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."
Read his latest column: Drudge at 10: Now He's Fun.
A transcript follows.
__________________
Saint Louis, Mo.: Hey Howard, in my humble opinion, The Post hurts its credibility by running a front page story based on the ABC/POST poll, saying the filibuster rules change is so opposed by the public.
The sample was 35% Democrat - 32% Independent - 28% Republican. Why sample so many more Democrats? Haven't Republicans basically won the last 3 elections? Also, results on these type of issues are hugely swayed by the wording of the question. Don't the editors, reporters know this stuff?
Howard Kurtz: I don't pretend to be a polling expert, but Post/ABC, like most major operations, tries to take into account party affiliation (and other factors like gender) to make sure no group is overrepresented. Plus, the random sample of 1,000 here is a very good sample size. But even if party affiliation somehow affected the results, the Post story breaks it down for you: Nearly half of REPUBLICANS questioned opposed changing the Senate filibuster rule, compared to 8 in 10 Democrats and 7 in 10 independents.
_______________________
Albany, N.Y.: Today, you are no doubt going to get several questions about the coverage of Tom DeLay's problems. Some of these questions will include complaints about the fact that this coverage does not mention problems with Democratic house members. This is something very common these days, an attempt to distract from the issue by creating a false claim of equivalence. This is usually followed by a claim of bias because these "similar" problems have not been similarly covered.
I ask anyone making such a complaint to do the following:
1. Name one sitting Democratic representative who has been admonished three times in a year by the Ethics Committee.
2. Name one sitting Democratic representative whose families have gotten $500,000 over four years.
3. Better yet, name one sitting Democratic representative for whom both of these things are true.
If you can, then I would agree that there's a problem with the coverage. If you can't, please explain how and why the coverage has been unfair.
Howard Kurtz: Relatives of Democratic members of Congress may not have gotten $500,000, as Tom DeLay's did, but some have gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars or tens of thousands of dollars. I'm not a defender of this practice--I think it looks seamy, especially when a spouse is involved, meaning that political donors' money is going into the lawmaker's joint bank account. But under current law, it's not illegal.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: The New York Times and the New York Sun have both reported on Ted Kennedy's brother-in-law, Raymond Reggie, pleading guilty to two felonies in federal court last Thursday. What's more, Reggie has been wearing a wire for two years as an informant in an FBI investigation of alleged campaign improprieties by Hillary Clinton.
As of Sunday night, The Post has not mentioned this story at all. How is this not news?
Kennedy Relative Tied to Fund-Raising Case.
A Kennedy Relative A cted as Informant in Democratic Circles.
Howard Kurtz: It's absolutely news and I'm surprised The Post has been slow off the mark in not getting this into the paper in some form. Especially given the informing against Hillary angle.
_______________________
Pasco, Wash.: Howard
Always enjoy the chats. The big media issue right now is the filibuster of judges but all the articles seem to focus on the politics. Why are the 7 nominees extremists? Are they worth trying to keep off the bench? Has anyone written in depth about their records?
Howard Kurtz: There have been a few newspaper articles on the 10 nominees, especially the most prominent, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. But you're right, the overwhelming focus has been on the political gamesmanship. And even though each of the nominees is "old" news, in the sense that they were blocked in the Senate some time ago, you'd think, with all the nuclear rhetoric, there would be a little more coverage about the nominees themselves and their records.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Hi there,
Interesting story-I had just been having a whole Drudge conversation with a friend. I just don't "get" him. What is his role? To me it seems he just takes another's stories and then groups them all together, in one spot....what am I missing??
Howard Kurtz: Thanks for reading Monday's column (link below). Drudge is like a quick fix for Net surfers who want to know what the buzz is. Leaving aside the stuff he digs up--some of which is problematic, as I noted--he's very fast in ferreting out a controversy in the British papers, some juicy Hollywood gossip, what the NYT or WP are going to print a few hours before their stories appear online. But he's got plenty of competition in this realm now, compared to when he started out and was seen as so dangerous.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/24/AR2005042401441.html
_______________________
Filibuster Poll: As a political junkie, I had quite a chuckle when I read the poll on A-1 in The Washington Post.
Most Americans cannot identify their own Senators; what worth is polling them on an arcane rule of the Senate?
I guess we need to know who is winning the PR war.
