I have been commenting on Washington scandals for nearly four decades—ever since the dead-drunk Wilbur Mills, the unduly lionized chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was stopped by the police in the middle of the night accompanied by a stripper, Fanny Foxe, who immediately dove into the Tidal Basin.
As a national columnist rather than a reporter, I never uncovered epic misdeeds in high places. But once a scandal hit the headlines, I rode with the lynch mob.
I was there for the kerfuffle known as “Debate-gate,” when it was belatedly revealed that a Jimmy Carter briefing book had been stolen before his 1980 face-off with Ronald Reagan. And I still cringe with a bit of embarrassment over all the times I went on television during the Bill Clinton impeachment saga to wildly speculate about who might have been the original author of the mysterious legal “talking points” that Monica Lewinsky gave Linda Tripp.
But over the years I have picked up a dollop of journalistic perspective. Many scandals have an awkward habit of not playing out exactly how political partisans expect them to. For example, it turns out that Valerie Plame was originally “outed” as a CIA agent not by Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, but by a supposed Washington good guy, Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s deputy.
As Barack Obama suddenly faced a three-front fight last week (Benghazi, the IRS, and the seizure of phone records from The Associated Press), I appreciated how hard it is to be a columnist in the midst of what was routinely called “the worst week of his presidency.” At moments like this, anyone slinging opinions for a living is totally dependent on the reporting of others. How do you make sense of things as a commentator when the tumbrels are rolling towards the guillotine but everything you know is second-hand?
So here, as a public service, are my Rough Rules for Responsible Scandal Mongers:
Avoid Over-Hyped Historical Analogies. Likening every scandal to Watergate or Iran-contra is akin to equating every disappointing movie with Ishtar or Heaven’s Gate. Maybe someday the nation will be confronted with another lawless paranoid president or have to deal with a Marine colonel conducting a rogue foreign policy out of the White House basement. But until then, leave the exaggerated worst-crime-in-human-history references to metaphor-challenged politicians bloviating on cable TV news.
Ask the Right Questions. The most useful Watergate catchphrase remains Howard Baker’s, “What did the president know and when did he know it?” Still, a president can also create a set of attitudes within his own administration that can lead to abuses without direct involvement or knowledge from the Oval Office.
To clarify my own thinking, I have been working on my own list of the most apt questions for the current scandal-rama:
Would, for example, Benghazi have been handled differently if the deaths in Libya had not occurred in the midst of the fall presidential campaign?
If the IRS’s zeal in singling out Tea Party groups was solely the result of disarray and incompetence, why hadn’t the president done anything to reform the agency during his first term?
And, finally, why has the Obama administration consistently departed from every norm in Washington about the way you treat the media’s role in a leak investigation?
These are not perfect questions. But they do provide a framework to assess the administration’s culpability without resorting to partisan hysteria.
Documents Trump Blind Quotes and Anonymous Sources. This is not to belittle investigative reporters who have to operate with shadowy sourcing, especially when national security is involved. But, as a columnist not privy to the actual reporting, I try to be far more cautious in drawing sweeping conclusions from news exclusives that do not contain documents or on-the-record confirmation.

You're wrong about Plame. Rove disclosed classified information to Matt Cooper and Scooter Libby did the same to Judith Miller.
Armitage may have leaked the name initially to Novak, but that did not give the Mayberry Machiavelli's licence to blow her cover to anyone with an ear.
And this culture of selective access to privileged information through republican sources was one of the more corrupting forces at play within the press concerning their shoddy coverage of Bush Administration criminality.
This has not stopped under the Obama Administration, as you could have mentioned in your Benghazi segue-way:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/05/16/republicans-benghazi-emails_n_3289428.html
"One day after The White House released 100 pages of Benghazi emails, a report has surfaced alleging that Republicans released a set with altered text...
On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans' interim report included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations."
You've got dozens of scandals old and new which the press could be covering in the way finance sector criminality has been coddled, the way whistleblowers and unapproved leakers/hackers have been persecuted, the way everyone has ignored the unemployment and climate crisies. DC wants to focus on republican gossip, just like these carrion did under the Clinton era when Drudge started ruling their world. As Josh Marshall used to say, DC is wired for republican control:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/02/wired.php
It's time to rip those wires out.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 20 May 2013 at 01:06 PM
Speaking of Josh Marshall:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/the_latest_turn_of_the_screw.php
"If you didn’t know the backstory here you would think Karl was referring to some sort of editing error. What seems to have happened is that a Republican source gave him what they said was a direct quote from an email but which turned out to be inaccurate. The fact that it was wrong in a way that appeared damaging to the White House (the opponents of the Republican sources in this case) suggests it may not have been an innocent mistake. But whether they were playing games or just sloppy is secondary to the fact that the quote was wrong."
