Media Backtalk

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.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: I agree with you in your column Howard, it seems ridiculous for these four Democrats who voted for the resolution on Iraq to suddenly act as though their votes somehow don't count or were for something else. I would bet if the situation was going better all four would be telling a much different story.

washingtonpost.com: Iraq and Roll (Post, Sept. 8)

Howard Kurtz: There's little question that the deteriorating situation in Iraq (which prompted the president's speech last night) has given the Democratic candidates a club with which to beat Bush. But I do think they have to take responsibility for their own votes for the war, rather than engage in revisionist history. Some, like Joe Lieberman, have steadfastly stuck to their guns, but I don't get why John Kerry is trying to explain away his vote as one to "threaten" force when it authorized the administration to go to war against Saddam.

_______________________

San Diego, Calif.: Howard,

I think you are in favor of ombudsman and media critics but do they have an impact internally at the Post? Based on a previous on-line chat with Geneva Overholser where I think she indicated she had concerns with the Post's coverage of Gore's campaign and the Clinton administration (and I think you thought the coverage was a little overboard) -- what's the purpose of an ombudsman if no one apparently listens?

washingtonpost.com: Transcript: Geneva Overholser, professor at the Missouri School of Journalism and former ombudsman for The Washington Post (June 6, 2003)

Howard Kurtz: I think people do listen. But look, the whole point of an ombudsman is to have an outside critic. That means the person is not part of management and can't force any editor to do anything. All he has is the power of persuasion, and the ability to highlight mistakes and report on reader feedback. I think an ombudsman makes an impact over time in gradually changing attitudes on such matters as anonymous sources or hyped stories or language that some readers find offensive.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.:
Why is it that most of the media, print and electronic, refuse to admit (and publicize) that the D.C. presidential primary is indeed the "first-in-the-nation?" Mostly I hear excuses (from "the media") to the affect that the D.C. primary isn't important because New Hampshire and Iowa have tradition/history on their sides, but the truth is that the D.C. primary won't gain recognition and importance until "the media" grants recognition and therefore, importance (by reporting the "fact" that the D.C. primary is first). Also, there can be no denying that a peak at how African-American voters are leaning (which is what the D.C. primary will give) is ever-so-important to each and every one of the Democratic presidential campaigns. Shouldn't "the media" concentrate on accurate reporting, and stop putting it's own beliefs into the mix? Thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration.

Howard Kurtz: It's not just the media's belief that a primary in a city is not anywhere near as big a deal as a state caucus or primary (though I agree it will give an indication of African-American sentiment). Look how much time the candidates are spending campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina as compared to D.C.

_______________________

Forestville, Md.:

I keep hearing the media insist that President Bush declared the war in Iraq to be over in May on the aircraft carrier, when he did not. He said major military action was over, which is true. Is this the fault of the listening and reading public for not taking the press to task when they lie, and continue to lie, until others start to believe the lie? If so, how do we effectively insist on the truth being told?

Howard Kurtz: The press has accurately reported that president's words on "major combat operations," and has not lied about it. But politics is about more than words; it is about images and impressions. And the clear impression left by Bush in that flight suit was that the heavy military lifting was behind us and now it was time to rebuild Iraq.

_______________________

Bristow, Va.: Howard, a question about Al Franken. Is he out to be taken seriously as a media critic/political analyst? If so, why does his book have cartoons and a very jokey tone? Doesn't that make it easy for conservatives to say yes, I read the book and colored in the cartoons for fun?

Howard Kurtz: Well, his book seems to be an instant best-seller, so someone is taking him seriously. Look, Al Franken's claim to fame is as a funnyman, so he's written his book in a jocular tone that still pummels Bush and what he sees as a right-wing media cabal. Whether this makes him a serious commentator or a comedian with a new shtick is up to readers and viewers. In my two interviews with him, Franken seems less concerned with being funny and more with scoring partisan points.

