NEWS ANALYSIS : Press Scrutiny Becomes Added Obstacle for Clinton

By THOMAS B. ROSENSTIEL

April 1, 1992 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON — Before the Connecticut primary, an aide to former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas called a reporter from one of the country’s major newspapers to ask a familiar question.

“So when are you guys coming out with your big story on Bill Clinton?” he wanted to know.

“I can’t tell you anything about that,” the reporter answered.

“Well, will it knock him out of the race?”

“No comment.”

The next day, an aide for Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton called. “How come you guys have five reporters in Little Rock?” he asked.

“They’re on vacation,” the reporter said jokingly.

Halfway to the nomination, this year’s strange campaign for President has found the American press in an unusual and uncomfortable position.

Clinton has built a huge lead in convention delegates over his only remaining challenger, former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. But Brown is not the only hurdle remaining between Clinton and the nomination. There is also the press.

Recently, so many reporters have descended on Little Rock to re-examine Clinton’s background that local journalists have taken to following national reporters around and asking in government offices to see whatever documents the national press had just looked at.

So far the results of all the scrutiny have been mixed. In the last month, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times have produced several major stories questioning Clinton’s conduct but in each case Clinton has had an explanation. The net result has been to create a growing sense of crisis around the Clinton campaign.

Why has Clinton suddenly become the target of this laser beam of scrutiny? Is he, as his aides suggest, the victim of an unfair frenzy? Most in journalism say the race has taken this turn for one reason: Rarely in presidential politics has either party come so close to nominating a candidate whose personal background and character stirred such public doubts.

In its reactive way, the press has pursued Clinton’s past to see if the doubts are justified. In doing so, the press also raises more doubts about Clinton--the inevitable process by which the media mirror and then intensify any phenomenon.

Inherent Problems

The investigative work is still going on, and additional revelations are possible. But the current case ironically also may reveal the problems of press scrutiny at this late stage of the nominating process: Many in journalism say the press has difficulty doing the kind of comprehensive examination that could either clear Clinton’s name or ferret out real blame.

Even if Clinton can answer each story, the cascade could set up a ruinous presumption of doubt about him. And once the specter of doubt spreads over a presidential challenger, the advantage quickly moves to the incumbent.

“The public has an impression of George Bush, largely positive, into which it can absorb a revelation about his son, Neil, or something else,” said Doug Bailey, a former Republican political consultant and now editor of the Hotline, a daily compendium of political news reports. “When you are just getting to know somebody, there isn’t much context to it, and what they are getting to know about Bill Clinton is mostly this negative side.”

Despite these dangers, most in journalism feel they have an obligation to pursue Clinton’s past and have little idea about what to do about the result. “The worst thing for responsible newspapers would be to fail to find something out that the Republicans will throw on him later,” said columnist Jack Germond, one of the most senior members of the political press corps.

And, rightly or wrongly, journalists traditionally believe their obligation, as Germond puts it, is to tell the reader “what they can and not worry about the consequences. . . . I don’t think any newspaper has to agonize over this. Politicians do not jump out 25th story windows because of newspaper stories.”

This new wave of press scrutiny began about a month ago. The New York Times reported that Clinton and his wife, Hillary, became partners in a real estate deal with a man who later became a failed savings and loan operator. Then the Washington Post reported that Hillary Clinton’s law firm conducted major business with the state, and examined the ties between Clinton and one of his state’s biggest polluters.

Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that Clinton lobbied for approval of a state bond contract that benefited a political backer who was known to be under investigation on cocaine charges. And the New York Times reported Friday that in 1988 Clinton deleted a section of a state conflict of interest initiative that would have applied to him.

Ready With Answers

While the stories have been accurate, Clinton has had an explanation in each case:

The Clintons lost money in the real estate deal, and their partner became a savings and loan operator much later. While Hillary Clinton’s law firm does business with the state, she avoids handling such cases herself. Clinton wanted the bonds sold to finance a police radio system, and the political backer’s benefit as underwriter was incidental. And regarding the ethics law, Clinton and his allies “simplified” the proposal after it was first rejected by the Legislature in order to increase the plan’s chances of approval in a statewide referendum.

In the past, the public often has had misgivings once a clear front-runner is identified, prompting a new wave of press stories. But these concerns mostly were ideological and political.

Laurence Barrett, the veteran political correspondent for Time magazine, recalls that in 1964 “there was a tremendous feeling in the eastern wing of the Republican Party that Barry Goldwater was hideously flawed” because he was too conservative.

Similarly in 1976, the unexpected emergence of Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter triggered press inquiries, resulting in revelations that Carter had used racial appeals in past campaigns, something that challenged his characterization of himself as a new kind of candidate.

