The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight a Newsmaker interview with tobacco executive Steven Goldstone of RJR Nabisco, the day's developments in the Starr investigation from Dan Balz of the "Washington Post," and then a look at how the media is covering that story as seen by voters in Denver and debated by two critics and two media executives. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Secretary of State Albright said today diplomatic efforts to end the standoff with Iraq were all but exhausted. She spoke in Paris after meeting with French officials. She said they agreed the situation was very grave. She will speak to other European, as well as Russian, leaders about the impasse over the next few days. In Iraq today President Saddam Hussein said Iraqis would defend their country with expertise, faith, and perseverance if there was a U.S. strike. In Washington, President Clinton again warned Saddam the U.S. would not allow him to use weapons of mass destruction. He spoke to top U.S. military commanders at the National Defense University. Mr. Clinton said U.N. Special Commission officials in Baghdad must be allowed to search for banned weapons.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We know that Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction before. We again say he should comply with the UNSCOM regime and the will of the United Nations but regardless, we are determined to deny him the capacity to use weapons of mass destruction again.

JIM LEHRER: There were two developments today in the investigation by independent counsel Kenneth Starr. A federal judge ruled evidence about the President's alleged relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky could not be used in the civil Paula Jones trial. Starr had requested a suspension of all evidence gathering in the Jones matter. And the attorney for Lewinsky indicated immunity negotiations with Starr broke down. We'll have a full update from the "Washington Post" newsroom later in the program. A long-time friend of President Clinton was charged today with funneling illegal contributions to the Democratic Party. Charlie Trie and a businessassociate were named in a 15-count indictment announced by the Justice Department. They were charged with arranging foreign donations to the DNC in 1996. Attorney General Reno said the indictment was an important step forward in the ongoing investigation. Trie has reportedly left the country. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said today Asia's financial crisis may cause the U.S. economy to slow down this spring. He said this country had only felt the peripheral winds of the problem so far. He spoke before the Senate Budget Committee.

ALAN GREENSPAN: The likelihood that we shall be seeing some lower prices on imported goods as a result of the difficulties in Asia may afford some breathing room from inflation pressures. But they will not permanently suppress the risks inherent in tightened labor markets. Conversely, a continuation of the Asian crisis should give us pause in assuming that our economy will remain robust indefinitely.

JIM LEHRER: Greenspan also said there was no guarantee future budgets would produce surpluses as some government projections indicate. He said Congress should exercise caution in its spending plans. A top tobacco company executive acknowledged today cigarettes are dangerous. RJR Nabisco Chairman Steven Goldstone told the House Commerce Committee tobacco products present known health risks to smokers. Goldstone and other tobacco company executives were testifying in support of the proposed $368 billion settlement with the states. The deal would give tobacco companies partial immunity from future lawsuits. We'll have a Newsmaker interview with RJR Chairman Goldstone right after this News Summary. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt again denied political contributions influenced a decision to reject a proposed Indian gambling casino. He testified today at the House Government Reform & Oversight Committee.

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior: The fact is that the decision in the Hudson Casino matter was firmly grounded in the law; it was consistent with department practice; and based on the merits of the case. The fact is it was the right decision, made in the right way, and for the right reasons. I never communicated with anyone at the White House or the Democratic National Committee about the Hudson matter.

JIM LEHRER: The CIA said today an internal investigation found no agency links to cocaine trafficking in California. Such claims appeared in a series of 1996 newspaper articles. The agency's inspector general said there was no evidence CIA employees helped Nicaraguan counter-revolutionaries fund guerrilla operations through crack cocaine sales in this country. A bomb exploded at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, today. An off-duty policeman was killed. A nurse was critically injured. It was the first fatal bombing in this country at a clinic where abortions were performed. Authorities evacuated students at nearby University of Alabama dormitories, fearing their might be a second bomb. Police were questioning an anti-abortion protester who was across the street from the clinic at the time. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the head of RJR Nabisco, tracking the Starr investigation, and the media's coverage of the President's crisis. NEWSMAKER - RJR NABISCO

JIM LEHRER: The tobacco story. Kwame Holman begins with some background.

KWAME HOLMAN: In 1994, seven tobacco industry executives stood before the House Commerce Committee and swore nicotine is not addictive.

SPOKESMAN: Do you believe nicotine is not addictive?

SPOKESMAN: I believe nicotine is not addictive.

KWAME HOLMAN: That contention was widely refuted, as have been many other of the $50 billion a year industry's defenses of its products and practices. Individuals have sued tobacco companies for years. Recently, governments have joined the legal attack. Mississippi, Florida, and Texas recently settled for payments from tobacco companies totaling some $30 billion. This week, Minnesota's tobacco lawsuit became the first to reach the trial stage. Since June, a national tobacco settlement negotiated between the industry and state attorneys general has remained on the table, awaiting action by Congress and the President. That settlement would require cigarette makers to pay $368 billion over 25 years towards smoking-related health costs and for anti-smoking campaigns, allow the Food & Drug Administration to regulate nicotine as a drug but bar the FDA from outlawing nicotine for 12 years, restrict tobacco advertising and force the industry to take steps to reduce youth smoking. In return, the tobacco companies would receive immunity from future class action lawsuits and from punitive damages for past practices. The industry's legal liability would be tapped at $5 billion per year. Today the House Commerce Committee began reviewing the proposed settlement with a new panel on tobacco industry leadership, all of whom took their jobs since 1994. The question about the addictive nature of nicotine was asked again.

