It's been well over a month now since graduation and we've been sitting on this paper trying to come to a decision.
A very esteemed and seasoned professor, for whose class (Media History) this paper was written, indicated that it's worth considering publishing in a professional journal, calling it a "great read and fine piece of scholarship". It got a "100% A+"
After considering the pros and cons of publishing, the decision finally came down to a "No".
It's quite likely more people will read it "published" here on this blog - at least the people who matter will read it. And that's all that really matters.
Anyway, it can always be removed if minds change...like in the case of using it for a grad school entrance portfolio...
In the meantime, feel free to give it a read (and any of the other "great" papers here), leave a comment, or do none of those things.
Google Drive Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0L6-YMPxtu7Tm12am1qUEd1NmM/view?usp=sharing
The New York Times Coverage of Presidential Sex Scandals:
Clinton-Lewinsky and the Roles of the Press
I. Introduction
Journalistic Values and Objectivity
Throughout American history the press has evolved to play a role in influencing society’s view of not just events, but also public officials, using a platform of ideology tied to culturally moral values. According to Herbert Gans, “journalists [have moved] beyond their strictly professional role to act as [...] moral guardians and [have] transform[ed] themselves from reporters to watchdogs” while they “uphold a particular set of norms and values”[1] becoming not just watchdogs but social gatekeepers in society.
Despite roots grounded in the mid 1700’s, it wasn’t until sociological research was applied to journalism in the mid-to-late 20th century that concrete structures for notions of newsworthiness, and theories on how news should be approached and reported, were crafted. Additionally, it was around this time that precedent for the values by which journalists should be guided became a standard by which quality journalists adhered.[2]
Of the significant media sociologists of the 20th century, Herbert Gans has been a persistent influence on the philosophies of journalistic integrity and values. Of the six “enduring values” of journalistic reporting outlined by Gans, two can be significantly applied to the ways in which the press covers stories related to public officials and their private lives, such as alleged sex relations. These two values are Altruistic Democracy and Moderatism.
Under the principles of Altruistic Democracy, government officials should behave altruistically, and as the principle is under guidelines for the press, the press should then attempt to portray them in such a way.[3] The concepts of altruism have strong moral implications indicating that in addition to being selfless and having concern for the well-being others, political figures should also be personally moral as well. A role model for society as a figurehead of the Nation in relations both within the borders as well as outside of them.
The second “enduring value” is Moderatism which speaks to the discouragement of excess or extremism in reporting.[4] As polls in recent history have shown, excess or polarized reporting can lead to audience exhaustion, compromising the relationship the press has with the public.[5] Additionally, over saturation of a subject can lead to undue public outrage, elevating the issue to scandal proportions, even if the topic at hand is low in scandal content. By the guidelines of Moderatism, the press should report on news items conservatively, and avoid undue inflammation of the subject/event. This also has a slight relationship with objective, as reporting should stay on topic and refrain from indulging in speculation, which may lead to excess reporting.
Therefore, in addition to the Altruistic Democracy and standards of Moderatism in press coverage, objectivity also becomes an important value. Tying them together, as professor and researcher Tim Vos states, “the defining characteristics of objective journalism includes [...] impartial and balanced reporting and writing, a detached and impersonal point of view [...]. Thus, the objectivity norm holds these practices as ‘moral ideals’ or as ‘morally potent prescriptions’”.[6]
Over the past few decades the private lives of public leaders have become an increasingly hot topic for the press. As far as government officials are go, the position of the President is the highest and, according to tenets of Altruistic Democracy, should therefore generally be maintained as embodying the highest altruistic and moralist quality. With the press’ penchant for exploitation of the private lives of leaders, does press coverage of presidential sex lives run in accordance with “enduring values” of journalism? Further, should it be considered newsworthy? Does coverage that elevates the private lives of public officials to that of scandal play a role in fracturing the “enduring values” previously highlighted, violating the ideals of objective journalism and negatively impacting the relationship between press and public?
Historical Presidential Sex Scandals and The New York Times
Political leaders, particularly presidents, have long been known to be unfaithful at some time or another, both prior to and after their forays into the White House.[7] From what history has told us, the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton have succumbed to temptation. Yet, prior to the 1990’s there was what would appear to be a conservative amount of press coverage related to the sexual inklings of presidents, particularly presidents while in office, despite clear indication that there were, in fact, presidents who had mistresses while serving in the White House.
A longstanding revered news agency, The New York Times, established in September of 1851, is a reliable source for historical coverage. A search of their database of now-known presidential “sex scandals” in history, such as Warren G Harding (1921-1923) and Nan Britton; John F Kennedy (1961-1963) - a renowned “womanizer” - and Marilyn Monroe (among alleged others); and Lyndon B Johnson (1963-1969) and Madeleine Brown, elicits no evidence of coverage or mention by The New York Times. It appears that it was not until the infamous President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) and Monica Lewinsky sex scandal of 1998 that the press decided that the sexual discrepancies of the President were newsworthy.
