By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
8:45 AM
There was a time when a meeting, any meeting, between the POTUS and the leader of Russia would be the top story across the media landscape.
That's no longer the case, and only in part because there's no more Soviet Union and the Cold War is ancient history, or at least not as cold as it used to be in the Khruschev/Brezhnev/Gorby days.
The truth is, Bush and Putin now have to compete with everything else that fascinates the media.
Looking at yesterday's front pages, the New York Times had that odd photo of the two men taking a drive in Vlad's 1956 Volga--see story, Page A-10. The Washington Post had three pictures of world leaders at the 60th anniversary of WWII's end--see stories, Page A-17 and A-18. USA Today has a small picture of the Volga drive, with big spreads on "City, state cellphone taxes on the rise" and "Chronic pain: The enemy within."
The L.A. Times, in a throwback, does lead the paper with "Bush, Putin Set Aside Feuds at Talks in Russia." The New York Post went with photos of a Giants football star and his alleged mistress, "curvy 'Cupcake.'"
Cable gave the Bush trip some time, but sandwiched between a school bus crash, a police shootout in L.A., the coming hurricane season, Iraq, Bolton, two girls found dead in Illinois, an amber alert for a missing 16-year-old boy, the Jacko trial (Macaulay Culkin to testify this week!), Mary Kay LeTourneau's "Love Nest" (Fox), best places to vacation (CNN), and MSNBC's report on a bread image of the runaway bride that was being peddled on eBay. The headline: "Toast Deal Is Now Toast."
I'm not saying that Bush's latest peering into Putin's soul should overshadow everything else in the news universe. But it was an interesting moment, given Putin's gradual erosion of democracy and the spat over his insistence that Soviet troops were "invited" into the Baltic states in 1945 to dominate those countries for the next half-century. Not to mention Putin's insistence that Russian elections are more democratic than the U.S. variety.
But that is the nutritious sort of news, and it's hard to compete with curvy Cupcakes.
Here are some news reports from Moscow. The New York Times: "President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, joined by President Bush and dozens of other leaders, commemorated the 60th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany today with a resplendent military parade in Red Square that was steeped in Soviet symbols and new Russian pride. Standing in front of Lenin's Tomb - not on it, as Soviet leaders once did - Mr. Putin expressed no contrition for the Soviet Union's domination of Eastern and Central Europe that followed the end of World War II, as some leaders there had hoped he would. Instead, he said that that war's legacy had demonstrated the necessity for a new unity with Russia against new threats."
Los Angeles Times: "In a day of mourning and splendid pageantry reminiscent of Russia's powerful past, world leaders gathered today under a towering Soviet emblem in Red Square to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II. President Bush sat in the place of honor next to Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, as 7,000 servicemen marched in crisp parade formation to the tolling of the Kremlin bells, the roar of deep-throated military chants and the flapping of the bright red hammer-and-sickle banners that for decades after the war symbolized Russia's enmity with its World War II allies."
Chicago Tribune: "The display of solidarity between Putin and Bush was a sharp contrast to recent tensions between the two leaders over Bush's criticism of Russia's retreat from democracy. . . . For all of Bush's repeated demands that Russia adopt thorough democratic reforms, the carefully cultivated images of Bush and Putin walking side by side here Monday and reviewing the marching and singing military procession at Moscow's Victory Day parade could not be clearer."
Plenty of chatter over Chuck Hagel's remarks about judicial filibusters on "This Week," where the Nebraska senator said: "The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees - about 62 of them - we just didn't give them votes in committee or we didn't bring them up."
Armando at Daily Kos rejoices: "Hagel admits what we all know. Good for him. Sounds like he is a no on Frist's nuclear option.
"Hagel strayed way off the reservation, to the point of completely undermining the Republican argument about judges in this one, beautiful sound-bite. . . .
"So much for the argument that Democrats have engaged in unprecedented obstruction by blocking 10 nominees. As Hagel makes clear, the Republicans' hands are even dirtier because they blocked six times as many Clinton nominees."
Blogs for Bush, not surprisingly, has a different view: "Does Hagel understand that the Constitution clearly states that a judicial nominee is confirmed by a simple majority of the Senate? Doesn't he also understand that Frist is not suggesting that we eliminate all filibusters?