SPOKESPERSON: Is nicotine addictive?

SPOKESMAN: Yes, I think under the way people use the term today I agree, it is.

SPOKESMAN: I think under some definitions today that would be accurate.

SPOKESMAN: Under the definition that you are using today, I gather, it would be addictive.

SPOKESPERSON: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Now to one of those industry officials who testified today, Steven Goldstone, chairman and chief executive officer of RJR Nabisco.Mr. Goldstone, welcome.First, on the addiction question, when did RJR determine that smoking was addictive?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE, RJR Nabisco: It really is--it's different people have different opinions because it really is a definitional matter. But my own personal opinion, the way people use addiction, the term "addiction," I think it is addictive, because it's a habit. It's a habit-forming product. And, therefore, in my view, it's addictive.

JIM LEHRER: Is that, from your perspective, necessarily a bad thing, or a good thing?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: I think people should be aware that it is habit forming, and, you know, under the proposed resolution there is going to be a warning that says nicotine--that cigarettes are addictive. And if you look at the basic principles that this is a product that does have known health risks and should only be for adults, if there is an issue about whether cigarettes are addictive, the public should be aware of it. And they have that in their minds before they make a choice to smoke cigarettes. And that's what the proposed resolution will include.

JIM LEHRER: But as a basic business proposition, if you're in the business of selling a product that is, in fact, addictive, that's a good thing, is it not?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: Well, it's really what's a good thing is to have people be aware that this may be a product that once they start using, it may be a habit that's difficult for them to break. And I agree with that. I think that is something that should be a warning on the packs, and that is something that the proposed resolution will take care of.

JIM LEHRER: Right now, at what age does your company start targeting customers, new customers to try to bring new customers into your business?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: Well, you know, the minimum age is 18. And R. J. Reynolds, the tobacco company that RJR Nabisco owns, sets an age limit of 21 in terms of marketing activities. But one of the problems in this area--and I saw it again today in Congress--is that when you take, as a consumer product company, when you take and advertise and let's say you have a pretty image on the advertisement and you're trying to aim it at 25-year- olds, I could see a reasonable person saying, well, wait a minute, a 16-year-old is attracted to that same image as well. And even though you're aiming it at an older person, you're going to create controversy. And people are always going to be concerned about it. And it's one of the reasons that I took a look and said, look, we are never going to end this controversy unless we change the way we think about it and come to grips with it and perhaps have to give up our constitutional rights, a lot of them, to communicate with customers as a consumer product company.

JIM LEHRER: To stop advertising?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: I'm afraid that what we had to come to grips with and what we really gave up in a way to the public health community, and I tend to see, I understand it, is, look, no more billboards, even billboards that might only adults primarily see and no more--a lot of color ads with great images--for example, no more Joe Camel, obviously, no more Marlboro Man, no more human images, no more color advertisements, because it's very hard to say even in good faith you're aiming an ad at a certain age group, I can understand why people would get upset, well, maybe that would attract people under the age of 18.

JIM LEHRER: Well, now as a practical matter, how does your business grow and survive?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: This business is not going to grow.

JIM LEHRER: Not going to grow?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: No. Reynolds Tobacco, after we enter into this--this proposed resolution, if Congress passes it, it's going to decline, its earnings are going to decline. Now, I think they are terrific managers of that company, very ethical people, and they will do a good job competing, but the overall business in the industry is going to decline. It's a consumer product company and a consumer product, but we are going to have to restrict ourselves in order to accommodate the concerns that people in this country have about the product.

JIM LEHRER: Do you look upon that as a good thing for the country?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: Yes, I do.

JIM LEHRER: The decline in smoking is a good thing for the country?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: I personally think that what is most important is that we, as a country, are convinced that we are doing everything we can to inform adults about what the issues are before they decide to smoke and that children do not smoke. I really believe that firmly.

JIM LEHRER: But, as--does RJR have a corporate strategy for building the business? I mean, every other business in the world--

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: I know, Jim. It's a little bit anomalous. It's a little bit hard for people to understand. But if you approach the business from the way I think you have to, from an ethical, responsible point of view, you have to accept that people need to be educated on the subject and make mature responsible choices, and that will probably mean as you do less advertising that your business, the tobacco business, will decline. But you have to keep in mind RJR Nabisco is a large consumer product company and although my domestic tobacco business--Winston Salem and the other domestic--will probably decline as a result of this proposed resolution, we have food businesses and other consumer product businesses, and in a stable environment--and that's the key thing--if we can get the litigation that overwhelms these companies today, because we do produce a product that is controversial, if we can get that to a point of view where we can make logical management decisions, we can allocate capital in a stable environment that takes into account that one of our businesses is going to decline.

JIM LEHRER: Are you personally convinced now that smoking really is, in fact, what it says on the pack "dangerous to your health" without question?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: Well, you have to understand that I'm not a scientist; I'm a layman. I will tell you my personal story. I smoked cigarettes when I was in my 20's and early 30's, and I stopped.

JIM LEHRER: Why did you stop?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: I stopped because the enjoyment that I got--it was kind of a balance. I was obviously aware of the health issues in smoking, like I believe all Americans are really, and I started becoming concerned in my 30's that I was doing something that was injurious to my health. And that overwhelmed the pleasure I was getting out of smoking, and I stopped.