While Herbert Gans notes that in the mid-1970’s there was an increase in press coverage related to topics that revolved around the maintenance of Family[8], which infidelity would certainly apply, it appears that the evolution to include the private life of the president, particularly for The New York Times, was slow. The coverage of Clinton and Lewinsky stands as a turning point in this genre of journalism.
Post-1998, Sex Scandals and Journalistic Criticism
Looking from the past to the present, the sex scandal between President William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton and Monica Lewinsky appears to be the fulcrum point in the sensationalization of the sex lives of public figures by the press. Even today, despite the misgivings and criticism from within the industry in regards to the media response, given the state of press as it currently is, it is hard to imagine that if given the chance they would do things differently.
Ultimately, we must wonder if the private lives of public officials, particularly sex scandals, are even newsworthy, whether they be the president or any other in public office. There are a few theories on why the sex lives of presidents may be relevant to the leadership of a county - such as it reflects the quality and competence of their leadership. Given the rich tapestry of past presidents and their indiscretions, and their success and effectiveness in office[9], that theory can be laid to rest.
However, there are some perspectives that makes a good argument for the unworthy status of presidential sex lives as news, and they are based on concerns for the nation and press. Creating scandals out of the private lives or sexual relations of presidents, through decidedly un-Moderatism methods of journalism, is potentially dangerous as scandals are threats to the nation as a unit.[10] These threats manifest in ways such as diverting attention away from serious matters, compromising the faith in the President, eroding social foundations and inciting moral panic as well as damaging the public’s confidence in the press.
According to Gans, in an interview with Stephen D Reese, many years after his groundbreaking media research, journalists write for each other.[11] Holding that in account, if Gans is correct in his assertion, and if much of the writing that surrounded the press coverage of presidential sex lives violates the spirit of objectivity, as well as the “enduring values” previously discussed, then the public is losing confidence in the press at the hands and narcissism of the press itself.
Alternatively, competition with new media, which was just in its first stage of altering the media environment in 1998, blurring lines between news and entertainment, was under enormous pressure leading to vast rivalry for audience.[12] Therefore it also may have been pure competition that led to the glut of coverage, a strive to appear a relevant “gatekeeper” while competing with the new technologies presented by Internet journalism, many of whom did not feel compelled to adhere to the same standards.
Either way, there is indication that the press coverage of the 1998 sex scandal between President William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton and Monica Lewinsky is recognized as having a profound impact within the industry and is worthy of analysis and scrutinization.
II. Methodology
The aim of this paper is to analyze the coverage through perspectives of “enduring values” of the press as outlined by media sociologist Herbert Gans, along with potential violations of objectivity news standards, in the 1998 coverage of the President William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton and Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. To round out the analysis, the response of journalists and communication professionals will be also analyzed in order to shape a more complete picture of how the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal became a turning point for press and media.
Primary methodology was executed through researching the principles of early journalism education in the 20th century, particularly the sociological implications as outlined in the work of Herbert Gannes. Drawing from that, secondary methodology leads to the research of previous presidential sex scandals previous to 1998 in order to establish a base of comparison, which will then be used in the analysis of media coverage of the 1998 incident involving President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, specifically that of The New York Times. As the coverage was unreasonably dense, predominant focus will be on the initial articles released on January 21, 1998 to those leading up to the end of January 31, 1998. More directly, the primary core of the examination will be applied to the section titled ‘The President Under Fire’.
Finally, a study of the commentary, reflections and criticisms related to the coverage, by those within the industry, as well as educators, on the heels of the first ten days and beyond, will be analyzed to ascertain the impact that the overall press coverage of the sex scandal had on the industry. Through these methods, incorporating the Altruistic Democracy and Moderatism tenets of “enduring values”, an overall interpretation of the press coverage of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal will be determined. Additionally, the impact that the potential violation of these tenants had on the relationship between the press and the public shall be ascertained.
III. Literature Review
The 1998 press coverage of the affair, alleged cover-up, and obstruction of justice involving the 42nd President of the United States William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was by all means historical for America, for journalism, and for politics. The exploration of the archived records of The New York Times for coverage of known presidential philanderers throughout history up until 1998 revealed that there was not much coverage of the private lives of presidents while they were in office. Many of the presidential extramarital affairs or questionable sexual relations took place either before entering the White House, or after. These relationships played little influence in their viability to get elected, whether they were discovered prior to election, having no news value at The New York Times either during or post public service.
