About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Van Natta falsehood exposed: Anonymous sources far outnumber named sources in Her Way

June 15, 2007 11:55 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The audio for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a MP3 version of the audio.

SUMMARY: Her Way co-author Don Van Natta Jr. claimed that, in writing the book, he and Jeff Gerth "were able to interview 500 people, many of them on the record -- most of them on the record." In fact, a Media Matters review counted 101 distinct named interviewees in the book's endnotes. Of the 873 citations to interviews, 309 were to interviews of named sources, while 564 were to interviews of anonymous sources.

31 Comments

In an interview on the June 14 edition of National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation, Don Van Natta Jr., who co-authored Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown & Co.) with Jeff Gerth, claimed that, in writing the book, he and Gerth "were able to interview 500 people, many of them on the record -- most of them on the record." But contrary to Van Natta's statement that "most" of "500 people" he and Gerth interviewed for Her Way were "on the record," a Media Matters for America review of the book's endnotes found that of the 873 citations to interviews, 309 were citations to interviews of named sources, while 564 were citations to interviews of anonymous sources. Further undermining Van Natta's claim that "most" of the "500 people" were interviewed "on the record," Media Matters counted 101 distinct named interviewees in the endnotes. Moreover, in 11 of these 101 cases, the authors used the interview notes of other reporters, namely, freelance writer Dale Van Atta and New York Times reporters Stephen Engelberg and Steve Labaton.

From the June 14 edition of NPR's Talk of the Nation:

NEAL CONAN (co-host): And in that regard, Don Van Natta, let me ask you: This is -- this is not an authorized biography. You were not given cooperation by Senator Clinton.

VAN NATTA: No, Neal, we weren't. We sought cooperation from the very beginning. Before we even signed our book contract at the end of 2005, I phoned Howard Wolfson, a top aide to Senator Clinton, and told him about the project, and he sighed audibly in the phone, it was as if somebody had punched him in the gut, and said he'd get back to me. And that was the last time I ever spoke with him.

Loraine Voles, another communications person who works for Senator Clinton, met with Jeff and me over lunch, and she said that Senator Clinton had heartburn about our project, and that was in the very beginning stages. But Senator Clinton just didn't cooperate with us, she had her people urge others not to cooperate with us -- some of her friends and allies, as well as even other senators. Harry Reid, for instance, would not grant us an interview at the urging of one of Senator Clinton's top people.

So she tried to throw up some roadblocks, but despite that, Jeff and I were able to interview 500 people, many of them on the record -- most of them on the record -- And we also looked at thousands of previously undisclosed documents. And I really think we've put together a terrific portrait of the senator.

Van Natta does not define "on the record," but the context of the NPR interview and references in other interviews to "on the record" appear to indicate that Van Natta is referring to interviews of sources who allowed their names to be used. For example, on the June 12 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, his two references to "on the record" interviews are to interviews in which the sources are named in the book:

VAN NATTA: They did, but in the mid-'70s, when they were in Arkansas, before they exchanged their marriage vows, they exchanged their political vows. And they decided they were going to go out and remake the Democratic Party and make Bill Clinton president. They did that.

We heard that from Leon Panetta. He heard it from Bill Clinton. The actual "20-year project" is a quote from Bill Clinton to Leon Panetta. And he told us about that on the record. Panetta heard it in 1996 on Air Force One.

Now, in '93, after Bill Clinton's elected president and Hillary is heading up the health care reform effort, again, there is another idea. Let's have Bill Clinton be president for two terms and Hillary will be president for two terms. That shouldn't surprise us, and there's nothing wrong with it. But in Hillary's own book, her autobiography of 2003, she doesn't indicate any impulses of ambition at all.

ZAHN: Yeah. Very quickly in closing: Taylor Branch, a famous author who happens to be a very good friend of Bill Clinton's, says that your notion of this project is nuts, that he is close to the president, the president has never admitted to anything like that. He thinks you're pretty much making this up.

GERTH: Well, we had two people who told us this story on the record [named in the book as Anne Crittenden and John Henry]. They heard it from Taylor Branch in Aspen, Colorado, at a barbecue dinner at a rodeo. And I called Taylor Branch and he didn't remember the dinner. Now he says he remembers not saying this particular conversation. And I'll add he is a respected historian, but he's also admitted that when it comes to Bill Clinton, he can't be objective.