JIM LEHRER: Let me read what David Kessler said. You said this before--not quite as directly as you said it just now--but you said it before. David Kessler, former head of the FDA, said after you first acknowledged this, "If he"--meaning you--"If he honestly believes that cigarettes play a role in cancer, then I believe he has an obligation to produce fewer and fewer cigarettes." Do you feel that as an obligation?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: No. What I feel is an obligation to act ethically and responsibly, which, in my view, is to make sure that people do not make decisions about smoking until they're old enough to make it, and that they're fully educated on what all of the issues are. This is a legal product, and the consensus in this country is very strong that we should not have prohibition and the product should stay legal. And, Jim, I will tell you my biggest disappointment so far as we have gone through this process is we have a proposed resolution that is a public health advocate's dream come true. It's everything. It's far beyond what I thought it would be, and I thought everybody would be running pell-mell to pick this up. But I think what's happened is having gotten all this. Some people are now looking more toward the punishment side and the past issues and going well, that's okay, now we have everything won, but let's punish them also. And that I don't think is a constructive way to look at this proposal.

JIM LEHRER: You don't feel your industry should be punished for the past targeting of young people, 12, 14?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: Well, let me ask you this.

JIM LEHRER: Okay.

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: How does $368 billion sound?

JIM LEHRER: You think that's enough?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: Enough? It's staggering. It may not be the national budget but it's staggering and part of it is $60 billion of punitive damages, which is more in punitive damages than has ever been paid by all of industry for all time.

JIM LEHRER: Do you feel as head of this--one of the major tobacco companies that that is fair? In other words, do you feel responsible for the health costs these states are going to get? That's what the $368 billion, a lot of it is going to go for, is to pay for health costs that have been attributed to smoking. Do you feel that responsibility, or is that just a legal--

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: I will tell you--if we were sitting over a beer, I'm sure I could whine a lot about the injustices that we're facing, but I have to accept reality. And I think the industry probably should have come to grips with this many years ago. And if they had, we wouldn't have to go through the painful exercise of not only the regulation, which I understand the reasons for it, but huge amounts of money in--when this industry is really still not lost any cases, and ever paid a judgment. So what it is, is what's necessary to be done to put situations right and have a civil discourse and, in my view, have a regulatory scheme that's an appropriate thing to do. My biggest disappointment so far has been something that looks to me to be such a good solution has for some reason kind of been orphaned, in my view. I heard the President's comments the other night in the State of the Union, and I know the White House has been aware of all of these negotiations leading to this deal. But I just wonder whether the leadership is really going to be there.

JIM LEHRER: Just on a personal level, are you comfortable heading a company that makes cigarettes? You must be, or you wouldn't be doing it, right? Where do you get the comfort from this? I mean, you are--if you're in the tobacco business, you're the No. 1--you're right down there with journalists in terms of villains in American society. How do you deal with that personally?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: It is personally very difficult in the sense that I find that most people's attitudes have become over the last few years so hostile and so sometimes difficult to listen to reason that the fact that you are ethical and that I think that people at Reynolds and Winston-Salem are ethical, and we sell a legal product that nobody wants to ban, I'm proud that one of our companies is in the tobacco business, one of the oldest businesses in this country. It's the largest taxpayer, corporate taxpayer in this country, and so that there are a lot--and a lot of Americans, 45 million Americans enjoy smoking today, and I get letters every day about that.

JIM LEHRER: If somebody was watching us right now, let's say 21 years old, above the legal age, would you look out at the camera and say, try my product, it's terrific, we make a good cigarette, or something? I mean, would you be comfortable doing that?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: If they already smoke?

JIM LEHRER: No, no. It's nobody--this person has never smoked.

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: Absolutely not.

JIM LEHRER: You wouldn't encourage them?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: Absolutely--look--I'll tell you very frankly I have a 12-year-old daughter, also have a 5-year-old daughter and a 9-month-old son. But I have a 12-year-old daughter. She knows--she knows she'd better not even think about even making a thought about smoking a cigarette until she's an adult. And frankly, I hope when she is an adult that she decides not to smoke.

JIM LEHRER: You would tell her, don't use the product that daddy makes? I mean--

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: I would tell her that while she is under age, she should not even be thinking. It is not a decision for children; it's a decision for adults, and that when she becomes an adult she has to understand there are risks to your health in using the product; there are also pleasures in using the product. You have to balance that as an adult. My own personal view--I hope she would decide, just like I decided to stop smoking for those reasons, I would hope she decides not to smoke. But as an adult American, she has the right to make that decision.

JIM LEHRER: Has RJR Nabisco ever considered getting out of the tobacco business, just as matter of principle?

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: No. What we have decided, and as I am chairman of this company, what I have decided is to devote myself--and by the way, when I came here two years ago, I was astounded at the hostility--war in the courts--war in Congress--and I realized we had to find a way to change this. And I will be very proud if I can participate in a resolution of this where we have civil discourse, where we have the appropriate place for this product in a society where Americans who are adults can make a decision to smoke or a decision to quit, but I can be confident that they're fully informed. And that is what we need to do here, and we really need to solve this under-age smoking problem and this proposed resolution A to Z. You can't think of anything this doesn't do. But I ask again--what I saw in Congress today were a lot of interested people, very interested in the subject. I didn't see a lot of leadership. I was disappointed not to see the Republican leadership--

JIM LEHRER: They, in fact, said today no thanks--they won't go with the immunity--

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: I will tell you, I would urge them to reconsider. And I really hope the President takes leadership here.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Mr. Goldstone, thank you very much.

