Why do the American people still favor President Clinton despite the sex scandals surrounding his administration?

Panelists from the media and the Clinton administration debated this and other questions surrounding the highly-publicized Monica S. Lewinsky scandal at the Institute of Politics' (IOP) ARCO Forum last night.

The five-person panel, "Public Opinion, the Press and the Clinton Presidency," was moderated by Marvin Kalb, the director of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Kalb initiated the discussion by highlighting the media attention given to the recent allegations against Clinton.

"This scandal has been reported as if it is World War III," Kalb said.

Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Center for the People and the Press, added numbers perspective to this with statistics culled by his organization.

For example, although 40 percent of Americansoriginally were concerned about the allegationsagainst Clinton, now only 25 percent feel thecontinued spotlight is essential, Kohut said.

According to his surveys, the public maintainsits loyalty to the President because itdistinguishes between the President's personallife and his politics. In addition, he said, thepublic is pleased with the policy initiativesoutlined in the President's State of the Unionaddress last month.

Kohut also said the public is losing confidencein the objectivity of the press.

Because the media has presented a "beleagueredPresident," the public perceives a bias againstthe President in the press coverage, Kohut said.

John Ellis, a columnist of the Boston Globe,disagreed. Ellis, who forecasted a fast end to theClinton presidency in his Globe column, said"public opinion doesn't matter." The issue issolely legal, he added.

But Gloria Borger, assistant managing editorand columnist at U.S. News and World Report, saidpublic opinion does matter.

Neiman Foundation curator Bill Kovach agreedthe public's trust in the media can only be gainedby accurate reporting.

"The press is part of the story," said Kovach,who also chairs the Committee of ConcernedJournalists.

Rahm Emanuel, a senior advisor to thepresident, agreed.

The press is wading through "unchartered waterand therefore they are making up the rules as theygo along," he said. Emanuel predicted this willlead to a general distrust of the media.

Emanuel cited recent New York Times photos ofBetty Currie, President Clinton's personalsecretary, surrounded by a mob of journalists asproof that the media is taking the scandal toinappropriate heights. The American public "sawwhat a media frenzy is like," he said.

The press should learn that "it is moreimportant to get it right than right away," hesaid.

Journalists are in a risky position for otherreasons, according to Borger. They are dealingwith an unusual situation in which the informationis "completely mediated" by biased sources andleaks.

In order to more accurately report the issue,she said reporters should judge the motivations oftheir sources and should make their readers awareof potential bias.

"The stakes could not be higher," she said.

The audience asked questions about the WhiteHouse response to the scandal and about thedangers of public skepticism.

Greg F. Cobett '96 said he was "pleased by thehonesty" of the panelists. They were "veryforthright. They didn't dodge the issues," Cobettsaid.

Jeffrey P. Yarbro '99, chair of the IOP'sStudent Advisory Committee, disagreed.

The press representatives "did not adequatelydefend the 'feeding frenzy' that the otherpanelists were talking about," Yarbro said.

Nevertheless, Yarbro said he was satisfied withthe "well-balanced panel" that representedmultiple perspectives.CrimsonAneesh V. VenkataramanTURNING THE TABLES: White Housespokesperson MICHAEL D. McCURRY speaks out on thepress.