_______________________

Point of Rocks, Md.: Your ombudsman yesterday emptied out his vacation mailbox and most of the complaints he found were bizarrely tiny complaints from liberals about how no reporter should let the word "Democrat Party" off his keyboard without the "ic." Is this really worth attacking the paper for, or is he just trying to make the Post sound centrist?

washingtonpost.com: Ombudsman: While I Was Away (Post, Sept. 7)

Howard Kurtz: What Michael Getler was doing was trying to honestly reflect the kinds of things that readers complain about. He's said to me a couple of times that little things -- a botched headline, or loaded language in a lead -- add up over time and undermine the paper's credibility.

_______________________

Virginia: Howard -- Enjoyed your talk with Al Franken yesterday, but did I detect some friction between you two? Is there something going on there?

Howard Kurtz: Franken felt, as he said on CNN, that I had made it seem in writing about him in The Post that he just wanted to beat up National Review Editor Rich Lowry rather than challenging him to a fight as a gag. I thought it was perfectly clear that it was a mocking challenge. Beyond that, there was just the usual back and forth with an interviewer trying to pin a subject down, particularly when I pressed him about his apology for sending a deceptive letter to John Ashcroft.

_______________________

Gambrills, Md.: Why do Tim Russert and other members of the media keep insisting that repeal of any portion or all of the Bush tax cuts amounts to a tax increase? Most Democrats view total or partial repeal as a return to the status quo, before cuts were implemented. Republicans use the language "tax increase," and that is not accurate. It's difficult to have an honest debate when Russert and others insist on using Republican politicized terminology.

Also, how come there is so little talk of State tax increases? Property, State and local tax increases, as well as cuts in local services have as much, if not more, of an effect on my wallet as federal tax cuts.

Howard Kurtz: On your second point, state and local tax increases are all too often left out of the conversation when the subject is discussed (though there have been a couple of good pieces in The Post and elsewhere about how the locals are having to pick up the slack). But on your main point, it's really beyond dispute that rolling back some or all of the Bush tax cuts amounts to a tax increase. It may or may not be a good idea, but it will cause some people to have to pay more in taxes than they would have to pay under current law. If that affects you and your tax bill goes up, you probably would not say, oh well, this is just a return to the status quo.

_______________________

Crystal City, Va.: Forestville is right and you are wrong. Just read yesterday's WP. In his story "For Veterans, an Evocative Repeat" Manuel Roig-Franzia repeats, and your editors missed again, the false statement concerning President Bush and Iraq. He writes "They wish President Bush had never said the war was over?" The President has repeatedly said only that major combat was complete, not that the war was over. I don't think this is a lie, but is an example of poor reporting.

Howard Kurtz: That was not phrased well, even though he is characterizing the views of the veterans he's interviewing.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Very good coverage of the President's speech in most media, except that there seems to be no analysis of just what $80 billion ($150 billion total) means, compared to other expenditures (and programs that have been cut) and its affect on the deficit. We all know it's a lot of money (a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money). Even a chart comparing this cost with other government expenditures, would help. What about compare to other foreign aid? Will it affect our ability to fund programs in other parts of the world where there are also terrorists (or potential terrorists)? Do we pay interest? This is a huge, seemingly unprecedented expenditure. It boggles the mind. It seems worthy of a national debate. But where do we start?

Howard Kurtz: You will get that debate, no doubt about it. But Bush's speech was at 8:30 p.m., meaning that presses were already rolling and most newspapers scrambling just to get it in the paper and had little time to call analysts for comment. The best take on any major speech usually comes in the second-day stories.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Why are the Sunday shows (specifically CNN and ABC) doing away with the roundtable? That was the reason I would watch them (or relisten to to them on CSPAN). The roundtable made This Week distinctive. What gives?

Howard Kurtz: It's a good question, in my view. I think people enjoy the give-and-take among smart journalists. "This Week/Nightline" producer Tom Bettag told me that he feels cable news has become a 24-hour roundtable and that he wants to make the Sunday show based more on reporting and less on pontificating. But we'll have to see whether viewers agree. The show relaunches next Sunday.

