GUTTER-JOURNALISM ASSAULT ON BUSH IS JUST APPALLING

The mainstream media used to have a rule about rumors about
politicians: Check them out. If an investigation uncovered newsworthy
facts, print them. If not, don't.

Pretty simple, and also honorable public service. But now, as
demonstrated by the seemingly endless questions of whether George W.
Bush has used cocaine, rumors rule the press. True or not, the
candidate is besieged. Did he do it? How's he handling the insistent
questions? Will it hurt him politically? How long will the siege last?
(In other words, how long can we, the press, keep the story alive?)

I covered national politics for 30 years, including eight presidential
campaigns, and I find the assault on Bush by the press appalling. It
is more than unfair. It is unethical to drag into the public arena
questions about possible felony misconduct without a shred of evidence
to support them.

Yes, somewhere deep in the stories or as an aside on broadcasts,
reporters note that there is no evidence that Bush actually used
cocaine during his self-confessed wild times when he was younger. Then
they blithely continue discussing the unsupported question, almost
gleefully noting that under pressure Bush has angrily said he could
pass a government security check because he didn't use cocaine during
the past 25 years. Not good enough, the reporters immediately add,
spinning and respinning the cluck-clucking comments from rival
politicians.

Whether Bush is mishandling the questions should not be the issue. The
issue is whether the cocaine questions are proper given the total lack
of evidence that he used the drug. In relentlessly pursuing this
improper question, the mainstream press is practicing gutter journalism.

If the cocaine-rumor story is valid, where does it end? Bush has
admitted he was a heavy drinker until he swore off when he turned 40.
Did he drive under the influence, an action probably more endangering
to others than using cocaine? God save us from some scandal-hungry
reporter asking that question, even though its hypothetical foundation
surpasses the cocaine question.

Scurrilous rumors are commonplace in political campaigns. I can't
remember a major presidential candidate who wasn't the subject of some
base rumor, usually planted by political enemies.

Every respectable news organization knows how to deal with such
rumors: Assign careful reporters to check them out. In Bush's case, it
should not be difficult to investigate whether he ever used cocaine.
In college and afterward, he partied with scores, maybe hundreds, of
people, and journalistic experience indicates that some of them will
talk. It's tedious but not hard to find a lot of these people, get
their stories and cross-check them with others who were involved with
Bush. The investigation may take weeks or months, but at the end
there's likely to be a solid conclusion: He did it or he didn't.

If there is no solid evidence, no story is published. If the evidence
indicates that he did it, then the candidate is interviewed for his
side of the story. It's possible he will blow up the story, convincing
the reporters that his accusers are liars, showing that he wasn't at
the places at the times the illegal activity allegedly occurred. The
story is published only if it is airtight.

This is not theoretical journalism. It is exactly the way responsible
news organizations have proceeded in the past with sensitive rumors
and accusations. For example, in 1992 rumors circulated that then-Gov.
Bill Clinton had used cocaine because he had socialized with a person
who had been convicted of cocaine dealing. The Los Angeles Times, at
my direction, sent four reporters to Arkansas to investigate. They
spent four months pursuing the question. They found many tantalizing
leads -- and all of them collapsed after careful reporting. Along the
way, the reporters did some tough stories on other aspects of
Clinton's personal and political practices. But since no evidence was
turned up that Clinton had used cocaine, no story was published.

Clinton's subsequent lying and disgraceful behavior in office
apparently now are seen by some reporters and editors as justification
for anything-goes questioning of presidential aspirants. This demeans
politics and shames the press. Politicians, like everyone else, are
entitled to a presumption of innocence. Publicly asking them whether
they have committed felonies, without any factual foundation, is
outrageously irresponsible.

On a talk show the other day, a national political reporter was asked
whether she was concerned that the public might think the cocaine
questioning of Bush was unfair. It's not the concern of reporters what
the public thinks, she replied.

If her attitude is widespread, the press is in deeper trouble than its
woeful poll ratings indicate. Public trust in the fairness and basic
integrity of the press is its most precious asset. The unethical
questioning of Bush is a mindless wasting of that asset.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Miller Is A Retired National Editor Of The Los Angeles Times And A
Lecturer In Journalism At The University Of Southern California.