However, that shifted in 1998. From the Arts, to Business, to the Technology and Finance sections, coverage of the Clinton-Lewinsky sex scandal permeated all corners of the The New York Times news. Additionally, over the ten day period between January 21, 1998 and January 31, 1998 The New York Time generated over fifty pieces, from Front Page to the Opinion section, centered around President Clinton, his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky and the alleged obstruction of justice. At least eight stories related to foreign policy issues and matters of the nation even made mention of the scandal in their content. Despite some alleging that the “suborning perjury” was the catalyst in the exorbitant news coverage[13], the alleged perjury had the least amount of mention overall in any of the articles. Of all of the coverage throughout the first ten days, the section entitled ‘The President Under Fire’, which did not exist prior to January 21, 1998, and whose sole purpose appears to be the daily coverage of the aforementioned malfeasance, accounted for over twenty-five of the stories. Additionally, a search of just Ms. Lewinsky’s name between those same dates uncovered one hundred and sixty-six articles. It appeared that everybody was trying to get a piece of the publicity pie, from the Newsweek reporter who claimed he was scooped[14], to the woman who said the tapes were her idea, Lucianne S. Goldberg, and garnered extensive subsequent news coverage[15]. Even within the publishing halls of the New York Times, everybody wanted to be writing about Bill and Monica - or as Frank Rich put it, more simply, it was “All Monica All The Time”.[16]
In terms of objectivity, those first ten days of coverage by The New York Times, particularly the section “The President Under Fire”, provided a solid appearance. However, while it stuck with the issues of the case revolving around the affair, almost to the point of repetitiveness, it did little in clarifying the issue of the alleged perjury. It was only in venturing outside of that section, such as into the opinion pieces, where the aspects of the subject were given more light, but were also met with much less objectivity and were the rhetoric was more inflammatory. However, opinion journalism is not necessarily intended to provide a neutral view, only to offer a counter to the editorial stance.
On more than one occasion the effects of the Clinton-Lewinsky conflict on specific segments of the population was the primary lense of the articles written. In recounting interviews the journalists often illustrated balanced opinions regarding the public’s opinion of the activities of President Clinton. In addition to public commentary, quotes from interviews, and polling, The New York Times added further transparency on how the public felt about the subject, as well as the quantity and quality of press coverage.
Just five days into the coverage of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal started, Corrine Brown, a Democrat representative of Jacksonville, Florida was quoted in an interview saying that it was as if President Clinton “has (already) been tried and convicted in the press”[17]. In another article that same day a member of the public was quoted saying that “the media is way out of line” and that “the President's personal life is none of our business”.[18] In another interview the following day one respondent lamented on “[...] the news media’s obsessive interest” stating that residents of his town “were grateful there was something else to watch”, referring to the recent Super Bowl coverage.[19] By day nine of the coverage more people expressed their dispassion about the moral angle of the allegations. “What somebody does on the side -- their morals -- that's their business”, said one interviewee in an article written by Evelyn Nieves regarding the ice storm that had just hit an upper New York counties. “I don't really see why this [Clinton-Lewinsky] story is as big as the media is making it out to be” said another.[20]
This indicates that in the fervent coverage by the media there was apparent confusion about demand for it.
As Janny Scott wrote in a January 26th New York Times article, “the press's handling of the accusations has repeatedly illuminated the tension between the rules by which many journalists say they are governed and the demands of the marketplace for information in which reporters operate”.[21] Based on the Scott’s statement, there seemed to be some dissonance between what and how the media was reporting, and its basic understanding of what the public, the marketplace, wanted - even as they reported on the very issue of audience feedback.
Just one week after the coverage started, a poll by The New York Times/CBS News revealed that “Sixty-five percent of Americans said the news media had spent too much time covering the allegations swirling around Mr. Clinton”[22] and in some cases prompted protesters to brandish placards reading ‘Kill the Overkill’ and ‘News, Not Views!’.[23]
Throughout the mass of harrowing press coverage of the sex scandal and alleged perjury by media, the president managed to maintain high levels of approval for job performance. “People invoked the widespread reports of former President John F. Kennedy's infidelities as evidence that sexual conduct had little to do with leadership capabilities”, wrote Dirk Johnson.[24] A report on January 26th indicated that polls strongly suggested that the public still had faith in the president[25] despite the around the clock coverage which many thought was negative, and the brief dip in the polls[26], which rebounded relatively quickly. Some reported that his approval was on the rise[27].
One New York Times article stated that “interviews around the country suggested that many people outside Washington were not very concerned about whether the President had had an affair.”[28]As Maggie Scarf asserted in a piece for the New Republic, people knew that Clinton wasn’t going to “play the role of moral exemplar” already being very aware of his ”tendency to get involved in sexual imbroglios”, and this contributed the public's overall lack of fascination with the allegations.[29] Juxtaposing the barrage of press coverage from this perspective, with the disinterest of the public, this indicates that perhaps the press was not writing for the benefit of the public, rather for their own benefit or in the very least in competition with each other.