On Hardball, Van Natta specifically referred to his interview with Panetta as "on the record," while not applying that characterization to a "second source," who was identified in the book only as a "former Clinton administration official [interviewed] in 2006."

From the June 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

VAN NATTA: Well, Leon Panetta, who was White House chief of staff in 1996, heard Bill Clinton say it. The words "20-year project" came out of Bill Clinton's mouth in a conversation with Leon Panetta on Air Force One. We have Leon Panetta on the record saying it. We have a second source who heard Bill Clinton say it during the '90s while he was president.

Similarly, Gerth referred separately to their "on-the-record interview" with Panetta and "an additional source." From the June 4 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

GERTH: That's not the source of the 20-year project. The source of the 20-year project is Leon Panetta, who was President Clinton's chief of staff in the mid-1990s. He heard this in a conversation with President Clinton in 1996 on Air Force One. The words "the 20-year project" and the description of it come from President Clinton himself, as recounted by Leon Panetta in an on-the-record interview, which has not been refuted. And by the way, we even have an additional source, all of which is spelled out in the book.

In a June 4 Huffington Post item, Van Natta again referred to the authors' interview with Panetta: "Despite a recent denial by Senator Clinton's aides of her early political ambition, this on-the-record description has not been disputed."

Media Matters reviewed the endnotes featured in the 27 chapters of Gerth and Van Natta's book (as well as the prologue and the epilogue). In the instances in which an endnote was plural (e.g., "Author interviews with Senate aides in 2006"), Media Matters counted two sources for that particular endnote. In the instances in which an endnote suggested more than two sources (e.g., "Author interview with several senior Senate aides and political analysts in 2006 and 2007"), Media Matters counted three sources. For this reason, the actual number of interviews conducted by Gerth and Van Natta remains unknown.

Using this methodology, Media Matters identified a total of 873 citations to interviews, with many duplicate citations (the authors' interview with Lee Telega, for example, was cited six times in the endnotes of Chapter 16; that would count as six toward the 873 total). However, of these 873 interview-related citations, 564 citations were to interviews with unnamed or anonymous sources (e.g., "Author interview with former Senate aide in 2006"), while 309 of the citations named the interviewee (e.g., "Author interview with Senator John McCain in 2007"). These 309 citations included a total of 101 named individuals:

Courtney Lee Adams
Mike Andrews (interviewed by Dale Van Atta in 1999)
Deborah Attenburg
Charles Babcock
Medea Benjamin
Bob Bennett
Allen W. Bird II
Allen W. Bird III
Jim Blair (by Stephen Engelberg in 1994)
Brooksley Born
Taylor Branch
David Brock
Michael Brower
Matt Butler
James Carville
Andrew Cobb
Randy Coleman
Michael Cook (by Stephen Engelberg in 1994)
Greg Craig
Marla Crider
Anne Crittenden
Erica Dart
Christina Desser
Mark Dicamillo
Vera Ekechukwu
Harriet Wilson Ellis
Rahm Emanuel
Joseph Farah
Peggy Cronin Fisk
Robert Fiske
Ron Fournier
Jock Gill (interviewed by Dale Van Atta in 1999)
Joseph Giroir (interviewed by Steve Labaton in 1996)
Bob Graham
Yale Gutnick
Lucy Hackney
Eloise Harper
Patrick Healy
John Henry
Susan A. Henry
Roger Hickey
Jim Hutter
David Ifshin
Steve Joiner (for Rose Law Firm)
Rev. Donald Jones (interviewed by Dale Van Atta in 1999)
C. Paul Johnson
Vernon Jordan
Mickey Kantor
Brenda Kawski
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
Bill Kisliuk
Steve Langdon
Neel Lattimore
Frank Luk
Loretta Lynch
Robert MacCrate
Jim McDougal
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Richard Massey
Rachel Meranus
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), via e-mail through her press secretary Melissa Schwartz
Dick Morris
Roy Neel
Mark Oleszek
Costas Panagapoulos
Leon Panetta
Anthony Paonita
Peter Paul
Jan Piercy (interviewed by Dale Van Atta in 1999)
Nancy Pietrafesa
Kenneth Pollack
Wade Rathke
Robert Reich (by Dale Van Atta in 1999)
William Rempel
Dr. William Rom
Chris Ruddy
Jodi Sakol
Frank Salvato
David Sandalow
Alan Schecter (interviewed by Dale Van Atta in 1999)
Pat Schuback
Donna Shalala (by Dale Van Atta in 1999)
Kathleen Shiels
Evelyn Shriver
Adam Sieminski
Professor Lawrence Smart
Kenneth Starr
Joan Swirsky
Lee Telega
Eugene Thomas
Susan Thomases
James Varey
Melanne Verveer (by Dale Van Atta in 1999)
David Victor
Chris Wallace
Kelly Waldron
Doreen Weisenhaus
Lee Williams
Frank Wolak
Jim Wooten
Betsey Wright (email)

