Newswatch

By Thomas Griffith

The American press can hardly be blamed for the Iran-contra scandal, since it deserves so little credit for unearthing it. It found the Iran story in a Beirut paper, while it had all but ignored Lieut. Colonel Oliver North's gallivanting around gathering arms and money for the contras. Yet after the big story broke, the press fell out of public favor, even if not as steeply as did Ronald Reagan. Dan Rather, for example, was rated high for believability by 40% of those questioned in June 1985 and by only 28% in a January Gallup poll.

Many have accused the press of devoting too much space to the story. Some have blamed bias, others the press's itch to sensationalize. In fact, because the story has thus far lacked Watergate's drama and turned on the accumulation of details, newspaper stories ran at such length that they came to be of interest primarily to scandal junkies. But the press was not so much overplaying the story as playing catch-up in doing its job. It took the Tower commission report to make the story big and clear again.

Looking back, some in the Washington press corps acknowledge that they had slacked off in frustration from pursuing stories of the Administration's bumbling and misdeeds. The public seemed either to ignore the stories or find them carping. Not only was the President immensely popular, he had made the country feel good about itself again. His aides had succeeded as no Administration had before in managing and staging the news so that Reagan would be seen in the most favorable light where it counted most, on nightly television. In a forthcoming book, Behind the Front Page, David S. Broder of the Washington Post describes how CBS Correspondent Lesley Stahl once put together a tough, critical piece illustrating White House hype, full of flags, balloons and children. She expected to be chided for it; instead, a White House aide said he loved it and asked, "Haven't you figured it out yet? The public doesn't pay any attention to what you say. They just look at the pictures." Stahl reviewed her report with the sound off and found that it looked like an unpaid political commercial.

In some of the comment and columns out of Washington there is now a patronizing note of we-tried-to-tell-you-but-you-wouldn't-listen. James Reston of the New York Times, dean of Washington columnists, has accused the American public of taking the Fifth Amendment, blaming everybody but themselves: "How could it have happened? What did the American people know and when did they know it? They knew everything from the start and did nothing about it. They like him because they're like him: well-meaning, optimistic, credulous, stubborn and a little bit dumb."

Elected politicians know better than to blame the customers. In fact, Reagan's precipitate fall in popularity suggests that people had all along known many of the weaknesses in a President they nonetheless liked. It is hard to decide which is more remarkable in their attitude: that they think Reagan is lazy and uninformed and tells lies or that they still approve of and like him. Their willingness to hold two such contrary opinions suggests a willingness to be as optimistic as he is.

The press too has some misdeeds to answer for, including the New Republic's irresponsible cover question, IS REAGAN SENILE? (Writer Gail Sheehy's answer, given inside, buried in much psychobabble, is Who knows, but not necessarily.) Reagan certainly did not appear senile at his first press conference in months as he edgily survived some tough questioning from a press corps long denied the opportunity. Since Iranscam, a healthier shift in the relationship between press and President seems to be developing. The White House's ability to stage the news has declined without Mike Deaver, and the partisan hostility to the press is less evident without Pat Buchanan. The relationship of press to President is good when it is like a seesaw, which will not function right if one end is on the ground and the other high in the air, but works best when both sides are in rough balance.