Whatever Happened to Checking Out the Facts?

The mainstream media used to have a rule about rumors about politicians: Check them out. If an investigation uncovered newsworthy facts, print them. If not, don’t.

Pretty simple, and also honorable public service. But now, as demonstrated by the seemingly endless questions of whether George W. Bush has used cocaine, rumors rule the press. True or not, the candidate is besieged. Did he do it? How’s he handling the insistent questions? Will it hurt him politically? How long will the siege last? (In other words, how long can we, the press, keep the story alive?)

I covered national politics for 30 years, including eight presidential campaigns, and I find the assault on Bush by the press appalling. It is more than unfair. It is unethical to drag into the public arena questions about possible felony misconduct without a shred of evidence to support them.

Yes, somewhere deep in the stories or as an aside on broadcasts, reporters note that there is no evidence that Bush actually used cocaine during his self-confessed wild times when he was younger. Then they blithely continue discussing the unsupported question, almost gleefully noting that under pressure Bush has angrily said he could pass a government security check because he didn’t use cocaine during the past 25 years. Not good enough, the reporters immediately add, spinning and respinning the cluck-clucking comments from rival politicians.

Whether Bush is mishandling the questions should not be the issue. The issue is whether the cocaine questions are proper given the total lack of evidence that he used the drug. In relentlessly pursuing this improper question, the mainstream press is practicing gutter journalism.

If the cocaine-rumor story is valid, where does it end? Bush has admitted he was a heavy drinker until he swore off when he turned 40. Did he drive under the influence, an action probably more endangering to others than using cocaine? God save us from some scandal-hungry reporter asking that question, even though its hypothetical foundation surpasses the cocaine question.

Scurrilous rumors are commonplace in political campaigns. I can’t remember a major presidential candidate who wasn’t the subject of some base rumor, usually planted by political enemies.

Every respectable news organization knows how to deal with such rumors: Assign careful reporters to check them out. In Bush’s case, it should not be difficult to investigate whether he ever used cocaine. In college and afterward, he partied with scores, maybe hundreds, of people, and journalistic experience indicates that some of them will talk. It’s tedious but not hard to find a lot of these people, get their stories and cross-check them with others who were involved with Bush. The investigation may take weeks or months, but at the end there’s likely to be a solid conclusion: He did it or he didn’t.

If there is no solid evidence, no story is published. If the evidence indicates that he did it, then the candidate is interviewed for his side of the story. It’s possible he will blow up the story, convincing the reporters that his accusers are liars, showing that he wasn’t at the places at the times the illegal activity allegedly occurred. The story is published only if it is airtight.

This is not theoretical journalism. It is exactly the way responsible news organizations have proceeded in the past with sensitive rumors and accusations. For example, in 1992 rumors circulated that then-Gov. Bill Clinton had used cocaine because he had socialized with a person who had been convicted of cocaine dealing. The Times, at my direction, sent four reporters to Arkansas to investigate. They spent four months pursuing the question. They found many tantalizing leads--and all of them collapsed after careful reporting. Along the way, the reporters did some tough stories on other aspects of Clinton’s personal and political practices. But since no evidence was turned up that Clinton had used cocaine, no story was published.

Clinton’s subsequent lying and disgraceful behavior in office apparently now are seen by some reporters and editors as justification for anything-goes questioning of presidential aspirants. This demeans politics and shames the press. Politicians, like everyone else, are entitled to a presumption of innocence. Publicly asking them whether they have committed felonies, without any factual foundation, is outrageously irresponsible.

On a talk show the other day, a national political reporter was asked whether she was concerned that the public might think the cocaine questioning of Bush was unfair. It’s not the concern of reporters what the public thinks, she replied.

If her attitude is widespread, the press is in deeper trouble than its woeful poll ratings indicate. Public trust in the fairness and basic integrity of the press is its most precious asset. The unethical questioning of Bush is a mindless wasting of that asset.