STEVEN GOLDSTONE: Thank you very much, Jim. UPDATE - TRACKING THE STORY

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight tracking the Starr investigation and the media's coverage of it. Margaret Warner does the tracking.

MARGARET WARNER: Once again, for an update on today's developments, we return to the "Washington Post's" newsroom. Joining is Dan Balz, a correspondent on the Post's national staff.Dan, Monica Lewinsky's lawyer, William Ginsburg, said today his immunity talks with Kenneth Starr had broken down. What happened there?

DAN BALZ, Washington Post: Margaret, it was another really confusing day on that front. As you know, these have been on again/off again discussions and negotiations. Mr. Ginsburg met with Mr. Starr this morning for about 45 minutes. It was the first time that they've met in the last week, I believe it is, first face-to-face meeting that they've had. It lasted about 45 minutes. Mr. Ginsburg came out and when was asked about it had no real comment about the substance of the talks. What he said was that he was going back to prepare Monica Lewinsky's defense. Now, that was taken as a sign that these negotiations had, in fact, broken down; that they had reached an impasse; that there was not likely to be an agreement. As the day has gone on, we've gotten some better information on that. The Post reporters who are keeping track of this, Sue Schmidt and Peter Baker, now believe that these negotiations are, in fact, continuing, that there are likely to be more discussions at some point in the future. They do have some things that they still have to resolve, but the best we can attain at this point is that these talks have not broken down; they simply still can't find an agreement.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you or your reporters know what is the sticking point, or the sticking points?

DAN BALZ: At this point, we don't. The only thing we believe is that Mr. Starr is not satisfied with the full story that Monica Lewinsky is prepared to tell and wants to get more detail.

MARGARET WARNER: And if the talks have broken down or can't ever come to fruition, what are Starr's options then? This is a legal procedural matter.

DAN BALZ: Well, he has several options. The first, of course, is that he could grant her--you know--get the courts to grant her immunity and compel her testimony and bring her before the grand jury. The problem with that, as we understand it, is at this point if he were to go ahead and make that decision right now, the story she would tell is the story that he finds not adequate enough for what he wants. He would like something, a full accounting of what she knows, and if these negotiations broke off at this point, the story he would get is not all that he wanted. He could also go ahead and indict her for perjury and possible subordination of perjury and bring her into court that way. But, again, that's not an ideal way for him to proceed on this. The third thing he could do, obviously, is what we think is continuing to go on, which is that he continues to gather evidence on the case looking for corroborating evidence for things that are on the tapes, while continuing negotiations with Mr. Ginsburg.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, now, the other major development today or development was that the judge in Little Rock in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case came out with an interesting ruling. Tell us about that.

DAN BALZ: Well, Judge Wright, after a motion from Kenneth Starr, ruled that the Lewinsky matter cannot be raised in the Paula Jones case.

MARGARET WARNER: At all?

DAN BALZ: At all. She said that "Monica Lewinsky is not essential to the court issues in this case." She also said that admitting any evidence on the Lewinsky matter would "frustrate the timely resolution of the case." Ken Starr had gone in today and asked her to essentially, more or less, shut down all the evidence gathering in the Paula Jones case. He argued that both sides in the case, both the President's lawyers and the Jones' lawyers, were using the Lewinsky matter to their own advantage and, in a sense, were getting in their way. He made reference to the fact that the Jones lawyers were shadowing his own investigation. Now, among the things we know is that, for example, yesterday we talked about Leon Panetta, the former White House chief of staff, testifying before the Starr grand jury, and while he was there, he was served with a subpoena by Paula Jones's lawyers. That's one example. But there are many others. Lorraine Adams, who's tracking the story down in Little Rock for us today, reports that Starr complained that Jones's lawyers had asked for copies of virtually everything that Mr. Starr had asked the White House to provide in the Lewinsky matter. And so from Ken Starr's vantage point, the criminal investigation needs to take precedence. The Paula Jones case was becoming an impediment and an obstacle. And he asked Judge Wright for an end to all evidence gathering. She didn't give him all of that, but she did say that at this point the Lewinsky matter is out of bounds.

MARGARET WARNER: And so what does this, as a practical matter, mean for Paula Jones's case?

DAN BALZ: That's not entirely clear. One of the things that Paula Jones's lawyers have been trying to do is to find evidence of a pattern of practice on the President's part in terms of his behavior with women. And so they have been out looking and interviewing other women to bolster Paula Jones's case. This removes one person from that. Presumably in that sense it would be helpful to the President but we can't say for sure how much this will affect the Jones case in and of itself. The judge said that she wants this case to continue on the course that it's on, which would leave it still set for trial on May 27th.

MARGARET WARNER: Thereby essentially or implicitly, it sounds like, denying the Clinton camp's request that she accelerate it.

DAN BALZ: That would seem to be the case at this point.

MARGARET WARNER: And finally Ken Starr said, though, that he was going to appeal this decision today. If the Lewinsky matter is totally now at least out of the Paula Jones case, why does that matter, why is that not enough for Ken Starr?

DAN BALZ: I tell you, honestly, it's a question that puzzles us at this point. We're trying to find out through Mr. Starr's office whether he, in fact, will definitely appeal this, and, if so, on what grounds. He seems to have gotten most of what he needed today. There's perhaps some other elements that he's concerned about that aren't clear.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, thank you, Dan, again very much.

DAN BALZ: Thank you, Margaret.

JIM LEHRER: The "Washington Post's" full coverage is available on their web site at 10:30 Eastern Time and on ours. FOCUS - RUSH TO JUDGMENT?