"The Democrats have given no legitimate reason to oppose any of Bush's nominees. They even opposed judicial filibusters in the past. This is not principled opposition. This is partisan skulduggery. How can Hagel give any credence to the Democrats phony position on this issue?"
A poster to Julien's List is mad as hell at the Dems:
"I have completely and utterly HAD IT with spineless Democrats who don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to anyone, to anything, or on any principles. It seems the latest trend in the Democratic party - a trend going for the last 5 years - is the 'Me Too! Me Too! Me Too!' bandwagon.
"Under the hand of people like Joe Lieberman and the Democratic Leadership Council, the head of the Democratic team is following, true-and-sure, directly behind the RNC and Bush-Rove-Cheney.They just follow about a year too late to get elected. . . .
I "am sick of hearing about 'moderates' and getting this sort of outcome every time. I am sick of being told people like us have a voice - when actions prove we have none. And I am sick of Democratic Apologists making up excuses for those who cross the aisle time and time and time again."
I wrote recently about the NYT edit page flipping its position on filibusters since the Clinton years. Now Powerline blogger Scott Johnson, in the Weekly Standard, argues that "the pratfalls have reached a kind of perfection in the naked reversals of the laughingstock-liberal Minneapolis Star Tribune and respected liberal former Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale. During the Clinton administration, no newspaper in the country converted Democratic party talking points into editorials more quickly than the Star Tribune. The tradition continues. In an April 24 editorial, the Star Tribune lauded the filibuster and condemned Republican efforts to end it in connection with judicial nominations.
"When portions of President Clinton's legislative program were threatened by the filibuster in 1993, however, the story was different. The Star Tribune's editorial page raged: 'Down the drain goes President Clinton's economic stimulus package, washed away in the putrid flood of verbiage known as a filibuster. Call it a power game. Call it politics as usual. Call it reprehensible.'"
Here is the NYT report on improving the paper's credibility (it's a PDF file). Jeff Jarvis says "the recommendations look to be spot on.
"What I like most about it is that the committee recommends moves that will bring the paper and its readers into more of a conversation. I said Sunday that journalists blathering on at ethereal heights about journalistic ethics can be too self-centered. But journalists talking with citizens about the news and how it is covered in present tense can be useful and compelling. It's not just about defending the paper -- though I agree that's proper and necessary. And it's not just about journalistic standards. It's about bringing out different perspectives and more information about the news we cover and care about."
Jarvis particularly likes this suggestion: "Consider creating a Times blog that promotes interaction with readers."
In the Chicago Tribune, Douglas MacKinnon, a former Bob Dole spokesman, addresses the racial aspect of runaway-bride-type stories:
"Note to the news media--with an emphasis on the cable networks: Enough is enough. Your continual focus on, and reporting of, missing, young, attractive white women not only demeans your profession but is a televised slap in the face to minority mothers and parents the nation over who search for their own missing children with little or no assistance or notice from anyone.
"The latest missing woman to dominate the airtime of the cable networks was Jennifer Wilbanks, from Duluth, Ga. Like Dru Sjodin, Chandra Levy and Elizabeth Smart all before her, Wilbanks is young, white and attractive. Wilbanks, as it turned out, ran away of her own volition from her impending marriage. . . .
"One could certainly make the argument that the cable networks that continually focus on these missing white women, to the virtual exclusion of minority women, are practicing a form of racism. The racism in this case, however, while predicated on color, does not concern itself with the color of one's skin. Rather, it is based on the color of money, ratings points and competition. Would an African-American woman who went missing days before her wedding receive the same (or any) coverage as that of Wilbanks? Not likely."
USA Today, you may recall, forced out reporter Tom Squitieri for lifting quotes from other publications without attribution. The most prominent example-- Brian Hart, who lost his son in Iraq and was first quoted last year by the Indianapolis Star, writes to Romenesko to say that Squitieri should be praised, not dumped:
"As I told the USA Today editors, I was both happy with the quote and discussed the matter extensively with Tom. In fact a review of my notes indicates over 30 days of discussion. One of the last emails I got from him was that the Pentagon was going nuts over his story [about the lack of armored Humvees in Iraq].
