Fairness of News Coverage of Iran Arms Deal Debated

Analogies to Watergate began immediately.

Who knew what and when, reporters asked after the Administration’s Nov. 25 disclosure that profits from clandestine arms sales to Iran were diverted to Nicaraguan rebels. Other familiar questions have followed--about White House staff members’ possibly destroying evidence, congressional investigations and independent counsels.

Among the other echoes of Watergate are questions about the conduct of the press. President Reagan has bitterly charged the Washington press corps with “great irresponsibility” and likened reporters to “sharks circling . . . with blood in the water.”

Has press coverage of the presidential crisis been excessive or unfair? Are the media looking for another Watergate whether one exists or not?

Some journalists do see examples of excess, particularly in the repeated analogies to Watergate. Some accuse the press of being gleeful at finally scratching the President’s so-called Teflon coating, a charge that most journalists deny.

Many journalists, however, believe that the current crisis shows the press’s role as watchdog of government at its most important and difficult.

“Given a presidency bleeding in the water,” conservative columnist Kevin Phillips said, “I think there is a tendency to see how bloody things can get.”

“The press has been, if anything, restrained,” said Hodding Carter III, who served as State Department spokesman in the Jimmy Carter Administration and is now press critic on public television. “The reality is that this house of cards has fallen because it is a house of cards, not because the press is huffing and puffing.”

Most dismiss the President’s claim in Time magazine last week that: “This whole thing boils down to a great irresponsibility on the part of the press.”

‘Policy Was as Bad’

“The President was wrong,” said commentator Charles Krauthammer of the New Republic, who strongly supported the Administration on aid to the Nicaraguan contras. “The policy was as bad as it is made out to be and you can’t fault the press for that.”

Journalists do concede some excesses, however. Bill Kovach, editor of the Atlanta Journal/Constitution, pointed in particular to a report from a Greek newspaper, later picked up by American news organizations, claiming that the United States shipped $1.3 billion worth of arms to Iran--about 100 times more than the Administration has confirmed. The paper, the small unofficial propaganda organ of the Greek Socialist Party, based its story on unidentified sources who claimed to have tapes of conversations conducted by Robert C. McFarlane, former Reagan national security adviser, during a visit to Tehran.

“Seeing some stories like that (in the American press) raises questions in my mind about whether the competitive instinct has gotten too sharp,” Kovach said.

Although the story was picked up by the Associated Press and Reuters news agencies, and through them by news organizations nationwide, others, including the Los Angeles Times, refused to use the story because they doubted its reliability.

Perhaps the most common self-criticism among journalists is one shared by New York Times Editor Max Frankel that “some papers and TV shows have been hasty to invoke the theme of ‘another Watergate’ ” without specifying the differences between the proven crimes then and the mere suspicions now.

“The press certainly has gone into a Watergate mode,” in part because it recalls Watergate with some justification as a triumph for the press, said William Schneider, a political consultant to The Times and a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

On the other hand, Schneider said: “Had there been no Watergate, there probably would never have been a Meese press conference” in which Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III disclosed the possibly illegal diversion of funds to the Nicaraguan rebels.

One widespread perception is that the press is enjoying the presidential crisis, like the proverbial police reporter who feels perverse thrill in an intriguing murder case.

‘Professional Feeling’

“The glee is undisguised,” Krauthammer argued. “Our generation of journalists was raised on the Watergate model. . . . I don’t think it is malicious. It is a professional feeling that they can exercise their true calling.”

Others detect a pent-up discomfiture among journalists finding release in the Iran arms story. “For six years,” said Georgetown University professor and media critic Michael J. Robinson, “the press has been frustrated by what it imagines as Reagan’s political magic,” the Teflon coating in which the President’s perceived limitations and mistakes seem not to hurt him.

“Now they see this as an opportunity to communicate the other side of Ronald Reagan,” Robinson said.

Many journalists strongly disagree.

“I doubt that seriously,” said William F. Thomas, editor and executive vice president of the Los Angeles Times. There is a difference, Thomas said, between covering a story aggressively and taking pleasure in the misfortune of its victims. “I think our coverage should be as thorough and relentless as possible.” Afterward, however, don’t go “out in the street cutting notches in your gun,” he said.

