Slate's Bizbox
press box: Media criticism.

The New Clinton Propaganda MachineWatch it rev up.

By Jack Shafer
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2007, at 6:17 PM ET
Bill and Hillary Clinton. Click image to expand.

Politicians don't call it dissembling, deceiving, or lying. They call it media management, and no administration has practiced this black art better in recent times than that of President Bill Clinton. In his 1998 book, Spin Cycle: Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post describes how, after the disastrous first half of the first term, the Clintonites learned how to stage and contain the news by "alternately seducing, misleading, and sometimes intimidating the press."

Kurtz continues:

[W]hat the White House press operatives did was to launder the news—to scrub it of dark scandal stains, remove unsightly splotches of controversy, erase greasy dabs of contradictions, and present it to the country crisp and sparkling white.

These lessons weren't lost on Hillary Clinton, in part because she taught many of them after having endured what she considered two years of press hell. As "co-president," she already held a "distrust of the press ... even deeper than her husband's" when she arrived in Washington, Kurtz writes. And she acted on it. Shortly after Clinton took office, she proposed evicting the White House press corps from the West Wing and resettling them in the Old Executive Office Building, he reports.

She nursed grudges against specific publications, freezing them out. When the press criticized her—inevitable given her centrality in the White House—she withdrew even more. She thought that the Whitewater affair "had turned her into red meat" and that the Washington Post and its editor, Leonard Downie Jr., were out to get her.

The Clintons learned the importance of knowing how to take a punch, but more essentially, they learned how to change the subject and how to selectively use the White House megaphone to drown out negative stories. Clinton chucked mini-initiatives into the media air, where they worked like chaff to flummox the news radar of the press corps. He and his spokesmen stayed on message to control the agenda, sidetracking unwanted questions with quick, disdainful responses. The goal was to "manage the news, to package the presidency in a way that people would buy the product," Kurtz writes.

The Hillary Clinton propaganda machine employs none of the engineers who worked for her husband, but it applies the same techniques, as well as some held over from her Little Rock days. For example, earlier this week the New York Times reported the skill with which Hillary Clinton's campaign has co-opted its former "nemesis," Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report.

The Times calls Clinton's relationship with Drudge, along with her courting of Rupert Murdoch, examples of her pragmatism. But she's long been practiced in the skill of making nice with ideological enemies or critics in the press. While still in Arkansas, she courted tough-minded columnist John Robert Starr. In her new book about the Clintons, For Love of Politics, Sally Bedell Smith quotes writer Gene Lyons as saying that "Hillary was assigned to neutralize Starr by schmoozing." Although she didn't care for the task, says Lyons, "[s]he would call every day and chat, pat him on the head." Yet even then, she talked of despising the press.

She still knows how to pair the velvet glove with the iron, as journalist Joshua Green learned last month. Green had a story about infighting within the Hillary Clinton campaign in the queue at GQ magazine, one that couldn't have made her people happy. The Clinton camp told GQ to kill it or lose access to Bill Clinton, scheduled for the December cover, as Ben Smith writes in Politico. He continues:

The spiked GQ story … shows how the Clinton campaign has been able to use its access to the most important commodity in media—celebrity, and in fact two bona fide celebrities—to shape not just what gets written about the candidate, but also what doesn't. ...

Clinton was always touchy about whom she'd let write about her, Kurtz reports, and she remains so. In August, Daphne Merkin wrote in the New York Times that Clinton had twice turned her down for an interview, for the Times piece and earlier for an Elle magazine cover story. "Her press office told Elle that they were uncomfortable with a writer with my level of 'psychological insight' and wanted another writer assigned to the piece—which, in the event, never happened," Merkin writes.

When Clinton can't control who writes about her, her team does its best to marginalize whatever negative take gets published. In the President Clinton era, his defenders used the boilerplate that a critical piece contained no news or was just old news to stifle reports. Sen. Clinton's people relied on this technique in May to bat down two new biographies of her. "The news here is that it took three reporters nearly a decade to find no news," Clinton aide Howard Wolfson told the Washington Post. Clinton's Senate spokesman Philippe Reines said, "Is it possible to be quoted yawning?" adding that if past books on Clinton were "cash for trash," he added, "these books are nothing more than cash for rehash."

Propaganda machines do their best—or worst, depending on your view—when the object of their obfuscations are beat reporters, the men and women who depend on regular access to the individual or institution to file daily stories. As Smith notes in his Politico story, the Clinton campaign has used its leverage to extract concessions out of the TV networks. He writes:

At the time Clinton launched her campaign, the networks' hunger for interviews had her all over the morning and evening news broadcasts of every network—after her aides negotiated agreements limiting producers' abilities to edit the interviews.

