Flashback: Press Didn't Like Tell-all Books About President Clinton

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

As media gush over Scott McClellan's latest tell-all book about the Bush adminstration, a 1999 article by Margaret Carlson depicted a much less-pleased press corps when George Stephanopoulos's "All Too Human: A Political Education" cast an unfavorable light on then President Bill Clinton.

In fact, according to the former Time magazine columnist, people in the media referred to Stephanopoulos as a "turncoat," a "backstabber," and an "ingrate."

'Tis a far cry from the standing ovation McClellan is publicly receiving in press rooms around the country, wouldn't you agree?

Without further ado, here were some of the highlights from Carlson's rather stunning by comparison March 14, 1999 column (emphasis added throughout, grateful h/t to NBer Gary Hall):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Books by people seduced and betrayed by the President are coming out of Washington at the rate of one a week. Just as Monica's Story was hitting No. 1 on the best-seller list, George Stephanopoulos uncorked All Too Human: A Political Education, an account of his years at Clinton's side. While it is a good read--galloping through the 1992 campaign and Clinton's bumpy first term--it will be known as the latest example of disloyalty at the top, an attempt to cash in on trickle-down celebrity with an instant book.

Hmmm. I couldn't have said it any better: the latest example of disloyalty at the top, an attempt to cash in on trickle-down celebrity with an instant book.

Somehow these sentiments aren't being punched into keyboards today. Why might that be?

In a nonstop round of interviews, George has been hit with scathing criticism. On NBC, Katie Couric asked him how it felt to be called a "turncoat" whose take on the President was "kind of creepy." Over at CBS, Mark McEwen said the author was being called a "backstabber" and an "ingrate." On CNN former Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald noted that if the President hadn't given George the "opportunity of a lifetime," George might still be a Capitol Hill aide, not a "multimillion-dollar book writer and commentator" (inside the White House make that "commentraitor"). And James Carville says Washington has become The Truman Show, broadcasting Clinton's private life in something approaching real time.

Yet, here might be the best part:

Even George, at one time, wouldn't have approved of George. Commenting on Dick Morris' memoirs, George said, "You have a responsibility not to embarrass the President. It hurts the country. It's just stupidity and weakness." That sentiment may have held Stephanopoulos back. He may have been disloyal enough to take nearly $3 million to write the book, but something kept him from stripping Clinton bare.

Hmmm. You mean sometimes people do things for money? Noooooo.

Stupid question of the day alert: Why isn't this greedy motivation ever raised when a former member of a Republican administration gets rich off such a tell-all?

Maybe this is why NBC's David Gregory is grimacing today.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

WOW

You guys are on the freakin' ball.  Brilliant service.

Geometry

Nice angle. Well done, Noel.

I agree wholeheartedly -- a

I agree wholeheartedly -- a textbook example of "liberal media bias." 

And mind you, the Bush-bashing "tell-all" gossip rag hasn't even made the book shelves yet -- the media is graciously providing plenty of pre-release hype!  Will people wait in lines overnight to get their first copy???

P.S. -- Do my eyes deceive me, or is that Velma from Scooby Doo pictured?

Do we know that it

Do we know that it hasn't?

Are there any differences in the context of the two book releases? 

Do we know that WHAT hasn't?

"Differences in the context?" What does that even mean?

The only difference I can see is that Steffy was seen as a traitor for doing exactly what Mac is seen as being a hero for.

In other words, hypocrisy and blatant bias in the media.

Difference in context, i.e.

Difference in context, i.e. the circumstances of McClellan v. Stephanopoulos' exit from politics, when each book was released, each person's relationship with their respective president, the status of each administration during the time these two men served, and on and on. I don't think you can say McClellan and Steph. are the exact same situation so the reaction to their respective books should be the same.

Exit from politics?

"Difference in context, i.e. the circumstances of McClellan v. Stephanopoulos' exit from politics"

Exit from politics? You've got to be kidding! Since when is a Press Secretary considered a political office? Do they campaign for Press Secretary? Are the ELECTED to their office? That's funny, as I don't seem to remember voting ANY Press Secretary.

Let’s get real here. A Press secretary is nothing more than a press agent for the President. They don’t have any political power or influence. They have even less political influence than a Senator's aid. They are nothing more than mouthpieces, a paid spokesman for the REAL politicians.

OK, sorry, poor phrasing.