_______________________

Vancouver, Canada: Hi Howard, Howard Dean seemed awfully dull and wooden during the debate. As long as he's front runner among the Democrats, does this mean he's too dignified to be feisty any more? I'm sure Harry Truman never dulled down during his campaign -- he's the one the feisty Dean reminded me of. Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: Dean remains feisty on the campaign trail. But I believe he deliberately struck a measured tone in the debate because he's trying to make the transition from a fiery underdog to a plausible commander-in-chief. In other words, he no longer has to jump up and down to get attention, and has to keep one eye on the general election. But another reason is that, except for one brief exchange with Joe Lieberman on trade, no one attacked Dean. Therefore he didn't have to take a swing at anyone.

_______________________

College Park, Md.: Despite the typically empty glowing reviews of Bush's photo op last night, what exactly did he accomplish? Contrasted with his appearance in soldier drag on the Lincoln, he no longer seems quite so certain about the future. Will last night's speech -- short on facts and divorced from reality -- serve as the final nail in his reputation and political career?

Howard Kurtz: "Final nail"? Not quite. What he accomplished was to admit the obvious -- things are going terribly in Iraq -- and to try to prepare the country for a long and costly occupation. Many believe the president should have done this months ago. But at least the administration is no longer pretending that the postwar is going according to plan, or that Iraq can be rebuilt and American forces protected on the cheap.

_______________________

Columbus, Ohio: How should journalists cover political figures whom they dislike personally? It's clear to me that most reporters loathed Al Gore and most loathe John Kerry now. Do they have a professional responsibility to keep their personal views out of their work?

Howard Kurtz: I think many reporters haven't warmed to Kerry, or find him aloof, but it's not fair to say they "loathe" him. Of course they shouldn't let their personal feelings color their coverage, but journalists also make judgments about a candidate's character based on the way he interacts with the press. There's no question that this helped Bush at the margins in 2000, when he engaged the reporters on his plane and Gore largely kept away from his traveling press corps.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: What do you make of Dennis Miller's quick rise as a right-leaning commentator? He's always given political commentary but seems like he pretty quickly went from center-left to being one of the few Hollywood voices supporting the war to guest hosting Sean Hannity's radio show. Do you think he's serious about this political change or is it a way to jump start his career after his Monday Night Football debacle?

Howard Kurtz: I have no reason to think Dennis Miller isn't serious about his conservative views, any more than I think Al Franken isn't serious about his liberal opinions. Comedians always risk losing part of their audience when they become openly partisan (did you ever hear Johnny Carson express a political view on anything?), but that's a risk that these two gentlemen are obviously willing to take.

_______________________

re: Washington, D.C.: The point was that "the media" drives public opinion, such that if it was accurately reported that the D.C. primary is first and that it will give an ever-so-important first look at African-American sentiment, the candidates would be spending more time in D.C. Why do you insist on down-playing the media's power in this regard?

Howard Kurtz: I'm sure when the D.C. primary actually happens, the results will be widely reported and analyzed. But let's say that Al Sharpton wins. Does that mean he is more of a threat to win primaries elsewhere? I don't think so.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: Hi Howard. What was up with the photo of Bush on A1 of the Post today? There is another photo of him inside Style that is much better. Was the editorial decision made that it would be best to use the picture where the POTUS looked like he was coughing up a hairball?

Howard Kurtz: The picture wasn't THAT bad. I see that it was an AP photo taken off TV, so the quality is not great. Maybe it would have been better for the White House to have released a photo that wasn't taken from the tube.

_______________________

Baldwin, Wis.: For what reason did President Bush give his speech from the Cabinet Room instead of the Oval Office?

Howard Kurtz: I have zero inside information. Maybe just to have a little different backdrop than the very-familiar Oval Office scene. Maybe advisers thought it would help Bush's delivery if he wasn't just sitting at his desk.

