score points against such estimable institutionsrnas the media and the FBI. Hernwasn’t worthy, you see. “You almost wishrn[Jewell would] quit now,” Collins concluded.rn”Sign a lucrative book or movierncontract and call it even. But it’s only inrnfilms that adversity makes the ordinaryrnman noble and merciful.” In otherrnwords, Richard Jewell was not only a loser,rnhe was an ingrate. After being wrongfullyrnattacked by two of the most powerfulrninstitutions in the country, Jewell didrnnot have the grace to be ennobled by hisrn”adversity,” or the generosity to reactrnwith mercy. What’s more, he lacked thernintelligence to understand that a pile ofrnmoney makes things “even.” How ordinaryrncan you get?rnTwo weeks after Time’s Richard Jewellrnarticle, Newsweek weighed in on thernPaula Jones case. The cover story was authoredrnby Evan Thomas, a Newsweekrnhoncho, who subsequently was hailedrnwithin his profession for his admission ofrnelitism, having stated previously, on nationalrntelevision, that Paula Jones wasrn”some sleazy woman with big hair comingrnout of the trailer parks.” However,rnMr. Thomas’s mea culpa was slipped betweenrnparentheses near the end of hisrnstory, previous portions of which did indeedrnreveal his elitism, his confessionrnnotwithstanding, along with evidencernthat he was making little progress atrnputting said elitism behind him. Fromrnthe many examples of Evan Thomas’srncontinuing obtuseness, one will suffice.rnThomas’s question: “If Clinton did whatrnJones alleges [expose himself and ask forrnsex], how could he have been so reckless?”rnThomas’s answer: “At the time,rn[Clinton] could not have contemplatedrnthe price he would later pay.”rnEvan Thomas, meet James Collins. Irnhereby christen you the Ninny Twins. IfrnBill Clinton did what Paula Jones alleges,rnthe question is not why he was recklessrnbut why he behaved like a pig. And thernissue is not the absence of political foresight,rnbut the consideration of a personalityrnso malformed that it allows its possessorrnto behave, well, like a pig. Afterrnthat, the only remaining question is howrnand why Evan Thomas’s judgment ofrnunambiguously base human behaviorrnbecame so screwed up and whether hernhas any idea when it might improve.rnIf an anonymous American—yournknow, an “ordinary man”—had donernwhat Bill Clinton is accused of doing,rnwould Evan Thomas, or anyone else,rnmake the point that Mr. Ordinary “couldrnnot have contemplated the price hernwould later pay”? Would Thomas cooperaternblindly in the calculated efforts of arnpowerful and nonobjective collectivern(like the White House staff) to brandrnthe alleged victim a slut? And finally,rnunder what other conditions would EvanrnThomas allow himself to be brought inrnleague with the likes of James Carville?rnThe attacks of James “Populist andrnProud of It” Carville on a working-classrnSouthern woman who had done him nornpersonal harm were sickening in theirrnmalice and staggering in their hypocrisy.rnLike all things in any way connected tornBill Clinton, the attacks were a study inrnoverkill. There is no area of public life inrnwhich either of the Clintons, or any ofrntheir minions, display the slightest grasprnof the value of nuance. Even in the act ofrnassault they reject the efficiency of thernshiv in favor of the rawness of the meatrnax. However (and not that it’s any consolation),rnit is the sheer gaudiness ofrnthe onslaughts that often makes themrnbackfire. To watch James Carville—arnman whose very posture is gratuitous—rnyap with vicious abandon (which in himrnseems both practiced and organic, perhapsrnexplaining why he appears insane)rnabout female “trailer trash,” and tornwatch him do it while professional feministsrnand other liberal defenders of thernunderdog either stood mute as stone orrnjoined the chorus—well, it was the sortrnof flawless display of ideological fraudulencernthat is hard to ignore. Carville wasrnso politically cynical, so intellectuallyrnvulgar, so personally mean that evenrnsome in-the-tank journalists seemedrnslightly squeamish at his performance.rnAnd there things stood—the nervousrnnewsies, the crazed Carville, the contemptuousrnClintons—until the AmericanrnLawyer published an article by StuartrnTaylor in which he accused thernmedia, in the Jones case, of hypocrisy,rnclass and political bias, and the applicationrnof a double standard. As coverage ofrnTaylor’s article increased, Carville shutrnup (all praise be to God), and the Clintonsrnbacked off. As for the establishmentrnmedia, they were cornered and they confessedrn—but they never quite owned up.rnAfter decades of adamant denial, theyrnsaid, “It’s true; you caught us; we’rernsnobs.” Then they went on to otherrnthings, apparently believing that theirrnadmission, having been painful, was arnsolution.rnOr maybe they were just hoping itrnwas a solution because thev sense thernformidability of their predicament. Ifrnthe symptoms of your problem are snobbery,rnnarrow-mindedness, and preconception,rnby what means do you gain insightrninto the workings of your elitism,rnbias, and prejudice? And if your environmentrnis full of people just like you, whererndo you look for a model or guide? It usedrnto be that the media didn’t know thatrnthey didn’t know. Now they don’t knowrnwhat they don’t know. Establishmentrnjournalists’ proudest attribute, their professionalrnskepticism, is regularly renderedrninoperative by nothing more than arnwoman’s big hair or a man’s large waistline.rnThat journalists are the last to acknowledgernthis leaves them withoutrncredibility as reporters of fact, and dangerousrnas judges of truth.rnIn the end, all of the journalisticrn*rnLU/ENGLISHrnNEWSLETTERrnAH the latest news fromrnLagado UniversityrnAnnual Subscription $5.00rnFour issues per year.rnLU/English Newsletterrn11 Llewellyn PlacernNew Brunswick, NJ 08901rnName —rnAddressrnCity —rnState ZiprnJUNE 1997/47rnrnrn