10 Years Later: My Part in the Lewinsky Cover-Up

Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story ten years ago this week. It was a epochal event -- the birth of internet journalism -- but it also proved a well-worn adage about technology and communication, from woodcuts to VHS: It will only take off when someone figures out how to use it for porn.

The Columbia Journalism Review called it one of the ten key dates in the media history of the 20th Century. (Along with the single-lens reflex camera, the Tet Offensive, and the birth of Lara Logan.) And I was there.

My end? Ten years ago, this week, I was part of the traditional (elitist, liberal, mainstream, Hollywood, drive-by) media conspiracy to ignore it.

And we would have gotten away with it, too! If not for that darn, meddling preponderance of evidence.

(Wait, I forgot "so-called." Whenever you're calling the media elitist, liberal, mainstream, etc you also have to say "so-called." The "so-called" radio. I don't know why it's a rule, but it is.)

Back in 1998, I was head writer of a "so-called" late night talk show. Being head writer entitled me to my own parking space, an office with a window -- well, a view of a window -- and permission to skip the daily 1:00 pm meeting where the executive producers and senior bookers held a conference call with the East Coast.

At this meeting, the show's connections in Washington and New York would treat everyone to the inside dope on what was really happening in politics. They knew their stuff because, well, it was at least three hours later there, so they were living in the future.

I was allowed to skip this meeting so that I could catch up on my other duties, after spending the morning writing monologue. I may have also been allowed to opt out after taping a picture to the speakerphone of a grinning zombie on a police radio with the voice balloon "Must... Eat... Brains!"

(Or maybe that was later. Either way.)

I usually finished my work in about five minutes, and then I'd get some chili from the commissary, walk to the used bookstore around the corner or take a nap.

On Monday, January 19th, 1998, the producers' meeting ended in a flurry of excitement. (Totally distracting me from a game of RISK.) In the hallway outside my office, one of the producers told the writer who'd been covering Paula Jones that he'd need to write an emergency update. This was big: An Internet newsletter claimed that Newsweek was sitting on a story about a new woman who'd been sexually harassed by President Clinton.

WRITER X I know. Kathleen Willey.

PRODUCER
No, a new woman.

WRITER X
Kathleen Willey.

PRODUCER
No, in the White House.

WRITER X
Yes. That's Kathleen Willey.

PRODUCER
No, a new woman.

WRITER X
You're talking about Kathleen Willey. I wrote it already.

(An awkward beat. Another awkward beat. A silent, seething battle of wills.)

WRITER X (CONT'D)
Okay. Whatever.

Writer X came into my office and I agreed that the East Coast didn't know what they were talking about. It's Kathleen Willey again. And even if it isn't, there's nothing to discuss. What's the host supposed to ask?

"I know someone who knows someone who heard this Internet rumor about a story that's not going to appear in Newsweek. Jimmy "J.J." Walker -- your thoughts?"

WRITER X
What do I do?

HEAD WRITER
Bury it. Get (the host's assistant) to pull all the Whitewater issues, and Susan McDougal and Vince Foster and the Rose Law Firm and the travel agents and I dunno, the time Roger Clinton killed those witnesses with a train. If he still wants an update after the meeting, write it then. But this is nothing.

Yes, I was "wrong."

Here's the thing: Besides writing monologue jokes and sketches, writers were assigned issues every night. They had to outline the facts of a news story, and some sort of reasonable guesses at what the guests would think. There were also updates and "day of" issues. These were a pain, because they either didn't get used -- they'd turn out not to interest the host -- or they would be used, replacing other issues that had already been prepared. Either way it was extra work.

There was also a certain institutional resistance, from about half the writing staff, to turning the show into a clearinghouse for right-wing fantasies about Clinton the Overfiend. Let's say the president was a drug lord and Hillary was littering the national parks with the corpses of her paramours. It still wasn't what we wanted to do with our lives.

It was early afternoon, and I wasn't done being wrong yet.

When the host arrived for the writers' meeting we brought up the story, in an obligatory way, as penny ante bullshit based on nothing. It wasn't legitimate; it was the Internet. We also strongly suggested we were being played, and reminded the host that Drudge was a vole-faced skeeve who washed his shirts in the sink.

We taped the show. If the story came up, it didn't come up much.

We taped two shows the next night. The Second (or Third) Woman came up again, internally, and we argued it down again. This was the same stuff we were always being peddled by the hideous skeletal neo-con blonds (my least favorite Harry Potter villains, by the way) and we didn't want to carry their water or take their bait, or take their water and carry their bait, or any other combination of bait and water.

Besides, there weren't any new developments. It was still just the internet. And we had our standards. In 1998, a late night show couldn't just repeat anything some clod said on-line. It had to come from a legitimate news source. Like Page Six or the purple section of USA Today.