JIM LEHRER: Now, the media's coverage of this story. Phil Ponce has that.

PHIL PONCE: It's been eight days since reports first surfaced that President Clinton may have had sexual relations with a 21-year-old White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. But despite the investigative abilities of a Washington-based news media--

REPORTER: Did you talk to the grand jury?

SPOKESMAN: We have nothing to say.

PHIL PONCE: --and their round-the-clock determination--

REPORTER: Why won't you tell us about it?

PHIL PONCE: --it appears to be a case of "he says/she says."

PRESIDENT CLINTON: There is not a sexual relationship. That is accurate.

PHIL PONCE: "He" being the President, who three times since the story broke has denied the allegations with an increasing degree of forcefulness.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I did not have sexual relations with that women.

PHIL PONCE: "She," Monica Lewinsky, signed an affidavit three weeks ago also denying sexual relations with the President; however, Newsweek Magazine editors have listened to secretly-recorded tapes and this week published transcripts in which Lewinsky clearly intimates a sexual relationship with the President. To date, those are the key facts. The White House press corps has had little success in getting the President's spokesperson, Mike McCurry, to clarify the President's statements, let alone add any new information.

REPORTER: Did the President say to the American people that he had no sexual intercourse?

MIKE McCURRY, White House Spokesman: I think the President was very straightforward in his comment, and I'm not going to dignify the question.

PHIL PONCE: Members of the Washington news media have been frustrated, trying to develop solid, on-the-record sources in pursuit of the story. But that hasn't prevented them from reporting on it almost continually since the story first broke.

REPORTER: --was not knocked down by the press secretary. He said just be very careful when you report this story, but he didn't say it was true; he didn't say it was untrue.

PHIL PONCE: Judging from recent television ratings, interest in the story about the President and the intern is high, and there is fierce competition among the broadcast and cable news media to air the latest information and air it first.

ANNOUNCER: Tomorrow, from the network that broke the story, "Crisis in the White House," the latest developments right up to the moment. Stay with ABC News and watch "Good Morning America."

PHIL PONCE: This story of sex and power has dominated the entertainment-driven syndicated programs such as "Inside Edition," "Hard Copy," and "Access Hollywood."

COMMENTATOR: In our inside story we dissent how this controversy is affecting the women of the White House.

PHIL PONCE: But these programs aren't what many viewers would consider part of the mainstream press.

ANNOUNCER: The White House crisis on "Face the Nation."

PHIL PONCE: Network and cable news programs haven't been quite as sensational. They and their companion magazine and talk shows are filling hours of air time delicately discussing sex, anticipating legal strategies, and speculating whether the President can survive the crisis. Occasionally, there is new information to report but often attributed to an unnamed source.

JACKIE JUDD, ABC News: Thanks, Sam. ABC News has learned that Ken Starr's investigation has moved well beyond Monica Lewinsky's claims in taped conversations that she had an affair with President Clinton. Several sources have told us that in the spring of 1996 the President and Lewinsky were caught in an intimate encounter in a private area of the White House. It is not clear whether the witnesses were Secret Service agents or White House staff.

PHIL PONCE: The "Dallas Morning News" ran the story in their early Tuesday edition only to pull it from its later editions when the source on the story told the paper his original information was inaccurate. Some of the unnamed sources quoted since the story broke have been attributed to the White House, the Justice Department, the Office of the Independent Counsel, or simply from sources referred to as being "close to the investigation." But there also are dozens of web sites on the Internet that contain un-sourced material about the President and former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The most controversial of those web sites is called "The Drudge Report." In the past, critics have regarded it as nothing more than a compilation of political rumors. But last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" Host Tim Russert used the report's editor, Matt Drudge, as a source of information.

TIM RUSSERT: There have been reports that on the tapes between Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp there are discussions of other women, including other White House staffers, involved with the President. Do you have any information on that?

MATT DRUDGE, The Drudge Report: There is talk all over this town another White House staffer is going to come out from behind the curtains this week.

PHIL PONCE: On Monday, the President's spokesperson, Mike McCurry, denied the report and added his concerns over the way the media have been covering the story.

REPORTER: Do you think the media is shaping public opinion with regard to this matter?

MIKE McCURRY: I think that there is an awful lot of interest in this, and sometimes a temptation for the story to outpace what is factually known, and a lot of reporting based on allegations that in other kinds of circumstances, in different kinds of environments, would be put through a lot finer editorial stream before they made it on the air or in print.

PHIL PONCE: The other night Elizabeth Farnsworth asked a group of Denver voters what they thought of the media's coverage of the White House story. Here are some excerpts.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: On the question of the media coverage of this, have the media gone overboard, or have they done a fairly good job covering it, in your view?

DEE CISNEROS, Retired Teacher: I feel that they have gone overboard. They had crucified the man even before he has been charged. And we haven't--nothing has been proven yet. So I really feel that they're overdoing it. I have to turn it off. I could not tolerate it anymore. I couldn't listen any longer.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What was it that you couldn't tolerate? What was the most offensive to you?

DEE CISNEROS: Well, it's a constant barrage of criticism. I just think it would be too much for any human being to listen to all of that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mr. Dickinson, you're somewhat critical of the President. Do you think the media has gone overboard here?

