TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 110689 / p74 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 5.7 KB | 119 lines

<text id=89TT2916> <title> Nov. 06, 1989: No. 2 And Trying Harder </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1989 Nov. 06, 1989 The Big Break </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> PRESS, Page 74 No. 2 and Trying Harder </hdr><body> 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. </body></article> </text>