The Hit-Job Mentality

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 17, 2007 10:55 AM

Memo to political reporters: Enough already.

Is it really necessary to allow operatives from one campaign to attack another candidate without their names attached? These strategists are paid to slam the other contenders. Why should they be able to hide behind a curtain of anonymity? Do you really want to be aiding and abetting that sort of cheap-shot politics?

The New Republic quotes a "rival strategist" as saying that Barack Obama "just looks and feels soft. Most Americans see that as disqualifying." So this stink-bomb thrower (not a Clintonite, the magazine hastens to add) is allowed to say that the Illinois senator is a wimp and therefore unfit for the presidency? This from someone on the payroll of another candidate?

Unnamed sources can be valuable, not just in investigative work but also in political reporting. Trading a grant of anonymity for a dose of candor may be required when asking a staffer to evaluate his or her own candidate. That might produce a grudging acknowledgment that the boss is in trouble in Iowa or had a lousy debate, rather than the scripted sunniness that emanates from most spokesmen.

But carrying out a hit on an opponent without leaving fingerprints? Look at how common this practice has become in the media:

¿ Newsweek quotes "a Clinton strategist" as saying: "What would [the Republicans] do to Obama? Nobody has thought about that yet. We have. He would be snack food." In other words, the charge that Obama lacks the fortitude to stand up to Republican attacks comes from someone without the fortitude to say it on the record.

¿ The Washington Post quotes a "GOP consultant" as saying that although Fred Thompson had "this sheen as a conservative savior," his record is "exactly the opposite," that he was "not a reliable conservative vote" and that he has "a conflicting record as a Washington-insider lobbyist." The Post also quotes a "Republican observer" accusing Thompson of "ignorance and sloppiness."

¿ Salon quotes "a top strategist for one of Clinton's rivals" as saying, "It is amazing that the dynamic has changed in a single week from she's inevitable to you can't believe a word that she says."

¿ The Los Angeles Times quotes an "aide" to Mike Huckabee saying that Mitt Romney's Mormonism "is definitely a factor in the race. . . . To a lot of people, [Mormonism] is a strange religion that they don't understand." This is a twofer: The aide gets to demean not just Romney but also an entire religion. In 1987, John Sasso was forced to resign as campaign manager for Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis after admitting that he gave the New York Times, Des Moines Register and NBC a videotape showing that Joe Biden had plagiarized language from a British politician. But the tape simply contrasted publicly available speeches. These days, campaign operatives don't need such "evidence"; they simply whisper unflattering remarks to favored correspondents.

Some news organizations, including The Post, have policies against allowing unnamed sources to denigrate others, but exceptions abound.

Last spring, New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney expressed regret for having quoted an unnamed "Bush associate" in 2004 describing John Edwards as "the Breck girl of politics," and another unnamed Bush adviser as saying of John Kerry, "He looks French." To his credit, Nagourney owned up to his role, with a colleague, in "not only previewing what the Bush campaign intended to do, but, by introducing such memorably biting characterizations into the political dialogue, helping it. Was that a mistake on our part? Perhaps."

Political reporters, as a rule, are an industrious band of road warriors who work hard to get people to speak on the record. But under deadline pressure, they sometimes succumb to the lure of the juicy quote dished out by operatives trying to damage rival candidates. Perhaps it's time to rethink the practice.

Mormons and the Media

Newsweek correspondent Elise Soukup was happy to be asked to contribute to the magazine's recent cover story on Mitt Romney. It was headlined "A Mormon's Journey."

"When I saw the cover line, I kind of groaned," she says. "I do think it's unfair to put so much emphasis on his faith. I asked, 'Would we write "A Jew's Journey"?' "

Soukup is the only Mormon reporter at Newsweek. In fact, she is probably one of the few mainstream journalists outside Utah to write about the Republican presidential candidate who also shares his faith. And that, some Mormons say, is in part because people reared in their religion tend to shy away from the news business.