_______________________

Hampton Roads, Va.: Do you think the dismal job statistics will generate any media coverage this week? They got a late Friday release, which seems to be typical for a bad news item that any administration wants to die over the weekend.

Howard Kurtz: Actually, job statistics are always released in the morning, and I thought the latest monthly figures got a lot of coverage. They were universally covered as bad news because, even though the unemployment rate dropped slightly, so many manufacturing jobs were lost. All the Democrats jumped on it, and it became such an issue that Bush later addressed the manufacturing question in a speech on the economy.

_______________________

Cupertino, Calif.:

In your recent column you asked whether some of the Democrats were being inconsistent by criticizing the war after having voted for it. But I didn't see you mention that they were misled about WMDs. Also there is the issue of how the war should be fought. Having concerns about these two issues is not inconsistent with having earlier voted for the war. Or am I missing something in the way they are framing their current criticism?

Howard Kurtz: Well, the Dems are certainly free to argue that they were misled about WMD, although there was a robust debate about how solid the evidence was at the time. And obviously they're free to criticize how the war was conducted and how the postwar is being handled. But they also have to be honest about their votes in favor of the war rather than trying to fudge or spin their earlier positions in light of later events.

_______________________

Woodbridge, Va.: I have heard Orrin Hatch repeat the charge that this is the first time that a nominee has failed to receive a vote once he has been voted out of the committee. It is what he does not say that I find fascinating and even more fascinating that he is allow to say this unchallenged most of the time by the press (most recently at the press conference held by he and his colleagues to comment on Mr. Estrada's withdrawal). This is disingenuous at best and borders on deceptive. I guess my real issues has more to do with the press and how it operates. When you interview a politician and you know what he is saying is not a response to the question are you obliged to just let it go? I mean is there an unwritten rule that reporters (for the most part) follow in order to live to ask a question another day?

Howard Kurtz: I'm not quite following your argument about Hatch, but there's no unwritten rule that I know of. In fact, journalists are very good at writing: "Pressed about X, Senator Y refused to acknowledge..." Or "Contrary to Senator Y's declaration, this is not the first time a nominee has been bottled up in committee." In other words, we shouldn't let anyone get away with saying something that we believe to be untrue, or that is in dispute, without offering additional context.

_______________________

Derwood, Md.: Regarding the "tone" of Iraq coverage: Whenever another U.S. serviceperson dies in Iraq, U.S. reporters mention that this is the Nth casualty since G.W. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier and declared the end of major hostilities.

Why have U.S. reporters decided to only refer back to the carrier landing and not to, say, the day when Bush challenged the Iraqi resistance/terrorists to "Bring It On"?

Also, do you know if any of the non-U.S. media outlets have been bodycounting back to the "Bring It On" remark, or are they too referring back to the carrier landing?

I am fascinated by how well the media remembers the carrier landing, yet seems to have forgotten the "Bring It On" remark -- which I guess speaks to the power of a good photo op!

Howard Kurtz: Seems to me that the president declaring the end of major hostilties is as good a benchmark as ever for gauging when the war "ended," since there was no official surrender and therefore no precise end date such as in World War II.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Interesting comment about the ombudsmen. Is a significant part of the ombudsman's time taken up with offensive content control? If so, do you think that's an appropriate role?

Howard Kurtz: Well, as I say, the ombudsman doesn't "control" anything. And I think Michael Getler has spent only a modest amount of his time on potentially "offensive" subjects (such as the Britney-Madonna kiss), and often in his weekly memo to the staff. Sometimes I think he's too sensitive about such matters. But he makes the point that a newspaper should be concerned if it's consistently ticking off a portion of its readership with certain language or controversial pictures.

_______________________

Washington D.C.: I read your story about the study that revealed ABC had the most negative coverage of the Iraq war and CBS had the most positive. While I found the information provocative, does anyone in the television industry pay attention to these studies? Will it change anything?