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by steve expat (June 16, 2007 12:48 am ET)
         

      Interestingly, all 101 named sources and 208 unnamed sources not that Hillary Clinton voted for the war.

      This is pathetic pandering for Hillary, even by Media Matters standards. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Roger7 (June 18, 2007 4:55 pm ET)
           

        There wre 68 posts here last night.

        Almost 40 of them have been removed.

        So much for a free exchange of ideas, eh? Ah well, it's the same at most lefty sites.

        Dissent is not allowed.

        Liberalism at its finest. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Mike Mid-City (June 16, 2007 1:42 am ET)
         

      What the heck you talk-en bout?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (June 16, 2007 3:09 am ET)
           

        The only thing he ever talks about WWAAHHHHH I hate Hillary, dont defend Hillary WAAAHHHH

        Report Abuse
        • Author by steve expat (June 16, 2007 11:16 am ET)
             

          Solon,

          Talking about others who talk about Hillary Clinton in a negative way seems to be the only thing you talk about.  "I don't like Hillary whiners waaaah waah, find something new to talk about, waaah waaaaaah", etc. 

          We wouldn't talk about Hillary so much if this website hadn't morphed into a Hillary for President website.  If they change their name to MediaMatters for Hillary Clinton, I'll stop posting here immediately. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by MickD (June 16, 2007 12:16 pm ET)
               

            I suspect that no matter what anyone says, you will believe this.

            Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama scare the current power base, which is Repub and conservative. They are hiring their hacks to create sensationalistic propaganda against Clinton and Obama. Because one website points out these facts, that means that they are endorsing the candidates?

            You believe this, thus you will keep posting.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by steve expat (June 16, 2007 3:05 pm ET)
                 

              They are pushing Clinton.  The rest of the candidates get an occasional, token post on here to make the website slightly resemble what they claim it to be, but usually 2 of the 3 top posts are related to Clinton.  And the stuff they have been putting up lately is not even worth pointing out.  It's just pro-Clinton spin.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (June 16, 2007 3:10 pm ET)
                   

                Steve, did you ever consider that the reason that Clinton is here so much is because Repubs chose to put out so many anti-Clinton books at the same time.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by Si_W (June 16, 2007 3:46 pm ET)
                   

                Steve, have you taken a look at the article index recently?  Show me how many across Thursday and Friday (for example) are about Hilary Clinton exclusively.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by juliajayne (June 16, 2007 6:37 pm ET)
                     

                  The far left, the red and the green

                  Sound like wingnuts, rigid and mean  

                  When it comes to Miss Hillary

                  They just can't help but pillory

                  And make their attempts to demean 

                   

                   

                   

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by juliajayne (June 17, 2007 2:44 pm ET)
                       

                    When so called "liberals" like those in the green party sound more like rightwingers, I'd say there is a problem. Attacking every Democrat they see/read about is tiresome and alludes to the problem of why they can't attract more members.

                    Report Abuse
                • Author by MHK (June 18, 2007 12:34 pm ET)
                     

                  Don't waste your time with One Trick Pony Ext Pat. 

                  I've asked him that very same question and he never answered.  