On the appetite for coverage, Seth Schiesel reported that “the Internet [had] already played a bigger role in the Lewinsky scandal than it has in any major news event“.[30] The reported alleged bottomless hunger that the public had for coverage via the internet may very well have exacerbated the growing coverage by other media formats. However, by all accounts in the New York Times, the public was exhausted of the coverage, and desired less of it.
IV. Further Presentation of Findings
Even before the 1998 story broke, forever sealing the fate of blue dresses and cigars everywhere, the press was primed to cover President Clinton and his newest salacious activities. They had already had years of warming up with the coverage of his affair with Gennifer Flowers and the very present Paula Jones sexual harassment charges, in what has been described as “relentless attack[s] on his personal life”.[31] Despite the previous acceptance of press coverage surrounding Clinton’s sexual peccadilloes, even those within and closely linked with the industry recognized that this time the coverage had gone a bit overboard.
Nine days after The New York Times began coverage of the Clinton-Lewinsky incident, Carey Goldberg wrote, in an early reflection of the coverage, that:
“[...]rarely, if ever, has the examination of the reporting of a news event turned into such widespread mass self-flagellation by the news media, of the news media, on and in the news media. The self-criticism ranged from an entire program of ''CNN Live'' yesterday dealing with the ''Media Madness,'' to sheepish descriptions by television news anchors of their own colleagues' ‘feeding frenzies.’”[32]
One writer, Pulitzer prize winner for Commentary, Russell Baker wrote a scathing Opinion piece for The New York Times referring to the coverage as a “disgusting media meltdown, referring to the reporting as “priceless examples of media struggling to appear high-minded while groping for rock bottom in the depths of hypocrisy”, saying that “apparently what it takes today to survive in the competitive media market” is “smut”. He went on to discuss the persisting “bad odor” of the media and how they will be “big losers in the long run” for the way in which they were approaching the reporting of Clinton-Lewinsky.[33]
In the same article written by Goldberg, where she reflects on the “widespread mass self-flagellation by the news media”, the director of the Shorenstein Center for the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University, Marvin Kalb was quoted as saying that he thought that the way in which the media was covering the scandal was “perhaps one of the most sorry chapters in American journalism.''[34] Reiterating, Goldberg concludes that “rarely have so many citizens and analysts piled on in one great outpouring of disapproval and even disgust -- aiming in particular, at how few facts and how much gossip have made their way into supposed news reporting.”[35] This was just another criticism that surfaced which indicates that the overall press coverage of the scandal was not as objective as perhaps the selected ‘President Under Fire’ section of The New York Times had been.
These are not simply evidences that there were problems in the reporting, problems unlike any other time in history, these are flat out incriminations, direct demonstration of the corruption of “enduring values” and objectivity that took place in the overall reporting of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.
The angles used in order to create legitimacy to the Clinton-Lewinsky incident as news manifested in ways such as the impact it may have on the American children[36], to what the rest of the world thinks[37], to the implications the issue might have on workplace sexual harassment where employees have been “inhibited by political correctness”.[38] All of this set the precedent that the scandal was not just about the President’s conduct. In effect this establish the idea that it was about everybody - about how the scandal made the United States look as a nation, about how it would impact your workplace, about how it would impact your family - it is about us, about “Our American society”[39] - and it was about the responsibility of public officials as moral guides and figureheads.
According to Mindy Cameron of The Seattle Times, in consideration of the way the press covered the Clinton-Lewinsky issue, she stated that the journalistic goal is to hold up those in public office to high standards.[40] First, this puts the onus on the press in deciding what standards should be placed the highest, and requires value judgments which in turn is evidence to the lack of objectivity or neutrality that some of the press may have in reporting on the private lives of public officials. This reflects the gatekeeping aspect that has evolved in the press. Yet, startlingly, just under a year before Clinton-Lewinsky broke, a Pew Institute report revealed that “more Americans now think press coverage of the personal and ethical behavior of political leaders is excessive” a representative figure that increased 13% in under ten years.[41] Yet the press pushed on despite the public’s disinterest and fatigue.