Howard Kurtz: Except that it's not so arcane. Changing the filibuster rule will basically mean that a majority party will need only 51 votes, not 60, to pass something. And the filibuster has a long history in American politics, as when many liberals opposed it during the civil rights era, when southern conservatives led the talkathons. Finally, if this nuclear bomb goes off, either the Democrats or the Republicans are going to be blamed, as was the case when Clinton outfoxed Gingrich during the mid-1990s government shutdown precipitated by the GOP. So it's not as much inside baseball as it might appear at first blush.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: Have you been following the discussion at Talking Points Memo about the evolution of media coverage of the term "nuclear option"? Apparently it was coined by Trent Lott, but now the GOP is pressuring the media (ever scared of being accused of liberal bias) into reporting that "nuclear option" is Democratic spin and the GOP's preferred term "constitutional option" should be used in the interests of fair and balanced reporting.
Howard Kurtz: Odds that journalists will start using "constitutional option" instead of "nuclear option": Zero. That's one prediction that won't blow up.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Wasn't the question about filibuster rules changed a bit biased? The wording was "Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominations?" Wouldn't "Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules so that judicial candidates would be confirmed by a majority vote?" or even "Do you support allowing every judicial candidate who has made it through the Senate Judiciary Committee from receiving a vote on the Senate floor?"
Howard Kurtz: Your first suggestion does sound more neutral, but your second sounds biased in the other direction, by making the current filibusters seem unreasonable. And just asking the question as a general political science question (should rules be changed?) doesn't tell respondents who aren't following the issue closely who the players are (people may feel differently depending on the president and party who are asking for the change).
_______________________
Possum Kingdom Lake, Tex.: The Washington D.C. political scene continues to be a morass of lies, corruption, deception, distortion along with any other conceivable mechanism useful in achieving a particular goal of self-interest.
How does Tom DeLay differ from that profile?
Howard Kurtz: I'm a little less cynical than folks in Possum Kingdom Lake, apparently. I happen to think that most politicians--even though they're part of a badly flawed, money-obsessed, special interest-influenced system--are trying to do what they see as the right thing. Which doesn't mean the press shouldn't hold them accountable.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: Howard says:
"Odds that journalists will start using "constitutional option" instead of "nuclear option": Zero. That's one prediction that won't blow up. "
I say:
If "journalists" includes those at FOX news, I will take that bet!
Howard Kurtz: If you're right, I'll fess up at my next chat.
_______________________
Greensboro, N.C.: Any chance that the (recently reported) negotiations between Bill Frist and Harry Reid on judicial nominees will be successful? After all of the threats, can Frist give up the "nuclear option" on filibusters?
Howard Kurtz: I don't know whether there will be a compromise in the end. But both parties are surely aware that if the Senate comes to a complete standstill over this issue, they both run the risk of looking bad. If Frist can get a deal he can call a victory, where most of the nominees get an up or down vote, he certainly may want to take it.
_______________________
Reston, Va.: I am wondering why Rebuplicans haven't learned the lesson on the ethics rules issue. It seems the theory of what goes around comes around fails to impress them. Is it that they believe they will always be in the Senate majority? Do they just not care that one day they are going to wish for a filibuster, but alas they stripped themselves of the possibility....?
Howard Kurtz: Well, a few Republicans have expressed that concern. But when Democrats ran the House for 40 years, they did some things that have come back to haunt them, apparently thinking they would never lose their majority. Many politicians have a short-term outlook and don't worry about what may happen a few years down the road, when they may have left office or moved on to some other office.
_______________________
Palm Springs, Calif.: The format for this venue has changed - eliminating options for page renewal and updating and for checking on answers to questions.
And, only soft questions are now permitted.
What's happened?
Howard Kurtz: There has been absolutely no change in the way questions are submitted and answered. I am told by my dot-com guys that they now update the chats every minute, as opposed to the exact second that the chatters finish typing an answer. They said no one would notice the change, but perhaps they were wrong about that. I don't know the technical reasons for the change, but it's probably related to new technology for the site that washingtonpost.com started using this week.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: Howard - I am a polling expert. For the person from St. Louis with concerns about a bias poll, most often the polling organization gets some people who do not want to respond. It does not make the poll bias. It just means the polling organization has to carefully describe the sample. 35% D, 32% R, and 28% I are not far from being evenly split. Also, notice that 35 + 32 + 28 = 95%. So I'm sure non-response was a factor and The Washington Post is not taking bias polls.
Howard Kurtz: Thanks for your input.
_______________________
Wheaton, Md.: So now that Terri Schiavo news cycle is gone as is John Paul II, has the Bolton story jumped the shark, or are we in for a couple of weeks of screaming heads, "He's a good man", "No, he sucks" on all the cable shows? Makes you wish for a good murder trial.