Howard Kurtz: Don't know. Network executives tend to be defensive about such studies and to question the methodology involved. But when there's a 50-point swing between CBS's and ABC's coverage, it seems to me that something noteworthy is going on.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Two things:
First: The media loves to run 'awkward' pictures of folks all the time.
Second: If the Bushies were fooled by fake info from defectors and Saddam did destroy his WMDs in 1995 (from a new report on MSNBC.com), does that make Kerry's defense on his pro-war vote (I was fooled) so bad?

Howard Kurtz: The senator is certainly welcome to make that argument, although he did have access to sensitive intelligence data. But keep in mind the Bushies are not saying they were fooled. They say they still believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that we just haven't found them yet.

_______________________

Centreville, Va.: Shouldn't some members of the media bear some responsibility for the public's misunderstanding of the war in Iraq? I recall a "Meet the Press" in March where Tim Russert absolutely grilled Rep. Tom Andrews from Win Without War but pretty much let Sen. Lindsey Graham's assertions about WMD and a Saddam-Al Qaeda link slide by unchallenged. Also, if I recall correctly, Cheney's assertion about Iraq's nuclear weapon program on MTP also went unchallenged. Isn't this the danger, not of a biased media, but of a media that attempts to reflect the tone of public opinion instead of asking the really tough questions all the time.

Howard Kurtz: Without getting into whether Russert was or wasn't hard on someone months ago, at some level all journalists can do is ask elected officials the right questions and aggressively follow up. Cheney said on MTP, for example, that U.S. soldiers would be greeted as liberators. There was no way to prove or disprove that in advance, though it largely did not turn out to be the case. One final point: People sometimes believe what they want to believe. The press has reported over and over again that there was little or no evidence of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, but polls show that majorities believe the Iraqi leader was somehow tied to 9/11.

_______________________

Fairfield, Ct.: The "Note" thinks Dean has been getting unfairly positive coverage of late. They don't think he's being held to the same standards of honesty and seriousness as other candidates. Do you agree?

Howard Kurtz: Don't think I do. After Dean surged to front-runner status, there was a whole series of pieces about how he was changing his positions on things, apologizing to his rivals and otherwise acting like a politicians. I wrote about this shift at the time. In the last few weeks, though, he's gotten largely positive press because he's doing well at the two things political reporters obsess on, polls and fundraising.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Regarding the NFL's concert on the National Mall: my friends and I were watching this on TV and wondering how the government could have permitted such overt advertising on the Mall, when, lo and behold, on comes Mr. Bush at 9 pm sharp to speak to the nation, an unprecedented feature on the opening night of the season. My friends and I (members of both parties, mind you) all immediately thought that the NFL must have made a deal with the government for the mall advertising in exchange for Mr. Bush getting some free national media time. No one in the media seems to be asking this question. Your response? I'd add that I thought it was a tad paranoid when some bloggers originally suggested that the networks went easy on Bush in exchange for the FCC action on media ownership, but now I think it has to be true and wondering why no one isn't investigating it. Thanks!

Howard Kurtz: I thought the whole thing was unseemly and that the Mall, as a taxpayer-funded national symbol, should not be commercialized. But I've seen no evidence of any kind of deal with Bush.

_______________________

Utica, N.Y.: How should journalists refer to influential figures from outside elected or confimred positions? In today's New York Times, a columnist referred to Karl Rove as "an important adviser to the President." While technically accurate, that seems a misleadling understatement.

Howard Kurtz: Not sure I get why. Rove is clearly important and clearly an adviser.

_______________________

Virginia: Howard -- Always enjoy your columns, tv show and chats. Regarding "offensive content," could it be that Madonna kissing Britney was offensive mostly to newspapers' core readership, which skews slightly older than dirt? Newsy it was not, but I cannot imagine any reader under the age of about 45 who would have been genuinely offended. Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: You're probably right, but some readers are concerned about their young kids seeing things like two women in an open-mouthed kiss. This prompted the managing editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to apologize for putting the picture on Page 1.
Thanks for the chat, folks.

_______________________