ABC wondered whether subpoenas and hearings weren't democracy in action, but a waste of America's resources. On the April 10, 1997 World News Tonight, anchor Peter Jennings promoted a story: “When we come back, two investigations of fundraising abuse, two of them on Capitol Hill. Is it a waste of time and money?” Reporter John Cochran underlined the problem of GOP partisanship: “Dan Burton is a hard-charging partisan and has resisted investigating anyone but Democrats.”
ABC’s Linda Douglass insisted there was public boredom at the end of a story on the July 18, 1997 World News Tonight: “Democrats gripe that the hearings are too partisan, so next week the committee will focus on foreign contributions to Republicans, all the while wondering if the public is paying attention to any of this.”
CBS cast the House subpoena plans as a partisan food fight. On the April 11, 1997 CBS This Morning, substitute anchor Cynthia Bowers began: “Not long ago, there was a lot of talk on Capitol Hill about returning a sense of civility to congressional debate. Remember that? Well, forget it. When the debate is over money and politics, the gloves come off in the House of Representatives.”
Reporter Bob Schieffer warned: “The House committee trying to investigate campaign irregularities has broken into complete partisan disarray over how much power to give Republican Chairman Dan Burton....Democrats did everything but throw food when Burton laid out ground rules for the investigation, under which he could subpoena witnesses and documents without the Democrats' permission....Democrats say Burton is destroying the committee's credibility by concentrating only on Democratic irregularities....Democrats fear the probe is already out of control.”
On July 31, 1997, the Senate committee probing the Asian money scandal voted unanimously to subpoena the White House after they took months to release documents about illegal donations to the DNC. The only network mention came from Bob Schieffer on the July 30 CBS Evening News – but nothing after subpoenas were issued.
NBC
theorized that the media were too Clinton-scandal obsessed in 1997. On
June 17, 1997, Today co-host Katie Couric asked reporter Bob Woodward:
“But are members of the media, do you think, Bob, too scandal-obsessed,
looking for something at every corner?”
On August 1, even as the Senate moved to subpoena the White House, co-host Matt Lauer professed: “But there aren't any major storm clouds on the horizon for Bill Clinton, other than maybe Medicare reform.” Newsweek's Jonathan Alter replied: “Yeah, but of course there are these possible scandals, but when the economy is doing well, the public really doesn't seem to care much about anything else.”
On October 8, Today co-host Katie Couric framed the hearings for Sen. Arlen Specter: “Perhaps this is an intentional effort to embarrass the Democratic Party?” On the November 7 Today, NBC's Lisa Myers pressed Senator Fred Thompson: “Your hearings clearly reinforced the public's already low opinion of politicians and politics. Beyond that, what did it accomplish?”
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Great article, Tim. Nails the
March 31, 2007 - 11:43 ET by winston smithGreat article, Tim. Nails the MSM on their transparent partisanship for the Democrat party ----- in their own words. That they can get so worked up over the legal firing of 8 U.S. attorneys yet practically brush aside the Asian money scandal and illegal donations to the DNC illustrates the deplorable state of today's MSM.
Yes, this is the type of arch
March 31, 2007 - 12:06 ET by jondelwicheYes, this is the type of archival material which makes this site a must read for me every day.It reinforces the utter bias in our media outlets.(I think this was exactly the same time many Dems and media were also defending the Martins' right to eavesdrop/distribute private phone calls by Speaker Gingrich). Oh, how issues are framed depending upon whose in power.....Thanks Tim for the great reminder as several old quotes had me laughing.
You should go back in history
March 31, 2007 - 13:06 ET by nicksmith112You should go back in history more often.
The hypocrisy of the MSM is dizzying.
absolutely great report. re
March 31, 2007 - 14:39 ET by buddycabsolutely great report.
reinforces what my memory was. it was ho hum what a waste of time? they reported it as the dnc wanted it reported then just as they are doing now by making a nothing issue into a big issue.
thank you
Reinforces what my memory was.........
April 1, 2007 - 07:34 ET by trebelocThis kind of exposé could be done on all kinds of subject matter, like when the Demon-coratics were saying the same things G.W. said about Saddam 10 years earlier! I wish that I had video of the stories that were produced in the 80's in the MSM about all of the terrorist camps and the threat that they presented to the U.S., until GW took office, and then become insurgents, who posed no threat to us until we attack them! Where is N.O.W. on the plight of women in Islamic dictatorships? It really, really, makes me sick to my stomach that all of these reporters forget what they said yesterday, when it serves the destruction of AMERICAN society. The MSM must think that we are STUPID, telling us there is no PINK ELEPHANT in the room while we steadily getting defecated on.
Where is N.O.W. on the plight
April 1, 2007 - 09:56 ET by dahliatraversWhere is N.O.W. on the plight of women in Islamic dictatorships?
Exactly. Inexplicably, they don't understand that WE'VE MADE IT in the United States but that there are women in other countries who badly need NOW's energy, talent, attention.