ShareThis Page
Andrew Conte’s Focus on Media: Jack Anderson relished muckraking |

Andrew Conte’s Focus on Media: Jack Anderson relished muckraking

| Saturday, January 27, 2018 9:00 p.m.
The 1972 Time magazine cover featuring Jack Anderson. (
Tribune-Review contributing writer Andrew Conte.
The 1972 Time magazine cover featuring Jack Anderson. (
Tribune-Review contributing writer Andrew Conte.

Sure, President Richard Nixon had his enemies list, but not even he thought of giving out awards in the 1970s to his least-favorite reporters. I only wish he had.

Even before graduating from college, I had the good fortune of landing a job with Jack Anderson’s “Washington Merry-Go-Round” column. With white hair, a round belly and braces holding up his pants, he joyfully touted his moniker as the “Mormon muckraker,” known equally for his devotions to religion and to rousting out government corruption. Staring as a World War II correspondent, he later joined investigative columnist Drew Pearson, taking over after Pearson died. Anderson never bowed to anyone nor shirked from exposing backroom dealing, righting a wrong or embarrassing a public official who abused taxpayer money.

The column reached 40 million Americans at its peak, appearing in hundreds of U.S. newspapers. The Washington Post ran it in the comics section, to which some disgruntled editor had banished it years earlier. Anderson loved that: More people read the funnies than the editorial page anyway.

My first summer with the column, Jack’s co-columnist Michael Binstein sent me and another young reporter, Ed Henry (now of Fox News), to Georgia to spy on House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who larded his district with pork-barrel earmarks while railing against wasteful spending. Hypocrisy columns practically wrote themselves. Later, Anderson assigned me to cover the U.S. House. I exposed military wives’ lavish spending, learned secrets from members and reported on hearings before they happened.

The column had seven reporters when I started. Typically, we did all the work, Anderson had the byline, and we felt thrilled to be named as his associates in the copy.

We loved knowing he would take on any Washington establishment. He famously had combed through FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover’s garbage, just to prove a point about government snooping. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein got most of the attention for Watergate stories, but Anderson broke many of them too. The Nixon White House became so annoyed that some of the president’s men plotted to kill Anderson by placing LSD dust on his steering wheel.

Mementos of Anderson’s adventures covered our Georgetown offices’ walls like a museum of muckraking: Cabinet secretaries’ scribbled notes, photos with foreign dignitaries, the Time cover with his face. Recognition of his 1972 Pulitzer Prize for uncovering secret government plotting in favor of Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistan War hung in a prominent place. As much as he cherished the accolades, he would have prized one above all the rest.

President Trump earlier this month handed out “Fake News” awards to what he called “the most corrupt and biased of the Mainstream Media” in a tweet. Although sneaky and manipulative, Nixon lacked the showmanship and audacity to call out the media so brazenly. Had he done so, that award would have sat at the center of Anderson’s trophy case.

Andrew Conte is the director of the Center for Media Innovation at Point Park University.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.