Inappropriate images

By Tarek Atia

"They haven't said yet."

"Yeah, they'll probably interrupt the football game... that'll be a bigger sin than the original one."

That conversation probably better sums up public opinion on the Monica Lewinsky matter than the endless opinion polls or pundits on TV.

Clinton did interrupt Monday night's game, if only to finally admit to his people what a great majority of them knew all along.

"Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate," the president said with the utmost confidence, directly contradicting his earlier finger-wagging denials of the affair. While America pretended to be sick of the whole thing, there was nothing else anybody wanted to talk about, and certainly nothing else on TV. Why does the media love this story so much? The answer is not just that it is juicy but that it is very lucrative.

Gary DeMoss, a freelance journalist who has had plenty of steady work since January when the story broke, is refreshingly honest. "Frankly," he says, "its been a windfall for a lot of people."

On the day Clinton testified, DeMoss was filming at the White House for CBS. "We have crews at every entrance, two inside, and one in the press room, so we've got it covered from every angle," DeMoss says. That is, of course, not to mention the parallel crew that most networks have stationed several blocks away, at the Prettyman Courthouse, where testimony on the president's philandering has been offered to 23 Grand Jurors on a daily basis for several months now.

The president's "extraordinary" and "historic" three minute 50 second speech was immediately dissected by all and sundry. Commentators wondered whether Clinton would have been better off saying "I'm sorry" or "Please forgive me" rather than "I deeply regret". Michael Zeldin, a former independent counsel, told the host of Fox news that he "thought the first two minutes of the speech were terrific." Reverend J. Philip Wogaman, Clinton's spiritual adviser, said we should forgive the president because "I don't think there are very many people in the United States who are not sinners."

While Hilary had decided to stand by her man, we were informed, Monica was scheduled to reappear in the Grand Jury's "hot seat" on Thursday. Soon enough, Clinton and family were shown happily boarding a plane for their 12-day summer holiday.

More than any Hollywood production or late night TV show the Lewinsky affair has legitimised the entry of a graphic sexual discourse into everyday conversation, even amongst children. The public and media frenzy surrounding the ongoing investigation reveals that the gathering of information and its subsequent dissemination have assumed the aspect of a living museum. The crowds gawk at the camera crews that surround them, stay awhile, to take pictures or get autographs from their favorite announcers, and then shuffle off. The anchors, high and mighty in their director's chairs, even the technicians and lackeys, remain haughtily oblivious of the gathering crowds.

A Washington Post editorial declared that Americans "have all become image smiths and directors in the great national home movie." Yet for Richard Marquez, a recent university graduate who was standing in front of the White House while Clinton testified, There was nothing anomalous in the level of coverage.

"The president of the USA is giving testimony to the grand jury for the first time in the history of the US -- it's an important day. If he's removed from office, he's removed from office -- it's the consequence of his actions -- there's nothing wrong with the USA."

"It's embarrassing for America's image abroad," said Brent Riley, a 55 year old from Logan, Utah, who also stood outside the White House on Monday, carrying a sign that read "Starr's zealous indiscretion, like Joe McCarthy's tyranny, is political terrorism." Riley was neither for nor against Clinton, but felt that the Kenneth Starr, the independent prosecutor, was being overzealous in his pursuit of the president, thus setting a negative precedent on issues of law enforcement and personal freedom.

The Lewinsky affair, it appears, is boiling down to a duel between the president and Starr, a never-ending race to see who will end up with more integrity. Or, at least, as became obvious during Clinton's speech, who could project the image of that integrity to the American people. Backed into a corner by Starr after seven months of denial, Clinton went on the offensive by telling the nation on Monday night that "it is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives, and get on with our national life."

Analysts are already predicting that that comment might mean Clinton will return from his holiday with a tougher stance on Iraq and/or terrorism directed at US interests abroad.

Riley sees things differently. His "big fear is that people like Milosovich and Netanyahu will capitalise on the weakness of the American president, and seek the opportunity to advance their position. Clinton and all American second term presidents have had the intent to bring Israel to a more realistic position in the Middle East but they are always undermined in their second term or prevented. We have a situation here where Clinton has to be very careful. He had manoeuvered himself into a position where he could have made a difference and now Netanyahu is going to slide right out of it."

Riley stops short of calling "Monicagate" an Israeli conspiracy but does argue that "supporters of Israel have tried to nudge it to help them out and advantage themselves from it." Meaning it looks like the affair won't just be a windfall for the press.