Turnabout: White House Staff Turns Critic : Television coverage is something of a ‘joke,’ one senior staffer says. As for newspapers, the farther from the capital the better, survey finds.

Behind closed doors and away from the heat of the klieg lights, the senior officials around Bill Clinton admit they don’t think much of the media who cover them.

They think television coverage of the presidency, as one adviser put it, is something of a “joke.” Most prefer the coverage in out-of-town papers to that provided by the New York Times and Washington Post. And many believe that much of the press seems eager to destroy people and policies rather than provide objective coverage of either. The views are contained in an in-house survey of key top advisers conducted by members of the White House staff and obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

The 16-page report, assembled for the White House “Bulletin” newsletter, did not specify how many people were interviewed, only that it was “a sizable portion of the President’s top advisers” and their deputies who work with the press.

“Overall, the media receive a passing grade for accuracy,” the report said. But it went on to characterize that accuracy as “inconsistent . . . spotty” and said that the term “accuracy” applies at all only when the press is reporting basic facts.

When it comes to the task that the modern media increasingly see as its more important role--providing context and analysis--insiders view the press as far less capable.

“As soon as they try to explain what (something) meant, or what we were trying to accomplish, they fall into the quicksand called ‘Washington journalism,’ ” one official was quoted as saying. All of the quotations in the report are anonymous.

In contrast to the findings of a survey conducted by the George Bush White House in early 1992, Clinton’s advisers do not detect any ideological bias in the press. Most often, the media were described as “apolitical” and “middle of the road.”

Yet at least one senior official said that perception itself suggests “we share a similar outlook. . . . When you agree with people, you generally call them moderate, middle of the road or apolitical.”

And one aide thought the press reflected the values of “the elite . . . the views, feelings, conventions of people who earn two, three and four times the median income.”

“That works to our advantage on stories like NAFTA,” the official said, referring to the North American Free Trade Agreement, “and it clearly redounded to the President’s disadvantage when he was raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans. . . . It came across in the reportage as if he was raising taxes across the board.”

But most advisers see negativism, pack mentality and a fascination with “inside baseball” as the media’s dominant fixations.

“All respondents” expressed “dismay over how those in the press exhibit limited creativity and seldom stray from the group conclusion” on what is the story of the day.

“The general approach seems to be to figure out the issue . . . on which the White House appears to be most vulnerable and to make that the story,” one official said.

Usually, that story is dictated by the New York Times, the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal, and “many reporters--particularly those at the Washington Post and New York Times--are preoccupied with the power struggles on the inside, often at the expense of good reporting on the substance,” the report said.

“There is an eagerness in the press to pull down policies and people,” the report added.

“I have been struck by the persistent efforts on the part of the press to try to get members of the White House staff to leak against each other,” one official said.

Many of the senior staff tended to prefer newspapers based outside of Washington and farther removed from the political swirl: the Wall Street Journal, Knight Ridder newspapers and the Los Angeles Times.

Television, however, was held nearly in contempt. “Television is a joke, and it is scary to think that this is the way many Americans get their news,” one official said. “They always put some weird hype on the story that makes everybody around here shake their heads or, at times, laugh.”

“They have great power but seem to spend more time trying to put together catchy phrases than they do working the White House,” another official said.

Perhaps the most sensitive issue is the ranking of reporters. And the results may reflect more than the journalists’ work. They may be colored by how White House staffers feel about a reporter on a personal basis or about a particular story.

Being the favorite of an Administration may be a double-edged sword.

“In a bit of a surprise, Brit Hume of ABC received the most favorable mentions as the best network correspondent,” the report said. Hume is an outspoken conservative and is “credited by those in the White House press room as being the most difficult to work with. But senior officials say his reporting is the most accurate.”

In the Bush White House, Hume tied as best with CNN’s Charles Bierbauer.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell was second in the survey. “As for the worst correspondent, CBS’s Rita Braver edged out CNN’s Jill Dougherty,” but Braver is new to the beat and “again, quite a few names were mentioned.”

For networks, ABC was first, NBC second, CNN (“the choice of the Bush White House”), dropping to third and CBS “the worst network . . . for two years in a row.”

In print, “the Wall Street Journal’s Jeff Birnbaum and the Los Angeles Times’ David Lauter ran a statistical heat for the best newspaper reporters,” in the minds of the senior staff. “Lauter, who was criticized by Bush officials during the ’92 campaign for being pro-Clinton, was given high marks for the quality of his sources.” Tom Friedman of the New York Times finished third.

For the worst newspaper reporter, “there were almost as many answers as there were respondents,” though “the New York Posts’ Deborah Orrin leads the pack.”

The most mentioned reporter of the Bush years, as both best and worst, Ann Devroy of the Washington Post, gathered only two votes as best and only one as worst. “Devroy will emerge in time,” one official is quoted as saying.

Among columnists, senior aides most often preferred E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post and William Safire of the New York Times. Votes for the worst columnists were too split to name a winner.

Among newsweeklies, Time finished first, and its reporter Michael Duffy was named the best newsweekly reporter. Newsweek finished second, and U.S. News & World Report “trailed a distant third.”

As for the worst newsweekly reporter, the field again was quite large, with two Newsweek reporters barely “winning:” Bob Cohn and Howard Fineman.