INTENDING TO BE WELL PAID! Your press corps loves to talk about swagexcept when the swag is its own: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2007
ITS STILL HOW DEBATES GET DECIDED: Tomorrow, the first Democratic debate! Hosted by NBCs Brian Williams! Responding to the growing excitement, Roger Simon penned this world-class groaner over at Mondays Politico. At Tapped, Paul Waldman offered this reply, then added this valuable post.
Amazingly, Simon wrote in praise of the dumbest, least appropriate question ever asked in a general election debate—the lurid query Bernie Shaw threw at Dukakis to open the final 1988 forum. ("Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?) Its amazing to see that pundits like Simon still think this was the greatest moment in the history of American journalism. And its amazing to see that Shaw still thinks this question proves he was The Man.
In his first post, Waldman does an excellent job of critiquing the nonsense involved here. (Though no one could really do full justice to the absurdity of Simons analysis.) In his second post, he takes us back to the 1972 White House race—and helps us see how major pundits pick and choose winners for us dumb-ass voters. Yep! This has gone on for a very long time in this, our dumbest cohort.
If youre interested in the way our elections get scripted, we strongly recommend both Waldman posts. But we thought it was worth noting one further point: Right after that second Bush-Dukakis debate, Bernie Shaw got some very bad reviews for asking his dumb, ugly question. Checking on Nexis, we found few next-day reports praising Shaw. We found several reports which savaged him for asking his dumb, ugly question.
Heres how Steve Daley began an analysis piece in the next days Chicago Tribune:
DALEY (10/14/88): In a matter of figurative television moments, CNN anchor Bernard Shaw raped and murdered Kitty Dukakis, then killed off George Bush before Inauguration Day.Ouch! But others had the same reaction to Shaws brilliant question. In the Boston Globe, Tom Oliphant said that Dukakis had done quite poorly overall. (In the polls, The Duke had won the first debate.) But he savaged Shaw for asking a question of appalling poor taste. In the Post, Tom Shales whacked him too:
SHALES (10/14/88): Moderator Shaw certainly got the evening off to a morbid start. He began a question about the death penalty by saying to Dukakis, "If Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered ... " Then he turned to Bush and asked, "If you are elected, and die before inauguration day ... ." Bush exclaimed, "Bernie!"On October 15, Oliphant reported an interesting fact: Citing panel member Ann Compton, he reported that the three panelists had tried to persuade Shaw not to ask the question, arguing that it might set an ugly tone for the 90-minute session. In that same days Chicago Tribune, Timothy McNulty quoted Kitty Dukakis, who said, "It was an outrageous question, it really was." More McNulty: Mrs. Dukakis, a strong-minded campaigner and her husband's closest adviser, said she was embarrassed and did not want to make eye contact with her husband as he answered.
Weve always thought that was the lowest and dumbest moment in the history of presidential debates. To this day, of course, journos love to mock Dukakis—because he didnt know how to respond to a type of question almost no one would ask. (On October 14, several reporters said that Dukakis seemed startled or taken aback by the question.) But we didnt know that our pundit corps still thinks that was a brilliant query. Even here, we didnt know that their judgment remains that poor.
Meanwhile, be sure to read the part of Simons piece where he describes the scene in the press room that night, as the nations reporters assembled their story almost before the debate had begun. And be sure to see Waldmans account of the way they pre-scripted Candidate Muskie back in 1972. Your brilliant press corps also scripted that crucial first Bush-Gore debate, of course. These sages always seem to know whats best for the nations rubes to think. Looking ahead to tomorrow night, this is still how debates get decided.
THE EFFECTS OF SLEEP DEPRIVATION: Pondering his timeless brilliance, Shaw says he thought up his question at 2 in the morning. Readers, please! A bit of decorum! Lets agree not to guess where he was.
Special report: Gregorys world!
PART 2—INTENDING TO BE WELL PAID: A lot of money is sloshing around at the top of the Washington press corps. Theres nothing automatically wrong with that. But when they gather at Eel Point, adjacent to Nantuckets swells, we start to see how phony it is when their cohort complains about Edwards big house, the one that cost so much money (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/24/07). Eek! Edwards mansion in Georgetown was worth $5.2 million, Maureen Dowd complained last weekend. But uh-oh! In 2004, her friend Chris Matthews had paid $4.4 million—just for his summer crib.
Meanwhile, there is a down-side to those big salaries: Lots of people will do lots of things to qualify for the pay-days found at the top of our broadcast press corps. What became of the street-fighting Norah ODonnell who would challenge Matthews in the late 90s? Today, her Inner Feist has been sanded away—and ODonnell, once so young and bright, is on her way to a giant, less useful, career. No, we cant read Norahs mind. But this does go on in the press corps.
For the record, David Gregory hasnt engaged in the kinds of excesses which have bedeviled his parent, NBC News. By the late 90s, the networks pundits were being chosen from an amazingly limited cultural stock, and they engaged in astounding misconduct during Campaign 2000, the election which changed U.S. history. Matthews performance was simply astounding, and Brian Williams was little better (at the time, he hosted a nightly MSNBC program). Meanwhile, Tim Russerts session with Gore in July 2000 may have been the worst hour weve ever seen from a national broadcaster. Even Tom Brokaw—then the networks diversity hire—marked himself at several key junctures with weirdly unprofessional comments about what a big loser Al Gore seemed to be. But through all these seasons, Nantucket was there; the gang would gather with their owner, Jack Welch. Well muse about Jacks role on Friday.
