Consumers used to get their news from newspapers, magazines and evening broadcasts from the three television networks. Now, with the Internet, cable TV and 24-hour news networks, the news cycle is faster and more constant, with every minute carrying a new deadline. But clearly more news and more news outlets are not necessarily better. And just because the press has the ability to cover a story doesn't always mean they should -- or that they'll do it well.
Howard Kurtz has been The Washington Post's media reporter since 1990. He is also the host of CNN's "Reliable Sources" and the author of "Media Circus," "Hot Air," "Spin Cycle" and "The Fortune Tellers: Inside Wall Street's Game of Money, Media and Manipulation." Kurtz talks about the press and the stories of the day in "Media Backtalk."
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
________________________________________________
Alexandria, Va.:
Mr. Kurtz,
I did not see the Tim Russert interview (inquisition?) of Dean that caused much comment. I have watched Meet the Press the last two weeks to see if he's as tough on the other side. I thought he was pretty soft on Secretary Rumsfeld, though he didn't give Speaker Hastert an easy ride this week. Sen. Biden seemed to come out well, though perhaps that was because he was well-prepared. I would be very interested in your comments. (By the way, I thought George Stephaopolous did the better job questioning Secretary Rumsfeld last week.)
I always look forward to your columns and chats. Thanks for the good work.
Howard Kurtz: Joe Biden did well yesterday in part because he really knows the subject of foreign affairs. But let's be clear: When a declared presidential candidate comes on Meet the Press for 30 or 40 minutes, there's a whole different level of scrutiny and confrontation (which I've referred to as the Russert Primary). If Biden gets into the race and comes back (which he promised Russert he will do), you'll see a much more adversarial interview.
________________________________________________
Arlington, Va.:
A friend of mine, over beers, recently observed, "The founders of C-SPAN were geniuses for anticipating reality television, but morons for the reality they chose to broadcast."
Howard, any thoughts on the rightful place of C-SPAN in broadcast history?
Howard Kurtz: C-SPAN is an incredible public service, even if congressional debates are not always the most scintillating fare. For the first time -- well before the Internet -- viewers could see a committee hearing or floor debate for themselves, rather than having to rely on incomplete media summaries. It gave people the ability to watch politics and make up their own minds. And on the call-in shows, the hosts, in the Brian Lamb mode, not only give no hint of their own opinions, but go out of their way to avoid calling attention to themselves -- not exactly the model of most cable shows today.
________________________________________________
Derwood, Md.:
Howard --
I was going to ask if you thought Jayson Blair's 15 minutes were up yet, but then today you reported on the return of Stephen Glass to the pages of Rolling Stone.
Is lying, then getting caught, becoming good career moves for young journalists?
washingtonpost.com: After Blair Fiasco, Times Considers Ombudded Journalism (Post, July 21)
Howard Kurtz: Geez, I hope not. Glass's Rolling Stone assignment hasn't exactly resuscitated his career, and Blair hasn't sold his book yet. I guess journalists fraud is one way to become famous in a culture that places such a high premium on celebrity. But it's not the sort of fame, or infamy, that any rational young journalist should want.
________________________________________________
Potomac, Md.:
How do you feel about accusations that the media is anti-conservative or anti-Bush after the relentless questioning over the African Uranium issue?
Howard Kurtz: It's a bit simplistic to say the media are anti-Bush in pursuing this story, when the White House has been forced to admit error and even Bush defenders say the administration has handled it badly. Was the press pro-Bush during Afghanistan and Iraq, when the president was getting so much positive press and was riding high in the polls? One reason for the hostile coverage is that journalists love these little mini-scandals where each day brings a new revelation. Another is that the Democrats are going after Bush with a ferocity they haven't shown before, giving the press the conflict it craves. Finally, the press is treating the uranium flap as a proxy for larger questions of Bush's credibility as well as the bloody aftermath in Iraq.