T. WRIGHT DICKINSON, Rancher: Yes and no. I can see them going a little bit overboard, as Dee would say. But in this instance I think the media is doing what it's supposed to do, which is report. Now, you may not have to be on the air every minute to do that. I think the media has to find within itself some reserves, some ability to limit itself. But, why I can't buy the argument that this is some grand conspiracy, whatever, if it was, the media would have had it ferreted out in a minute and those would be exposed. This is the media talking about their man, their baby, and they're laying the facts out on the table. And quite honestly, I can't see a conspiracy in this thing. I think this is own man's lower character taking him down.

DEE CISNEROS: --as facts. We're not sure--

T. WRIGHT DICKINSON: Dee, on that point, I think you're very accurate and very correct. If we have to find out what the facts are.

SUZANNA CORDOVA, School Administrator: I don't think that Clinton is the media's baby any more than whatever is the fad of the moment is the media's baby. I think that the media, it's like the over- commercialization of news, which I find really distasteful, and not just about Clinton. I think that it's the problem with the media in general, and especially anything that has to do with sex and what a big deal it is and how everybody has to know every tiny, little detail, you know, to the point where I don't think they're serving the purpose of informing the public as much as they are titillating the public and serving their own interests and getting more viewers.

ERIC DURAN, Financial Analyst: The reality is that media is becoming so competitive that things are broadcast simultaneously. And if you look at the Super Bowl, the minute the game was over there were already players holding up, you know, newspapers with the results on there. And it was just amazing to me. And I think that when you look at a scandal, I mean, this is much different than what happened in Watergate when there was sort of a deliberation and there was a little bit of time for facts to come out, and they came out in the "Washington Post" over a series of days and in-depth analysis and articles. And now it's coming out instantly, broadcast all over the world and through the Internet. So I don't think you can-- you can say that it's just--that the media is liberal anymore, or conservative. I mean, there's so many different forms of media--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Excuse me. Jim Sulton, here.

JAMES SULTON, Higher Education Administration: I find it odd for me not to fault the media on this because the sensationalism does disgust me. But there are two things that stand out: One, I learned that you can't generalize about "the" media. Princess Diana taught us that. The paparazzi are not necessarily symbolic of the media as a whole. The other is that what good journalists do, people with integrity do, is probe. And if people are hiding facts, sometimes they are the ones to uncover the facts. We all admit that we lack the facts, no matter how strongly our opinions may be held. We don't know. I wish we did know. And I wish we could put it behind us and move on. And the media has a role to play in that. So I give them their due. A lot of times I don't, so I'll just give them their due on this one. And I'll say again the sensationalism of it disgusts. But the fact of probative journalism does not.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Chris.

CHRIS GOODWIN, Stockroom Manager: I think part of the reason that maybe this scandal seems so out of perspective is because generally the media does such a poor job reporting the real issues like the big issues around the economy and foreign policy and health care. We get very, very superficial reporting on those issues. But when it comes to a major scandal or a high profile murder of some kind, or the death of a celebrity, we get wall-to-wall coverage on all channels. We don't get that on the serious issues.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: But are they giving that to you because they think that's what you want, that's what "we" I should say--although--

CHRIS GOODWIN: I think most of us really don't want that. I think we're fed that on channel after channel at all hours of the day. And I think if people were offered real news, they offered them real information on the important issues, so they could make decisions about what they think should be done, I think people would respond to that. I think people do respond to that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Dennis.

DENNIS COUGHLIN: When you are criticizing the media, you are really criticizing the electorate, because, as you mentioned, Eric, you can make up your own mind. Whatever the media puts out, they're either believable to you, or they're not believable to you--the same thing that we have with the President. You have the ability to make your own choice. And so to criticize the media because they are somehow manipulating the population is in a way criticizing the electorate. You are an intelligent voter; you can read; you can look at what you want and make up your own mind. The media doesn't necessarily manipulate the population.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sam Arnold.

SAM ARNOLD, Restaurant Owner: I'm just disgusted with the whole thing. And I'm disgusted with a nation that thinks that this is so important that it dominates the whole news, the whole news spectrum. It's disgusting.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Well, thank you all very much for being with us.

PHIL PONCE: Now for more on the media's role, Frank Sesno is a senior vice president and Washington bureau chief for CNN. Richard Smith is president and editor-in-chief of Newsweek Magazine. Kathleen Hall Jamieson is the Dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. And Marvin Kalb is a former chief diplomatic correspondent for CBS and NBC News. He's the director of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University. And welcome all.Ms. Jamieson, your reaction to the coverage in the past week.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON, University of Pennsylvania: The problem with the coverage of this important story has been that too often statements that ought to be very carefully sourced with careful confirmation, have been put forward in an environment that didn't let the audience do what the gentleman in your tape needs to do, which is make a good judgment about whether it wants to believe it or not. For example, there was a leak from the Clinton deposition. We don't of any reporters actually seeing the deposition. At the beginning of stories reporters talked about it as being a report, reportedly, allegedly, identifying it as a leak, but at the stories progressed, the same stories treat it as a confirmed fact, raising the question had lied originally in 1992. That was inappropriate, given what the reporters actually knew. What they had was a leak. There was the allegation that there was a dress with a stain on it that had DNA evidence. It turns out now that there may not be a dress. The lawyer for Miss Lewinsky has said that that's not true; there is no such dress. There also is the possibility that Newsweek misinterpreted its tapes and has led us to believe there was a gift of a dress from the President when the tapes don't support that. In each of these instances, when the allegation came out, there wasn't a counter piece of information that let people say, oh, wait a minute, I was misled by that. And also there wasn't the kind of journalistic care in the next instance, which was a confirmation that there had been an observation of Clinton in a compromising position with Ms. Lewinsky. There wasn't when that was just confirmed a comparable set of reports that said, wait a minute, that hasn't been confirmed, we don't actually know that. So My biggest concern about the President is that it hasn't clearly distinguished what we do know and we have confirmed from what we have alleged. And we haven't also made clear the distinctions among the reliability of the kinds of sources that we got.

