- The Washington Times - Thursday, October 9, 2003

As the editor of the magazine that broke the Troopergate stories, I have endured a decade of lectures from journalism’s bulging choir of ethicists. In the Troopergate stories, the American Spectator had Arkansas state troopers attesting to Boy Clinton’s philandering and to more serious matters, to wit: his misuse of government employees, misuse of government offices and vehicles, and even his misuse of government credit cards. All the troopers’ stories were verified by documentation or by other witnesses’ accounts.

Moreover, the Boy President’s ithyphallic behavior continued in the White House as was made luridly clear with the 1998 national debut of Monica Lewinsky. More importantly, it is increasingly apparent that while the president was attending to the cuties, his government was failing to attend to national security.

Nonetheless, I have for a decade been lectured to by the high priests of journalism about my deplorable ethics. Sex, I am told, is a private matter. The fact that unethical and occasionally illegal behavior is employed in pursuit of sex does not change the essential privacy of the sexual acts and all the moonlit nights that might accompany those acts. It is all very romantic.

If sex is involved, all morally superior journalists shy away from reporting it. By this reasoning, a good way for a corrupt politician to cover up his corruption would be for him to become a sex maniac while taking the government to the cleaners.

So after all these lectures about the privacy of sexual acts, why have I not heard journalism’s ethicists admonishing the Los Angeles Times? In the last days of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign for the governorship of California, the Times began reporting on his frisky sex life based on the stories of women whose recollections go back to the 1970s and who have remained for the most part anonymous.

Can you imagine if my troopers had remained anonymous? Surely they had good reason to remain anonymous. They could claim they feared retribution, and as a matter of fact at least three of them were punished by state authorities.

But who would take seriously a story of sexual excess coming from sources who remained anonymous? Apparently the editors of the Los Angeles Times trust such sources, and they expect their readers to trust such sources.

According to the Times’ mostly anonymous sources, Mr. Schwarzenegger groped women, usually on movie sets, much as Bill Clinton groped Kathleen Willey in the White House. When Mrs. Willey went public with the story, I began calling her assailant the Groper, as in “Win One for the Groper.” Needless to say, the joke did not catch on. Many journalists remained in doubt that the virginal president would commit such a rude act.

Yet when the anonymous sources accused Mr. Schwarzenegger of groping, he was instantaneously referred to as the Groper, as in “Win One for the Groper.”

There is an obvious double standard at work here, and so I can imagine the Times getting a pass from the ethicists. Mr. Clinton is a Democrat, and the press sympathizes with Democrats. Mr. Schwarzenegger ran as a Republican, and the press disdains Republicans.

This suggests to me the one dreadful mistake Mr. Schwarzenegger made in his campaign. He should have declared himself an Independent. The press is almost as sympathetic to Independents as it is to Democrats. Do you recall when a particularly coarse former wrestler ran for high office in Minnesota as an Independent? No sooner did he win the governorship than Jesse Ventura was being boomed in the press as a presidential contender.

I shall be interested in the Times’ response if the ethicists do raise questions about the newspaper’s reliance on anonymous sources. How will its editors plead?

My suggestion is they rely on Clintonesque reasoning. Simply claim groping is not sex. Groping is politics. Certainly the paper treated it as politics. And apparently under certain circumstance even rape is politics.

When the Los Angeles Times got its groping story, the editors ran it on the front page. When they had a story involving rape charges against Bill Clinton, they buried the story in the back of the paper. Of course, the rape charge against Mr. Clinton was different from most of the groping charges against Mr. Schwarzenegger. It had a source willing to be identified. Her name is Juanita Broaddrick. And unlike Mr. Schwarzenegger, Mr. Clinton has neither apologized nor admitted.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is the editor in chief of the American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun and an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide