List as Media Beat... Clinton Image, Reality Differ (1/3/96) By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon Wielding enormous power in Washington, D.C., he has done much to undermine federal workers and social programs. Several years ago, he jumped on a bandwagon that has become a steamroller, threatening to flatten many government agencies along the way. No, we're not talking about Newt Gingrich. Or Bob Dole. We're referring to Bill Clinton. For many weeks now, news media have focused on the Battle of the Budget -- pitting Republican congressional leaders against Democrats led by President Clinton. But the truth is that Clinton has already given away much of the store. Long ago, the president agreed to pursue a balanced budget while protecting huge Pentagon outlays, retaining corporate subsidies and ruling out substantial tax hikes for the wealthy. That leaves the rest of us to ''sacrifice.'' When Clinton negotiates with Gingrich and Dole about how to achieve Medicare ''savings,'' for instance, there isn't a lot of difference in how much they want to spend. What's more important is that they are hacking away at the program's structure. ''Clinton has not drawn a line in the sand to retain the integrity of Medicare,'' says Dean Baker, an economist with the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute. ''He's not really defending Medicare as a universal program -- he's just haggling over small dollar differences.'' The president ''has already conceded most of the key points in the budget debate,'' Baker told us. In the case of Medicare, the Republican strategy is to chip away at the program by turning it into a multi-tier system: If you don't have the bucks, you may not have access to adequate medical services. ''The issue is whether Medicare support pays for quality care in and of itself, or whether you have to kick in your own money,'' Baker observes. The GOP is eager to transform Medicare so that quality of coverage will depend on ability to pay -- and ''Clinton hasn't taken a principled position against it.'' Meanwhile, the White House has already gone along with deep cuts in Medicaid funds -- more than 60 percent of which benefit elderly people in nursing homes. So much for Clinton as champion of ''the middle class.'' During this winter's budget impasse, it's ironic that the White House has expressed so much concern about furloughed federal workers. Three years ago, with great fanfare, Bill Clinton and Al Gore came into office pledging to eliminate a quarter of a million federal jobs. That hasn't been among their broken promises. Much of the work has been contracted out to private firms -- often at higher costs to taxpayers. In 1992, Clinton campaigned to ''end welfare as we know it.'' A few weeks ago, he balked at drastic legislation to decimate federal aid to dependent children. Yet, the latest word from the White House is that he might be willing to sign a welfare ''reform'' bill that ends the federal government's guarantee -- which has been in place since the New Deal -- to assist poor children and their mothers. If FDR spins in his grave this year, we'll have Bill Clinton to thank. A New York Times article noted Jan. 2, ''He has steadily retreated to embrace his rivals' goal of balancing the federal budget in seven years. This has meant accepting a level of cuts in domestic spending that Mr. Clinton's own advisers had repeatedly denounced as unthinkable.'' To hear White House spin doctors and much of the press corps tell it, Clinton has found his true voice by firmly defending social programs against GOP right-wingers. The truth, however, is that Republican forces now storming the federal ramparts have traveled over groundwork he helped to lay. Meanwhile, millions of decent-paying jobs have disappeared -- and they won't be coming back. Most of the new jobs opening up in the private sector are low-wage and dead-end. Soon after he moved to Washington in January 1993, Clinton made it clear that he saw no major government role for turning things around. A tip-off was his swift abandonment of a modest, $ 16 billion federal job ''stimulus package.'' Since then, in economic matters, President Clinton has differed with Republican leaders on the numbers but not on the basic tenets of their political faith: ''The deficit'' is the devil, and a stake must be driven through its bleeding heart by cutting ''entitlements.'' By now, Clinton has ceded so much ground to the Contractors on America that they have long since succeeded in defining the terms of the ''debate.'' Only public pressure in support of popular programs has prevented further capitulation in the White House. --- Jeff Cohen is executive director of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Norman Solomon is co-author of ''Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in the News Media.'' List as Media BEat Should-Be Promies for '96 Election Coverage (12/27/95) By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon Four years ago, the TV networks came up with some grand new year's resolutions -- promising high-quality election-year coverage of the 1992 campaign. ''There was way too much manipulation of television news in 1988,'' said CNN's political director, Tom Hannon. He recalled that TV ''played a major role'' in a ''far too narrow discussion of the issues.'' Coverage in '92 was going to be much different. Despite all the noble vows, it wasn't. In retrospect, the fervent pledges of four years ago are a bit eerie -- like a bad dream that keeps repeating itself. ''There is a strong conviction on the part of newspeople to redress some of the problems we saw in 1988,'' Hannon declared. Tim Russert of NBC News chimed in by deploring the emphasis on fluffy campaign appearances: ''In 1988, by the time George Bush went to his third flag factory, we should have known something was up.'' Indeed. But in early 1992, the same top network news producers who had pledged to give us substantive treatment of issues turned right around and made sure that Gennifer Flowers became a household name. It's easy to swear off superficial reporting of election campaigns. The TV networks have done it plenty of times. But, to get on the road less traveled, here are some steps yet to be taken: Stop reporting the campaign as primarily a ''horse race.'' Already, the horse-racing is routine for the '96 presidential contest. We hear a lot about polls and even rumors of polls. The situation is so absurd that sometimes a candidate's ''surge'' or ''setback'' amounts to less than a poll's margin of error. Solution: Emphasize where candidates stand on the issues, not where they stand in the polls. Issues, please. This winter, network coverage is filled with analysis of how maneuvers and posturing in Congress and the White House may affect election-year hopes of individual candidates. Solution: Keep in mind that the psychodramas and ambitions of