael Emmick, which are a matter of public record and which have not been denied? N E X T+P A G E+| It's all Clinton's fault |
|
|
