It’s been called Interngate, Monicagate, Clintongate and a whole score of other describers likening the latest “scandal” in our nation’s capitol to Watergate.

And in many aspects, the alleged relationship between BIll Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and the possibility of lawbreaking as a result is a lot like Watergate. And in other aspects, it is not.

I don’t completely understand why every scandal has to be a “gate.” I know that Nixon resigned as a result of a conspiracy that eventually was exposed after a break-in at the Democratic party headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. Ever since Lewinsky’s claims have been public, the entire hoopla has been a “gate.” I have read European newspapers, particularly those out of London, and almost every one has added “gate” onto some word. Plus, I think it’s pretty ironic that Lewinsky has an apartment in the Watergate complex.

But despite the “gate” controversy, there are other similarities — probably the most visible of these is the news media.

As you may have noticed, the Clinton-Lewinsky story has been dominating newspapers, magazines, the Internet and television news. It was quite prominent when it first broke. All the networks practically halted coverage of the pope’s visit to Cuba, and the anchors flew back to the States. Suddenly, the pope didn’t seem so important. After a few days, coverage flickered a bit, but again, it has risen and has the possibility of being full blown.

But the media is also where the differences between Watergate and the Clinton-Lewinsky controversy diverge.

Ever since the story came out, people across the country have been criticizing the media for doing too many stories, doing stories based on information not confirmed by a second source, doing stories based on rumors and much more.

Whenever something of this magnitude happens, the news media responds with the same magnitude.

What has been dubbed by the media as a crisis in Washington is really relevant to our country, despite public response. Sure, opinion polls say Clinton’s rating among Americans is high, and that many don’t think that the media should be digging into the president’s private life, but the entire issue is about more than possible infidelities by the leader of our country. This is about obstruction of justice, about perjury and encouraging someone else to do so. The fact that these are tied to his personal life shouldn’t discount their importance to upholding justice in America, particularly at the highest levels.

If Monica Lewinsky’s claims are true, Clinton is in for some trouble. On one hand, it seems like the public assumes politicians are sinister and that they are likely to do things wrong. It is kind of accepted. So, the breaking of allegations against Clinton were a shock, but not really.

On the other hand, I think it is still difficult for a lot of Americans to admit the president may have his hand in some wrongdoing. That was the way it was back in the 1970s, when allegations against Nixon were building.

All of this exemplifies how hypocritical the public can be. Although it is important to worry about how the economy is helping or hurting your pocketbook, we shouldn’t discount justice as a basic value of our system.

And this is where the media comes in again. Clinton’s approval rating is up, and many people say they are sick of hearing about the latest “developments” in Washington, but much of coverage of the story results from people, and more importantly, technology.

Ever since the story broke, I have been thinking about it in relation to media coverage of Watergate (probably because I wrote a paper last semester dealing with that topic). I expected the media to create a circus in Washington. Look what happened to Des Moines when the septuplets were born. But I also expected the information to be presented to the public more quickly, as a result of the information age we live in.

I am kind of an information junkie. I love to read and watch the news. I hold a special interest in politics and international news. And through this, I have discovered that often what is reported really isn’t “news.”

The Clinton episode is an example. I realize that in Washington there are leaks and everyone has their sources, but overused anonymous sources just don’t sit well with me. When Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward investigated Watergate, they didn’t live in the electronic age we live in. As reported in Wednesday’s USA Today, they didn’t have the same resources we have. They did intense research. And they had confirmation of information with second sources.

That isn’t happening in Washington. Although I love the news media, especially television news, I am confused. Did the media lose their basic values in the quest for an exclusive? It almost seems so.

Getting the story out immediately is the main priority lately — much as the result of the information age. People expect instant coverage, and that’s what they are getting, whether it’s news or not. Watergate’s investigation wasn’t completed in a day, and the latest fiasco with the Clinton administration won’t be either.

I admit, I will keep watching the news and keeping up with the story. Why? Because it’s important to know what’s going on, and because I am a news junkie. But also because I look up to journalists and want to learn from them, even if I am learning what not to do.

I also hope the public realizes that this is about more than sex. Ignoring what is going on in Washington and approving of Clinton simply to keep the economy safe is not the best road to follow.

Where is the justice?

---

Erin Payne is a senior in journalism and mass communication and political science from Rock Rapids.