Gina Gershon, Press Critic

It would be pretty easy to make some kind of snarky comment about Gina Gershon's critique this morning of Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair piece on Bill Clinton -- which, among other things, insinuated that Gershon had slept with Clinton -- as well as her criticism of the press more generally.  But you know what?  Her response is compelling, and her points are sound.

Recall that Purdum reported about "aides" who "winced" at "high-end Hollywood dinner-party gossip that Clinton has been seen visiting with the actress Gina Gershon in California."  Gershon demanded a retraction, and Vanity Fair refused, mounting the lame defense that Purdum's piece "does not indicate that former President Bill Clinton had an improper relationship with Gina Gershon" -- which, technically, it doesn't -- but "merely examines the concerns of some of Clinton's aides about reports of his behavior."  Even if you buy that, it was gratuitous to include Gershon's name if all Purdum had were the "concerns" of "aides," and, as Gershon says, no one at VF bothered to contact her.

Shades of the Times' McCain/Iseman story, obviously.  For what it's worth, I don't think that story should've made it into print the way that it did, but the Times had more on McCain/Iseman than Purdum had on Clinton/Gershon.  (I say this based on the Times piece itself, which at least gets John Weaver on the record about his concerns, and on Gabriel Sherman's reporting.) 

For the record, I found Purdum's piece generally to be an insidious piece of work.  This new subgenre of political reporting -- reporting on "aides" with "concerns" about improper behavior, rather than the existence of improper behavior itself -- is a regrettable development.

Comments

[Joe Klein's conscience]

It seems like VF was just following Peggy Noonan's lead. Anyway, I wonder what axe Purdum has to grind, as he is married to Dee Dee Myers(former Clinton press secretary).

[litbrit]

This new subgenre of political reporting -- reporting on "aides" with "concerns" about improper behavior, rather than the existence of improper behavior itself -- is a regrettable development.

Agreed. And in that I think the "there" that was there in the McCain story had little to do with the pretty female lobbyist and much to do with his mavericky self hobnobbing with so many lobbyists, period, I also agree that the Times story blew it (so to speak). TNR had a far better analysis, but of course that didn't make its way to anywhere near as many eyeballs.

As for President Clinton, I'm much more interested in hearing about his relationships with wealth-fund players and offshore movers and shakers if, while so engaged, his influence as a once-elected, always-on-stage politician in America comes into play.. Honestly--and I'll keep saying this until someone, somewhere in the MSM hears it--I don't give a rat's ass about the private sex lives of politicians.

In the case of John McCain, his shabby and morally questionable treatment of his first wife is mainly relevant, politically, in terms of the right attacking Dem. politicians on "family values" terms. Or, more succinctly, in a pot-calling-kettle-black situation.

(Although admittedly, it's hard not to think of McCain as a real dick for playing around on, and then dumping, his crippled wife and the mother of his children for a younger, richer woman. Have I mentioned I can sometimes be a little inconsistent?!)

[Sir Charles]

See I won't even mention my relationship with Gina Gershon -- because I'm discrete that way.

What bothers me about the Purdum piece is that there is the thread of an interesting and legitimate news piece --the relationship of the ex-president with all of these money men, which I find more than vaguely disturbing. But he undermines whatever legitimate ground he mines with the thinly sourced "aides are concerned" about sex meme of the story. It could have used an editor.

[Corvus9]

The big problem with the Purdum and McCain lobbyist pieces, or at least where I think they really screwed the pooch, is that they both took what seemed to be totally well-researched and verified information confirming our national leaders' total lack of professional ethics, and dressed it up with some dirty sex rumors to get it into the news. As a result, the actually substantive points got completely lost in the shuffle. So we aren't talking about McCain's close ties with lobbyists, or Bill Clinton's associations with the worst scum of the high finance and world leader crowd, but the political media's shameless peddling of trash. Even when they report on issues, they manage not to report on issues. God, they suck at life.

[Ankush]

SC and Corvus9: I don't think I made this clear in my post, but I agree with you both about how these pieces ended up distracting readers from the actual problematic stuff the reporters were writing about.