To remain effective, a propaganda machine must moderate its manipulations for two reasons. If it pushes the beat reporters around too much, its meddling becomes the story and damages the machine. Or it reduces the relevance of the beat reporters to the point that readers and viewers rely more on nonbeat reporters the machine has no influence over.

Addendum: Don't miss "More on the Clinton Propaganda Machine."

******

Potential titles for the next Hillary Clinton biography: Machine Dreams; The Time Machine; The Age of Spiritual Machines; and The Ghost in the Machine. Send your suggestions to . (E-mail may be quoted by name in "The Fray," Slate's readers' forum, in a future article, or elsewhere unless the writer stipulates otherwise. Permanent disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co.)

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large.
Photograph of Bill and Hillary Clinton by Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

How can you possibly write about the Clintons' dealings with the press without ever once mentioning the fantastic slander stories that the press continually wrote against them?

Whitewater was a bogus story from the get go. So were the many other manufactured cooked up "scandals" which never ended up with even semi-coherent allegations, let alone actual convictions.

Even today there is not one single reason to believe a word that the mainstream press writes about the Clintons, particularly about their personal lives. Are we really supposed to believe that First Lady Mrs. Clinton somehow 'unmanned' the president and his aides, as Maureen Dowd blithely alleges in her last column? This is just flaming unsourced bullshit and typical of the kind press treatment the Clintons faced during their term.

Shafer seems to inhabit some magical world where the press still enjoys some sort of credibility. But to any careful reader this was lost under the Clintons; the press's even more shameful conduct under the last eight years of Bush has only confirmed this loss of credibility. The press today can no longer be trusted. It can't tell the truth about people or about war. If Shafer can't see that, then nothing he says about the press can be taken seriously.

--nerdnam

(To reply, click here.)

The 90s were characterized by the spin machine. Developed by the Clintons and refined by Blair, press interactions were skillfully managed to create a "news product".

This current decade has been shaped by entirely new form of press management. I am not exactly sure how, but the Bush administration has deflected the press for almost his entire presidency with only a modicum of spin. Characterized by both ignoring and belittling the press, this new "anti-spin" has neutered the press in a way I don't fully understand.

Which style is more effective? Is Hillary's reliance on old tricks going to cost her in the general election? Or are the techniques of the Bush administration only effective when used by a "govern from the gut" style of leader?

--sortaSean

(To reply, click here.)

It is true, as Shafer says, that following a disastrous start in which relatively minor stories spiraled out of control, the Clintons got a better handle on "press relations".

But, he overstates the case considerably. The press kept after the Clintons right to the end, even the so-called liberal press like the NYT and the WP. Who can forget the NYT's Whitewater reporting, which was shown to be false in all important respects but which was never withdrawn? Or the extensive coverage of wholly unfounded rumors about Vince [Foster's] suicide? I could go on, but you get the idea.

Contrast this with Clinton's predecessor (Reagan, not Bush I) and successor (Bush II). For example, the press largely ducked Reagan's peculiar behaviour and growing senility while in office. As for Bush II, where to begin? Not only did the press refuse to investigate his history of drinking, drug abuse, and failed business adventures, but it actively participated in his smears of, first, Gore (for example, buying into the Republican line that Gore was untruthful by repeatedly claiming he said things he never said) and then Kerry (notably, the ludicrous Swiftboating).

Now that is press control the Clintons could have never aspired to, except maybe in their wildest dreams!

--lloyd667

(To reply, click here.)

Oh, laudy, how dare anyone write about the Clinton machine!

I supported Bill until he was caught sexually harassing a subordinate government employee. A firing offense.

In the sordid story of the Clintons' venality, the press was far too easy on him and her. The only reason why the scandals did not go further was that important records were hidden in the White House or key witnesses went to prison rather than testify only to be pardoned by Clinton.

A good example of the press largesse was that Clinton fired all but one Federal prosecutor but the press remained silent. Bush fired a handful and he was crucified.

The press turned its eye with the terrorist attacks of the WTC, the Cole, and our embassies and, as such, were co-enablers of 9/11.

But how dare the press mention the Clintons' control of a compliant press!

--drwinter

(To reply, click here.)

(10/24)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Topic A: Obama's Speech
| Pundits and diplomats respond.
Robinson: Sunshine in BerlinToles: Obama the UniterTelnaes: Meanwhile, McCain
PLUS » Stumped: Bring Back Bill Clinton