The Power of Words. John Mulligan: Covering an impeachment is just part of the beat

6.30.99
John Mulligan: Covering an impeachment is just part of the beat

Related: New England was pivotal in Clinton trial

        One cliche of my beat is that in Washington, it's never over. Every fight (Pentagon budget; Medicare fix; control of Congress) is destined to be refought again and again.
        President Clinton's impeachment was a welcome exception. This story had a beginning, a middle and an end.
        A couple of weeks into it, though, I panicked when I saw that my bureau mates at The Dallas Morning News already had a plan for the still-unscheduled acquittal day.
        I barely had a plan for the next day.
        Two concrete actions let me start on the wrapup and still tend to my daily knitting for the remaining three weeks of the trial:
        1. I asked myself what was the minimum we could settle for. Answer: A scissors-and-paste job on the year's highlights, ruthlessly viewed through the local lens. That launched the writing — actually, more like notes for an outline — in my diary.
        When an episode for the story came to me (during the press chatter at the stake-outs, on the ride to work and, often, during the writing of daily stories), I scribbled a few lines in my diary. Some entries survived almost intact.
        Example: The part about New England Republicans like Nancy Johnson helped kill one of the perjury counts. That wound up crippling the count that the Senate tried.
        A working theory began to form: New England pivotal in trial.
        2. I began to sell the story to the desk.
        Talking the story out with other humans helped to frame it. My consultants included a editor, Paul Tooher, a reporter, Brian Jones, and, once it become clear that the show would close in good time for a Sunday piece, Sunday Editor Tim Murphy.
        The eventual lead came a couple of days before the final votes. I was mentally doodling with that old ditty about Boston (the home of "the bean and the cod"), in search of a New England cliche to upend. "Puritan and witch trial" seemed like a neat pair against which to rig Clinton's survival.
        On deadline day (Saturday, Feb. 13), I blurted out the copy off the top of my head in a big torrent, without notes. Very unusual for me. Then I went back to my notebooks and clips to check dates and quotes. Then I edited.
        The structure was pretty simple: A lead section, stating my case that our locals played big in this drama, with a supporting anecdote or two. Then straight chronology. Then a closing anecdote featuring the same character (Kennedy) I had opened with.
        Since the material seemed to back up my theory (wish that were always true!) I tried to write punchy, ex cathedra, with little attribution. Example: Clinton critics Joe Lieberman and Bob Weygand "lent moral weight to the winning argument" in the trial.
        Pertinent autobiographical note: Early in the 1980 presidential campaign, I covered the dedication of the JFK Library, in Dorchester. It featured Democratic contestants Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy.
        The job was thrilling. (Me in the presidential motorcade just a couple of miles from my father's house. Yipes.) But the competition was daunting. (David Broder, a whole platoon from the Globe, our own champeen, Carol McCabe.)
        My attitude — Me in the presidential motorcade? Gulp! — informed my copy. I felt cowed. I wrote cautious.
        When I checked in later by phone with the editor, Andy Burkhardt, his method was Socratic: This is fine, he said. But wasn't there a Kennedy vs. Carter plot element here? Who won the fight?
        Now that you mention it, says I, Carter cut Kennedy wicked bad. Carter was more graceful, funnier, etc., etc.
        Burkhardt (they don't call him The Coach for nothing) broke in: Write that. Broder leads with it. You're my reporter here. Let's put your best stuff in front of the customer.
        That was a big lesson for me: You got the assignment, boyo, you be the expert. Of course, the deal carries a burden: Better know what you're talking about.
        On that account, five weeks of immersion in the impeachment trial made me conversant with my little slice of the material.
        Tip of the hat here to Metro Editor Tom Heslin. It's easy to get muddled marching orders here at the nether end of a 400-mile supply line. But on the Senate impeachment trial, Tom signalled loud and clear: Cover it.
        I had two bits of good luck the day I wrote. First, I called pundit Darrell West over at Brown University about some detail. I tested my theory on him and wound up with a strong quotation: "New England is back as a political force." (Lesson: Always test your theory. When the expert confirms it, that's good for the story. When the expert blows them up, even better. You avoid writing something stupid.)
        Second, Tim Murphy worked hard to fix the top of the story under tough deadline circumstances. Tim saw the flaw in my fancy lead that another editor might have missed. We labored at repairs for many minutes over two or three phone calls.
        Then Tim hit on the classic solution (is this in some How-To manual for editors?): John, your lead has been hiding down in the nut graf all along.
        We ditched the original lead, made the switch, fixed transitions and saved two inches in the bargain.

Previous editions | About The Providence Journal's Writing Program | E-mail us | Order How I Wrote the Story | Writing-related Web links
Back to main