particular politicians are not what's important about elections. Jump off the knee-jerk ''family values'' bandwagon. Some candidates love to equate ''family values'' with denouncing gay people, abortion rights or rap music. Yet, it can be argued that deeper ''family values'' are involved with support for child care, adequate welfare funding, Medicare, Medicaid, federal jobs programs and a higher minimum wage. Solution: Stop reflexively using ''family values'' to sanctify certain political positions. Don't give campaign commercials a pass. Amid much self-congratulation, the mass media did some tough reporting on the accuracy of campaign commercials in 1992. But, since then, the practice has been infrequent. Solution: Methodically report on the veracity of candidate commercials. Campaign strategists should discover that when they play with the truth, they'll pay the consequences. When advertised ''facts'' are false, let the public know in a big way. Stop looking for saviors. For a while in 1992, mass media were touting ''populist'' billionaire Ross Perot as a godsend for the American political process. More recently, the national press corps fell head over heels for Gen. Colin Powell. Such puffery thrives in the absence of journalistic scrutiny. Solution: The first sign of media hero-worship should set off warning bells. Drop the cliches about ''special interests.'' Media reports commonly use the negative phrase ''special interests'' to describe groups of Americans, such as elderly people, workers, blacks, women and the poor -- as though their concerns were somehow narrow or selfish. In contrast, the pejorative ''special interests'' label rarely gets stuck on monied interests in industries like oil, banking, insurance and agribusiness. Solution: Retire the buzz-phrase ''special interests'' -- or start using it to refer to interests that use money, not people, to unduly influence politics. Supply in-depth information about campaign funding. Television news rarely provides details about the large contributors paying for campaigns -- and how their largess has coincided with a favored candidate's stands on issues. Solution: Instead of merely mentioning how much money each candidate has raised, news reports should explain who the big funders are -- and what interests they represent. As a reminder to viewers, it would help to display the corporate logos of major contributors when a candidate appears on the screen. New year's resolutions are easy. Following through is always the hard part. --- Jeff Cohen is executive director of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Norman Solomon is co-author of ''Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in the News Media.'' MediaBeat A Town's Fight Against Hate (12/13/95) By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon In recent months, an enormous amount of news coverage has focused on the great national divide known as ''race.'' Journalists discuss the subject with ease -- perhaps too much ease. Writers produce a steady stream of recycled notions. TV journalists and politicians speak with scripted phrases that roll off tongues while scrolling down TelePrompTers. To many of us, the verbiage often sounds glib, overheated or pointless. If you're among the white people who have grown tired of hearing about racism, imagine how you'd feel if you had to keep encountering it. Our society is quite adept at papering over institutionalized racism: from unfair bank loan practices and red-lined neighborhoods to the dreadfully inadequate schools for millions of black and Latino children. But there's nothing subtle about the racism that has increasingly manifested itself in violent ''hate crimes.'' If our society is going to promote a strong anti-racist ethic, then a wide range of people must take responsibility for speaking up and speaking out. On an extraordinary TV program set for nationwide broadcast, they do. The program -- a documentary titled ''Not in Our Town'' -- will air on more than 200 public television stations between mid-December and early January. The TV special does more than document how residents of Montana's largest city (Billings, population 84,000) united to overcome white supremacist groups. The half-hour program also provides a model for how each of us -- wherever we live -- can respond with assertive pride in our shared humanity. A former police chief of Billings is blunt. ''Hate groups have learned through experience that if a community doesn't respond, then the community accepts,'' Wayne Inman says in the documentary. ''Silence is acceptance to them.'' During 1993, alarming events escalated in Billings. First, hate fliers and KKK newspapers appeared. Then, ''skinheads'' harassed American Indian children on their way home from school. Assaults on gay people intensified. Early on, the city's Central Labor Council passed a resolution condemning those attacks. Hundreds of people attended rallies against hatred; 6,000 signed a statement. More than 100 local organizations passed resolutions condemning hate activity in Billings. But bigots stepped up their offensive. They desecrated graves in a Jewish cemetery, overturning tombstones. Skinheads appeared at a small black church, standing in the back of the chapel with their arms folded ominously. Late one autumn night, swastikas and hate messages were painted on the side of the house of a American Indian family. Thirty volunteers from the painters' union quickly responded by repainting the house. Rather than passively reporting on these events, the Billings Gazette showed that a daily newspaper can be a vitally active part of a community. After a cinder block shattered a window displaying a menorah and crashed into the bedroom of a Jewish child, the newspaper published a full-page color picture of a menorah. The idea swept through town: Homes, churches and local stores taped the picture of the menorah to their windows. ''By late December, nearly 10,000 people in Billings, Mont., had menorahs in their windows,'' the documentary reports. The program concludes with an upbeat scenario: ''Today -- not in our town. Tomorrow -- not in our country.'' The independent producers of ''Not in Our Town'' are eager to encourage grassroots efforts, including community-based forums and classroom projects. Boosted by a lead-up dubbed ''Not in Our Town Week'' (Dec. 10-17), the program aims to stimulate discussion and action. On the last page of his last book, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote about what he called ''the fierce urgency of now.'' During the next few weeks, ''Not in Our Town'' is likely to rekindle a sense of fierce urgency in communities across our troubled and beloved country. --- Jeff Cohen is executive director of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Norman Solomon is co-author of ''Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in the News Media.''