TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/110689/p74

Text File | 1990-09-22 | 5.3 KB | 96 lines

PRESS, Page 74

No. 2 and Trying Harder

The Washington Times bags a politician,  but can it win respect?


    Just like an eager young hunter, the Washington Times is proud
of its first big trophy: Congressman Barney Frank, whom the paper
bagged in a story two months ago about a male-prostitution scandal.
The paper followed up that scoop two weeks ago with claims that
Frank and other Congressmen used the private House of
Representatives gymnasium for sexual frolics. Though editor in
chief Arnaud de Borchgrave bristles at the notion that the Times
is turning to tabloid-style journalism to make its mark in the
nation's capital, he slyly promises "more to come." Some
Washingtonians may take that as a threat.

    Until the Frank expose, few people viewed the Times, founded
in 1982, as a serious menace. The newspaper, after all, is owned
by investors who are members of the Unification Church headed
by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, whose ambition is to lead a worldwide
theocracy. Yet many critics who dismissed "the Moonie paper" in the
early days are now taking a second look. Slowly the Times (circ.
103,539) is moving toward acceptability.

    Beyond revelations about Frank, the paper has scored its share
of scoops -- some substantial, others ephemeral. Reporters earn a
bonus for each exclusive. The Times covers conservative politics
well and wielded influence during the Reagan Administration. But
in the age of glasnost, the paper's strident anti-Communism seems
out of touch and its editors are struggling to find a new voice.
So far, the results are mixed. "It's very difficult to be a
tabloid, a sensationalist paper and a respectable paper at the same
time," says Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution.

    In the early days, the Times often misstepped. Wire copy on
Moon's conviction for tax evasion was doctored. The news room
became a revolving-door work place, with constant turnover and
inexperienced staffers. During last year's presidential race, the
Times, pursuing a rumor about Michael Dukakis' receiving
psychiatric treatment, twisted a quote from Dukakis' sister-in-law
to manufacture a headline: DUKAKIS KIN HINTS AT SESSIONS. Two
reporters quit in protest.

    De Borchgrave blames the Dukakis error on deadline pressures.
"It's one boo-boo that we are faulted for every time somebody comes
to interview us," he complains. But that was not the only slip.
Last June the newspaper teased readers with a story about a
homosexual call-boy ring that allegedly involved "key officials of
the Reagan and Bush Administrations." Only minor Administration
officials were identified.

    Despite such fishing expeditions, the Times is a colorful
alternative to the sometimes staid Post. Hard-driving local news
coverage, an award-winning sports section and provocative cultural
writing make the paper a fun read. Amid reams of conservative
commentary, it delivers scoops on such diverse matters as
sewage-plant woes and Redskin-ticket scams. The paper covers the
city's black community in greater depth than the Post. Still, while
Ronald Reagan doted on the Times's conservatism, George Bush merely
includes it among the six papers he reads each morning. And nothing
yet convinces Post managing editor Leonard Downie Jr. that the
Times poses a threat. Says he: "They appear to print a lot of
things that we didn't think were quite ready to print."

    The Times's worst enemy is not the Post (circ. 812,419) but a
continuing credibility gap spawned by worries about Moonie
influence. Initial fears of brain washed zombies running the
newsroom were unwarranted, but Moon's associates still plop down
subsidies of at least $25 million a year to keep the presses
rolling. (Estimated losses to date: $300 million.) "You'd have to
be the village bloody idiot to imagine that they aren't trying to
get a return on investment," asserts James Whelan, the paper's
founding editor, who left in 1984 complaining about church
interference. But staff members say the owners are in for the long
haul. "These guys are religious," says assistant managing editor
John Podhoretz. "So they're used to the principle that they don't
get everything in the short term."

    The real influence of Moon's backers does not lie in picking
front-page stories. They realize that if the paper commands
journalistic respect, it offers an avenue to prestige and power.
Thus few overt church fingerprints appear on the five-day-a-week
paper. But some critics, like former editorial-page editor William
Cheshire, who departed in 1987 amid charges of church meddling,
sound warnings about a private church agenda. "They're not going
to put up that money for a newspaper and not have any control over
it," he says. DeBorchgrave waves away such charges. "We are a
secular newspaper," he contends. "Religion is utterly irrelevant
to what we do."

    Many people wish Washington had a better second paper. Laments
a former Times reporter: "It's too bad, because this town needs the
competition." With a newsroom staff of 250, the Times cannot best
the Post's 514 editorial employees on big stories, so it must
practice guerrilla journalism. "This is the second paper in town,"
says Podhoretz. "We have to speak louder to be heard." Sheer
decibels and suspect scoops, however, fail to defuse doubts about
the owners' intentions.