No, Gregory generally hasnt behaved in the gruesome manner of the boys club which has surrounded him all these years. He doesnt rush to the silly themes which long defined his networks punditry; if the rest of the press corps acted like him, THE DAILY HOWLER might not exist. Indeed, at various times in the past few years, his work has been famously pleasing to liberals. President Bush may call him Stretch, but Stretch has often seemed inclined to cut the Bush Admin down to size, sometimes overdoing in the process. By March 2006, his battles with hapless press spokesman Scott McClellan had earned him a profile from the Posts Howard Kurtz. Gregory is emerging as the Sam Donaldson of the Bush years, Kurtz wrote, the outspoken, aggressive, smart-aleck correspondent serving as a symbol for conservatives who detest the press and liberals who want reporters to crusade against the White House. We think such conservatives over-react. But when Gregory guest-hosts Hardball, the nonsense level drops through the floor. Lets say it again: In the gentlemans time at NBC News, he has generally behaved like a professional.
But that doesnt mean that he isnt surrounded by issues of wealth and connection. Wed long been intrigued by those Nantucket nuptials; wed idly wondered how this young Californian fit into his networks East Coast island boys club. And during some recent on-line perusals, we were struck by some issues that were raised by his marriage to Beth Wilkinson—a highly-accomplished, superstar lawyer who has also, as far as we can tell, never done anything wrong in her life. Because the Washington press corps is so intent on keeping us clueless about the Washington press corps, we thought these issues of wealth and connection might be worth discussing.
Lets start again in a hail of compliments. Beth Wilkinson is a super-achieving, superstar lawyer who has served her country—and who donates to Dems. In September 1998, the Washingtonians Kim Eisler profiled her as one of Washingtons top young lawyers. In fact, her name was second on Eislers list. Here was the basic background:
EISLER (9/98): Beth Ann Wilkinson, 35—the daughter of a retired nuclear-submarine captain—is one of the most talented prosecutors to come out of the Justice Department in decades. One of two women in her class to go through the ROTC program at Princeton University, Wilkinson deferred her service duties to attend the University of Virginia law school and then spent four years as an Army lawyer working on the classified-documents part of the successful Manuel Noriega prosecution.Wilkinson was a fan of Dostoevsky's brooding Russian thrillers, Eisler wrote, providing a bit of human interest. And she had just left the Justice Department...to go into private practice at the DC office of the Los Angeles-based law firm Latham & Watkins. In fact, Wilkinson was a partner at Latham, where she worked for the next seven years.
For the record, Gregory met Wilkinson while reporting on McVeighs trial, where the pleasure of a good legal brief attracted him to his future wife. Those Nantucket nuptials that caught our eye occurred in June 2000. At the Washingtonian, Eisler continued to profile Wilkinson in his periodic reports on Washingtons most outstanding lawyers. Last June, Wilkinson made her next career move. She left Latham to become executive vice president/general counsel at Fannie Mae, the hard-to-explain government-sponsored enterprise which is now the ninth-largest business in the world—if you trust Forbes and Wikipedia. And here at THE HOWLER, we do.
Not that theres anything wrong with it! (There isnt.) But Wilkinsons career at Latham and Fannie Mae is why the Washington Monthly includes her and her hubby in its current list of D.C. power couples. And yes! Although youd never know it from the way the press corps writes about the press corps, this means that Gregory lives in a world of major wealth and insider connection. What kind of salary does Gregory make? Except at the very highest levels of the broadcast press corps, matters like that are rarely discussed—although the press corps loves to discuss big salaries in every other sector. (Reportedly, Katie Couric is being paid $15 million per by CBS News.) But Wilkinson hauls down a good salary too. She was profiled by the New York Times when she made the move to Fannie Mae. In a Bloomsday profile (The Lure of the In-House Job), business writer Karen Donovan raised the always delicate question of compensation on such levels:
DONOVAN (6/16/06): Fannie Mae did not disclose Ms. Wilkinson's compensation upon her hiring.Well admit it! Given our delicate sensibilities, we found that last paraphrase mildly off-putting. (But then, tossed-off paraphrase is often unfair.) It is safe to say that this power couple gets by on at least several million a year. The press corps almost never discusses such matters—except, of course, when such wealth is found in some other occupation. Then, they sometimes stampede off to complain about all the excess.
Is there something wrong with earning big bucks? In principle, no—there is not. For example, Al Gore has earned big bucks in recent years, and guess what? Hes right about warming! Meanwhile, Gregory doesnt embarrass himself, the way some network associates do. And weve read nothing but praise for his brilliant wife—although, if you read tomorrows post, a few of her legal cases at Latham may well make a few readers twitch.
But wed guess that few voters understand the wealth of the upper-end Washington press corps. Wed also guess this: If voters knew how much these louts make, theyd be more inclined to wonder about the general drift of their work. Gregorys work is generally reasonable. But elsewhere, journalists clown, recite and self-edit with big career pay-days in mind. After all, its human nature. People are willing to do a lot for a shot at those big, massive salaries.