                   

                   

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by conleytgwinn (June 16, 2007 1:15 pm ET)
               

            This idea is certain to qualify me for the Nobel Nominations! Just convince the hate-wingers to stop lying about Hillary - eureka! Peace In Our Time!

            MMFA could stop refuting the lies! Hate-wing acolytes could stop whining about the persistence of refuation of the lies! Casual readers could stop being bewildered by the illogic/incoherence of the hate-wingers! Everyone benefits!

            Report Abuse
            • Author by conleytgwinn (June 16, 2007 1:21 pm ET)
                 

              Well, maybe not everyone: some of those hate-wingers may be relying on the steady income from polluting the threads here whenever lies about Hillary appear in the Corporate Media. But, so they tell us, there are plenty of well-paid jobs available out there for any possessing a basic education and a degree of industry . . . "Quick - hit the bike! Rush just took his very last oxy - needs a refill YESTERDAY!" Or have I watched too many reruns of Dark Angel on SciFi?

              Report Abuse
            • Author by eweston8542983 (June 16, 2007 4:42 pm ET)
                 

              But if your nonesence ryhmes then you'll stand trial.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by LarryE (June 16, 2007 2:12 pm ET)
               

            a Hillary for President website

            Yeah, I suppose it is. Except for the times others of your ilk have charged it with shilling for Obama. And the at least one time, if memory serves, it was accused of shilling for Edwards. And the times it's accused of shilling for Democrats in general. And....

            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (June 16, 2007 7:24 pm ET)
               

            It has done no such thing your delusions notwithstanding. I post on a whole bunch of subjects I only see your name here to give us your tired delusions about this being a Hillary website. I dont like the lady, I never have. She has no chance of getting my vote in the primary, that doesnt mean your obsession with dissing this site everytime the mention Hillary is just dumb.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by swift (June 16, 2007 9:09 am ET)
         

      Think ROGER7 is a space alien, or just some second-stringer on the RNC payroll? Or maybe just some obsessed idiot? Or, no. Wait a minute. It's Jeff Gerth! Same prose style. Same research methods (he pulls it out of his behind), and an identical incoherence.

      Either Gerth himself, or the noted communi-- er, columnist, Joke Line.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (June 16, 2007 2:47 pm ET)
           

        A kind and patient soul needs to explain SATIRE to R7, to all right wingers.

        They just don't get it.

        Didn't Fox News debute a FAKE news show that made fun of liberals and Democrats. How'd that work out? Like a square wheel.

        The big question is: why wasn't it funny? Because it was CONTRIVED.

        Satire first and foremost must have a basis in REALITY. Unmoored blatherings about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid aren't funny because there aren't making fun of something observable to ANYONE WITH A BRAIN.

        Dennis Miller, that was for YOU.

        A good name for that abortive show would have been "Na-na-na na-na!" Any childish handle would suffice, for the premise was as sophisticated as sticking one's tongue out and farting at will.

        Except farts ARE funny, that show was not.

        So if Fox brings it back with rampant, uncontrolled farting, you'll know where they got the idea.

        Randy

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tex (June 16, 2007 3:46 pm ET)
             

          FANTAGOR:

          Rampant, uncontrolled farting? That would be John Gibson's show. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by fantagor (June 16, 2007 5:31 pm ET)
               

            Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, too.

            Apparently, Fox is the all fart jokes channel.

            Randy

            Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (June 16, 2007 10:48 am ET)
         

      Sure wish Van Natta would use his time and energy to explore Hillary's policy proposals in depth and see what her voting record is, and how it promotes democracy (or not)

      Wish all these book writers would do that with all the candidates:  what they say they do, and what they do. 

      Enough with the gossip, speculation on motive, personality dissection. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by EvilRepublicansnow (June 16, 2007 2:43 pm ET)
         

      These guys never stop

      Report Abuse
    • Author by alboy562410 (June 16, 2007 8:24 pm ET)
         

