Spinning the TV News Cycle

By HOWARD ROSENBERG

Dec. 30, 1998 12 AM PT

TIMES TELEVISION CRITIC

Jeff Greenfield changed employers, not skins when leaving ABC News a year ago to become senior analyst at CNN.

The New York-based Greenfield remains one of TV journalism’s true Renaissance men, writing and thinking as well as he speaks, and equally smart about media and politics. No wonder, for media and politics have regularly intersected his career as they did the nation in 1998 when CNN made him a key cog in its coverage of the scandal threatening to topple President Clinton. He also co-anchors the magazine series “NewsStand: CNN & Time” and has hosted CNN town meetings and filled in as host of “Larry King Live.”

Greenfield was a political speech writer and consultant before joining CBS News and later ABC News, where he spent 14 years covering media and politics, appearing regularly on “Nightline.” He’s closely eyed media in 1998, including coverage of the presidency unraveling.

Question: Looking back at the year, what do you see?

Answer: One thing is that almost every story that was reported at the beginning of the Clinton-Lewinsky story turned out to be right. I don’t think it was sexual McCarthyism in the context of the story. A lot of people in the press are damned good at what they do. That first wave of reports turned out to be true. A lot of the reports about the president’s use of language were dead-on.

Q: We are having this conversation two days after President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives. What are you feeling?

A: The most striking thing is that the public--which was supposed to go into a state of panic, shock, horror--seems to be treating this with all the impact of the score of the latest Rams game. My guess is that it shows that for most people, this country’s national politics have become less important than at any time in this century. It is irrelevant to most people.

Q: Less than half of eligible Americans voted in the 1996 presidential election, and few viewers watched the impeachment hearings at length. Is this a public disconnect with the political process that the media can do anything to change?

A: I think not, because the people think it doesn’t matter. With the absence of the Cold War and the like, many people are more in charge of their own lives and their economic well-being. And most people in need of [taking part in] decision-making have totally opted out of the electoral process. The voter turnout, based on income and education, has widened into a chasm. People look at Washington and see one bunch of loudmouths in suits screaming at another group of loudmouths in suits. Impeachment seems like sort of a sideshow.

Q: Was it important to telecast the hearings?

A: I don’t know, given the nature of how both politics and journalism have changed. There is almost no attempt to exchange information. I blame the journalists. Look at how we have treated politics for the last 30 or 35 years. Nothing a politician says is taken at face value. You add the late-night comedians, and you have the unbuttoning of the culture. What do people think who watch Jay Leno every night? Politicians are all knaves. I think that’s a very politically potent mix to give the people.

But I also blame the politicians. What is appalling is that there is no attempt to have a debate about the evidence [against Clinton]. I was on “Larry King” the other night with three congressmen on, and I said I would give you $1,000 if when it’s your turn [to speak], you say, “Everything’s been asked. I have nothing to add.”

The problem is, these people cannot resist the chance to be on television. Everything turns into a presentation. It’s one way in which the coverage of the event alters the reality. So under these circumstances, television brings us these moments of citizenry, but in the process transforms them into moments that citizens have less and less reason to watch.

Q: That’s what you meant when you called the congressional debate about Clinton “gasbaggery” and much of the media analysis as “semi-informed, uniformed windbaggery”?

A: Look, you had members of the House engaged in what may be one of the most important things they ever do. And half of them marched up to the podium and didn’t know what their staff wrote for them. Some of them had not even seen the speech they were reading. One shmegegge of a congressman, instead of saying “analogous,” said “analogious.” He said it twice.

Q: And media gasbaggery?

A: People come into a studio after digesting the front page of the New York Times or Washington Post, and then give it back. That’s what I mean by “gasbaggery.” I’m referring to the kind of shows on cable where you gather three or four people who tell you what they think, not what they have done any reporting on. This screaming: “He lied under oath!” This endless, endless pontificating: “What do you think they’ll do?” I once said on “King,” “Why not stop putting guests on these shows, and get soft puppets?” They’re saying the same thing every night.