“During Watergate some elements of the press took too much obvious glee in what they’d been involved in,” Thomas said.

ABC News President Roone Arledge said he believes that most Americans, including journalists, “feel a fund of good will toward the President. . . . I don’t think there is any feeling to get him.”

“I think professional news people always take justified satisfaction from ferreting out important information that others seek to hide,” Frankel said. “Detectives can be pleased to break a case without ‘enjoying’ the fact of scandal or murder.” Frankel, incidentally, declined to be interviewed for this story but provided written answers to written questions.

Washington Post Executive Editor Benjamin C. Bradlee makes the point more bluntly: “If you’re the type of journalist who takes glee out of a good day’s work with a lot of stories that boggle the mind, yeah, there is reason for glee. But there is no joy.”

Phillips, however, worries that, like Watergate, during which opinion polls showed a contradictory mixture of gratitude and resentment toward the press, the current crisis could cause long-term problems for the press.

Five Presidencies

“There is a pattern here if you go back to the last five presidencies, starting with Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War,” Phillips said. “All have been savaged. Now obviously, every one of this group did something to deserve it, but when it happens one has to wonder if the problem rests only with the politicians. . . . If I were running a media conglomerate, I would worry that this issue could build.”

Times consultant Schneider, on the other hand, sees the intense press coverage as a response to public appetite, however discomforting to the Administration. “The press is perfectly capable of going on strike, of not covering anything but Iran,” Schneider said. “I don’t think that is an excess. That is giving the public what it wants.”

Television in particular may lead to the perception of the “sharklike” press, said former Carter Administration spokesman Jody Powell. The reason is that reporters and anchors are often asked to analyze events on the spot, a difficult task complicated by the medium’s necessity for condensing ideas.

Consider this exchange between ABC “Nightline” anchor Ted Koppel and correspondent Sam Donaldson the evening the contra connection was disclosed:

Koppel: “Sam, on a scale of 1 to 10, how much of a disaster is it, 10 being the worst?”

‘It’s Not 10 Yet’

Donaldson: “Pretty close. It’s not 10 yet. I remember the dark days of ’73 and ‘74, when another President was beleaguered down in the White House, and more investigators were after him. It’s not to that point yet. I suppose Ronald Reagan can repair some of the damage if he can convince people that he not only did not know, but he’s not going to stand for this. Firing (National Security Adviser John M.) Poindexter is not going to do it. Firing (National Security Council aide Oliver L.) North is not going to do it.”

Or consider NBC Capitol Hill correspondent John Dancy, after the Administration’s decision to call for an independent counsel: “What you see is in a period of a month the President becoming a lame, lame duck on Capitol Hill. . . . It will be very difficult to get any legislative work done on Capitol Hill.”

Network news executives last week said they do not condone commentary by reporters, but: “There is a line between analysis and commentary,” said Bill Wheatley, executive producer of “NBC Nightly News.”

But CBS News President Howard Stringer conceded: “Obviously, it is a line that is very subjective.”

If anything, many journalists think the current crisis shows the role of the press at its best and most difficult.

Reports of Shredding

Over the weekend, for instance, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dave Durenberger (R-Minn.) said he had decided to conduct an investigation into the Iran-Nicaragua operation in part because of reports that Administration officials had shredded relevant documents. “The only thing we know precisely is the reports we get from the media,” Durenberger said, “but it concerns us enough so that we . . . (are) considering having to subpoena the records.” The shredding was first disclosed Nov. 27 by The Times and later reported independently by other papers.

“The press are the watch guardians,” said Stringer, the CBS News president. “It is part of the relationship between government and the press. It always brings out concerns on the part of the government that we are going too far too fast.”

“This is the way it’s supposed to work,” Bradlee of the Post said.

Former State Department spokesman Carter said he has only one complaint about press performance on the Iran arms story so far.

“It was that piece of bootlicking journalism” by Time magazine, in which the President’s remarks were printed without follow-up questions or countering evidence, Carter said.

Time editors declined to be interviewed for this story, but after a Times request, Time Managing Editor Jason McManus issued the following statement:

“While we are pleased that the President’s exclusive interview appeared in Time, his sharp criticism of the press will in no way affect our coverage of the Iranian arms story any more than such criticisms from past presidents influenced our coverage.”