Analysis: Hillary's Conspiracy by DOUGLAS BARRICKLOW January 28, 1998 DALLAS, TX In a Jan. 27 interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, Hillary Clinton introduced a new spin on the current situation in Washington D.C., alleging that the Lewinsky story is part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against [her] husband." According to Mrs. Clinton, "Bill and I have been accused of everything, including murder, by some of the very same people who are behind these allegations." To be fair to Mrs. Clinton, some factions of the nation's media have left a trail of reckless reporting and inappropriate treatment of this news story: The Fox News Network, owned by conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch, began its coverage of the Lewinsky story last week under the on-screen heading, "Sex, Lies and Audiotape." Murdoch's News Corp., which contributed over $100,000 to various Republican organizations during the 1996 presidential elections, is left conspicuously waving in the wind when the First Lady chooses to draw conspiratorial conclusions about this entire affair.

EXPLORE CST... Front Page -- today's news & links Bad Poetry -- submissions welcome Toonage -- cyber toons Linkage!!! -- original comics E-mail CST -- comments, complaints?     .

And just two days ago, one of the most conservative papers in the country, The Dallas Morning News, embarrassingly had to retract a story only three hours after having posted it on its Web site, DallasNews.com. The story alleged that Kenneth Starr's staff had found a Secret Service agent who could testify to having seen the president and Ms. Lewinsky in a "compromising situation." Today, The Dallas Morning News issued a new story, watered down somewhat, saying witnesses have come forward who saw "an ambiguous incident" involving the president and Ms. Lewinsky. Though Mrs. Clinton, in her interview, singled out conservative evangelist Jerry Falwell (the producer of a videotape in 1993 accusing the president of murder and drug running), it's the behavior of these mainstream news organizations which really adds fuel to her fire. When ostensibly reputable media outlets are caught making mistakes (or inflating the drama of the story by using overly grandiose verbage), red flags are justifiably raised in the minds of viewers and readers. As a result, many intelligent consumers of news who encounter this sort of reporting will likely pause and give further consideration to the First Lady's side of the story. But the term "conspiracy" is far from a fair characterization of the events that have led to the emergence of the Lewinsky story. For those who look, there is a highly publicized trail which can be retraced back to the story's roots. It begins with the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling allowing the Paula Jones case to go forward while President Clinton is in office. We will assume here that the Supreme Court doesn't unanimously initiate conspiracies, nor does it knowingly rubber stamp them when they pass through its hallowed halls. With the legitimacy of a unanimous Supreme Court decision behind it, the Paula Jones case continued to run its course, and in so doing, eventually arrived at the door of Linda Tripp. After being subpoenaed by Jones' lawyers, according to Newsweek, Ms. Tripp had a disagreement with her own lawyers, whom she thought were associated too closely with the White House. She became worried about how secure her Pentagon job would be if she chose to repeat the stories Ms. Lewinsky had described to her concerning a possible sexual relationship between Lewinsky and the president. And so she promptly called Kenneth Starr's office and dumped her story in his lap. Kenneth Starr's involvement in this matter inevitably led him to the office of Attorney General Janet Reno. Permission to investigate the case was sought after by Starr through this proper channel and was granted within 24 hours. From this point on, the case will be proven, or disproven, based on whether solid evidence is produced one way or the other. In the meantime, 24-hour news networks have nothing better to do than to fill time by assembling panels of experts to comment on various aspects of this case. Since sex and impeachment are much more interesting topics of conversation than legal interpretations and precedents, the media's discourse is continuously being nudged in the direction of the sensational. Admittedly, an environment is created which at times has a distinct conspiratorial flavor. Despite this, the Lewinsky story is based in fact, not conspiracy, and will ultimately be judged on that basis.

Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times editor Douglas Barricklow.