A handful of Mormon journalists has risen to national prominence, from the late muckraking columnist Jack Anderson to former CBS "Early Show" co-host Jane Clayson. And Mormons make up a majority of the staff at Salt Lake City's Deseret Morning News, which is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Ron Scott, a Massachusetts author who writes a blog called Catching Mitt -- and who says he and Romney share the same great-grandfather -- says most of the country's 5.5 million Mormons are wary of joining the media world. "It's so easy to get yourself in trouble with church members who will be critical of you," he notes.

The University of Utah graduate says his mother "wasn't thrilled" when he was part of the team that founded People magazine because "writing about lifestyles of the rich and famous" was seen as a frivolous pursuit. "It's tough enough being a journalist without a mother and father and 15 brothers second-guessing whether you're being a devout member of the church."

Stephen Stromberg, a church member who writes for the Economist, says, "Mormons often have large families to support, and journalists' salaries aren't as high as what you might get doing something else."

In reading coverage of Mormon matters, says Stromberg, a former Washington Post editorial writer, journalists "get details wrong all the time, to make the church look totally nuts. It seems like the writer might be trying to hint, 'My gosh, look at these crazy people.' "

Joel Campbell, a professor at Brigham Young University, which has a sizable journalism program, says, "In our culture, there's a lot of rigidity about not going against the norm, being a naysayer, and journalism by its nature involves questioning authority."

All too often, Campbell says, only Christian leaders are quoted in stories about Romney and religion. "What bothers me about the coverage is that journalists usually go to experts in other faiths," he says. Soukup, a Brigham Young graduate now on maternity leave, doesn't agree that journalism is anathema to most Mormons. But, she notes, "many LDS women don't tend to work in the workplace for the length of their career." And, she says, "journalists tend to be more liberal and Mormons tend to be more conservative."

She had to take an intern to her first Newsweek assignment -- a coffee-tasting arranged by Krispy Kreme doughnuts -- because Mormons don't use coffee or tea. (If the intern said the brew was "robust," Soukup scribbled that in her notebook.)

Soukup wrote a 2005 cover story on Mormonism that included an interview with Gordon Hinckley, the church's president. "That was kind of nerve-racking, sitting in the same room with one of the most important men spiritually," she says. Reaction from fellow church members was mostly positive, but there were complaints. "Some Mormons feel picked on in the press and are sensitive about what they read about the church," Soukup says.

Still, she doesn't feel hindered by her religion. "I felt it almost opened more doors for me because people were curious," she says.

Moving on to the campaign trail . . . I'd say there's a full-fledged conservative insurrection against Huckabee. Rich Lowry likens him to the chairman of the DNC:

"Like Dean, his nomination would represent an act of suicide by his party. Like Dean, Huckabee is an under-vetted former governor who is manifestly unprepared to be president of the United States. Like Dean, he is rising toward the top of polls in a crowded field based on his appeal to a particular niche of his party. As with Dean, his vulnerabilities in a general election are so screamingly obvious that it's hard to believe that primary voters, once they focus seriously on their choice, will nominate him . . .

"Huckabee has declared that he doesn't believe in evolution. Even if there are many people in America who agree with him, his position would play into the image of Republicans as the anti-science party. This would tend to push away independents and upper-income Republicans. In short, Huckabee would take a strength of the GOP and, through overplaying it, make it a weakness."

Huckabee accuses Bush of an "arrogant" foreign policy, prompting the Chicago Tribune to observe:

"Huckabee actually sounds a lot like the Year 2000 version of George W. Bush. Remember, it was Bush, then styling himself as a compassionate conservative, who said during the 2000 presidential campaign that America needed a 'humble' foreign policy."

At Real Clear Politics, Steven Stark says the surge is hurting Hillary:

"It's no longer the war, stupid -- it's the economy.

"The conventional wisdom in this primary campaign has always been that the Iraq War was Hillary's Achilles Heel. As is often the case, the conventional wisdom was wrong: As long as the Democratic race was focused on foreign policy and terrorism, Hillary's asset of experience went a long way.

"Over the past month, however, the campaign terrain has changed. As the economy has worsened and efforts on the ground in Iraq have seemed to improve, the Democratic candidates have stopped talking about the war so much and have focused on domestic concerns.