________________________________________________
Avon Park, Fla.:
Why doesn't the media challenge the NAACP's assertion that Joe Liebermann, Dick Gephardt, and Dennis Kucinich were insensitive to minority issues by not showing up at that Miami convention? They all were at Jesse Jackson's candidate forum three weeks before and all have significant civil rights records. For example, Dick Gephardt had a family situation and Joe Liebermann went to Mississippi to help the freedom riders. I think that the NAACP overreacted to their absence and they should cut these candidates some slack. I hate to say this, but I think the NAACP wanted to be stroked by the candidates so badly that they didn't consider their overall records. What do you think?
Howard Kurtz: I happen to agree. I wrote a column last week questioning how NAACP leaders could simply ignore the long civil rights record of a Joe Lieberman, for example, and denounce him because he didn't show up for their dog and pony show. By and large, I think the press has given the NAACP a pass, writing about the episode only in terms of the political fallout for the candidates rather than questioning the group's demands and its rhetoric.
________________________________________________
New York, N.Y.:
Every day we read of another American or two killed in Iraq and, of course, the total number killed to date. What is so frustrating with these reports is the total lack of information given beyond the fact of whether the cause was a shooting, a bomb, etc. For example, was there any response? Was anyone pursued, captured, arrested, killed? Are we getting any significant assistance from Iraqi citizens in identifying the perpetrators or potential perpetrators? Without some context, the daily reports of these killings serve only to wear down our resolve to see through what we began.
Howard Kurtz: Such reporting is difficult because the situation is murky. There are brave reporters in Iraq doing the best they can, but it's not always clear to U.S. soldiers what is the source or motivation for some of these attacks. That's why it's hard to get a journalistic handle on what is happening there.
________________________________________________
Baltimore, Md.:
Hi Howard. Walter Pincus, Dana Priest and Dana
Milbanks are doing a great job uncovering vital
information about the inaccuracies in the State of
The Union Address. No other major paper in the
U.S. has had a breaking story since the
controversy began. Would you say that writing for
the Post gives these journalists an advantage that
reporters from other papers do not share?
Howard Kurtz: Well, writing for The Post certainly gives you an edge over writing for a paper in Dubuque, but these happen to be three experienced and very aggressive journalists. Just being affiliated with a big news organization doesn't mean that people simply hand you stuff, particularly on a contentious story like this. It takes daily digging and the development of sources and the ability to put little pieces of the puzzle in context.
________________________________________________
C-SPAN:
In my opinion C-SPAN's greatest contribution is showing important and unimportant press conferences from beginning to end without editorial comment of any kind. It's the greatest.
Howard Kurtz: That was the point I was trying to make. It's cinema verite, not sound bites, with no selective editing or attitude-laden standup by reporters.
________________________________________________
Somewhere, USA:
Arlington must have missed the exciting C-SPAN Ways & Means Committee meeting on Friday (or was it Thursday--I can't remember.)
Anyway, Bill Thomas called police because Dems wanted to discuss a bill in the library!
That led to all sorts of charges and counter-charges. It was like watching the Jerry Springer show!
It had its humorous moments, at first. But then, when reflecting, it's sad that this is how much civility has degenerated. It's possible to disagree without being uncivil; and calling the police was just plain childish.
Imagine if I called my local police dept. because my neighbor called me "a little fruitcake." I wonder what they would say?
Howard Kurtz: In all the years I've been writing about and reading about Congress, the fruitcake business really took the, well, cake. It was Congress reduced to the level of a high school playground (maybe that's unfair to the nation's high schools). So we're lucky C-SPAN was there. Keep in mind that the broadcast networks have greatly reduced the number of crews they send to the Hill (unless a celebrity is testifying) because congressional news is largely viewed as boring.
________________________________________________
New York, N.Y.:
Do you see a future for the vicious debate in the House on Friday over the Ways and Means rumble, or is it now retired from active duty? I thought it was about constitutional issues like minority rights, which seem rather important.
washingtonpost.com: The House That Roared (Post, July 19)
Howard Kurtz: It was really about the pent-up frustrations of the Democratic minority and what they see as strong-arm tactics by the GOP majority. Democracy is always messy, of course, but I don't think any of the combatants here came off looking particularly good.