Late Tuesday night, January 20th, 1998, the Washington Post and ABC News reported that the mandate of Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation had been broadened to include former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, and whether the president had asked her to commit perjury.

It wasn't just an internet story anymore. The other late night shows were doing jokes about it. And there was something else, too.

The writers knew for a fact that Bill Clinton had been having sex with Monica Lewinsky.

WRITER A Why is that name so familiar?

WRITER B
She's the one C was always talking about.

WRITER A
Oh, yeah. What was her deal?

WRITER B
She was blowing the President.

On Wednesday, January 21st, the story was everywhere, including the front page of the Los Angeles Times, which was a newspaper at the time. Bill Clinton invited Jim Lehrer to the White House and lied in his face. (Yeah, yeah, yeah, Clinton... in... face. You should be ashamed of yourself.)

JIM LEHRER You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?

PRESIDENT CLINTON
There is not a sexual relationship.

And then the whole country was fucked up for two years. While bin Laden planned.

Anyway, I learned my lesson. Drudge was right. I was wrong. Since that day, just to be on the safe side, I've made it a point to believe everything I read on the Internet. And so should you.

Comments

[isis]

The scandal really should be how messed up the country got while the GOP destroyed the Clintons. Some organizations will just do anything to gain power. Any GOPer who went along with the travesty should be held accountable. That could include many well-known old timers.

[degjack]

Chris, Monica is OLD news....

Try to keep up with the rest of us.

[TrustMeImASalesman]

Chris Kelley, finally someone who is truthful about elitist, drive-bye, media wonks. Good article. However, that position has provided fertile ground for real money makers aka Conservative Radio Talk Shows Host Limbaugh, Savage,Beck,etc.. Now all millionaires(Peace be unto Them) these giants of the media also use the "Internet" to further their oh so correct agendas of truth, justice and the American Way! And all of this thanks to Mr Liberal, aka Mr.QuickMelt, aka, MrDynomitePrizeTaker, aka Mr.AlmostPresident the honorable Al Gore. Doesn't it just frost your (spherical holders of family heritage) to think that the truth would be outed by a Liberal invention? And as for Matt Drudge, why is the world turning first to him for the correct "First Word"? Maybe because Sex and electronic media are inseparably linked! As a matter of fact Sex and all communication since the first petroglyph's are united! The last sentence can be taken as a metaphor!

Cover-ups! Not in this day and age! Except for maybe the last 8 years of truth, justice and the Amerikan Way!

Trust me I'm a salesman!

[sokolowmus]

It SHOULD have been "covered up" or ignored by the responsible media. The sex lives of two consenting adults, one of whom is a politician, is not relevant news. It's sensationalist yellow journalism. It's nobody's business. It's entirely irrelevant. It's also, obviously, a political weapon.

All previous presidents' sexual exploits were ignored, before Clinton, and there were many, just as juicy or more so. Why shouldn't they be? That includes Bush Sr., JFK, FDR, probably all of them (well, maybe not Nixon or Carter). It degrades the country to make this an issue.

[PauCK]

Hmmmm... nice political move to bring up Monica again! In retrospect I prefer a President having a little "happy time" to one who gets his jollies bombing a nation into submission. No, Bill was not cool, but he was minding the store and the US had money in the bank and we weren't as hated as we are now. I hope Hillary will like the Whitehouse pool boy !

[linda254]

Most importantly, see thewebfairy.com

http://www.missilegate.com/
http://thewebfairy.com/fonebone/index.htm
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/
http://thewebfairy.com/911/index.htm

911 was an illusion, just as you would not believe Monica Lewinsky, why are you people denying that there were no planes on 911 and that it was a HUGE David Copperfiled ILLUSION planned and executed by Strategic Communication Laboratories, London for the neocon coven.

Silverstein collected all $7 billion insurance placed on the WTC towers this year. It was insurance FRAUD. 91101 was exactly 11 years after the 1st announcement of GHWB of NWO on 91190 by GHWB. 91141 was the ground breaking for the Pentagon.

Occultists as the neoconservative followers of Leo Strauss do everything according to numbers. Kennedy's assassination was 11/22, not a coincidence, an occultist plan.

[user168]

And Bill and Hillary might just make history with their great ideas: if everyone in the world lies under oath, obstructs justice, and doesn't care to set an example to educate children... we would be able to have lots of fun - a forever WW3 with no food, no water, and nothing but hell!

[calpubserv]

Ah yes, those halcyon days: When my friends in the dweeb community tried to explain the internets to me and an honest person could still refer to the LA Times as a "newspaper."