The alleged obstruction of justice should have been paramount in the reporting, it being the most significant factor as far as how the personal behavior of a president can reflect his ability to lead a nation. However, it seemed to be the sex that ignited the media coverage, particularly in regards to The New York Times, who did very little to clarify the perjury charges. Nary was there mention in the reviewed ‘The President Under Fire’ articles of the lying, the obstruction of justice. Of all of the material analyzed, only one article made mention that the audio recordings, which themselves got a plethora of related coverage, may include “suggested obstruction and perjury”[42], alleging admission from Lewinsky that Clinton had indeed tried to convince her to lie about their sexual relationship under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. From the perspective of the prominent issue in the mass of reporting, it would seem that in the first ten days what the American public, or perhaps the press, was really concerned about was whether or not Clinton had indeed had sexual relations with “that woman”. Even then interest in that was paltry.
The poor state of reporting actually led to apologies from journalists, even years later, who felt they may have “contributed to the ceaseless coverage”.[43] In recounting the coverage, Gerson and Roebuck likened the anomaly of the press’ outrage and the public’s tolerance of the Clinton’s actions to a gulf.[44] Reflecting on the overall press coverage of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, Williams and Carpini describe it as the significant turning point in which the gatekeeping role of media was fundamentally changed, particularly in political communication.[45]
V. Conclusion
By outlining the two “enduring values” of Gans, that of Altruistic Democracy and Moderatism, and joining them with objectivity in reporting, a framework to analyze the coverage of the 1998 Clinton-Lewinsky scandal by the press was established. Further, the distressing yet politically neutral impact that the coverage had on the public became clear throughout the reporting, even if The New York Times itself only played a small role, and illustrated the way in which the press exploited its roles as gatekeepers.
There was clear indication that the public was not overtly interested in the Clinton-Lewinsky story, and additionally was tired of the press covering the private lives of public officials, particularly in this case. Yet, despite this, the press pushed on, transforming their role as gatekeepers into rabid guard dog. In doing so they further eroded their relationship with the public, which can clearly be detected today where they continue to wear away at the public’s perception of them through ceaseless coverage littered with speculation and sparse on important facts. As the imminent and post-coverage criticism of the matter indicates, even those within the community recognized the ugly state of the coverage as a contributing factor to the erosion of the relationship between the press and the public.
What is strange is that despite all of the criticism that the barrage of coverage of Clinton-Lewinsky received, it seemed to set a precedent for the future of similar approaches to news coverage, leading to less objective reporting, and increased coverage that hammers away at a topic relentlessly, continuing to contribute to the fatigue and loathing of mass media among the public.
Of all of the coverage, specifically vexing was the article regarding how the Clinton-Lewinsky situation was affecting the children. While it is the role of the press to reflect issues in a way that relates it to the public, it seems manipulative in that it not only made the issues about the nation as a whole, but brought it home and made it about “your children” and about how it is affecting the family unit. To use children to incite some sort of moral outrage among the populace, in a news matter not directly related to youth, is disingenuous. However, at the same time this may be just a reflection of the increase in press coverage related to the maintenance of Family, harking back from the 1970s[46]. This way of covering the scandal was effective in eliciting the sense that there was an innocence was being lost, as parents fretted about how they would discuss such issues like oral sex with their children. Repulsively, the entire time the press took no responsibility in how they contributed to the exposure.
By today’s standards one would view the incessant coverage of an event such as Clinton-Lewinsky as par for the course, even down to the way in which media exploits segments of the population. According to the literature related to the “aftermath” of the way the press handled this particular news event, it is pretty clear that it had a significant role in blazing that path. What is additionally surprising is the press’ reluctance, particularly “mainstream media”, to return to the standards prior to 1998.
Further, in light of the changed roles of the press, perhaps the high standards journalist purport to be holding those in public office up to, as watchdogs and gatekeepers, which never was grounded in true objectivity, should be altered. No longer does the press enjoy the same relationship with the public that it had prior to 1998, and any such actions now comes off as a show of undue authority by the press. There is no longer a place for them to influence society in topics of culturally moral values or integrity, especially by exploiting the private lives of political figures by holding them up to some press-defined standards. In their continued evolving roles they forget the concepts of networthiness, they forget objectivity, they violate “enduring values” of their practice, they disregard their station - but the public does not, and it causes further resentment.
By the principles of the “enduring value” of Moderatism, the response from the public regarding Clinton-Lewinsky alluded to disinterest in Altruistic Democracy. Paired with indications of loss of objectivity in press reporting, and juxtaposed with the press’ own grievances, one can surmise that the press was responsible for turning the issue into the blow-out scandal that was the journalistic hallmark of 1998. It may also be concluded that they are responsible for their continued poor relations with the public.
The coverage of Clinton-Lewinsky by many of the reporters at The New York Times was commendable. Despite the plethora of coverage over those first ten days, they provided multifaceted views from citizens, from those in the political circle, as well as opinions of those outside of the Nation. While it is true that they contributed to the avalanche of coverage, they did so with the high standards one would expect.