________________________________________________
Boston, Mass.:
Mr. Kurtz,
Why does it seem like the Post is the only paper (we know cable and network news won't do it) that is actually reporting the quotes made by Bush prior to the Iraq War and comparing them with what is being said now. Why aren't all newspapers and TV news doing this?
Howard Kurtz: I think other major newspapers are covering it as well. Television is certainly covering the WMD controversy, but it's harder for TV, as a visual medium, to go back and detail who said what on each occasion and provide that sort of context. I'd agree that The Post has been out in front on this issue, but it's had some company.
________________________________________________
New York, N.Y.:
Is the media getting too caught up in the Nigeria reference in the State of the Union speech instead of focusing on the other statements of why we went to war?
Howard Kurtz: Maybe. But it's easier for the press to focus on the facts of a specific controversy (what did the president know, what did the CIA, why didn't White House officials heed the State Department's warning, etc.) than to tackle the more subjective subject of whether the president made an adequate case for war in Iraq. That's certainly been explored as part of the larger question (why throw out shaky WMD "evidence" when Bush already had strong arguments against Saddam as a brutal dictator who killed his own people and threatened his neighbors). But it doesn't make that much sense to refight the battle over whether we should have gone to war, as opposed to whether the administration used misleading information in arguing for war.
________________________________________________
Madison, Wis.:
Now that the war in Iraq is technically over, are reporters there "embedded" still or are they on their own?
Howard Kurtz: "Technically" is right. I read the other day that there are about two dozen embedded journalists left (from a high of 700 at the height of the fighting). Most of the reporters you read or watch from Baghdad are there on their own, not officially traveling with any military unit. That arrangement makes more sense in a raging war than it does in occupied Iraq, even though the situation remains dangerous.
________________________________________________
Baltimore, Md.:
The pendulum on the Bush story began swinging back against the President the day he staged (emphasis on "staged") the photo op on the USS Lincoln to announce the "end of combat" in Iraq. When it became clear that troops were still under fire, and at the same time not finding WMDs, I think the press began taking a second look at the matters that had been taken as a given by the administration. If Hussein is captured or substantial WMDs discovered, it will probably swing back in Bush's favor.
Howard Kurtz: Bush did take some knocks over that staged landing, but even then most Democrats were afraid to criticize the victorious commander-in-chief. The questions raised by the USS Lincoln (was the carrier delayed for his arrival? couldn't he have taken a helicopter?) are simply not as earth-shattering as those raised by the uranium flap. I do think, though, that if things were going well in Iraq, the WMD debate would have far less resonance right now. And obviously, the landscape would look very different if Saddam is caught or those elusive weapons are found.
________________________________________________
Washington, D.C.:
Howard, I enjoy the chats!
The story about the forged uranium documents was broken in the foreign press months ago? Why is the U.S. press so late to the party?
Howard Kurtz: Actually, the American press also raised questions about the uranium claim long ago (and when you see these forged documents, shown by ABC the other day, it's amazing what an amateur job it is). But it wasn't until Ari Fleischer acknowledged what everyone already knew, that the White House had erred by including the allegations in Bush's State of the Union, that the media floodgates opened.
________________________________________________
Memphis, Tenn.:
The Washington Post reported that the White House tipped off Web writer Matt Drudge to discredit an ABC journalist as Canadian and gay. The reporter had quoted soldiers in Iraq who had bad things to say about the administration. What effect, if any, is this attack having on reporters? Is there any intimidation, or is the White House's enemies list-like maneuver only riling up journalists into even more of a combat mode?
Howard Kurtz: I don't think reporters feel particularly intimidated, but rather amazed that a White House official would react to a negative news report by going after the journalist in so personal a fashion. A White House official told me this is not the way they do business and that the leaker would be fired if they could figure out who it was. It's one thing to go after a reporter on the basis of the content of stories; that's fair game. But to try to trash someone because he is a) openly gay, and b) Canadian (gasp) is a pretty low blow.
