Tim Goodman, Chronicle Television Critic    Sunday, August 19, 2001
---------------------------------------

Every day of the Bill Clinton administration, White House reporters woke up
to opportunity. What had he done today? What bones could we dig up that
would lead to even more skeletons? Can we milk another story out of today's
existing headlines?

Those were the glory days. Toss in Hillary, and there was eight years of
bust-your-backside work for reporters covering politics. There was so much
going on with the president and first lady, it felt cheap and tabloidesque
to go after Chelsea or Roger. There were so many friends and associates
worth writing about that they would have to work overtime just to file that
news note about the pets.

How could the press not like covering a president who, even during his final
days in office, provided story lines that stretched weeks into the new administration?
And it's probably fair to say that Bill had mucked up the work so well and thoughtfully
that the rabid political press corps -- and especially the 24-hour cable channels --
couldn't even get to Hillary's work in the Senate.

Bountiful chaos.

And now there's George W. Aside from stumbling on some words, which has made
him the next Gerald Ford to the people at "Saturday Night Live," has there
really been any of the vicious attack-dog mentality of the press --
particularly the broadcast media, which never fails to beat the obviousness
of any subject to a brutal death?

Well, no, not really. Unless you count the daughters. Cue your grandfather's
reflective and predictable old lecture: "Back in my day, we didn't even
bother with Chelsea much. We considered that strictly for amateurs. "

So the Bush girls like to party. Wow. That's hardly brilliant journalism.

Here are two questions to mull over: Is President Bush getting a free pass
from the press? (Maybe reporters are still catching their breath
post-Clintons and will take up the hunt later?) And, if Bush really isn't
getting the benefit of a compliant press corps, is that very group falling
down on its job to report real, hard policy news coming out of Washington?

On television, the answer to the latter question is definitely. Better
Chandra Levy than explaining actual policy. What's sexier -- Gary Condit's
every move, or the energy crisis? Television needs a good, hearty scandal to
hook viewers. Those same viewers might -- emphasis on "might" -- sit down in
front of a newspaper and read a 30-inch story on tax relief or campaign
finance reform, but they won't sit still with a remote in their hand and
watch it told on television.

So goes the theory. But do you know why they won't? Because television
doesn't give them the opportunity. It's called underestimating your
audience, and the TV networks do it with sitcoms and dramas all the time.
But with news? How could they pimp an upcoming segment on welfare reform if
they don't have the graphics for it?

"The public is in a compliant state of mind right now," said Andrew Heyward,
president of CBS News, who thinks there are no big issues to rivet them.

And Heyward, thoughtfully considering the suggestion that George W. may be
the beneficiary of a less-than-critical press, said no. "I don't think
there's a burning issue that he's getting a free pass on," Heyward said.

And he dismissed the notion that Bush's communication minions inside the
White House are manipulating the stories that come out of the White House beat.

"During Reagan we did have that conversation," Heyward said. There was a
feeling then that getting anything of substance was difficult for a reason.
But so far, CBS News -- and others in the CBS family -- hasn't felt spun.

"Having worked out of Washington for close to 20 years and covering the
Reagan White House, which was an incredibly manipulative White House, I
think you are getting to know George Bush and there is a sense of
knowledge," said Susan Zirinsky, executive producer of "48 Hours."

"If the president himself isn't putting himself out there in kind of uncanny
positions or oddities that we took note of with either Ronald Reagan riding
his horse or Bill Clinton and some of his interesting activities or 'suspicions,' "
Zirinsky said, "then it's the president himself. It's not our coverage."

Of course, then that leaves it open to debate whether the press is actually
doing its job in lieu of sexy stories or easily defined controversies
bobbing up like fat apples in a barrel.

Heyward said there's always room for improvement when covering actual hard
news that has nothing to dress it up and sell it.

"I do think that we as a group -- not CBS, but all journalists who cover
Washington -- have to be very careful not to go to sleep when there's a lack
of sexy hooks or appropriate photo ops," he said.

"If you look at the coverage this summer of energy policy, which admittedly
ebbed somewhat in importance when the crises in California seemed to ease a
little bit, that's an important issue to people now and in the longer term,
but it's not terribly sexy unless you're living through brownouts at the
time. And I think it very quickly faded from the front pages. Campaign
reform is a huge issue that I think is getting a short shrift," Heyward continued.
"There's a fascinating dynamic in Washington and the Congress, with Jeffords'
defection to the independent ranks, that was a sensation for a week or two, but
there's implications that I don't think have been adequately explored. And I think
that's because that takes real digging and work, and I think it's incumbent on us
to make national policy news fresh, relevant and important. And I think all of us
could do a better job."

But Heyward doesn't tie those issues to Bush's lack of, well, being
Clintonesque. "I don't see a crisis because Bush is lower key or less
available," he said. "There are highly visible, well-known public servants
working in the administration; people are still working their sources, still
breaking stories. I do think we're at a time where there's no big, obvious,
sexy story on the public level coming out of Washington. And, as a result,
some important issues are getting short shrift."

Maybe it's time to ask more from White House reporters. And maybe the time
will come when George W. will be covered as ferociously as Clinton.