OK, sorry, poor phrasing. How about "exit from their respective jobs."

Much better

Much better phrasing. So let's compare the two men and their respective positions, shall we?

McClellan had been involved as a Press Secretary since 2000 when he was the traveling press secretary for Bush during his 2000 campaign. He became the White House Deputy Press Secretary in 2003. He then became the Press secretary after he replaced Ari Fleischer. That's his entire involvement with the Bush administration. That’s not what I would call a top aid to the President, would you?

Stephanopoulos was a leading member of Clinton's 1992 campaign. He also served as the defacto Press Secretary (he gave almost all of the press briefings, remember?) even though Dee Dee Myers was officially the White House Press Secretary. After six months of being a spokesperson for the Clinton Administration, he became a Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy until he resigned in 1996. That’s what I would call a top aid to the Clinton administration, wouldn’t you?

As you can see, Stephanopoulos was actually in a position to know the details of the Clinton administration since he was actually an aid to the president while McClellan was just a spokesperson for the Bush campain and administration and he held no aid position at all. Yet, somehow how, the MSM discounts Stephanopoulos' book that has more credibility while hyping McClellan's book and misstating his position in the Administration.

So, based on this, wouldn't you agree that the MSM is being highly hypocritical in how they're presenting the two? One, an actual adviser, was described as a bitter, resentful man who was just backstabbing Clinton while the other is a "top aid" who's revealing the dirty little secrets of the Bush administration. I would call that HIGHLY hypocritical, wouldn’t you?

Well it's definitely

Well it's definitely inaccurate, as I understand it, to present Scott as a top aide. 

But again I don't think you can say there's only one way to handle this situation, where a former member of the administration writes an unflattering book about their time in the White House. 

Hypocritical coverage is not the way

There may be more than one way to present the two situations, but misstating someone's position in an administration and treating the two books in the hypocritical manner like the MSM is doing now is not the way.

The question everyone should be asking is: Why would the MSM attempt to demonize one man's account of his direct experiences with a presidency while hyping another man's account even though that second man has no idea what was really going on and was not in a position to find out? The first man speaks out against a democrat president and the press demonizes him. Another man speaks out against a republican president and that same press lionizes him. Doesn't this tell you that they have an agenda here? We all know what that agenda is: Bush is Bad. The MSM says so. And, glory days!, HERE'S THE PROOF!

How much more biased can they be?

For one thing, I don't think

For one thing, I don't think the everyone is lionizing Scott. The press I watched today were asking "Why is he doing this?" not proclaiming "Halleluiah!"

I think we'll know a lot more in the days to come.

 

Not if you watch the news.

"I think we'll know a lot more in the days to come."

Not if you watch the news. The news I saw was making him sound like a man who's finally stepping up against the Bush administration, a hero that was speaking truth to power. Why else would they keep describing him as an "aid" or even a "top aid" to the President if they didn't want to overstate his importance in order to over hype his "shocking revelations" about the "true" Bush administration? That's just how I heard it described at around 6:00 on my local news station, a CBS affiliate.

One of the Best Comments

One of the best comments I have seen on this whole McClellan book thing came from a Power Line poster named "Bowman", who engaged in a bit of butt kicking with one of the resident Leftists who said:

"I never thought I’d ever believe anything Scott McClellan said"

Bowman responds:

"I consider finding someone to be believable just because he starts agreeing with you is showing that you are a poor judge of character.

All McClellan has done here is to confirm that you were right when you thought he was a dishonest person.

Since you’ve confirmed that, why would you accept anything he wrote in the book as being the truth...other than that what he says conforms to what you want to believe.

You’ve confirmed in his previous job that he’ll lie for money."

Pass the popcorn!

I think we all have to read

I think we all have to read the book before making judgment.

But if he was always saying green is blue, and now he's saying blue is
blue, he wouldn't be lying now -- unless he's now saying green is red.

Buy It?

Read the book? That would mean buy it and contribute to the real motivating factor behind this: supporting a has been trying to get some $ before W fades into history.

so

So if we all admit that Scott was a liar, then we are  confirming that he is telling the truth now since it is the complete opposite of what he said then

I get it now, thank you for clearing that up 

 

 

Do a Google Search

When I did a Google search on Scott last night, after his wiki entry 2 out of the first 5 hits I got were from left wing sites calling McClellan a "liar". And those were cites from years ago.

Please try again.

