TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/102891/1028101.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 5.8 KB | 122 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 30

PRESS

When Reporters Make News


After dishing the dirt on Thomas and Hill, journalists have to
deal with allegations about themselves

By JOHN ELSON -- Reported by Sophfronia Scott Gregory/New York
and Elaine Shannon/ Washington


    Nina Totenberg, the respected legal-affairs correspondent
for National Public Radio, was co-anchor for PBS coverage of
the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Clarence Thomas. Her
commentary, though a bit preachy, sounded authoritative.
Totenberg had a more than normal interest in the outcome.
Several committee members were demanding an inquiry into the
leak that had provided Totenberg and New York Newsday's Timothy
Phelps with the scoop that Anita Hill had accused Thomas of
sexual harassment, which led to the hearings she was covering.
Moreover, Totenberg said one reason she took the charges against
Thomas seriously was that she herself had once been sexually
harassed. That disclosure led to a public reopening of a
painful, 20-year-old chapter in her life.

    Juan Williams, a frequent guest on TV talk shows, writes
for the Washington Post's Sunday magazine and Outlook section.
On Oct. 10, the newspaper's op-ed page carried an influential
column labeled "Open Season on Clarence Thomas," in which
Williams accused some Judiciary Committee staff members of
desperately seeking "mud" to block the nominee. Not until five
days later did Post readers learn that Williams was facing
charges of verbal sexual harassment filed by female employees
of the newspaper.

    In far different ways, the Totenberg and Williams
situations illustrate the ethical and professional dangers that
confront journalists when they allow themselves to become part
of the story they are covering. Totenberg is no stranger to
scoops or controversy. Until the Thomas hearings, she was
probably best known for her 1987 disclosure that Supreme Court
nominee Douglas Ginsburg smoked marijuana while a law professor
at Harvard. The subsequent furor compelled Ginsburg to withdraw
his candidacy. A Boston University dropout, Totenberg graduated
from the women's page of the Boston Record-American to the now
defunct National Observer. She was fired from the Observer after
writing a story that contained quotes she lifted from the
Washington Post. Since joining NPR in 1974, Totenberg has earned
a reputation as Washington's best at covering the federal
courts, although critics consider her abrasive and tactless.

    Totenberg's role in breaking the Anita Hill story has made
her the target of Thomas sympathizers. Last week the editorial
page of the Wall Street Journal, whose parent company published
the National Observer, ran a lengthy piece on the hearings,
including a rehash of Totenberg's dismissal for plagiarism 20
years ago, as well as her charge that she was sexually harassed
at the paper. Why did the Journal go into all that? Observers
noted that the Journal had editorially championed Thomas and
attacked Totenberg for her role in the Hill leaks; what's more,
the paper had been criticized for its minimal coverage of Hill's
allegations.

    Williams first met Thomas in 1986 and subsequently wrote
an admiring profile of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission chairman for the Atlantic. In recent TV appearances
Williams suggested that Hill's charges against Thomas, who is
now a friend, were baseless. Shortly after he wrote his
op-ed-page piece, Williams was told by Post assistant managing
editor Tom Wilkinson of the newsroom-harassment charges, which
Williams claims involved only a few innocent "jokes." In what
the Post admits was an administrative lapse, Meg Greenfield, who
edits the op-ed page, was not informed by either Wilkinson or
executive editor Leonard Downie of Williams' potential conflict.
That his piece ran with no mention of the sexual-harassment
charges against him apparently inspired several Post employees
to add their names to the list of his alleged victims.

    So what, then, ought to be the guidelines? Ben Bagdikian,
former dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Berkeley,
believes that reporters with a special interest in a story
should be barred or should recuse themselves from covering it.
"There are two problems," he says. "One is whether reporters
with an involvement or stake in a story can be objective. The
other is whether or not readers can believe they're being
objective."

    Some experts argue that Totenberg was just doing her job
in the Hill case and that her opinions on issues are all up
front and available for the audience to accept or discount. "The
fact that she happened to be the vehicle for Hill's charges
becoming public isn't germane to her being a commentator," says
Stephen Isaacs, associate dean of Columbia's Graduate School of
Journalism. As for her own involvement with sexual harassment,
George Harmon of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern
is more sanguine. "She's a professional," Harmon says. "She
ought to be able to cover a story without having her mind
clouded by her own experience."

    Different issues arise from the Williams case. The
columnist says, and Post editors do not disagree, that his
pro-Thomas piece was invited and submitted before he was told
about the harassment charges. But Mark Jukowitz, media critic
of the weekly Boston Phoenix, contends, "If I'm Juan Williams,
I absolutely take myself out of the ball game" -- meaning no
further comment on Thomas. (In fact, executive editor Leonard
Downie ordered Williams to stop appearing on TV shows until the
charges against him are resolved.) It may be hard to decide
where to draw the line, but Columbia's Isaacs points to one
helpful rule: "Always conduct your business with the knowledge
that whatever you do could end up on Page One."