BALCOgate

If there is any journalistic tic more routinely annoying that appending the suffix "gate" to every non-scandal (well, OK, some deserve it), it's the loose comparisons of any half-decent reporting to Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate coverage. Today's laughable example comes from San Francisco Magazine, which plants a long wet one on the SF Chronicle for its coverage of the BALCO steroids case.

Forever changing the national conversation on steroids does not compare to exposing an illegal cover-up directed by the president. But to anyone who cares about sports, these two reporters became the Woodward and Bernstein of our times. "Their reporting has rivaled the Washington Post on Watergate," says Peter Gammons of ESPN. [...]

"Whoever the source is, he is on the ground floor, like Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal," says Moynihan of ESPN.

Gag me with a high hard one. The Chron's BALCO coverage has indeed clubbed their competition like a Kirk Rueter fastball, but Woodstein used persistent digging to uncover government malfeasance, while Mr. Sharon Stone's minions used Grand Jury leaks to abet the state running wild. Difference, that.

Comments

joe | January 20, 2005, 4:15pm | #

"Woodstein used persistent digging to uncover government malfeasance, while Mr. Sharon Stone's minions used Grand Jury leaks to abet the state running wild."

Wow, that's neat: you can judge the quality of investigative reporting by whether you approve of the policy outcomes that result from it.

See, the difference between Woodward and Berstein on the one hand, and the TANG memo bloggers on ther other, is that the Watergate scandal harmed a Republican, proving the the Post reporters did good work, while Rathergate helped a Republican, which just demonstrates how worthless their investigations were.

Matt Welch | January 20, 2005, 4:44pm | #

joe --On the contrary, I'm drawing two distinctions: between "persistent digging" and being on the receiving end of Grand Jury leaks; and between uncovering government abuse & abetting it. Party membership, and uncovering the Rather cock-up, have nothing to do with it.

sage | January 20, 2005, 4:54pm | #

You two are ignoring the real issue here, which, of course, is fartgate. Probably the real cause of global warming.

joe | January 20, 2005, 5:02pm | #

Matt, I didn't get the point about digging vs. grand jury leaks from the post, so thanks for clarifying.

But your second point, "between uncovering government abuse & abetting it," comes awfully close to confirming what I wrote - you consider it bad reporting because you deem the policies that result (stronger anti-steroid regs) to be abusive.

Lewis | January 20, 2005, 5:20pm | #

The Chron's BALCO coverage has indeed clubbed their competition like a Kirk Rueter fastball...

Good one. If only Woody had a fastball, maybe the Giants could get to the series. (SIGH!)

Matt Welch | January 20, 2005, 5:35pm | #

joe -- I think you're confusing partisanship with anti-statism. Put another way, I am far more impressed, almost every time, with investigative reporting that illuminates government abuse -- regardless of who's in government -- than investigative reporting that illuminates ... the secret, Grand Jury-compelled testimony of private citizens who stand accused of breaking no laws.

Lowdog | January 20, 2005, 5:57pm | #

Amen Matt! Government abuse is government abuse, and why we (the royal we?) are libertarians and not something else, eh?

crimethink | January 20, 2005, 7:23pm | #

If I may be so bold as to speak for Matt, I think he means that the Watergate reporters dug up information that the govt was trying to hide; the BALCO reporters "dug up" exactly what the govt wanted them to publish.

In both cases, the information was under the control of govt officials, so, needless to say, the former required a lot more skill, effort, and risk.

Matt Welch | January 20, 2005, 7:28pm | #

crimethink -- If you do it that well, you can speak for me any time.

The Real Bill | January 20, 2005, 8:03pm | #

crimethink,

You seem to be a master of a the little known art of translating from English to English. Were you one of those students that regularly translated the words of your professors for your fellow classmates? You might call that type of person an educational facillitator.

chthus | January 20, 2005, 11:48pm | #

A close second to the "gate" suffix would be the use of the phrase, "it's like [fillinblank] on acid!"

joe | January 21, 2005, 9:40am | #

NOW I get it. Cheers, crimethink.

Steve Barton | January 22, 2005, 1:15am | #

Where did I see this, Powerline? A smarter guy than me suggested recently that we all have "-gate" fatigue from over-use; and that we need a different signifier suffix for scandal. His suggestion was -quiddick.

joe | January 22, 2005, 8:19pm | #

I liked the name given to Gary Hart's troubles in 1988 - "Bimbroglio."

kevrob | January 24, 2005, 3:50am | #

Howza `bout Pisspot Dome?

One victory over the Universal Scandal Suffix was the "Abscam" congressional bribery sting in the late 70's. Some folks tried to make it into "Koreagate" but it didn't stick. Iran/Contra seems to have resisted -gateing fairly well, too. I was always partial to "Contratemps."

Kevin