Critiquing the Press

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 today's Media Notes: A Made-For-No-TV Story.

Howard Kurtz was online Monday, July 25, at Noon ET to discuss the press and his latest columns.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Dagget, Calif.: Sir,

Are you aware of any possible reasonable explanation why John Roberts would not remember being a member of the Federalist Society?

Or, is my question 'naive?'

Howard Kurtz: It all depends on the meaning of "membership," according to today's Post story. Roberts was listed in a Federalist Society directory but may not have had to pay dues, so perhaps he didn't think of himself as a member. This is no big deal, as confirmation controversies go, but it's interesting that Roberts called a Post reporter back in 2001 to ask for a correction on a mention that he was a Federalist, and the White House asked several news outlets for corrections this week.

_______________________

Minot, N.D.: Howard, Thanks again for your tremendous column. I am writing this as a matter a curiosity. Do Press Secretaries from previous administrations ever sit down with the remains of the White House Press Corp tenure and let their hair down so to speak and ever explain the reason of their evasiveness or nonanswers?

Howard Kurtz: They do, but very, very carefully (as you might expect). Marlin Fitzwater and Ari Fleischer have written books about their tenure; Dee Dee Myers, Mike McCurry and Joe Lockhart have not.

_______________________

Red Bank, N.J.: Is cable news' need to fill airtime 24/7 and the blogosphere's need to be angry about something making everyone get too far ahead of themselves in the Rove-Plame investigation? While most newspapers are just reporting things as we learn it, on cable news and the blogs, people who obviously don't have the facts are already condemning or exonerating him based on whether or not they like the guy.

Howard Kurtz: Why should the Rove-Plame investigation be different than every other story? Cable is filled with talking heads who pontificate, predict, declaim, declare and otherwise offer their opinions on everything under the sun. This is not to be confused with the practice known as "reporting."

_______________________

Miami Shores, Fla.: Howard: Thanks for your weekly chats -- they are invaluable. On your article today regarding John Roberts, isn't a legitimate line of inquiry for the press and networks, especially as we consider the next 25 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence, that Judge Roberts in many years of private practice only defended large businesses and major corporations? On the civil side, the next 25 years of Supreme Court activity will involve issues such as access to the court, restrictions on civil jury awards, arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, class action restrictions, consolidation of media corporate ownership etc. On all of these issues, Judge Roberts has in the past always defended large corporations, and never consumers or injured individuals. Shouldn't this be part of the debate on this judge?

Howard Kurtz: Of course Roberts's representation of private clients over the years is a fair subject for debate, and I've seen some of that in the lengthy pieces on his record (though it's admittedly less sexy than his tenure in the White House counsel and solicitor general offices). What undercuts the private representation a bit is the hired-gun mentality of the legal profession: that Roberts, as any attorney for corporation X, Y or Z, was merely an advocate making a case for a client. But the kinds of clients he represented, and the kinds of arguments he fashioned, can be revealing.

_______________________

Astoria, N.Y.: Do you think that Judge Robert's denial of belonging to the Federalist society and that the denial apparently conflicts with the facts ( Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory. ) will "liven up" the debate. While I understand the nuances of the Supreme Court are hard to understand or talk about in a two-second sound bite, the apparent misrepresentation of the truth by a nominee is a much easier/sexier sound bite to understand. The details of this story are developing, so I don't want to prejudge, but it might be another argument about semantics (what IS a member). I wish politicians could just talk straight. Either he belonged to the society or he didn't - should be an easy question. His refusal to answer, might mean there is something there ( Roberts Declines to Explain Group Listing ). Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: To be honest, whether he was or wasn't a member of the Federalist Society (a group most Americans have never heard of) doesn't strike me as a galvanizing issue that will change the tenor of the debate on Roberts.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hi Howard,

So Republicans appear to have been successful in their strategy of burying the Karl Rove "leak" story with Bush's announcement of his Supreme Court pick.

Do you think there has ever been an administration better at "handling" the press and getting "their" story in the news? I read an interesting article about a year ago in The New Yorker quoting administration officials saying they often "create" reality just by repeating the same story over and over until it becomes reality (WMD, success in Iraq, etc).

It seems like these days the media (particularly TV news) prefers to be spoon fed the story of the day. On the rare occasions a tough, investigative story does surface (usually in print), it is often ignored by the majority of the media in favor of the easy story being propagated by the administration. Do you think this represents a permanent change in the way the media functions?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Howard Kurtz: I'd respectfully suggest that the administration has not created the reality, or even the appearance, of WMDs in Iraq or success in that war-torn country.

If the goal of nominating John Roberts last week was to suffocate the Rove/Plame coverage, it was a failure. There have been a number of prominent news stories about the CIA leak in recent days--questions about Lewis Libby's testimony, the stamping of a State Department memo on Plame with S for secret--so that story has not exactly faded away. The fact that Roberts is not as inflammatory a nominee as some Bush might have chosen--Newsweek was the only one of the three newsweeklies to put him on the cover--may be a factor.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Have there been any negative comments or thoughts expressed by those on the right of the political spectrum regarding Roberts' nomination? It's not like his conservative credentials are worn on his sleeve. It would seem that there should be some sort of rallying cry: "Not Another Souter."