________________________________________________
Kansas City, Mo.:
Your column on television reporters using
newspaper stories brought back memories. In the
mid-80s, just out of college, I worked for a small
daily newspaper, which also owned a ?low-
power? TV station. When the paper went from a
wide format to a standard size format, reporters
joked it was done to make it easier for the TV
people to turn the pages while reading the news.
Howard Kurtz: The "rip and read" mentality has been around, especially at the local level, for a long time. What was striking about the examples I quoted in my column today was that they involved big-time news organizations and reporters who pretty clearly got shafted.
________________________________________________
New York, N.Y.:
You seem to have a pretty solid, high profile presence in two media formats (print and television). My question -- do you ever talk to your editors and/or program directors and suggest that perhaps a little more time should be spent covering this, or a little less time be spent covering that? I know you like to get the scoop as much as the next reporter, but it also seems like the media has gotten to the point where if they don't break the news, then it's not news, and that's a problem. TV would rather report on Kobe Bryant or Jessica Lynch's homecoming or Laci Peterson, when there are issues that deserve a lot more attention, such as the President's not being fully truthful with the American public about Iraq, the problems with Liberia, North Korea, Iran and assorted domestic issues. It's seems to me that our national priorities are a bit out of whack.
Howard Kurtz: It's not my job to tell the rest of the media, or even the rest of The Post, what to do. Whatever influence I have is through the power of criticism. For example, I've written and spoken on the air about the absurd obsession that cable seems to have with the Laci Peterson case, but I can't say that it had much impact. (The Kobe story is already becoming the new Peterson case.) I've also written more generally about the media's fixation on celebrity news and the relative lack of interest (less so after 9/11) on foreign affairs unless American lives are in danger. But ultimately most editors and producers do what they think will sell.
________________________________________________
Rochester, N.Y.:
It seems like last week the White House was trying to keep the uranium story alive, by releasing new information or clarifications almost every day. The White House has been good at killing stories in the past; why has it so bungled this one?
Howard Kurtz: It's actually quite a departure from the usually disciplined White House we have seen for the last 2-1/2 years. Perhaps it's because there are big players with conflicting agendas, but the shifting explanations have only fueled the flames of controversy. The White House tried again on Friday to put out more information in an effort to resolve the matter -- there's nothing reporters like better than Unanswered Questions -- but that, for the moment, doesn't seem to have succeeded. Maybe their best hope is that so many reporters will be chasing Kobe that this other matter will just fade away.
________________________________________________
Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.:
Could you provide a link to today's column? Can't quite find it.
washingtonpost.com: Where Credit Is Due (Post, July 21)
Howard Kurtz: Here you go. It should be on the home page somewhere.
________________________________________________
Gaithersburg, Md.:
How far should the media go to get information about Kobe and the alleged victim? Is their entire life history going to be put on TV?
Howard Kurtz: It became clear yesterday, with an Orange County Register report on how the accuser had a drug overdose a month earlier (excerpted in today's column), that everything she ever did in her life is going to come under intense scrutiny. In part this reflects the usual legal tactics in a sexual assault case: since everything comes down to the question of consent, the Kobe team will do everything it can to destroy the woman's credibility. But it also reflects the appetite of a voracious press corps that can't get enough of this story.
________________________________________________
New York, N.Y.:
Greetings,
I'm very interested to see the characterizations of Dr. Dean now that he has surprised so many folks by having becomee such a contender. The usual one is that he is a 'far-left' candidate who will destroy the Democratic party if he makes it to the nomination.
However, when I look at his positions, I don't see a wild-eyed leftie at all. He actually seems quite moderate. He is not afraid to be direct, and he's not at all happy with Bush, but that is not at all the same thing as being a commie (yet). Why do you think so many have been characterizing him so inaccurately?