And on the topic of wires:
http://m.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/27/130527fa_fact_mayer
"Ruby Lerner, the president and the executive director of Creative Capital, which helped fund Lessin and Deal’s Katrina film, said that she regards the “self-censorship” practiced by public-television officials to be “a scarier thing” than the overt kind: “They seem to be putting themselves in the Koch brothers’ shoes and trying not to offend them.” Even on public television, she argued, patronage buys influence. “It raises issues about what public television means,” she said. “They are in the middle of so much funding pressure.”..
David Koch, whose political activities are featured in the film, happens to be a public-television funder and a trustee of both WNET and WGBH. This wasn’t a failed negotiation or a divergence of visions; it was censorship, pure and simple.” The filmmakers consider this an ironic turn: “It’s the very thing our film is about—public servants bowing to pressures, direct or indirect, from high-dollar donors."
In the end, the various attempts to assuage David Koch were apparently insufficient. On Thursday, May 16th, WNET’s board of directors quietly accepted his resignation. It was the result, an insider said, of his unwillingness to back a media organization that had so unsparingly covered its sponsor. "
And these are the guys who want to buy the Chicago Tribune and the LA Times.
That should go well.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 20 May 2013 at 01:30 PM
1 fix and 1 comment
1. Nixon didnt propose a guaranteed annual income; he stood behind Pat Moynihan's Family Assistance Plan that would have guaranteed a lowered welfare benefit for 2/3 of the states, but withdrew his support when it crashed politically.
2. Why would IRS or anyone else locate an office of considerable political significance and potential controversy in a backwater
#3 Posted by Herbert J Gans, CJR on Mon 20 May 2013 at 02:19 PM
Hopefully we'll never have a president like Nixon again, but that doesn't mean there haven't been equally or nearly as bad scandals since then. I'm surprised Walter Shapiro did not mention the mass firing of U.S. attorneys under W. I'd say that's a pretty damn serious abuse of power -- ordering them to engage in politically motivated voter "fraud" prosecutions during an election year, then firing them for refusing to carry out the order. And the scenario of Bush's and Cheney's men pressuring the nearly dying attorney general Ashcroft in his hospital bed to sign that wiretapping or surveillance order, that was Nixonian. Let's not downplay the abuses of power of the Bush/Cheney administration in favor of playing up the villainy of Nixon. And let's say we'll hopefully never have another vice president like Dick Cheney again.
#4 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Mon 20 May 2013 at 02:53 PM
Oooo.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Jonathan_Karl's_Bad_Awful_Week
"It has not been a good couple of weeks for ABC's Jonathan Karl, the man who passed along barbered information from some disreputable sources, and then got found out...
But far more interesting to me is the dossier compiled on Karl by the folks at FAIR. This makes his latest misadventure seem much less like an accident...
Here, with Karl, we apparently have a perfect product of the well-financed and staggeringly successful network of conservative institutions and programs launched more than 40 years ago by The Powell Memo. Assuming the FAIR report is accurate, then Jonathan Karl was not trained as a journalist, because the Collegiate Network doesn't produce journalists. It produces partisan warriors. He was not trained as a reporter, because the Collegiate Network doesn't produce reporters. It produces propagandists. He was not trained as a newsman, because the Collegiate Network doesn't produce newsmen. It produces hacks.
This is, of course, indelicate for someone in my business to say but, at every level of his steady rise in the business, some executive should have looked at Karl's resume, seen The Collegiate Network there, and then shitcanned the thing before the interview process even began. Are there conservatives who are good reporters? Absolutely. But all the ones that I know came up the same way I did, and none of them came up through the coddled terrariums of the activist Right. They learned their craft. They were not trained to be spies in the camp of the enemy. They were not trained to be moles. And every damn one of them would have checked those phony e-mails before throwing them out to the public, and most of them wouldn't have fallen for them, because they are journalists, reporters, and newsmen."
More wiring exposed here than I thought.
PS. Lotsa Scaife and Koch money funding the Collegiate Network here.
PPS. From the CN's wikipedia page " The Columbia Journalism Review noted that the “Collegiate Network papers make a significant contribution to the journalism of their day.” The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and Los Angeles Times have also cited the Collegiate Network as the leader in helping nascent alternative student papers become influential campus publications."
It'd be nice if there were footnotes, wouldn't it.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 20 May 2013 at 03:45 PM
To Herbert Gans -- My apologies on Nixon and the guaranteed annual income. Working from memory, I obviously over-simplified things too much. As for the office in Cincinnati, its location fit with the bureaucratic reality that this entire IRS function was considered unimportant because it didn't collect any taxes. These were the non-tax collectors in the tax agency.
#6 Posted by Walter Shapiro, CJR on Mon 20 May 2013 at 04:42 PM
More 'don't look here' coverage from CJR.
As for Jonathan Karl, his report about Nuland was correct. And Shapiro can pretend otherwise but who cares.
