Twenty years ago, the Starr Report was the first major government scandal to happen in an online world. Now, special counsel Robert Mueller’s breathlessly anticipated report will arrive to an even more-connected America. Center director Jeffrey Cole explains.

______________________________

By Jeffrey Cole

It seems clear that special counsel Robert Mueller is close to finishing his long-awaited report on the Russian role in the 2016 Presidential Election. It is easily one of the most anticipated reports in American history, if not the most anticipated.

The public eagerly waits for a report that will be turned over to the new attorney general, William Barr, who may be under pressure from the White House to release as little as possible of the report while the public expects to see all of it.

The issues surrounding the release of the Mueller report, not to mention the actual content and findings, may produce one of the most heated public clashes in political history. Freedom of information, the public’s right to know, executive privilege, and the survival of a presidency are all at stake.

Not the first time, but not the same

While the importance of the issues is staggering and the public’s interest overwhelming, this is not an unprecedented situation in our history. Many of the same issues arose slightly over 20 years ago when the Office of Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr, delivered the 445-page report to the House of Representatives on September 9, 1998. One important difference was that Starr’s Report was delivered to a Congress that had authorized the Office of the Independent Counsel. Starr reported to them. The Republican-controlled House quickly voted 363-63 to release the Starr Report to the public.

After Starr, Congress had tired of what some saw as the partisan Republican investigations into Democrats (Clinton) and Democratic overreach into Republicans (Iran-Contra). The legislative branch was happy to dissolve the Office of the Independent Counsel. Eighteen years later, Mueller was named special prosecutor (not independent) by the Justice Department, reporting to the attorney general.

While the Starr Report dealt with personal behavior (and perjury), and the Mueller Report will deal with both candidate and presidential behavior, there are many similarities between the two situations. Both Starr and Mueller have dealt with antagonistic presidents who called the investigations partisan overreach, witch hunts, or hoaxes. Both Starr and Mueller have been portrayed in media as either heroic and tireless investigators or partisan hacks on a vendetta (Inspector Javert from Les Misérables).

The early internet’s role

What many may not remember is that the release of the Starr Report in the fall of 1998 was one of the defining moments of the early days of the internet.

When whatever part of Robert Mueller’s Report becomes public (or, if only partially released, leaked), it will be delivered into a world of social media. When Starr released his report, the internet was new, penetration was under 50 percent, and social media was yet to be born. There might have been a different reaction if Starr issued a report to an American world of 285 million Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat users.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

The Clinton scandal also demonstrated another lesson of the internet that was already strikingly apparent: anyone can act like a journalist . This has both very positive and negative effects on the spread of democracy. Historically, a journalist needed a multi-million-dollar organization behind him/her to spread information to millions of people. Today, anyone with a $200 computer or phone can distribute reliable or unreliable information, potentially to millions of people around the world.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Twenty years ago, neither the internet nor cable news were important parts of the political world. And, while CNN was in its prime in 1998, Fox News and MSNBC were infants just about to celebrate their second birthdays. Neither were anything more than small news sources in 1998. The 24/7 cable wars would ignite somewhat later.

The release of the Starr Report was the first massive news story in the internet age. It changed everything about how news was reported and released. Within 24 hours of the report’s release, over 1,000,000 people downloaded all or part of the report.

Releasing the report directly onto the internet, rather than to broadcast networks, cable and newspapers was a defining moment in three ways:

1. The House of Representatives bestowed enormous credibility on the internet as a means of distributing information. It was a great surprise to many that the House decided to distribute the report over the web.

2. It demonstrated to non-users how significant the internet had become.

3. Most importantly, it bypassed the traditional news media to get the information in the Starr Report directly to people.

There is some evidence that the House majority was afraid that the material in the Starr Report was so salacious that the traditional media might be reluctant to report the details for fear of offending its audiences.

Many partisan Republicans hoped the seamy details, such as the use of the cigar, would embarrass the President and lead to calls for resignation. The internet was a way to ensure those details could not be censored or suppressed.

Ironically, it was Congress that passed the Communications Decency Act that was designed to prevent inappropriate material, particularly that which might offend standards of decency, from appearing on the internet. Had the courts not struck down the CDA, Congress might have been charged with violating its own law.

The Clinton scandal also demonstrated another lesson of the internet that was already strikingly apparent: anyone can act like a journalist . This has both very positive and negative effects on the spread of democracy. Historically, a journalist needed a multi-million-dollar organization behind him/her to spread information to millions of people. Today, anyone with a $200 computer or phone can distribute reliable or unreliable information, potentially to millions of people around the world.

Drudge, Lewinsky, and Issikoff

Internet journalist Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story in January of 1998. Although Drudge got great attention for the story, the real story was broken by Michael Issikoff of Newsweek magazine.

Issikoff was bound, however, by a professional journalist’s standards of accuracy. The stakes were so high that he would not print in his reputable magazine until he was 100 percent sure.

Drudge, a non-traditional journalist on a non-traditional channel, was not bound by such standards. He went ahead, although less than 100 percent sure. In this instance, he was right (or, some say, lucky); in others, he was not.

The internet has meant, and still means , that stories that should not be out there are out there.

The world into which Mueller will issue his report has changed dramatically from the one Starr dealt with 20 years ago. The attorney general (and the president) would be foolish and politically naïve to think that—even if they edit or redact Mueller’s report—a full, unedited copy will not be on the internet within days if not hours. The demand is enormous, and regardless of what the report says it will satisfy only one of the political parties. The public reaction, whether calling for impeachment or apologies to the president, or more likely both, will be eardrum-shattering.

The Starr Report was released to a nation just getting familiar with the internet. By being released there first, it forever changed how news is distributed and the public’s role in the process.

Mueller’s Report will be released to a United States of 92 percent internet penetration, almost as high in social media, and with several highly-watched partisan television news channels. Every syllable of the report will be dissected online and subject to both partisan and non-partisan fact checking. Conspiracy theories will run amok.

It will be democracy at its best and worst.

____________

 

Jeffrey Cole is the founder and director of The Center for the Digital Future at USC Annenberg.

 

 

See all columns from the center.

February 25, 2019