Howard Kurtz: A few on the right have questioned whether he's sufficiently or clearly conservative, but most are backing Bush on the selection.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I cannot believe that the story about Roberts being a member of the Federalist Society made the front page (Web site version) of The Post. As a liberal lawyer, I saw it's a non-issue. If you're a conservative D.C. lawyer/law grad, you're a member of the Federalists. If you're a liberal D.C. lawyer/law grad, you're a member (or should be) of the American Constitution Society. Big whoop.

Howard Kurtz: I can't give you a huge argument on that.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I'm not sure I understand the significance of whether John Roberts belonged to the Federalist Society. They're a group of conservative lawyers who meet for discussion and whatever. Since we all know he's conservative, what difference does it make whether he belonged to that group? Or is something more nefarious going on there?

Howard Kurtz: I guess membership in the society has become shorthand for very conservative lawyers who believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution. The only interesting part of the story is why Roberts has felt the need to deny his association with the group.

_______________________

Ramsey, N.J.: Why are some journalists like Tim Russert covering the Plame scandal when they have played a role in the story (even if it's a small one)? On his show on Sunday, Mr. Russert explained that there have been reports of discrepancies between the accounts of journalists and the accounts of administration officials. Yet he didn't mention that one of those journalists is himself. Nor did he tell us the full account of his testimony.

Howard Kurtz: Russert did mention in a roundtable discussion that he was among the journalists who testified, and at the time he issued a fairly detailed statement about his conversation with Cheney aide Lewis Libby, saying that the subject of Joe Wilson's wife did not come up.

_______________________

Nashville, Tenn.: Speaking of Ari Fleischer, if I recall you conducted an extended interview with him around the time the the Powell memo was sent to Air Force One. Would you care to comment as to whether you have testified before the Fitzgerald grand jury.

Howard Kurtz: I have NOT. I'm not sure I understand the concept that if you talk to person X about something, and person X turns out to have possibly done something controversial on another subject, a prosecutor would want to haul you before a grand jury.

_______________________

Anonymous: I really appreciated your behind-the-scenes look today. I get so frustrated over the latest pretty-white-missing-girl story mentality of many in the press (though I would do the same thing if my daughter was missing). 50 people are killed in London by a terrorist bomb and it gets coverage for two weeks and still going. 100 people die in a terrorist bombing in Iraq and it gets minimal coverage (yes, I know one is a war zone, but still). In my philosophy of human existence and beliefs as a Christian all life is equal. One girl goes missing in Aruba and it gets constant coverage whereas 50,000 children die everyday of preventable causes in third world countries, and it is barely covered in the media. I am not trying to make grand statements here, as I am also conflicted, but there is obviously a different value placed on human life both in American society and in the media. Your thoughts? Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: Well, television (it's not much of a print story) has obviously concluded that a missing young woman in Aruba can be marketed as a human interest story, and boost ratings, in a way that another-suicide-bombing-in-Iraq-kills-30 cannot. Of course the war and the London attacks are more important, even if the carnage in Iraq has tragically become a routine occurrence.

_______________________

Nashville, Tenn.: Can you tell us whether Face the Nation is taped before or after Fox News Sunday? Any idea why Attorney General Gonzales told Fox that he couldn't talk about the Rove investigation, yet spilled the beans about the 12 hr gap to CBS? Do you think he was suddenly having a John Dean moment? Both were counsel to the President during a major scandal.

Howard Kurtz: Face the Nation begins at 10:30, while Fox News Sunday starts at 9. But that doesn't fully explain it. I'd have to look at the transcripts to deconstruct further.

_______________________

Morgantown, W.V.: Hi Howard,

From your column today: "Each year, newspapers shed reporters, editors, photographers, designers and newshole." What the heck is a newshole?

Howard Kurtz: The amount of space available for news, as opposed to ads, in each day's paper.

_______________________

Oklahoma City, Okla.: No liberal media bias? Let's see: Post and the east and west coast Times all "profile" Mrs. John Roberts, focusing on her pro-life stance. I trust you will now link to similar profiles from those papers re the pro-choice positions of the spouse of Ruth Bader Ginsburg . . .waiting . . .

Howard Kurtz: There's no question that a pro-choice spouse would not have gotten the coverage that Jane Sullivan Roberts has. I understand journalists are using her as a way to provide clues to the judge's views on abortion, but that bothers me. For one thing, she's not the nominee. For another, perhaps he doesn't agree with her on everything. The Post's piece was a Style profile; I was surprised that the NYT fronted the story the next day.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: A few questions on the piece "Too Personal" in today's Media Notes column.

1. The tone of the column coveys sympathy with Sen. Santorum's claim that the outing of his staffer was an invasion of privacy. If that is the case, why highlight the matter at all? If, on the other hand, the staffer's homosexuality is legitimate news, why did your column not name him? (The name can be discovered in about ten seconds by anyone doing a Google search.)