FAIR? They're not fair. In 2008, they're weekly show CounterSpin -- a look at the week's news -- failed to call out sexism over and over. Finally, in May, after even Puerto Rico had voted, they did a story on it. One sentence. As Ava and C.I. noted, it took Hillary being called a "bitch" on CNN for FAIR to weigh in.
http://thirdestatesundayreview.blogspot.com/2008/05/tv-american-oh-dull.html
They weighed in with one sentence and didn't even tell you the program it took place on or the person who said it. I was a huge FAIR fan until the years passed and I saw how unFAIR they could be.
#7 Posted by Lisa Menendez, CJR on Mon 20 May 2013 at 05:54 PM
Can someone explain to me why James Rosen's picture is on the link leading to this page when Rosen isn't mentioned? I know I shouldn't impute malice when mere incompetence can explain it, but is someone trying to communicate something about Rosen with this?
#8 Posted by Hoystory, CJR on Tue 21 May 2013 at 12:48 AM
"not by Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, but by a supposed Washington good guy,"
Would you be so kind as to tell us how you sort people into "good guys" and "bad guys"? Do you feel this is a practice that a supposedly impartial journalist should employ?
This is why no one trusts the press.
#9 Posted by Jaylat, CJR on Tue 21 May 2013 at 11:08 AM
Can it not be just inferred, based on historical record, what made Scooter Libby and Karl Rove bad guys?
And the guys who didn't act as Karl ratfking Rove did are relatively good? I mean I admit, it sets an awful low bar for 'good' but modern Washington is the capital city of low bars (and high tabs).
Meanwhile, let's talk about scandals:
http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/how-the-obama-administration-talks-to-black-america/276015/
"But I also think that some day historians will pore over his many speeches to black audiences. They will see a president who sought to hold black people accountable for their communities, but was disdainful of those who looked at him and sought the same. They will match his rhetoric of individual responsibility, with the aggression the administration showed to bail out the banks, and the timidity they showed in addressing a foreclosure crisis which devastated black America (again.)They wil weigh the rhetoric against an administration whose efforts against housing segregation have been run of the mill. And they will match the talk of the importance of black fathers with the paradox of a president who smoked marijuana in his youth but continued a drug-war which daily wrecks the lives of black men and their families. In all of this, those historians will see a discomfiting pattern of convenient race-talk."
What's all this about a foreclosure crisis and coddled criminal bankers? Why, I think I read about a protest the other day on that topic:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/dispatch-from-taser-nation-dealing.html
"You may have heard about the protests at the DOJ by foreclosed upon homeowners demanding that Eric Holder prosecute some bankers for their criminal activity...
There is nothing new about protesters gathering at government buildings. And it has never been a problem for the police to arrest protesters in an orderly fashion, even when the protesters are not cooperating by sitting down and refusing to move. This is the way civil disobedience has worked for many a moon.
Shooting protesters full of electricity in order to get them to fall to the ground in excruciating pain, dazed and compliant, however, is new. And it's completely unnecessary, not to mention contrary to our long tradition of peaceful protest. I thought this sort of thing went out with the use of firehoses and police dogs."
You know, in that context, the filling out of a few forms for the IRS doesn't seem so bad. If you want to see persecuted minorities, talk to Occupy. The batons, pepper spray, and tasers pack a bit more punch than whatever the whiney conservatives are belly aching about. Sure would be nice if the press made a deal out of this stuff.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 21 May 2013 at 01:30 PM
"Can someone explain to me why James Rosen's picture is on the link leading to this page when Rosen isn't mentioned?"
Prehaps.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/karl-rove-white-house-surveilling-fox-reporter-is
"Appearing Monday on Fox News, Karl Rove attacked the Obama administration's surveilling of Fox reporter James Rosen in a leak investigation as "chilling" and its rationale for doing so "beyond the pale."
"We had to confront this question during the Bush administration," he said. "There were leaks of classified information and in each and every instance, the focus was on the potential leak, not the reporter who received it.""
Oh Rove:
http://www.alternet.org/story/122199/did_bush_admin_spy_on_ny_times_journalist_who_broke_domestic_wiretapping_story
who can stay angry at you.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 21 May 2013 at 02:28 PM
So, Thimbles. You mean to tell me that CJR used an image of Rosen to refer to a TPM piece on Karl Rove not referenced in the story? Are you mental?
#12 Posted by Hoystory, CJR on Tue 21 May 2013 at 11:31 PM
"You mean to tell me that CJR used an image of Rosen to refer to a TPM piece on Karl Rove not referenced in the story?"
No, they probably put up the picture because he was one of the reporters involved in the DOJ story, knowledge of which has been circulating for a couple of days now.
The Rove angle was just gravy. Didn't think I'd need to explain all that but...
"Are you mental?"
Back at ya', Penrose. Don't know why you're all hostile, but I do know where you can stick it. Sorry your malice/incompetence narrative fell through; move along now.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 22 May 2013 at 02:33 AM