Address your e-mail to
the editors to [email protected]. Please include your address and daytime phone
number (for confirmation only).
Rx: Take
a Brill Pill, and Call Me in the Morning
In response to "Brill,
Mote, and Beam": Much of the criticism of the "Pressgate" piece and the
magazine in general has been from people in the mainstream media who were
clearly part of the system I was writing about and, thus, responded
accordingly. Because
Slate
and Jacob Weisberg don't in any way
fall into that category and deserve to be taken seriously, I thought I should
try to respond seriously to some of the factual stuff. (I'll let readers decide
for themselves if the magazine is "boring," a knock that reminds me of lawyers'
wishful thinking when I started the American Lawyer .)
First, I didn't "leak" the
piece to the New York Times --a semi-important point for a magazine like
ours. We blast faxed the piece to every major (and minor, I think) press
organization, after first faxing it to Kenneth Starr. Everybody got it at the
same time. So, the Times ' decision to put it on the front page was not
based on having any kind of exclusive.
Now to take Jacob's points
in order:
l) Whether I prove Starr
leaked grand jury information depends on one's definition of grand jury
information. I used the one used by the relevant court with jurisdiction. Starr
disagrees with that. No mistakes? How about the stained dress? Or the president
testifying that he never was alone with Lewinsky? (I never say the Times
made mistakes, by the way.)
2) Yes, Sue Schmidt disputes
that quote. That happens with reporters a lot. But, interestingly, she didn't
dispute it the first time she was asked about the story--by Howie Kurtz for his
first story. My notes have her saying exactly that and then saying it again
later on in our interview (at the Madison Hotel coffee shop) in almost the same
language.
3) No self-contradiction
here. She volunteered that item about Jordan and where she had got the story in
the course of narrating that first weekend of the "scandal." When I later asked
her directly about sources for her first-day story (and stories beyond that)
she declined to comment.
4) My point was that
Lewinsky's "No" answer was the thing that stood out the most to Mike Isikoff
when I talked with him about the tapes. And it's a big part of why
Newsweek held the story. I simply pointed out that this is something
Newsweek might have remembered to put in and quote when it went online
with its first story. In retrospect, though, it would have been fairer and
fuller to note that Newsweek did, indeed, say the evidence was not at
all clear that the president had instructed her to lie. Nonetheless, I think
Newsweek should have included this important quote if it had wanted to
be fair.
5) To take one example,
let's look at the first-day reports from the networks.
What did I know? a) Starr's
top deputy had spent "much of the day" briefing these people. Starr told me
that, and Bennett confirmed it but would not tell me specifics. b) The network
reports included material from tapes that could only be the tapes that Starr's
people had made (because these tapes allegedly have Lewinsky saying that Jordan
and the president told her to lie--which was not on the tapes Newsweek
heard, and Newsweek had supposedly heard the most incriminating tapes).
Neither Tripp's lawyers nor anyone else (even Tripp, though she might obviously
remember what was on them--but she was not accessible to the press at this
point) could have heard those tapes or briefed reporters about them. So I don't
think it's "intellectually dishonest" to say that this information must have
come from Starr's office. Remember: He says his guy briefed them for these
reports, and the crux of the reports was what was supposedly on these
tapes.
By the way, this criticism
is kind of refreshing in the sense that it's so different from the "everyone
knows prosecutors leak" criticism that I've got.
6) Jacob is just plain
wrong. There are no court decisions in the relevant jurisdiction that support
Starr on the notion that leaking what people tell investigators before they
testify about what they will testify to is OK. Sure, there are some from other
courts elsewhere, but they are few and far between, and Starr really wouldn't
be able to cite them properly in a brief in the District of Columbia.
7) Oops, forget my last
paragraph under Point 5.
8) My point about anonymous
quotes is made by Jacob. I'm against totally blind uses of phrases such as
"sources" that don't say how many sources or what ax they might have to grind.