"So is accuracy or attribution more important? Of the many times I've been misquoted by reporters, not once has an editor volunteered to fire the reporter. Yet here is a quote I endorsed which evidently has gotten a reporter fired because he didn't attribute it to a reporter I also worked with at a sister publication of his! Madness."
David Shaw of the LAT tackles the issue I tried to wrestle with last week: Are more journalists unethical these days, or are more just getting caught?
"Journalism has given me a decent living -- and it now gives many big-city journalists, especially television news anchors and correspondents and some syndicated columnists -- a far-more-than-decent living. And many are able to parlay the success and celebrity born of these jobs into even more lucrative careers writing books and going on the lecture circuit.
"Overweening ambition -- the appeal, the irresistible lure of this fame and fortune -- must be at least partly responsible for some of the journalistic malfeasance we've seen of late. I'm no psychiatrist, but I certainly think it played a role in the serial fabrications committed by Stephen Glass at the New Republic and Jayson Blair at the New York Times, to name just two."
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, whose blogging efforts I chronicled a few weeks back, is mad at ESPN--and with good reason:
"This week on the ESPN.com Page 2 column, Eric Neel decided to do a parody of what a David Stern blog might contain. No question that it was a fun premise. Unfortunately, part of his article suggested that the readers come over to blogmaverick.com and post the comment 'nice hair' on every post. And they did.
"I spent hours deleting posts from the idiots that took what he wrote literally. Great threads were pushed aside and filled with this spam.
"Collateral damage and just the cost of writing a blog? Sure. Avoidable, yes. Especially from a major media organization like ESPN.
"I expect the Naked Short idiots to flame the site when I write something they don't agree with. I expect Republican and Democratic swarms from zealot websites to spam the site when I write something they don't agree with. That's part of the deal. Cleaning them up is part of the expectation when I write the post.
"What I never expected was that a Howard Stern moment would come from the Disney Company. That a call to spam would come from one of the largest media companies in the world. The last thing the blogosphere needs is one outlet trying to diminish the voice of another by initiating an avalanche of spam."
I'll say one thing about the new Huffington Post
Larry David should have his own blog! Here's his post on "Why I Support John Bolton":
"I know this may not sound politically correct, but as someone who has abused and tormented employees and underlings for years, I am dismayed by all of this yammering directed at John Bolton. Let's face it, the people who are screaming the loudest at Bolton have never been a boss and have no idea what it's like to deal with nitwits as dumb as themselves all day long. Why, even this morning my moronic assistant handed me a cup of coffee with way too much milk in it. I was incensed.
"'You stupid ignoramus,' I screamed, doing all I could to restrain myself from tossing the luke-warm liquid in her face. 'There's too much freaking (I didn't say freaking) milk in here! What the freak is wrong with you?!'"
On the same site, Tina Brown delineates what she learned on her now-canceled CNBC show, Topic A:
"Insincere smiles are strangely hard to do even after years of practice at cocktail parties. Insincere smiles even harder to do when listening with fascination to guest speak about his theories about class warfare and producer is saying into earpiece 'Blah. Blah. Can't you put a bomb up his [butt]?'"
A rather mixed reception in the blogosphere:
The American Mind: "So far, the weblog posts are typical Lefty junk."
"Her blog is a strange disconnect for me: in person, Arianna is strikingly beautiful, quite engaging, and her accent, so distracting on television, is charming. By contrast, the blog, named after her, is strangely none of those things."
Jack Shafer: "Do these people intend to engage? Is it even in their wheelhouse to debate? How will the Huff Post's liberal core react when its right-wing press contributors, such as Byron York and Tony Blankley, bring a hard one down on their snout? Hollywood liberals such as Aaron Sorkin and Laurie David rarely encounter sharp political disagreement inside the cocoons of their Hollywood salons, and when they do it's not generally with a practiced rhetorician."
Nikki Finke pronounces failure after less than 24 hours: "Her blog is such a bomb that it's the box-office equivalent of Gigli, Ishtar and Heaven's Gate rolled into one."
BoifromTroy: "So far, the site has an interesting mix of culture and politics . . . including this take on a 'separated at birth' photo with the same model before and after retouching. Not earth shattering, yet, but strangely compelling."
And there's already a parody site.