Howard Kurtz: Since we seem to be at that rare moment when there's no famous (or made famous by TV) person dying, no missing girl investigation and no big celebrity trial (yes, there's Michael Jackson, but that's been dragging lately), politics seems to be on the front burner, however briefly. I'd say the Bolton nomination, the DeLay ethics stories and the constitutional--excuse me, nuclear--option for filibusters of judicial nominees are the big topics right now.
_______________________
Baltimore, Md.: This canard that conservatives bring up about Democrats being the first party to ever filibuster judicial nominees is hogwash. The only reason Republicans didn't have to filibuster Clinton's nomination is because of Jesse Helm's changing of the long-held tradition of "blue slipping" nominees. You don't have to filibuster anything if the nomination never makes it out of committee in the first place.
Howard Kurtz: That was true of non-judicial nominees as well. Clinton, you may recall, nominated William Weld -- the former REPUBLICAN governor of Massachusetts -- to be an ambassador. Jesse Helms wouldn't even schedule a hearing.
_______________________
Detroit, Mich.: Mitch McConnell said recently that he had the votes to eliminate the filibuster and impose majoritarian rule in the Senate. Is he bluffing?
Howard Kurtz: Well, I have no way of knowing for sure. But with 55 Republican senators, he can afford to lose 5 and still win (with Cheney breaking the tie).
_______________________
Dagget, Calif.: Isn't this 'exception' to the filibuster rule that crack which would eliminate the filibuster altogether?
Maybe, that's the true objection from the opposition.
Howard Kurtz: I have little doubt that if the filibuster were banned for judicial nominees, it would eventually be banned for other kinds of votes as well. What would be the intellectual argument for keeping it for some votes and not others?
_______________________
Takoma Park, Md.: First, Howard you are probably the only journalist from The Post I enjoy reading. Keep up the good work.
More importantly, Did I read correctly yesterday in your column - Matt Drudge is from Takoma Park? A leaning conservative coming out of the Nuclear Free Zone without being tar and feathered!?!? God bless him.
Many Thanks
Howard Kurtz: Hey, I bring you ALL the details. Drudge is indeed from Takoma Park, Maryland, went to Montgomery Blair and Northwood high schools, and had what he called "liberal hippie parents."
_______________________
Nuclear option: Just a point about reality and journalism:
"Nuclear option" fits into a headline.
"Constitutional option" does not.
I'll take Howard's bet ... besides, FOX News ain't got to write no headlines ...
Howard Kurtz: Maybe we'll just shorten it to "Nuke."
_______________________
Warshington, D.C.: RE: the proposed alternative question -- "Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules so that judicial candidates would be confirmed by a majority vote?"
Doesn't sound neutral at all to me, especially since voting up or down on a nominee isn't the issue. The issue is CLOSING OFF DEBATE (cloture), which is what filibuster is all about. Once that is done, an up or down vote (majority) is the norm.
Howard Kurtz: True, it requires knowing that a "majority vote" is not the way it's done now, with the filibuster option very much alive.
_______________________
Minneapolis, Minn.: Howard, what happened to Media Notes EXTRA this week? The links are inactive. Has the online column/blog been canceled/suspended?
Howard Kurtz: I'm happy to report that I have not been canceled, censored or drop-kicked off the site. I didn't file yesterday because I was traveling. But the problem is that what's called my "permalink" is temporarily out of action because of this new publishing system that washingtonpost.com adopted this week (this applies to other writers as well, of course). I'm told it will be fixed, and in the meantime my column always has a link on the Post home page, usually in the columnists section.
_______________________
Drudge Profile: I remember the night the Lewinsky story started breaking. I was dialing up Drudge and watching Olbermann and thinking that a really big change was beginning to take place.
And now, we hardly ever watch network news or read Newsweek, 'cuz it's old news by the time they choose to get around to it.
Howard Kurtz: Except when one of the networks or newsmagazines is breaking an original story, which would have been the case with Newsweek and Lewinsky had editors not decided to hold the story. It's certainly true that the headlines ricochet around the world in these wired days, but there's still a place for old-fashioned investigative reporting. The recent DeLay stories are one example, the Abu Ghraib abuses another.
_______________________
Clarification of page redesign problem: I think the previous poster was referring to the fact that the "update page automatically" link at the bottom of the discussion has disappeared in the redesign. This is a pain because you have to keep pressing "reload" to see current responses. Updating them every minute isn't the problem--it's readers' inability to have their browsers do this automatically that we miss. Please bring it back. Also, I still can't submit questions from Netscape. Only Explorer works for this.
