Try Cheney in the Media (11/1/05)

by Dean Hartwell

 

The indictment of Scooter Libby for perjury and other charges in the scandal involving the leaking of a CIA operative’s name and Vice President Dick Cheney’s possible involvement bring up a question familiar to much of the media:  How much proof of wrongdoing is needed to justify coverage of the story?

 

On the one hand, the media could aggressively report the news of a public official’s alleged crimes.  They would risk making false accusations.  Or, it could cover up allegations (by saying that a person is innocent unless proven guilty, for example) at the risk of censoring true stories of public misconduct.

 

Either way, problems may arise.  But consider this: if the media used a high standard of proof (the second category above), the public would never have heard of Watergate, the Iran-Contra Scandal or the CIA’s mining of harbors in Nicaragua.[1]

 

Of course, the argument becomes political.  All of these scandals took place under Republican presidents.  How about using a low standard of proof on a Democrat?

 

That the media did.  It covered serious allegations against President Clinton that were never proven.  These accusations included Whitewater, the death of aide Vincent Foster and the controversy over firing officials.  In the case of Foster, even after three separate investigations called his death a suicide, many in the media continued to cover the story as if a controversy existed.  They also covered the story of an alleged rape by Clinton several years before and frequently gave front-page coverage of the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

 

In the Carter Administration, chief of staff Hamilton Jordan was accused of snorting cocaine at a New York night club.  A federal grand jury voted unanimously not to indict him.  Yet even with the lack of evidence, the media carried the story frequently.

 

So the media have used a low threshold of proof on many stories in recent years.  Yet they have failed to cover other stories for which a sufficient amount of proof exists.

 

One is the story of voting irregularities in the 2004 election.  There have been documented reports of Republicans distributing voting machines to Republican-dominated precincts at a rate disproportionately higher than Democratic-dominated precincts.[2]  A candidate for judge did significantly better than John Kerry.[3]  Thousands of votes have still not been counted to this day.

 

Then there are the exit polls.  Some nations, like Germany, actually use exit polls as official tallies, then count the votes to confirm the exit polls.[4]  On Election Day 2004, exit polls were all wrong by several points in each of six key states.  Coincidentally, all of the official results favored President George W. Bush over challenger Kerry.

 

But the mainstream media have stifled this story, probably because their owners (like General Electric) tend to support incumbents.[5]  Bias can certainly change the standard of proof.

 

Then there are political considerations.  President Bush has had two separate positions on the standard of proof for Libby and Karl Rove, still under investigation for his role in the CIA outing matter.  At first he said he would fire anyone “involved” in the scandal.  Then, more recently, he flip-flopped, perhaps because new evidence emerged against his advisors.  He said that he would only fire someone “convicted” in the scandal.

 

Bush had it right the first time.  Public officials caught in wrongdoing, whether by a court, the media or otherwise, should be removed from their jobs or impeached.  They serve us, after all.  The media acts as a check on our public officials and sometimes is the only means by which we discover scandals like the one Libby has been indicted for and for which Cheney may be involved.

Archives