PHIL PONCE: You specifically alluded to Newsweek Magazine. Richard Smith, your reaction.

RICHARD SMITH, Newsweek: Well, I found much of what I heard in the focus group and some of the things Ms. Jamieson mentioned to be right on target. From the beginning we have attempted to be very, very careful about not only making sure that our sourcing is as clear as possible to the reader but also to suggest and to make clear to the readers that many of these sources have motives and political agendas that require editors and readers to add a grain of salt to what they--to what they're reading. From our point of view, the reason that we decided to keep reporting and hold onto the story past the first week's deadline was precisely because we wanted to be sure that there was some supporting evidence for some very dramatic allegations.

PHIL PONCE: Marvin Kalb, your concerns?

MARVIN KALB, Harvard University: Well, my concern is first that I think this a very sorry chapter in American journalism, and I'm saddened to say that because I know a lot of the journalists were doing it, and many of them are superb journalists. So the question is: Why do such superb journalists engage in this kind of journalism now? The kind of journalism that we're talking about and Professor Jamieson alluded to--and I agree with her--ends up being about 10 to 20 percent hard, recognizable fact, and the rest of it ends up being gossip and rumor and innuendo. And there was a time during the Watergate affair, for example, when the "Washington Post" would report a story, and it had to be based on two clear sources. Right now, the whole standards of journalism seem to be very little verification is necessary, practically none. If information is out there, so to speak, it is simply picked up by one news organization after another as if that news organization had, in fact, checked it, but there is very little checking that goes on, with the net result that opinion and hard reporting tend to become intermingled, confusing the public, making it impossible really to find out what is real and what is not. And my final point here is I think there has been in press reporting over the last eight/nine days a presumption of presidential guilt. And it's almost as if the reporters are seeking to find the smoking gun and nail the President, I've got you, and that simply is not responsible reporting. And I think every reporter knows that.

PHIL PONCE: Frank Sesno, do you think there's been a lot of this, I got you factor in the reporting?

FRANK SESNO, CNN: Oh, I think there's been a fair bit of it. I must tell you, though, as I listen to Marvin and to the panel and through this exercise ad nauseam, ourselves, over at CNN, I'm beginning to think of the old Robert Kline routine, the comedian Robert Kline, how do we do it volume, and I think that that has become a real problem here, and I think the American public is sensing that as well. We look at the sources. We're very conscious of how we do it, but there is a certain threshold that is reached by sheer volume. You look at the--Ken Starr coming out of his office, and he's mauled by the cameras and the sound crews and the reporters, and the visual image is yuck, what's going on here, or you look at a Mike McCurry briefing, which we traditionally have not taken live, day after day after day, and he comes out and he prefaces them by saying, I'm not going to give you very much information there. But we take it live because it becomes interesting to us and we think significant how he answers the questions as much as what he answers in his--in the questions or in the responses. So the impression that is left, it's the old sausage analogy again. People are watching sausage being made, and they don't like it. And when we're under so much pressure to be filling this amount of time, we institutionally, as a group, you have a volume problem, and people are left with a bad taste in their mouth with that.

PHIL PONCE: Kathleen Jamieson, does the volume in and of itself send out a message about the--either the nature of the allegations or the nature of--the gravity of the allegations?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I think that what the volume suggests is that the journalistic community is taking this very seriously. And the question is: Is the journalistic community running too fast with too little and reaching conclusions that are premature? I agree with Marvin; there has been the presumption of guilt. And part of the place that you see that is in the polling, which very early in this process asks the American people whether or not they thought the President should resign or be impeached. And the evidence at that point did not justify asking those questions. Indeed, I don't think the evidence at that point--at this point justifies asking those questions. Yet, when you introduce the word "impeachment," the first night of the coverage of the story, the latitude of acceptable responses to it on the part of the American people has suddenly been dramatically altered, as has the whole nature of the circumstance.

FRANK SESNO: But wait a minute. I mean, should we not--if there are people such as George Stephanopoulos, close former aide to the President, uttering the "i" word, and if there are elected representatives, some of the President--

PHIL PONCE: The "i" word, the impeachment term.

FRANK SESNO: Yes. And if there are elected representatives uttering the "i" word or the "r" word, resign, and some of them close to the President, should we not report that, should we not ask people about that?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Frank, I know what you're saying, but it depends on whether--

FRANK SESNO: I agree with you here, I'm just asking a question--

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: But it depends on whether they uttered it in response to a question, which would be so frank: Do you think the President is going to be impeached? Part of the problem with these statements is they become decontextualized. A reporter asks whether impeachment now is viable? The person uses the word "impeachment" in the response. The news segment does not show that the question framed about in such a way that almost inevitably the answer was going to raise the question of impeachment. And, as a result, there's a subtle shift toward the assumption that this person considers it a more viable option than the person may have. The person didn't volunteer that in that context but was specifically asked about it and had as an alternative saying, well, that was a stupid and premature question, which makes you look defensive on the air.

PHIL PONCE: Richard Smith, would you say--how do you respond to the concern that journalistic standards as a whole are dropping and that the kinds of stories that have been coming out in the past week would not have come out in years past?