"This shift negates Obama's weaknesses -- and the Clinton campaign should know it. After all, one of the main things that enabled Bill Clinton to get elected in 1992 against a far more experienced incumbent is that with the end of the Cold War, foreign policy experience no longer counted for nearly as much. But apparently, the Clinton people have forgotten it. Their goal must now be to shift part of the campaign dialogue back to foreign affairs and the war on terrorism, while still sounding optimistic.

"It may not necessarily be what Democrats want to hear. But as long as the issues of foreign policy and terrorism remain in the background of the Democratic campaign, it's Obama who will benefit."

But Hillary gets at least a small boost from this Des Moines Register endorsement, arguing that she had far more experience than Obama. Though I remember the editorial page editor telling me it might not have the same impact as on John Edwards four years ago because Hillary is so well known.

McCain also gets the Register's nod, along with endorsements from the Boston Globe (which also backed Obama), Manchester Union Leader and Portsmouth Herald. Looks like he's the media's candidate once again.

Ever notice how the media give upbeat notices to candidates who are rising in the polls? The L.A. Times ("Obama Is Hitting His Stride in Iowa") and New York Times ("Obama Showing New Confidence With Iowa Sprint") are classic examples of that. Would he be showing new confidence if he was slipping in the polls, even if he was doing and saying all the same things?

Newsweek reminds us that John Edwards is still in the hunt in Iowa with a cover story. This will look very good if Edwards wins the caucuses and be forgotten if he doesn't.

The magazine also says that Hillary's hubby is in fact playing a larger role in her effort:

"Managing the Bill factor is even trickier. According to aides who declined to be named speaking about the campaign's inner workings, the former president is a free agent within Hillary's organization, and he knows her -- and political strategy -- better than anyone on her staff. It was Bill, aides say, who crafted and delivered her new slogan of the week: that Hillary was 'an agent of change.' Bill's reach in the operation includes tweaking press releases, calling senior Hillary staffers and campaigning on his own in Iowa. Aides say there is no tension between him and her staff, even when their advice is displaced by his."

From the moment the Obama-drugs flap began, I wondered who would care, since Bill Clinton and Al Gore had both acknowledged experimenting (and George Bush had a drinking problem well into adulthood). Now Dick Polman says it's "worth remembering that Bill Clinton admitted to marijuana use in 1992 (doing it in his classic fashion, claiming that he 'didn't inhale,' and that he only did it outside America's territorial waters), and I don't seem to recall that his youthful experiences doomed him at election time.

"If the Republicans couldn't invoke drugs as a 'dirty trick' nearly 16 years ago, I doubt they'd succeed in 2008, particularly when the prevailing political winds appear to be against them. And the Hillary people are savvy enough to know this. But, apparently, the Hillary people are not savvy enough to realize that when they impugn a rival in this fashion, they risk further alienating those Democratic voters who are fed up with polarized politicking. Or perhaps the Hillary people, hard-wired for combat, simply can't help themselves."

Fred Thompson is raising money by -- get this -- boasting that he refused to raise his hand when the Des Moines Register editor asked him to. ( And he'll use that same uncompromising stance against the terrorists!):

"Don't you want a conservative leader who won't grovel to the liberal media?

"If 2,400 people donate in the next 24 hours it will tell the liberal media that the American people are tired of their games."

Giuliani is still the national front-runner, but the Weekly Standard's Richelieu expects him to fade fast:

"Rudy's polling spin has always been built on weak timber. It's easy to lead early state polls when you are famous and no one has heard of your opponents. But in mature markets like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina where others are active, Rudy does poorly. Plus the mayor is getting hammered on ethics in the national media. If he loses IA, NH, MI, SC, and NV, Rudy will become a single-digits guy in the Feb. 5 states he has been boasting about. Tough news for all those NYC conservatives who have been waving polls around heralding the unstoppable Rudy for months and months."

How many times have you heard the GOP candidates invoke Reagan? Peggy Noonan, the Gipper's onetime speechwriter, says the landscape has changed:

"I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I'm just not sure he'd be pure enough to make it in this party. I'm not sure he'd be considered good enough."

That hasn't stopped the other GOP candidates from invoking his name -- or his myth -- every two minutes.