Howard Kurtz: As a growing number of stories have made clear, there is a gap between Dean's liberal rhetoric (in bashing Bush, being against the war and declaring himself the candidate of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party) and his far more moderate record as governor of Vermont, which includes strong fiscal conservatism and a pro-gun stance as well as the signing of the gay civil unions bill. The truth is, he is a hard guy to pigeonhole, which is why "left-winger" or "moderate" doesn't quite capture his political persona.
________________________________________________
Washington, D.C.:
Mr. Kurtz,
Re: the forged documents
Maybe I missed it, but has any story revealed who forged the documents? And why?
Howard Kurtz: I haven't seen that. But the forgery was so bad that it included the signature of one official who hasn't held office since 1989.
________________________________________________
New York, N.Y.:
Howard,
I love your chats. I'm surprised you haven't commented (or perhaps I missed it) on the amazing BBC revelation that Dr. Kelly (who apparently killed himself) WAS the main source for the Andrew Gilligan (of the BBC) story that the Blair government "sexed up" a WMD dossier. This seems to me quite a revelation, since Dr. Kelly testified just a few days earlier that he couldn't recognize what he told Gilligan in Gilligan's story.
Now Gilligan's been put on "gardening leave" (wonderful term), according to the FT. It seems to me that the BBC is in BIG trouble. What do you think?
Howard Kurtz: The BBC's reputation is squarely on the line here, and those who feel its Iraq reporting was biased are having a field day. At the same time, the Blair government is also taking a big hit over the scientist's suicide. It's a nightmare for both sides.
________________________________________________
New York, N.Y.:
I was reading that the New York Times was going to hire an ombudsman, and was wondering what rationale it gave for not having one up to this point?
Howard Kurtz: As I write today, the Times has long taken the position that its own editors were perfectly capable of dealing with any complaints and there was no need for an in-house critic. The committee looking into newsroom reforms in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal is studying the issue, and the paper's new editor, Bill Keller, told me he is not necessarily opposed to an ombudsman.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20528-2003Jul20.html
________________________________________________
Falls Church, Va.:
Whatever people think of NPR, one thing that must be said, is that NPR covers a greater part of this earth that any of the major cable networks or all news radio programs will ever do. They also don't seem to obsess on the more sensational stories (Chandra Levy, Laci Peterson) instead, they merely report and move on.
Howard Kurtz: No argument from me there.
________________________________________________
Potomac, Md.:
Why has the fact that North Korea is developing weapons grade uranium for nuclear weapons getting lost in the news?
Howard Kurtz: Beats me. Russert asked Joe Biden about it yesterday. I guess in part because the Bush administration is downplaying it, and in part because North Korea is such a closed society, so there are no reporters filing stories on the matter from Pyongyang.
________________________________________________
Rockville, Md.:
Re: Media accountability.
1. I can think of no reason why any paper would be without an ombudsman. It seems such a watchdog really is nothing more than a columnist anyway, with heightened editorial autonomy. If an ombudsman rips his paper, the editorial staff can still respond as it would to an outside criticism, so what's the downside?
2. Me thinks that Stephen Glass writing for Rolling Stone represents a cynical ploy by Wenner & clan to capitalize on Glass's infamous notoriety, and sadly once again rewards bad behavior if the notoriety is strong enough to spike interest and sales. A reporter who fabricates facts has violated the most fundamental tenet of his profession, and should never get another chance. Never. In the final analysis, all that the media has is its reputation for truthfulness. Glass should not be allowed to make another cent writing anything but fiction.
That's my speech. Appreciate your comments.
Howard Kurtz: 1) An ombudsman also engages in internal criticism of the paper. Still, only about 30 American newspapers (including The Post, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune and San Diego Union-Tribune) have them. Hard to avoid the conclusion that most newspapers would rather not subsidize criticism of themselves.
2) As the reporter who broke the Stephen Glass story in 1998, I am amazed that anyone would give him another chance after the serial fabrications he committed. Which is why I wanted to ask Jann Wenner about it.
Thanks for the chat, folks.
________________________________________________