RICHARD SMITH: I think there's a lot to that. I can't--I can't fundamentally disagree. I think part of the problem is the volume that you all have been talking about. There are probably two dozen reporters in Washington right now who have good sources on these stories and are in a position to make judgments about the quality of the sources and the quality of the information they're getting from the sources. And there are a thousand people chasing the story. That leads to speculation. That leads to a velocity of the story that is very dangerous. Just one--one point, though: For those people who feel that it's the media who's driving this story, I just make one comment, I think it is a special prosecutor, independent counsel with subpoena power, who is acting very aggressively, who is driving the story, and there is a vacuum of information from the White House that is also in its own way driving the story. I think we're reporting it aggressively, and some people are doing it well, and some people are doing it badly, but let's not forget who the two principal actors are in this drama.

PHIL PONCE: Marvin Kalb, do you think the story might also be driven by the fact that one of the key factors in this story is the topic of sex?

MARVIN KALB: Well, there's no question about that. I mean, sex, of course, is driving this story, and the people who make editorial decisions at magazines, newspapers, television networks understand that, and they understand that people will say two diametrically opposite things to pollsters. One, that they really think that the press ought not to get into this stuff, that it's not serious, and that the press ought to deal with more substantive stories. At the very same time the ratings goes skyrocketing. And that would only indicate that the people at the very same time are watching these stories. There's a larger issue, I think, though, and that is that we are living in a totally different cultural environment. The press is only one part of that cultural environment. A colleague of mine mentioned just today that in 1980 in the United States was the first time that a divorced man was elected President of the United States. In 1987, a presidential candidates was asked the "a" question, have you committed adultery, and now we have 11 years later this kind of story with the most salacious details about the President of the United States. The President has become Hollywoodized. He's become such a celebrity--part of it, by the way, his own fault, not the press's fault--where he is simply there to be examined as if he were a movie star. He was the one who talked about his underwear to some interviewer a couple of years ago. And he has been cutting back the distance between himself as a leader and the people. At the same time, the people today seem to be saying, we accept the way in which he governs, and they're saying that by a significant majority--70 some odd percent. They don't like the sex stuff, but they're titillated by it. If there were incontrovertible evidence that the President has lied, after going on television and saying he's never had this kind of affair, that's another ball game. But until that time, I have a feeling that journalism ought to go back to something very old like checking before you report, rather than report before you check.

PHIL PONCE: Frank.

FRANK SESNO: There's a term of art that's come that's come into use over at the White House I know because I've spoken to people over there, and they say this is more about repeating than it is reporting, and I think there's something to that. And I think Marvin touched on it, because we do have a town full of reporters. And the fact of the matter is there are a handful of players who know anything about this case, who are remotely close to the principals and a very small number of reporters who have any access to those people. So where does that leave everybody else? It leaves them on the outside, straining to peer in and trying to grab whatever little shred of information or supposition they've got.

MARVIN KALB: But, Frank, it does not take more than editorial courage. You know what a story is. You know if there's good sourcing. You can say no, this should not go on the air, as well as say, yes, it belongs on the air.

FRANK SESNO: We do. Look, you know, I don't want to turn this into a commercial, but there are plenty of people and you know, Marvin--you know, Marvin, there are plenty of people who are saying no. It is a question of volume. There is confusion over sourcing. Nature abhors a vacuum, and we have a vacuum here. It's created by a gag order; it's created by a White House that's under siege, and because its lawyers are telling them so, they're not divulging anything, and Mike McCurry goes out there every day saying, well, let's have a little more theater of the absurd, I'm not going to tell you anything, and we're taking it live. It's starting to throttle back. I want to be a little counter-intuitive here and make one point, though.

PHIL PONCE: I want to follow up on what you said. It's starting to throttle back. Do you think the news coverage right now is in the process of reassessing stepping back, Kathleen Jamieson?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Yes, I think we've seen it in the last day, but the reporting in mainstream press of an inappropriate comment by Dick Morris suggests that that throttling back has not encompassed all the available areas that ought to have been throttled. It's completely inappropriate, in my judgment.

PHIL PONCE: Dick Morris speculated about the sex life of the first couple.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And Dick Morris speculated in a context in which his own statement said that he doesn't know anything about this; this is just hypothetical. So in that context why that constitutes news and why one would then report the full extent of that statement and not simply say if one thinks what's interesting is that there is, you know, this former adviser making these strange statements, that he has made these statements and the White House isn't going to talk to him anymore, I think is very, very interesting, and the pattern of this, I think, is revealing because once one news outlet reports something, the others feel as if the threshold has been lowered, and now they can at least report that it's been reported. And so, for example, what we saw was on Sunday of last week CBS reports that they have sources that confirm that Clinton has been observed in an intimate situation with Monica Lewinsky. In that environment CBS--I'm sorry--ABC is providing what they believe is evidence. Sam Donaldson then says it's been confirmed when, in fact, it hasn't. CNN had not aired that up to that point, although CNN had heard the rumors. However--reports it--

PHIL PONCE: I'm going to have to interrupt you. I'm sorry. We are out of time. Thank you all very much. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, Secretary of State Albright said diplomatic efforts to end the standoff with Iraq were all but exhausted. President Clinton warned Saddam Hussein again the United States would not allow him to use weapons of mass destruction. And in Arkansas, a federal judge ruled that allegations of an affair with a White House intern could not be used in a sexual harassment civil suit against the President. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening with Shields & Gigot, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.