(Example: Jackie Judd's citing of "several sources" to substantiate her
witnesses-interrupted-the-president-and-Lewinsky "scoop.") When a source can't
be named, enough identification should be supplied so that the reader knows the
source's potential bias. This clearly worked here; Jacob can see that I'm using
a Times person as the source and correctly identifies the potential
bias. Now, go back and read my description of all the truly blind "sources" in
the article, and see if you can tell the difference.
9) Conflict: Yes, I should
have disclosed that in 1995 I gave 1,000 bucks to the Clinton campaign. (I've
also given money to Republicans, like Rudy.) But how could I prohibit anyone,
even myself, retroactively from making contributions? That was 1995; this is
1998, and since I sent out the initial direct mail for this magazine (which I
knew would cover political stuff and politicians), I haven't made any
contributions to anyone, let alone the president (to whom, again, I made one
contribution in 1995). The only "political" writing or editing I did around the
time of that Clinton contribution was the Paula Jones piece by Stuart Taylor in
the American Lawyer , which I instigated and edited and proudly
published--and which, as you know, made the case against the president.
I'm proud
of our magazine and proud of this piece. Prouder, in fact, now than when we
published it, because nearly two weeks later everyone who could take a shot at
it has, and so far I can see that I've misspelled one name, screwed up one
sequence (the Journal decided not to wait for comment from the White
House on its incorrect steward-witness story after hearing the White
House wanted a half-hour to comment, not before), and included two or three
gratuitous adjectives that I now wouldn't. There may be more, and if there is I
will be the first to concede it. But I hope my willingness to admit mistakes
isn't misread as being so much more fallible than others--but only being more
willing to admit it.
-- Steve BrillBrill's
Content New York City
Jacob
Weisberg responds: I appreciate the tone of Brill's letter, which is nicer
than my piece was. Several of his points, however, demand a reply.
1(a) My criticism stands.
The only thing that's clearly illegal is leaking out of the grand jury room.
Brill doesn't prove that Starr has done that.
1(b) I didn't say there
were "no mistakes." I wrote that Brill didn't document any significant error of
fact by the Post , Times , Time , or Newsweek . He
doesn't.
2) If Brill used a tape
recorder, we'd know whether he misquoted Susan Schmidt or not. He doesn't
respond to the complaint that he misquoted Jonah Goldberg.
3) Still a contradiction
in the article. It would have been consistent if Brill had written that Schmidt
declined comment on her sources except for the one she revealed.
4) This is now a point of
supernuance, not a major criticism of Newsweek 's journalistic integrity,
which was how it was billed in the story.
5) I strongly suspect
that Starr was the source for stories about what various witnesses have said.
But there's at least a plausible alternative explanation for where much of this
information could have come from. As I say, it would have been only fair to
mention it.
6) This whole argument
about the "relevant jurisdiction" is new since Brill's article. Eventually the
question of what's illegal is likely to be settled by the Supreme Court, which
will consider lower court precedents from various jurisdictions.
7) Brill concedes, I
think.
8) Weisberg
concedes.
9) Brill
concedes.
10)
Brill concedes.
Right
Back at Ya
The June 23 "Chatterbox" claims that "a kind of machinery" is at work on the
right "that doesn't exist on the left today." Actually, similar machinery has
existed on the left for years. It runs from the liberals in Congress to the
liberals in the statehouse to the liberals on the bench to the liberals on the
nightly news. President Clinton plugged into the machinery the moment he was
elected.
Examples include the
universal use of accepted terms such as "extreme right" to describe any given
idea that emanates from the conservative end of the spectrum. It includes broad
opposition to the slightest bit of reform that might impact the access of trial
lawyers to the money machine of our tort system. It includes attack dog
opposition to any and all school reform that does not result in massive amounts
of additional money for the teachers' unions. And so on and so on.
The left
has for years started opposing things in tandem the moment the handwriting
appeared on the wall. Their opposition has always included near uniformity,
right down to verbiage. The Sotomayor nomination is an isolated example of
conservatives employing this often successful tool perfected by the left.