      It should be pretty obvious by now that the right is terrified of Hilary Clinton. This is evidenced by the fact that two books thus far have been commissioned that essentially slander Hilary and attempt to discredit her and "swiftboat" her with spurious facts and accusations. It behooves liberals to call attention to this and identify these books as the character assasinations that they are, are intended to be and were commissioned by weaklthy right-wing interests to be.  Remeber the right's strategy is to slime early and often. Preemptive sliming of a worrisome canidate may place just enough doubt in just enough voter's minds to be a factor in November, 2008, should Hilary win the nomionation. And also, whatever reservations we may have about Hilary, if the right-wing is worried about her, then we need to get behinmd her canidacy in an enormous way. She may not be everything a liberal would want but, thank God, she is not a conservative republican and thus has some empathy for the average ameriocan and will not run this country into the ground as a conservative would.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Si_W (June 17, 2007 7:18 am ET)
           

        I've never understood how you guys can write so many books on politicians from the other side of the political spectrum and think you can get away with fooling the general public about the bias.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Blueneck (June 17, 2007 3:40 am ET)
         

      Lets see. We've had lindafranke, col.roycampbell, krugmanhater, libby, seth, beans, jim rogers, david mastio, bob burns, hollowPoint, proud-christian, leftwingandunafraid, con man, evillib1727 (how many evillibs haved camped here for a day or two?), - /  (one of my personal favorite troll names), and republichater to name only a few. Sometimes theseposters last two weeks, sometimes only two hours.  Then back again in two weeks with another handle. Are they paid? Good question. I wonder how many here have heard of Netvocates creation of Chip Griffin, onetime director of townhall.com a site which certainly needs no introduction here. Paid trolls do exist, although I am sure some do it for free, out of the blackness of their pathetic little hearts. Witness the surge of short timers that crawl out of their holes on almost any Kerry thread. Then there are the global warming revisionists.  And such indignation when they get called on it. For the last couple of weeks we have again lets just say, "in the presence of greatness" yet again. He (or she) will go the way of the others and be back again to divert, distract, and derail. This is sad; depressing actually. Meanwhile you could take The IQ Test for Trolls to amuse yourself. Go ahead take it repeatedly. The result never changes and you'll like repeating the message to yourself.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Jim Rogers (June 17, 2007 10:37 am ET)
           

        <!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

        Hey-- Thanks for remembering me! I still read every day, but I don't have time to post. Still not getting paid either (where do you sign up for MMfA troll pay? :)). In fact, I pay MMfA. I've been a $10/month donater for about a year now. I hope you guys donate as well!

        Keep in mind, Blueneck, that people come and go on message boards for many reasons. Most of the liberals I interacted with when I posted no longer post either. And Sue and Coop have to be the best examples of people who “...last two weeks, sometimes only two hours. Then back again in two weeks with another handle.” So I don't believe frequency or duration of posting necessarily implies anything.

        To all the posters here I say keep up the good work! The debate on this message board is very informative, and I enjoy it very much. I hope to participate again some day in the future, but it's going to be a while as debating here is challenging and time consuming. It's hard to get tenure when you spend all day on a message board!

        Maximum respect,

        Jim Rogers

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Blueneck (June 17, 2007 12:13 pm ET)
             

          Certainly didn't mean to offend and I'll have to take your word for it. Paid trolls do exist however--you may not be one of them. Obviously this is difficult to prove since no one would admit to it. Profuse apologies to you . But pleased to note your continued interest in this site.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Jim Rogers (June 17, 2007 1:22 pm ET)
               

            <!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

            No offense taken! I agree that paid trolls do exist (shoes89 comes to mind as a possibility), but it doesn't really matter to me. If someone can come on this site, make great arguments, and engage in reasonable debate, then I don't care if they're paid or not.

            OK, back to lurk mode for me.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Blueneck (June 17, 2007 3:20 pm ET)
                 

              If someone can come on this site, make great arguments, and engage in reasonable debate, then I don't care if they're paid or not.

              No  argument from me on that. Reasonable debate is the operant concept though. We don't always see that.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (June 18, 2007 10:35 pm ET)
         

      Again, Media Matters (very little) is all about protecting Hillary.  Aren't there a myriad of other things that conservatives do that this site could find more offensive than justing rerunning this topic for months?  Come on, if you want to protect the Clintons, bring up Terrell's book about the them, the Clinton Crack Up!

      Even the liberal visitors here are bored with the tell all book stuff.  Just look at the lame postings including this one.  Funny, there's very little about Al Gore that shows up here.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.