Newswatch: Those Low Mid-Term Grades

First with the familiar cocked-head grin, then with the impatient venting of breath that shows he is really irritated, Ronald Reagan got back at the press. "I came in to point out to you accurately where the disarray lies," he said: not in the White House but in the press corps. It was not one of his better one-liners. Far from being in "disarray," the press was in considerable agreement about indecision and disarray in the Administration.

Of course, agreeing is not all that hard for the Washington press corps, to the extent that its members run in a pack, share common attitudes and read each other's stuff. But consider the criticism this time:

> A New York Times editorial: "The stench of failure hangs over Ronald Reagan's White House . . . Mr. Reagan's loss of authority only halfway through his term should alarm all Americans."

> The Washington Post's top political reporter, David S. Broder: "Not the midpoint in the Reagan presidency but its phaseout. . . an accelerating retreat from Reaganism, a process in which he is more spectator than leader."

> Columnist Joseph Kraft: "The Reagan Administration [is] ripping itself apart. . . the President and his closest associates seem to lack the political energy and the grasp of detail required for a mid-term renewal."

> Columnist Patrick J. Buchanan, who would feel libeled if called a liberal: "The White House is in full retreat—and if the President does not step out into the middle of the road and fire a pistol into the air, it will degenerate into a rout. Upon that assessment, those rejoicing at the spectacle and those sick at heart over it are in concurrence." Buchanan is among the sick at heart.

The surprise in all this is the kind of finality of mid-term judgment among political journalists who, though skilled at making controversies out of what others say, are often professionally cautious about committing themselves. Editorial writers have more than 700 days left in Reagan's term to write editorials about him, so where does the Times go after its editorial on "The Failing Presidency"?

Political reporters want to retain access to news sources, what sportswriters might call locker-room reentry. Unworried, Broder says, "I'm not looking for social relationships, I'm looking for working relationships." He generally finds that even in Administrations he attacks, "they take you seriously if they see you are seriously interested in getting their point of view and getting information."

The New York Times has never warmed to Reagan, but has not before criticized him so sweepingly. As Max Frankel, editor of the editorial page, says, "The credibility of the tone of voice counts when you are trying to reach readers tempted to resist your conclusions." But for Frankel the climate has changed: "Do we belong to the culture at large? Sure. The same editorial 18 months ago would have sounded hollow or bitchy."