What the issue of Clinton-Lewinsky established, through the analysis of the coverage by The New York Times, was that the supposed implications of why the private and sexual lives of public figures and presidents are not newsworthy is correct. First, the sexual morals of a President Clinton do not necessarily reflect his ability to do his job or be successful, nor did it compromise the faith public had in him as a president. Second, it established that creating scandals out of the private lives and sexual relations of presidents by disregarding Gans’ “enduring values”, like Moderatism, can be damaging. Doing so indeed diverts attention away from other matters[47] that may be more important to the country as it dominates news cycles. Furthermore, it is a catalyst in damaging the public’s confidence in the press.
Citations
[1] Gans, Herbert J. "News & the News Media in the Digital Age: Implications for Democracy." Daedalus, 2010, 8-17.
[2] Deuze, M. "What Is Journalism?: Professional Identity And Ideology Of Journalists Reconsidered." Journalism 6, no. 4 (2005): 442-64. Accessed March 9, 2015.
[3] Warner, Charles. "Herbert J. Gans’s News Values and The Elements of Journalism." Online Presentation, PowerPoint
[4] Warner, Charles. "Herbert J. Gans’s News Values and The Elements of Journalism." Online Presentation, PowerPoint
[5] Pew, Research. "Other Important Findings and Analyses." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press RSS. March 20, 1997. Accessed 2015.
[6] Vos, Tim P. "‘Homo Journalisticus’: Journalism Education’s Role in Articulating the Objectivity Norm." Journalism 13, no. 4 (2011): 435-39.
[7] Ayers, Jr, Diamond. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE HISTORY; 14 Presidents Have Been The Talk of the Pillow." The New York Times, January 25, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[8] Gans, Herbert J. Deciding What's News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Pantheon Books, 1979. 19.
[9] Ayers, Jr, Diamond. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE HISTORY; 14 Presidents Have Been The Talk of the Pillow." The New York Times, January 25, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[10] Gans, Herbert J. Deciding What's News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Pantheon Books, 1979. 20.
[11] Reese, Stephen D. "Managing the Symbolic Arena: The Media Sociology of Herbert Gans." In Science with Effect: Reviews of Journalism and Media Effects Research, 279-293. VS Verlag Für Social Sciences | Springer Specialist Media Wiesbaden GmbH, Wiesbaden, 2009.
[13] Ayers, Jr, Diamond. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE HISTORY; 14 Presidents Have Been The Talk of the Pillow." The New York Times, January 25, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[14] Bumiller, Elisabeth. "PUBLIC LIVES; Man With Clinton Scoop Is Scooped Again." The New York Times, January 23, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[15] Stout, David. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE; Literary Agent Says Recordings Were Her Idea." The New York Times, January 24, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[16] Rich, Frank. "Journal; All Monica All the Time." The New York Times, January 24, 1998, Opinion sec.
[17] Berke, Richard L. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE OVERVIEW; WHITE HOUSE ACTS TO CONTAIN FUROR AS CONCERN GROWS." The New York Times January 26, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[18] Brooke, James. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE VOTERS; In Gary Hart's Hometown, Residents View Sex Scandal With Disgust." The New York Times, January 26, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[19] Sack, Kevin. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE HOMETOWN; A Deep Weariness in Little Rock." The New York Times, January 27, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[20] Nieves, Evelyn. "Our Towns; Frozen North Doesn't Jump For Hot News." The New York Times, January 29, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[21] Scott, Janny. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: MEDIA NOTEBOOK; Rules in Flux: News Organizations Face Tough Calls on Unverified 'Facts'" The New York Times, January 27, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[22] Berke, Rickard L. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE PUBLIC VIEW; Clinton Job Rating Remains High Despite Doubts on Moral Values." The New York Times, January 27, 1998. Accessed January 2015.
[23] Johnson, Dirk. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE; Many Turn Deaf Ear to Scandal." The New York Times, January 29, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[24] Johnson, Dirk. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE; Many Turn Deaf Ear to Scandal." The New York Times, January 29, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[25] Berke, Rickard L. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE PUBLIC VIEW; Clinton Job Rating Remains High Despite Doubts on Moral Values." The New York Times, January 27, 1998. Accessed January 2015.
[26] Berke, Richard L. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE OVERVIEW; WHITE HOUSE ACTS TO CONTAIN FUROR AS CONCERN GROWS." The New York Times January 26, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[27] Berke, Richard L. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE OUTLOOK; A Wild Ride, With No End Now in Sight." The New York Times, January 30, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[28] Rosenbaum, David E. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE OVERVIEW; As President Takes to the Stump, His Former Chief of Staff Testifies." The New York Times, January 29, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[29] Scarf, Maggie. "Facing Facts." New Republic 218, no. 8 (1998): 42.