If Someone In The Clinton Admin Had Done This...

Would McClellan's book have been published had he been correct about the administration?

JDW

If you mention ANWR it means you don't care about the environment but when congress says ANWR it means you don't care about the gasoline prices

Mark, correct me if I'm

Mark, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall them casting a skeptical eye on everything Stephanopolous said, when they weren't castigating him for being disloyal.

I'm sure I don't remember any Republican member of Congress suggesting that he go before the Judiciary committee and divulge the details under oath!

So, now he's an aid?

"The allegations by this former top White House aide"

So, now he's a "former top White House aide" instead of just the former Press Secretary? Just how does one go from being a press agent to a top aid after resigning your postion? Talk about a promotion after the fact! Does that come with an increase in retirement benefits too?

Man, the Democrats are REALLY stretching on this one! I’d love to see Wexler explain to the American People how a Press Secretary is really a highly valued “top” aid to the President who has access to classified material and is present at cabinet level meetings when policy is being formulated and implemented. The twisted logic he would display with his explanation would be very entertaining.

Cobra...that matters not to

Cobra...that matters not to them, some in the press and the talking heads are using the same talking point words using words like top aid now as if he sees all the classified material and is on the policy making...the Senate will be following suit, and the msm will be breathlessly awaiting with day by day coverage until the big hearings start, all an agenda that has been coordinated behind the scenes for the election and as always from day one of Pres. Bush's becoming President trying once again to destroy the man.

It is appalling.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Yep, hypocrisy at it's

Yep, hypocrisy at it's finest when it fits their agenda.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Meanwhile, over at ABC radio news...

....at the top of the hour news they played a short excerpt from the audio book version where Bush is accused of being so sure of himself that he didn't have time to worry or be anxious and that sometimes it seemed that he just couldn't relate to the life of the ordinary America.

About 3-4 items later they played a recording of the rock star type welcome that a certain presidential candidate received at a high school in Colorado.

Any guesses regarding who this candidate was?  Hmmmmm?

ABC radio news is embarassing.

ummm...ummm.... the sweet

ummm...ummm.... the sweet nothings, empty suited, sock puppet guy that says CHANGE a lot...am I close?

ROFL!

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Well...

...it wasn't the pantsuit or the head of the Gang of 14.

Okay...I know I'll have it

Okay...I know I'll have it for sure if he has big ears and you're not suppose to mention it...that'll eliminate Paul for sure! 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Barrack/back/mountain..Seeing the dead, land of enchantment

Warehousing ;Uncles in the basement and the attic. That guy?

We are at a crossing, an Equinox in the Meridian of Change.

kuz

 

Liberals62%


IranianUranium

Withholding Evidence?

I f Mac knew that Libby and Rove were meeting to coordinate their story on dufus Plame, wouldn't he be guilty of withholding evidence from the "Special Prosecuter" (who already knew who leaked the non secret agents non secret identity). Just wondering

Now I'm really shocked.....a

Now I'm really shocked.....a liberal with a memory. WOW who would of figured.

And just for that extra

And just for that extra little bit of class, McClellan claims he heard Bush talking on the phone, telling someone that he honestly "didn't remember" whether he had ever used cocaine at some of the wild parties he'd gone too.

Way to go, Scott...get that out there again too, while you're at it.

 

 

Yeah mb..that was just

Yeah mb..that was just precious.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

   Well yeah but, obama

   Well yeah but, obama has very openly talked about doing some 'blow' and there doesn't seem to be any problem with that.  

MA... Excellent point

MA...

Excellent point with more of the obvious bias/hypocrisy in the msm..

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

For Obama, it's not a

For Obama, it's not a problem. Legalized drugs are all part of the liberal policy. But for Bush, it's hypocrisy and a contradiction of the very law enforcement policy he means to uphold.

well done Noel

I congratulate you on this timely and intelligent angle. This is the kind of ammo we need to combat McClellan's book.

can

can,

Don't thank me. This one's all Gary's. ns

All Too Human

I read "All Too Human" and found it to be lacking any really juicy information. It wasn't nearly as critical of the Clintons as the buzz made it sound. The tone of the book was that Clinton was a good president who could have been great if it weren't for his human failings. Most of it was a pretty boring personal memoir that didn't directly involve the Clintons.

My point is the MSM attacked Stephy for his book which wasn't all that critical, but praise McClellan for his book which seems quite critical.