-- David C.
Klug Harrisburg, Pa.
Remember
Who Lost the World Cup!
I read with interest
"Hegemon and Proud
of It," by Strobe Talbott. However--and you may choose to call me a smug
foreigner who is also sensitive to "smugness" on the part of the superpower--I
thought it self-congratulatory, ill-considered, and decidedly anecdotal.
It is certainly true that
the United States is the most powerful country in the world. It is also true
that its erstwhile rival has collapsed rather utterly. However, even the merest
glance at the history books will reveal that Talbott's dominate-but-cooperate
scenario has been played out over hundreds of years: The wars were always the
exceptions. It is also worth pointing out that the United States has actually
declined in relative economic importance since World War II.
In 1950, the United States
was responsible for nearly half the gross world product. However, today, even
though the United States is far and away the No. 1 economy, the European Union,
with its 15 member states, actually has a bigger share of the gross world
product. Never mind Japan and Asia, who aren't exactly inconsequential. Then
there's the rest of the world.
It seems
to me that the world as a whole is an awful lot more interdependent than it
ever has been. And I think that's a good thing. So, like, get over the American
omnipotence thing.
-- Alan
McGinty London
Fictional
Journalism 101
Hats off
to Michael Kinsley for "Fictional Journalism for Dummies." Only I would have gone a bit
further. Based on the available evidence so far, this abortion of a
CNN/ Time piece was not just overreaching but a shining example of sheer
intellectual dishonesty and reporting at its shabbiest.
-- Jim Wolf National
security correspondent, ReutersWashington
Cheap Is
Good
Regarding Jodie T. Allen's
"Living in a
Second-Best World": Five years ago, I paid between 20 cents and 40 cents a
minute for long-distance service, depending on the time of day. Now I pay 9.9
cents per minute, day or night. In real terms, average airline coach fares are
about half what they were 20 years ago, before deregulation.
I own a business that spends
several thousand dollars a year on long-distance phone service and airline
travel. Sure, finding the lowest rates/fares is more of a hassle now than it
once was, and the service may or may not be better, but to me, this is easily
worth putting up with to get the cost saving.
Allen may
be in a financial position to pay more to eliminate the hassle, but I'm
not.
-- Ken Graham Dayton,
Wash.
Knifepoint Humor
I read Atul Gawande's
"Manning the Hospital Barricades" with interest. I understand his
premise that we should get along, but my comments as a "meddie" will be much
more parochial.
I agree that surgeons
generally work very hard. (The question of whether a lot of what they do is
really necessary or appropriate is debatable, as it is for all specialties.)
The "virtue" and responsibility aspect are more problematic. There is the
common ritual of "medical clearance for surgery," where the "meddie" basically
blesses the operation and is allowed to share responsibility, despite the fact
that the note is rarely read and the recommendations are often ignored.
A less than virtuous practice
that is not unheard of is to hustle the patient of a failing operation out of
the OR to avoid "dying on the table."
I have a couple of additions
for your medical jokes (not original). How do you hide something from an
internist (meddie)? Put it under a bandage. How do you hide something from a
surgeon? Put it in the patient's chart.
Some of my
best friends are surgeons.
-- Andrew W. March,
M.D.
Flying
High
About
Kathy Molina's "Diary": It's great that
Slate
readers are getting
some exposure to a segment of society of which few people are aware. Across the
nation (and, to a lesser extent, around the world) are a handful of people
whose passion for birds in particular, and the magnificence of living things in
general, holds them apart from the rest of society. They surrender to years of
poverty. They don't watch much television. And the study of animals demands
that they go where the animals live and put up with what the animals put up
with. (To Molina's list of bugs, sun, and windblown salt, I add cold; rain;
thorns; poisonous plants; days or weeks without showers; steep, rugged terrain;
snakes; lack of roads; lack of water ...)
-- John Martin
Address your e-mail to
the editors to [email protected]. Please include your address and daytime phone
number (for confirmation only).