This year is different, said ABC correspondent Jeff Greenfield. “We have not had a situation before where the expectation of a potential scandal, or concern about one, has been as front and center (at this stage in the campaign).”

And that difference--the fear of scandal--changes the dynamic in a powerful way. A candidate might overcome a political or ideological question that is raised in a general election campaign. But a scandal would almost certainly sink a candidacy, in effect, canceling the election.

“You call (Democratic) state chairmen and women and they all have a catch in their voice because they are worried,” said Steve Daley of the Chicago Tribune. “They are worried because they don’t know Clinton well. . . . They have a ‘Governor of Dog Patch’ nominee and the prospect of the falling bedroom slipper has them scared.”

Voters, too, echo that concern. Nearly half the Democrats who voted in Connecticut thought Clinton lacked the integrity required of a President, and party professionals also have reservations.

Even Clinton’s own deputy campaign manager George Stephanopoulos admitted the doubts inevitably steered the media’s attention.

“The political culture was infected with rumors. . . . I think the press decided that the best thing to do was to get to the bottom of it,” he said. “Either it’s true, or it’s not, and then we’ll know.”

After Clinton emerged as the front-runner after the Super Tuesday primaries, news organizations began sending reporters back to Little Rock, in some cases to investigate matters already looked at in a cursory way earlier.

In the restaurant of the Capital Hotel, the unofficial press headquarters, reporters from the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times keep running into each other, and waiters are familiar enough with the national reporters that they can tell those who inquire what newspapers have people in town.

Watchful Authorities

Authorities know as well. One hour after Los Angeles Times reporter Ronald J. Ostrow arrived in Little Rock and checked into his hotel, the state police commissioner being interviewed by two of Ostrow’s colleagues said to them: “So, I hear your ranks have grown by one more.”

Is this any way to examine a prospective President?

Clinton advisers say no. They claim the press is piling on unfairly. “Part of this is journalistic competition,” said Clinton media consultant Frank Greer. Journalists have some misgivings as well. “This is a messy process, it is not a science, it is an art, or maybe a dart board,” said Barrett of Time.

Presidential historian James David Barber says only a few news organizations ever attempt the sort of long biographical profiles that get at true presidential character. But now, with the nomination so close to being settled, the chances of nuance and context being lost are at their greatest.

“Now you have a different situation where if a news organization has a story and doesn’t go with it, they are going to be criticized either way,” said Bailey of the Hotline. Clinton advisers contend the sense of urgency has hurt them. “This process is very destructive,” said Greer. “There is no balance and sometimes little effort to get it,” in narrowly focused exposes.

But, ironically, some observers believe the press may be scrutinizing Clinton so hard now because they backed away earlier, during the New Hampshire primary. After chasing a supermarket tabloid report that Clinton had had an extramarital affair and then probing whether he had manipulated people to avoid the draft, the press suddenly eased off, suggested Robert Lichter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

The press could easily have forced Clinton’s campaign to a standstill, Lichter said, but, “personally, I think journalists did not want to be held responsible again,” for driving a candidate out of the race, as some believed they did with Gary Hart in 1988.

Privately, many journalists say that certain questions about Clinton were left unresolved. And now, at least some journalists believe that the press is examining aspects of Clinton’s public record to get at the same issues of judgment and honesty--in part because the media are uncomfortable looking into personal matters.

“A lot of these stories do not get at the question that is really dogging everybody, which is his personal life and his credibility,” said Daley of the Tribune. “It’s like these stories are a form of substitution. It reminds me of that Oscar Wilde line from the ‘Importance of Being Earnest,’ where one of the characters says, ‘Whenever someone asks me about the weather I think they want to talk about something else.’ ”

Then comes the question of impact. If the stories are inconclusive, is it possible the scrutiny could actually help Clinton by demonstrating that there is no bombshell there?

“I don’t think there is anyway it benefits him,” Germond said. “Each story can add to these questions that there is something wrong here, and they take on a weight of their own.”

Puzzling Issue

While concerned, most journalists have little idea what if anything they can or should do about this echo effect.

“We have to fill in the blanks for people,” about these candidates, said Tom Hannon, political director of CNN. “This is the service we are supposed to provide.”

And, in essence, journalists contend they are not creating these problems for Clinton. To some extent, said Timothy J. Russert, Washington bureau chief of NBC News, and himself a former Democratic Party activist, Clinton may have survived as the front-runner because the Democratic field was weak.

If so, that is the party’s problem, not the press’. “It is their candidate,” Russert said. Whether by voting through the primary process or at the convention itself, “they are fully capable of dealing with this.”

BROWN WINS VERMONT: Calfornian gets 47% of vote in caucuses. Uncommitted finishes second and Clinton third. A9