[30] Schiesel,, Seth. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE INTERNET; Cyberspace Is on Alert For More Scandal News." The New York Times, January 26, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[31] "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE; Bill Clinton: Accusations and Explanations." The New York Times, January 24, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[32] Goldberg, Carey. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: MEDIA NOTEBOOK; Some Journalists Have Met the Enemy, and It Is Them." The New York Times, January 30, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[33] Baker, Russell. "Observer; The Media in Trouble." The New York Times, January 30, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[34] Goldberg, Carey. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: MEDIA NOTEBOOK; Some Journalists Have Met the Enemy, and It Is Them." The New York Times, January 30, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[35] Goldberg, Carey. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: MEDIA NOTEBOOK; Some Journalists Have Met the Enemy, and It Is Them." The New York Times, January 30, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[36] Kleinfield, N.R. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE CHILDREN; Civics at an Impressionable Age." The New York Times, January 24, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[37] Stanley, Alessandra. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE GLOBAL VIEW; American Puritanism or Zionist Plot? Opinions Vary." The New York Times, January 24, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[38] Stanley, Alessandra. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE ATTITUDES; Workers See Easing of Sexual Tensions." The New York Times, January 31, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[39] Stanley, Alessandra. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE GLOBAL VIEW; American Puritanism or Zionist Plot? Opinions Vary." The New York Times, January 24, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[40] Gerson, Michael J, and Karen Roebuck. "America's 'Purtian' Press." U.S. News & World Report 125:13.
[41] Pew, Research. "Other Important Findings and Analyses." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press RSS. March 20, 1997. Accessed 2015.
[42] Broder, John M. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE OVERVIEW; Ex-Intern Offered to Tell of Clinton Affair In Exchange for Immunity, Lawyers Report." The New York Times, January 24, 1998. Accessed 2015.
[43] "TV Host Olbermann Apologized to Clinton for Lewinsky Coverage." Yahoo! News. October 10, 2014. Accessed 2015.
[44] Gerson, Michael J, and Karen Roebuck. "America's 'Purtian' Press." U.S. News & World Report 125:13. 26.
[45] Williams, B. A., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Unchained Reaction: The Collapse of Media Gatekeeping and the Clinton–Lewinsky Scandal. Journalism, 1 (1), 61-85
[46] Gans, Herbert J. Deciding What's News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Pantheon Books, 1979. 19.
[47] Bronner, Ethan. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE MEDIA; Reports of Sexual Scandal Have Everybody Talking." The New York Times, January 23, 1998. Accessed 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography
Ayers, Jr, Diamond. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE HISTORY; 14 Presidents Have Been The Talk of the Pillow." The New York Times, January 25, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/25/us/president-under-fire-history-14-presidents-have-been-talk-pillow.html.
Baker, Russell. "Observer; The Media in Trouble." The New York Times, January 30, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/30/opinion/observer-the-media-in-trouble.html.
Berke, Richard L. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE OVERVIEW; WHITE HOUSE ACTS TO CONTAIN FUROR AS CONCERN GROWS." The New York Times January 26, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/26/us/president-under-fire-overview-white-house-acts-contain-furor-concern-grows.html.
Berke, Richard L. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE OUTLOOK; A Wild Ride, With No End Now in Sight." The New York Times, January 30, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/30/us/the-president-under-fire-the-outlook-a-wild-ride-with-no-end-now-in-sight.html.
Berke, Rickard L. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE PUBLIC VIEW; Clinton Job Rating Remains High Despite Doubts on Moral Values." The New York Times, January 27, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/27/us/president-under-fire-public-view-clinton-job-rating-remains-high-despite-doubts.html.
Broder, John M. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE OVERVIEW; Ex-Intern Offered to Tell of Clinton Affair In Exchange for Immunity, Lawyers Report." The New York Times, January 24, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/24/us/president-under-fire-overview-ex-intern-offered-tell-clinton-affair-exchange-for.html.
Brooke, James. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE VOTERS; In Gary Hart's Hometown, Residents View Sex Scandal With Disgust." The New York Times, January 26, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/26/us/president-under-fire-voters-gary-hart-s-hometown-residents-view-sex-scandal-with.html.
Bronner, Ethan. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE MEDIA; Reports of Sexual Scandal Have Everybody Talking." The New York Times, January 23, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/23/us/president-under-fire-media-reports-sexual-scandal-have-everybody-talking.html.
Bumiller, Elisabeth. "PUBLIC LIVES; Man With Clinton Scoop Is Scooped Again." The New York Times, January 23, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/23/nyregion/public-lives-man-with-clinton-scoop-is-scooped-again.html.