Q: As opposed to?

A: Mark Shields [syndicated columnist and commentator on “The Lehrer NewsHour” on PBS]. When he makes a prediction or a guess, he’s trying to say there’s a reason for this. It’s not a game. It’s not an office pool. That is worth listening to. And [CNN correspondent] Frank Sesno. For my money, he’s one of the most underappreciated people in journalism. He is so smart and so good. When he comes on the air, it is because he’s come off the phone with some people and knows something.

Q: You seem to believe there is too much of a media rush to judgment on all stories. Right?

A: You bet. It’s the rush to figure out what will happen next. How do we know he [Clinton] is going to resign in four days? How do we know it’s all over? People assumed it was all over in November [after the Democrats’ strong showing in congressional elections]. They assumed politicians would say only what the polls say. But politicians often do things that have nothing to do with polls. Sometimes they do it out of conviction.

Q: You approach issues from a historical point of view. But don’t you agree that too many reporters are amnesiacs when it comes to history?

A: Yes. Everything is invented all over again. The historical links are often ignored. It’s kind of a breathless quality. The precursor to a lot of this was the Iran [hostage] crisis, where the pictures trumped sober discussion of foreign policy issues. In the scheme of the world, the seizure of 56 Americans was an issue. But how do you put stories in context when the visual whole is so much more compelling? I jokingly suggested on the first night of the Iraq air attacks that when they came back to [anchors] Bernie [Shaw] and Judy [Woodruff] and me [for analysis], they should put us on night scope.

Q: The 24-hour news cycle--driven by CNN, MSNBC and the Fox News Channel--has become a sort of blame-it-on-El Nin~o scapegoat for all that ails media. But isn’t it true that to fill their wide-open spaces, 24-hour news channels do a lot of guessing and speculating?

A: If you have time to fill, one way to do it is to have someone on who actually knows the history of presidential impeachment and the Senate rules on impeachment. That’s when 24-hour news fulfills a function. But the 50th discussion of whether this rises to the level of impeachment? That’s different. You ought to have some people on who know some things. And you need to minimize the screaming matches. I think CNN--”Crossfire” excepted--has less of that than MSNBC and the Fox News Channel. I think CNN is substantially better, and Larry King is one of the most underestimated people in this whole business.

Q: On June 7, CNN aired its notorious “Valley of Death” broadcast on “NewsStand: CNN & Time” charging that the U.S. used nerve gas on American defectors in the Vietnam War, a report leading to a humiliating retraction. What lessons should we learn from that?

A: One is that if you have a piece that is really controversial, difficult, contentious, you must have it vetted by a person with no personal institutional interest in the story, someone who has no interest in whether the story runs or not. I think the producers [who were fired] believed in it too much.

Another lesson is for future anchors not to assume anything about the process. I saw the script and thought, “Wow, this is amazing.” I assumed the vetting process had taken place, because I came from a place [ABC News] where there was a vetting process. That still didn’t absolve me of the responsibility of making an assumption I had no right to make. That goes on my permanent record card as the worst mistake I have made as a journalist.

Q: Looking ahead 20 years to journalism’s future, what do you see?

A: More good and more bad. If you go back 20 years and you looked ahead to the millennium, if you said you would have many more all-news networks, a way for citizens to watch all levels of the legislative session in action and the like, someone would say, “You’re crazy.” But that’s what we have. We also have a lot of noise and a lot of junk, so you tell me.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Crossroads

The daily Calendar section will continue through Jan. 7 its series of interviews, conducted by Times critics, with leaders in the arts and entertainment.

MONDAY

Movies: Steven Spielberg

TUESDAY

Classical music: MaryAnn Bonino

TODAY

Television: Jeff Greenfield

THURSDAY

Jazz: Tommy LiPuma

FRIDAY

Dance: Garth Fagan

SATURDAY

Restaurants: Nobu Matsuhisa