[juangault]

These are strange times in America. Names matter more than they should. Trust in likeness seems to trump more important traits. The candidates have core constituencies. Clinton has a high number of female voters. Obama seems to have the Black vote. Romney has his religion's people, and Huck has a religious voter block also. But Hillary has the largest likeminded group of voters. Against her is a national quesiness of going back, and about her in general. It is a mix of neo 22nd amendment types, anti-dynasty types, and anti-Clinton types. I blame the election of the first handicapped president (W) on the reaction and revulsion of a large percentage of swayable electorate to Bill Clinton's sexual sociopathogy. He thought since Kennedy got away with a certain amount, he could too. Kennedy was more discreet, times were different, I thought he aimed for bigger trophy game his taxidermist media would glorifiy. Clinton went for all the fury squirrls in the yard. Now having a woman president is not the big deal. Having a Black president is not a big deal. But the problem with the Presidency is it's too powerful, it's a very addicting place to be. Maybe a single 6 year term is in order. And a generation of time should pass between possible relatives in power, if ever. It should take a while for a new president to "learn the ropes". When Hillary says she'll be ready to lead from day one, I think, more likely, she'll be abusing the power from day one. And my take is she's a justifiably scorned woman with an agenda. And this is where she has a "hardcore" constituency. There are a lot of scorned women out there eager for payback for whatever injustices have been done to them. Obama will win or lose my vote by how he addresses that inane "reparations" issue. Rover has his nose tuned in when he says she's fatally flawed. You give republicans an edge when you put her in front, it'll be interesting campaign come Septemper.

[Charidan]

I don't know how this topic is relevant today unless it's just another attempt to attack Hillary's candiday, this time from an oblique angle. Shame on this blogger not to make the disclaimer that he is an Obama supporter before posting this blog.
Charidan

[FOXYLADY]

There sure are a lot of back biting bitches posting today. Here's something to chew on that I read in the paper by Jodi Enda, a former White House correspondent...and it is so appropriate with the present atmosphere.

"No ones has called Barak Obama a witch. No one has suggested McCain is too ambitious.
No one has disparaged Romney for misting up.
No one has accused Edwards of faking emotions.
No one has depicted Huckabee as calculating.
No one has critiqued the pitch of Giuliani's voic.
No one says male presidential aspirants are cold or fiesty or careless about their cleavage (or any other anatomical feature). If they tearup, or even - gasp - cry (like Bush), no one says men are too weak to run the country. If they blow a gasket (a la Bill Clinton), it's manly. If they blow off a question (classic Reagan),it's strategic.
But when a woman has a chance to win the presidency, all bets are off. It's no comspiracy: this is America.
Sure, Hillary Clinton is a popular target in ways that other women are not. Clinton hating is something of a blood sport, and nothing Clinton does will undo that. Still the haters did little to diminish her husband's popularity (no matter what he did to help them) when he was in office. We're talking about something different now, something....SEXIST!!
In the seventies, a feminist adage suggested that women had to work twice as hard as men to be considered half as good...SEEMS IT IS THE SAME TODAY....There is a double standard, and, with Clinton's candidacy we see it in sharp relief. She is judged differently than her male competitors, and not just because she is a Clinton."

[DazedandConfused]

Bush has really aliented a lot of Independents so they MAY end up voting for the Democratic candidate -- regardless of whether it's Hillary or Obama. But for all her "experience" (please, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden have much more experience), Hillary isn't the best candidate in terms of looking at the FUTURE of the country or the Democratic Party. Notice how Hillary NEVER talks about Independents or Republicans. Why? Because she has NO appeal among those groups. So, if elected, she could NOT unite the country and get anything done. Republicans would be blocking every move. Look at the situation we have now in Congress where nothing gets done because the Republicans in the Senate don't go along. For better or worse, we have Republicans and Independents and they need to be co-opted. Otherwise, we'll have HillaryCare Redeux.

[wrabbitt]

Forget about it? I think not,Is this part of Hillarys experience? Remember Bill had his chance to be a good president, and somebody blew that chance! Hillary no way not ever, lobbyist best friend! not mine!

[MaDem]

kennedy is the only one posting here who has a clue based in reality. It's at least a relief to finally understand it is right-wing scare-mongers who post here, pretending to be libs in order to frighten Dems away from Hillary. Not one of you know what is going to happen Feb. 5, let alone this fall. And if you don't think the Repugnant ones are smacking their lips at the delicious thought of Obama as the nominee, a man they will portray and frame as an Ivy League muslim druggie, well I do declare, y'all are awfully naive.

[WRAlvarado]

So, if Hilliar is president and she visits with foreign dignitaries, who will be men for the most part, will Bill then hang out with their wives? Does she want to be President so she can have her secret service keeping an eye on him? Seriously, Hilliar can't win; and there are very good arguments for why this is unfair. It's also unfair that Kucinich has those ears and he can't win. But please, stop the delusion. If Hilliar is the nominee, then McCain will be in the White House, which is still not as bad as four more years of Bush.