In the 30,000-word (but who’s counting?) cover story in the inaugural issue of his media-watch magazine, Content, Steven Brill blasts Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr for leaking secret grand jury information to the press and then scolds the participating press for being Starr’s lapdog.

Starr fires back a 19-page rebuttal, declaring the article borderline libel and calling Brill a lapdog, too. A double, yellow-bellied lapdog.

So that’s (assuming the prosecutor’s typist double spaces) somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 words the world could have done without. Syllables in the six-figures to debate something that never should have occured. How many innocent trees, one wonders, gave their lives because Judge Starr cannot keep his mouth shut?

Starr freely admits he and his staff met on many occasions with select reporters for off-the-record, background interviews. But he says they were driven by the purest of motives — to correct misinformation being disseminated by the White House and to engender public confidence. If hints given in those interviews about what a witness was expected to testify to came so close to that witness’s grand jury appearance that the hints seemed like the real thing, so what? If some of those leaks seemed designed to compel an upcoming witness, Monica Lewinsky, for example, to say what Starr wanted to hear, what’s the big deal?

The big deal is this: Those who investigate and prosecute crimes have a sworn duty to protect the sanctity of the judicial process. Evidence and testimony must be untainted; in a grand jury situation, those who testify deserve confidentiality and — here’s the part Starr really seems to have missed — so does the person under investigation, who has not had a chance to refute any testimony.

Small town police chiefs, rural sheriffs and podunk assistant DA’s routinely do a far better, certainly a more professional, job of protecting the rights of witnesses and of the accused than have Starr and his deputies. “No comment” is a frustrating thing to hear repeatedly during a long investigation, especially when the defense is spouting off, but to the public it often is a reassuring sign that those representing their interests are more concerned with getting to the truth eventually than in getting favorable headlines today.

In his 19-page not-so brief, Judge Starr, in addition to claiming the closed-door backgrounders were held to correct misinformation, also floats the theory that some of the most damaging leaks may actually have been leaked by the White House in a preemptory strike to blunt the damage. Thus, two explanations for the price of one. When it comes to the art of the self-serving alibi, the arch-enemies Starr and Clinton could be twins separated at birth.

Out in the sticks, those who investigate and prosecute accept being held to a higher standard than the defense. Many take pride in that. Judge Starr would do well to emulate them. Justice would be better served. A Whitewater-weary public would be grateful. The trees would appreciate it, too.