by Renata Adler
Alfred A. Knopf; 243 pp.; $16.95.
THE FLIP SIDE of the old saw about politics making strange bed-fellows is that it can also make weird sparring partners. In June Renata Adler published two long articles in successive issues of The New Yorker on the libel trials of General William Westmoreland v. CBS and General Ariel Sharon v. Time Magazine. The pieces were a full-scale assault on the libel laws and a scathing attack on the two media giants for bungling--and then vehemently defending--their stories on the two former commandants.
Implicit in Adler's offensive against Time, CBS and Cravath, Swaine and Moore--the giant New York City law firm which defended both media conglomerates--was a defense of the two generals, whom nobody particularly likes. CBS and Time merely confirmed many people's worst suspicions about Sharon and Westmoreland when reporting allegations of gross naughtiness on both their parts.
Reckless Disregard, like the trials it examines, is provocative but not very exciting stuff. Adler spent more than a year poring over transcripts of the trial and pre-trial depositions. Too often the book gets bogged down in the minutiae of the proceedings. More interesting is the controversy that has developed over Adler and her book.
Soon after Adler's articles appeared in The New Yorker, CBS publicized a 49-page, point-by-point counterattack. Adler's charges, CBS wrote to New Yorker editor William Shawn, were "plainly false, gross misrepresentations and distortions of the record." A few weeks later, the editor-in-chief of Time sent Shawn a similar letter. Publication of the articles in book form was delayed as lawyers pored over CBS's and Time's accusations and Adler's rebuttals. Meanwhile, one of the intelligence analysts who testifed at the Westmoreland trial himself sued Adler for libel.
This is where it gets interesting. Around the same time CBS delivered its response, media critics in the lefty press began taking Adler to task. "Her reporting was sloppy and her conclusions absurd," wrote The Nation's Alexander Cockburn, who should know. Geoffrey Stokes of The Village Voice chimed in with similar sentiments, calling Adler's work "dishonest at its core." These words, of course, are reminiscient of those of the capitalist chieftans of CBS and Time.
So what we have is a sort of unholy alliance between the left-leaning media and Big Media against Adler, The New Yorker, the military and Big Law. William Safire, The New York Times' resident right-winger, also got into the act recently. He gave the "offended media giants, radical hatchet men and suing spooks" 40 lashes with a wet noodle for suppressing publication of her book--something media-types, he said, should be the last to do.
BUT, ALAS, AS it is now being reviewed, the book was obviously published. What, then, is this brouhaha about?
To begin: CBS aired a 90-minute documentary in January 1982 accusing Westmoreland of overseeing "a conspiracy at the highest levels of American military intelligence" during the Vietnam War. The goal of this conspiracy, CBS said, was "to suppress and alter critical intelligence on the enemy" by reducing intelligence estimates of the number of North Vietnamese soldiers streaming into South Vietnam in the five months leading up to the Tet Offensive. In short, CBS accused Westmoreland & Co. of pulling a treasonous fast one on the American people.
In February of 1983, Time did a cover story on the final report of the Israeli commission investigating the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. Time asserted that there was a secret "Appendix B" to the commission's report which claimed that Sharon spoke with Lebanese Christian leaders about "the need...to take revenge" on the Palestinians for the assassination of President Bashir Gemayel.
Even generals don't like to be accused of betraying their soldiers in the field or inciting troops to go on a murderous rampage against civilians. So, both men took the offending news organizations to court.
THERE WAS NEVER much doubt that Sharon or Westmoreland--who asked for awards of $50 million and $100 million respectively--were in court for the money. They were in court to salvage their damaged reputations. As it turns out, both Time and CBS were on very shaky ground.
The First Amendment Under FireTwo of the potentially biggest news stories of the year are currently playing themselves out in the same Federal court
45 Minutes With Mike Wallace"The fact of the matter is, that when push came to shove in that courtroom under oath, it turned out
In the DarkA BOVE ALL. Renata Adler's new novel, Pitch Dark, suffers from a preponderance of style over substance. Impeccably written, this
Athlete Defends College SportsNewsweek political commentator Ben Adler wrote an article on Sept. 22, “The Case against College Athletic Recruiting,” that criticizes American colleges for wasting time, money, and admissions slots on athletes. But what Adler doesn’t realize is that recruiting and college athletics as a whole are so much more than just pure economics.
HUCTW Releases Open Letter on Library TransitionThe Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers, which represents many of the workers in the Harvard Library system, released an open letter to the Harvard community Monday morning that raised concerns of understaffing in the Library and the lack of transparency in the ongoing restructuring process.
Library Lays Off Six Workers, After Months of WorryAfter “a series of catastrophic misunderstandings,” in the words of the library’s director, the library system has laid off six employees as a part of its reorganization.