Pope Pales to Clinton Frenzy

It was truly historic, an event for the cosmos.

Their union was momentous, unthinkable, inconceivable and politically risky, the ultimate odd coupling of two people of different ages, backgrounds and cultures, seemingly having absolutely nothing in common, yet somehow finding a common denominator and coming together in a dramatic fashion that put them on the world stage.

On the other hand, the charges about President Clinton and former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky may not even be true.

Pope, shmope. Fidel, shmidel. Cuba, shmuba.

Not to dismiss the importance of Pope John Paul II visiting Communist Cuba and its president, Fidel Castro, this week. Historic does describe it, which is why network anchors were there in triplicate for live coverage of Wednesday’s arrival and why the media invasion of Havana included reporters from a number of Los Angeles stations. And newscasts and newspapers everywhere had plans to make Cuba their lead story. But. . .

Sex Scandal Brewing!

Make that alleged sex scandal, for perhaps only the 24-year-old Lewinsky, Clinton and White House insiders know for certain whether they had an affair and whether the president, either himself or through an emissary, urged her to lie under oath about their reported liaison. In the last two days he has denied such allegations.

About the time the pope was landing smoothly at Havana’s Jose Marti Airport, Clinton’s presidency seemed to be nose-diving in Washington, the great irony being that the pontiff stressed family values when celebrating his first Mass in Cuba Thursday.

If Clinton did suborn perjury, legal observers say, he would be guilty of obstruction of justice. That could not be tolerated. Yet the other issue underlying this story, the legal one notwithstanding, is the ongoing debate about how much of a president’s private life should be open to Americans. Who cares about a first executive’s peccadilloes? Isn’t his performance in office all that matters?

In this case, at least, the answer seems obvious. Even if Clinton were not guilty of a criminal act, merely to have had an extramarital affair with someone who at the time was said to be 21, speaks directly to his judgment, his character and his attitude toward women. Hence, the public has a right to know whether the allegation is true.

So this is not a voyeuristic morality check by media; it’s an integrity check. If only some of the media doing the reporting had more integrity themselves. To say nothing of restraint.

On ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday, Sam Donaldson reported a rumor that Clinton had bought Lewinsky a dress. “How do we know?” host Lisa McRee, a relative novice at this, asked the White House-seasoned Donaldson, now back on his old presidential beat. “Well, we don’t,” he replied, seemingly dumbfounded by the question. “We’re talking about leaks.”

Leaks, true or false, that are rushed on the air, becoming the lore of the moment.

Typical of frenzied, fast-breaking stories, the high and low roads are intersecting during TV coverage of this alleged scandal. “There is this sudden rush to judgment,” Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist and media watcher, told Katie Couric on NBC’s “Today” program Thursday. “I’ve heard some of your commentators on the network practically have Clinton on a plane to Arkansas.”

As rumors, speculation and premature instant polls swirled wildly on TV Wednesday, CNN’s legal analyst Greta Van Susteren reminded her colleagues on that network: “We all thought Richard Jewell was guilty when we were still in the allegation stage.”

Unfortunately, the tone of much of the coverage was epitomized by the Fox News Channel, making Gennifer Flowers its centerpiece guest Wednesday. It was Flowers’ story about having a lengthy tryst with Clinton--which he then denied--that made headlines in his 1992 presidential campaign. Thus, merely by giving Flowers a stage, Fox seemed to be endorsing allegations of Clinton’s infidelity with Lewinsky.

Fox reporter: “Do you think that the president thinks that having an alleged affair with a 21-year-old would not be improper?” Flowers: “I don’t think he would think there would be anything wrong with this.”

All of this, of course, fit in with Fox’s headline of the day: “Sex, Lies & Audio Tape.” Even though the sex is yet to be proved, right?

There were sloppy TV headlines and sloppy visuals, with KNBC-TV Channel 4, illustrating one of its Clinton stories with the front page of the tabloid Star, affirming journalism’s growing partnership of mud holes and mainstream.

And there was sloppy talk. Making the rounds of TV this week was Susan Carpenter McMillan, advisor to Paula Jones, the former Arkansan who is accusing Clinton of sexual harassment. Oozing compassion, that sentimentalist Carpenter McMillan told one interviewer Wednesday that she was responding to these latest charges only as a “concerned mother.” She urged that reporters use restraint because none of the allegations against Clinton has been proved. It was touching.

Then she slyly added: “Paula and the other woman look very similar.”

Well, she’s an advocate, not a journalist. But during a live stand-up on KCBS-TV Channel 2 Wednesday, reporter Linda Breakstone remarked about Lewinsky: “She was a political zero in Los Angeles, which brings to mind the question, ‘How did she get so far so fast?’ ” She added later: “Again we’re wondering why she got so far so fast.” The clear implication being, of course, that Lewinsky slept her way to the top.

That’s the way it’s going this week, as the man in Havana is upstaged by our man in the White House.