Deuze, M. "What Is Journalism?: Professional Identity And Ideology Of Journalists Reconsidered." Journalism 6, no. 4 (2005): 442-64. Accessed March 9, 2015.
Gans, Herbert J. Deciding What's News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Pantheon Books, 1979.
Gans, Herbert J. "News & the News Media in the Digital Age: Implications for Democracy." Daedalus, 2010, 8-17.
Gerson, Michael J, and Karen Roebuck. "America's 'Purtian' Press." U.S. News & World Report 125:13.
Goldberg, Carey. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: MEDIA NOTEBOOK; Some Journalists Have Met the Enemy, and It Is Them." The New York Times, January 30, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/30/us/president-under-fire-media-notebook-some-journalists-have-met-enemy-it-them.html
Johnson, Dirk. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE; Many Turn Deaf Ear to Scandal." The New York Times, January 29, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/29/us/the-president-under-fire-many-turn-deaf-ear-to-scandal.html.
Kleinfield, N.R. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE CHILDREN; Civics at an Impressionable Age." The New York Times, January 24, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/24/us/the-president-under-fire-the-children-civics-at-an-impressionable-age.html
Nieves, Evelyn. "Our Towns; Frozen North Doesn't Jump For Hot News." The New York Times, January 29, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/29/nyregion/our-towns-frozen-north-doesn-t-jump-for-hot-news.html.
Pew, Research. "Other Important Findings and Analyses." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press RSS. March 20, 1997. Accessed 2015.
http://www.people-press.org/1997/03/21/other-important-findings-and-analyses-43/.
Reese, Stephen D. "Managing the Symbolic Arena: The Media Sociology of Herbert Gans." In Science with Effect: Reviews of Journalism and Media Effects Research, 279-293. VS Verlag Für Social Sciences | Springer Specialist Media Wiesbaden GmbH, Wiesbaden, 2009.
Reuters, "TV Host Olbermann Apologized to Clinton for Lewinsky Coverage." Yahoo! News. October 10, 2014. Accessed 2015.
http://news.yahoo.com/tv-host-olbermann-apologized-clinton-lewinsky-coverage-212202875.html.
Rich, Frank. "Journal; All Monica All the Time." The New York Times, January 24, 1998, Opinion sec.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/24/opinion/journal-all-monica-all-the-time.html
Rosenbaum, David E. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE OVERVIEW; As President Takes to the Stump, His Former Chief of Staff Testifies." The New York Times, January 29, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/29/us/president-under-fire-overview-president-takes-stump-his-former-chief-staff.html.
Sack, Kevin. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE HOMETOWN; A Deep Weariness in Little Rock." The New York Times, January 27, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/27/us/the-president-under-fire-the-hometown-a-deep-weariness-in-little-rock.html.
Scarf, Maggie. "Facing Facts." New Republic 218, no. 8 (1998): 42.
Scott, Janny. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: MEDIA NOTEBOOK; Rules in Flux: News Organizations Face Tough Calls on Unverified 'Facts'" The New York Times, January 27, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/27/us/president-under-fire-media-notebook-rules-flux-organizations-face-tough-calls.html.
Schiesel, Seth. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE INTERNET; Cyberspace Is on Alert For More Scandal News." The New York Times, January 26, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/26/us/president-under-fire-internet-cyberspace-alert-for-more-scandal.html.
Stanley, Alessandra. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE ATTITUDES; Workers See Easing of Sexual Tensions." The New York Times, January 31, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/31/us/the-president-under-fire-the-attitudes-workers-see-easing-of-sexual-tensions.html.
Stanley, Alessandra. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE GLOBAL VIEW; American Puritanism or Zionist Plot? Opinions Vary." The New York Times, January 24, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/24/us/president-under-fire-global-view-american-puritanism-zionist-plot-opinions-vary.html.
Stout, David. "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE; Literary Agent Says Recordings Were Her Idea." The New York Times, January 24, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/24/us/the-president-under-fire-literary-agent-says-recordings-were-her-idea.html.
"THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE; Bill Clinton: Accusations and Explanations." The New York Times, January 24, 1998. Accessed 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/24/us/the-president-under-fire-bill-clinton-accusations-and-explanations.html.
Vos, Tim P. "‘Homo Journalisticus’: Journalism Education’s Role in Articulating the Objectivity Norm." Journalism 13, no. 4 (2011): 435-39.
Warner, Charles. "Herbert J. Gans’s News Values and The Elements of Journalism." Online Presentation, PowerPoint, www.charleswarner.us/MediaEthics-GansValues.ppt
Williams, B. A., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Unchained Reaction: The Collapse of Media Gatekeeping and the Clinton–Lewinsky Scandal. Journalism, 1 (1), 61-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/146488490000100113
Prepare yourself for deliciousness! 
