TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/110689/p74

Text File | 1992-09-23 | 5.4 KB | 105 lines

                                                                                PRESS, Page 74

No. 2 and Trying Harder


The Washington Times bags a politician,  but can it win respect?


    Just like an eager young hunter, the Washington Times is
proud of its first big trophy: Congressman Barney Frank, whom
the paper bagged in a story two months ago about a
male-prostitution scandal. The paper followed up that scoop two
weeks ago with claims that Frank and other Congressmen used the
private House of Representatives gymnasium for sexual frolics.
Though editor in chief Arnaud de Borchgrave bristles at the
notion that the Times is turning to tabloid-style journalism to
make its mark in the nation's capital, he slyly promises "more
to come." Some Washingtonians may take that as a threat.

    Until the Frank expose, few people viewed the Times,
founded in 1982, as a serious menace. The newspaper, after all,
is owned by investors who are members of the Unification Church
headed by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, whose ambition is to lead a
worldwide theocracy. Yet many critics who dismissed "the Moonie
paper" in the early days are now taking a second look. Slowly
the Times (circ. 103,539) is moving toward acceptability.

    Beyond revelations about Frank, the paper has scored its
share of scoops -- some substantial, others ephemeral. Reporters
earn a bonus for each exclusive. The Times covers conservative
politics well and wielded influence during the Reagan
Administration. But in the age of glasnost, the paper's strident
anti-Communism seems out of touch and its editors are struggling
to find a new voice. So far, the results are mixed. "It's very
difficult to be a tabloid, a sensationalist paper and a
respectable paper at the same time," says Stephen Hess of the
Brookings Institution.

    In the early days, the Times often misstepped. Wire copy on
Moon's conviction for tax evasion was doctored. The news room
became a revolving-door work place, with constant turnover and
inexperienced staffers. During last year's presidential race,
the Times, pursuing a rumor about Michael Dukakis' receiving
psychiatric treatment, twisted a quote from Dukakis'
sister-in-law to manufacture a headline: DUKAKIS KIN HINTS AT
SESSIONS. Two reporters quit in protest.

    De Borchgrave blames the Dukakis error on deadline
pressures. "It's one boo-boo that we are faulted for every time
somebody comes to interview us," he complains. But that was not
the only slip. Last June the newspaper teased readers with a
story about a homosexual call-boy ring that allegedly involved
"key officials of the Reagan and Bush Administrations." Only
minor Administration officials were identified.

    Despite such fishing expeditions, the Times is a colorful
alternative to the sometimes staid Post. Hard-driving local
news coverage, an award-winning sports section and provocative
cultural writing make the paper a fun read. Amid reams of
conservative commentary, it delivers scoops on such diverse
matters as sewage-plant woes and Redskin-ticket scams. The paper
covers the city's black community in greater depth than the
Post. Still, while Ronald Reagan doted on the Times's
conservatism, George Bush merely includes it among the six
papers he reads each morning. And nothing yet convinces Post
managing editor Leonard Downie Jr. that the Times poses a
threat. Says he: "They appear to print a lot of things that we
didn't think were quite ready to print."

    The Times's worst enemy is not the Post (circ. 812,419) but
a continuing credibility gap spawned by worries about Moonie
influence. Initial fears of brain washed zombies running the
newsroom were unwarranted, but Moon's associates still plop
down subsidies of at least $25 million a year to keep the
presses rolling. (Estimated losses to date: $300 million.)
"You'd have to be the village bloody idiot to imagine that they
aren't trying to get a return on investment," asserts James
Whelan, the paper's founding editor, who left in 1984
complaining about church interference. But staff members say the
owners are in for the long haul. "These guys are religious,"
says assistant managing editor John Podhoretz. "So they're used
to the principle that they don't get everything in the short
term."

    The real influence of Moon's backers does not lie in
picking front-page stories. They realize that if the paper
commands journalistic respect, it offers an avenue to prestige
and power. Thus few overt church fingerprints appear on the
five-day-a-week paper. But some critics, like former
editorial-page editor William Cheshire, who departed in 1987
amid charges of church meddling, sound warnings about a private
church agenda. "They're not going to put up that money for a
newspaper and not have any control over it," he says.
DeBorchgrave waves away such charges. "We are a secular
newspaper," he contends. "Religion is utterly irrelevant to what
we do."

    Many people wish Washington had a better second paper.
Laments a former Times reporter: "It's too bad, because this
town needs the competition." With a newsroom staff of 250, the
Times cannot best the Post's 514 editorial employees on big
stories, so it must practice guerrilla journalism. "This is the
second paper in town," says Podhoretz. "We have to speak louder
to be heard." Sheer decibels and suspect scoops, however, fail
to defuse doubts about the owners' intentions.