Howard Kurtz: I'll pass on your concerns. I thought it reloaded automatically. I'm only in charge of the typing.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: It's not as much a replacement of the term "Nuclear Option" with "Constitutional Option", it's the media incorrectly asserting that Democrats came up with the term "Nuclear Option" in an effort to discredit what Republicans are trying to do.
Republicans are trying to spin the phrase by saying it's really Democratic spin. It's a flat out lie, but many news outlets have already fallen for that explanation.
Howard Kurtz: The media so love the term nuclear option -- since we have no other war to cover at the moment -- that it was certain to explode into common usage, no matter who was the first to suggest it. It's certainly less snooze-inducing than "debate over Senate parliamentary rules."
_______________________
Automatic updates?: It's no longer possible to set the page to update automatically. This makes it less convenient (and thus less likely) for me to follow Live Online discussions because the nature of my job is such that I have to multitask and read them while doing other work on the computer. Please restore this function.
Howard Kurtz: I'm recording all these for the folks in charge.
_______________________
Pittsburgh, Pa.: Did you catch Jeremy Paxman's BBC "Newsnight" interview of Tony Blair last week? When Blair refuted a claim by Paxman about having said something before the last election, Paxman promptly had Blair's original quote on hand to call the PM on it. I realize you oppose such interviewing methods, believing the interviewee should be allowed to say anything and go unchallenged (that was your defense of the CNBC reporter who failed to refute Dick Cheney's claim that about Iraq's WMD and the Saddam-9/11 link), but it actually makes for a better, more truthful interview. And it proves that it isn't all that difficult for a reporter to do his/her homework and have facts ready in case they're refuted. Compare Paxman's interview with all the pre-election interviews the Brokaws, Walterses and others did of Bush and his administration and you'll see why the U.S. interviews were jokes.
Howard Kurtz: I believe an interviewee should be allowed to say anything and go unchallenged? What have you been smoking? I don't do that myself, and I don't think anyone else should, either. (Why do you think Russert and Koppel have gotten such plaudits for their tenacious style?) What I HAVE said is that it's not always possible, in the midst of a live interview, to have the perfect statistic or article at your fingertips to rebut something a guest has said. Which is why intensive preparation is so important.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: I am the only one who cringes when I hear the term "nuclear option" being used to discuss the filibuster issue? I told my 14 year old son that I can remember the Cold War when that was something to really worry about. Can't they find some other catchy name for this?
Howard Kurtz: Um -- popgun option?
_______________________
Helena, Mont.: Just hit F5 and it refreshes in place (don't have to scroll down).
Howard Kurtz: Lot of smart users out there.
_______________________
N.Y.: Dear Mr. Kurtz
This is the fourth time I have submitted this question. Since you are the media reporter and this is a direct media question, I do not understand why you keep ducking it.
Imagine the satirical comments you'd make about someone else who kept ducking a fair question.
This exchange is from your Dec 20 Online Media Backtalk =========================================== Norfolk, Va.: Howie -- More a comment than a question, I guess. Bill Moyer's last NOW program, which reran over the weekend, advances the theory that the "talk radio right" and right-leaning TV and newspapers have basically become the propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee, up to and including using the RNC's talking points for program content. I guess I had known this somewhat intuitively, but to see it presented was pretty shocking.
Howard Kurtz: Well, Moyers is a talented guy who can be very persuasive. He's also a liberal journalist who worked for Lyndon Johnson's White House. So you need to take that into account in evaluating his work.
===========================================
This a column you wrote on Monday, March 14, 2005; Page C01
In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting them, a new study says.
By contrast, 29 percent of the war reports on MSNBC and 2 percent of those on CNN included the journalists' own views.
=========================================== Since every opinion voiced on Fox is favorable to Republicans, I would argue that Bill Moyers' statement concerning Fox News was correct and your non-answer above to Norfolk, Va. gave the impression that Bill Moyers was wrong.
So my question is this: Do you think that Fox News is actively supporting Republican talking points?
Thanks.
Howard Kurtz: Bill Moyers is a commentator and entitled to his opinion. I try to stick to the facts. The survey about Fox anchors and reporters injecting opinions is a fact. That is not the same as saying they're always parroting Republican talking points. I try to make distinctions between anchors and commentators (to say O'Reilly and Hannity have strong points of view is an understatement) and beat reporters, rather than lumping everyone together.
Thanks for the chat, folks.
_______________________
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.