2. Why did you uncritically accept the staffer's claim that the private lives of heterosexual Congressional staffers are never newsworthy? It seems to me that the mating and dating habits of straight Hill staffers have accounted for a reasonably significant share of the space in the Style section's "Reliable Source" column over the years. Also, while it is not entirely germane, I recall that a recent Washingtonian profile of a prominent D.C. media reporter gave plenty of space to that reporter's second marriage. Howls of outrage did not ensue. If it is appropriate to report on the private lives of openly straight people, why is it inappropriate to do so with the openly gay?

3. Perhaps you can explain the divergence between the tone of the "Too Personal" piece, which appears to sympathize with the staffer over reporting the FACT of his homosexuality and the amused tone of your recent online column reporting half-serious RUMORS that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is gay? You didn't seem to have any problem naming Judge Roberts in your column.

Howard Kurtz: People can certainly disagree, but I can tell you that the staffer was extremely upset and I continue to question why it's news. Yes, I know there's the hypocrisy angle regarding Senator Santorum's harsh comments about gays, but does that justify invading the privacy of one of his aides? I'm sorry, but gossip items about who people are dating or married to is not the same as a news story that names a gay staffer who is not advertising the fact that he is gay, and does so, in the Inquirer's case, simply because a Web site did so. As for Roberts, I thought that whole thing was a little silly for a married nominee, but included it in my online column because bloggers were chattering about it. Had I thought there was anything substantive about it, I would not have touched it.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I think it's really interesting how some media folks are apparently upset about the lack of access to Court members. This idea that the Court should endeavor to make itself more "sexy" is ridiculous. It's debatable whether the Court always gets things right but, as a normative matter, it's a good thing that they are not concerned with popularity polls. Also, I sense some disappointment among some members of the media that the Roberts pick might not be as contentious has predicted.

Howard Kurtz: I don't think the court should worry about being "sexy," but what would be wrong with the justices granting occasional interviews and trying to explain more to the public about what they do? They are nine extremely important people in our political system. For that matter, how exactly would the cause of jurisprudence suffer if the justices allowed oral arguments to be televised, or at least released audiotapes of these sessions?

_______________________

Re: the leaking of potential appointee names: Howard,

Thanks for the chat, as always. I am wondering if anyone at The Post feels burned by the obvious leaking of other (non-John Roberts) names prior to the announcement by President Bush. Were these leaks, as I recall traced to anonymous sources, from the White House? If you are leaked something that obviously turns out to be false information, why is the source still anonymous? The WH media machine was in its usual fine form, why does the media allow them to continue to leak false information? why not write a story that says "Joe Smith was the source of the false stories about Clement and other court appointees"? Is there an obligation to an anonymous source who fed you a line?

Thanks,

Howard Kurtz: Peter Baker deals with this in a well-reported story today. In at least one case, he quotes an (unnamed) source as saying the White House apparently used him to put out misinformation. The sources were not administration officials but outside Republican advisers who deal regularly with the White House. Do some journalists feel burned? Sure. But most are not sure whether they were deliberately misled or their sources didn't know what they were talking about. All the more reason, by the way, to be careful about repeating gossip and rumors from second-hand sources when everyone knew we would find out Bush's choice at 9 that night.

_______________________

Wilmington, N.C.: Do you think it is reasonable to expect a Supreme Court nominee to make his positions on controversial issues known? If he were a perfectly qualified candidate who fully intended to resurrect Dred-Scott, would that not be relevant to his fitness for the court?

Howard Kurtz: I think it's reasonable. But in recent decades, nominees of both parties have clung to the position that the less they say, the better. And there's no practical way for senators to force them off that position, though they certainly have the right to vote against them on that basis. And three Democrats did just that when Bush nominated Roberts to the federal appeals court in D.C. two years ago.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hi Howard. You may not be the right person to ask this but I'm curious about your opinion. If someone else from the Supreme Court resigns, do you think there will be tremendous pressure on Bush to nominate a woman? Do you think any pressure would be successful? Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: It depends on how hard Laura Bush pushes. Seriously, I think there would be some pressure to name either a Hispanic or a woman as opposed to another white male, but a president can always resist such pressure and say he nominated the person he thought was the best qualified candidate.

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: regarding Mrs. Roberts, the difference is that everyone knew Ruth Bader Ginsburg would vote to uphold the right to abortion, whereas whether Roberts would vote to overturn Roe is an open question. Also remember that Bush was evasive last year about whether he wanted Roe overturned. Insofar as Mrs. Roberts view may be relevant to shedding light on an issue which Bush and Roberts have heretofore left a mystery, her view is newsworthy

Howard Kurtz: I'm not saying I wouldn't mention it, but I wouldn't make it a front-page story. And again, as Carville and Matalin remind us, husbands and wives don't always agree. And beyond that, even if John Roberts is personally opposed to abortion, the legal question is whether he would vote to overturn Roe. In the past, he has said he regards it as settled law.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I would like to add that it isn't an issue if Roberts was a Federalists. It is an issue that he said he wasn't and apparently he was. I don't think it matters but I am perplexed why he, apparently, denied something that wouldn't have mattered. It isn't illegal to be conservative.

Howard Kurtz: Not the last time I checked.

_______________________

Dothan, Ala.: I do think it's ridiculous that in this day and age the Supreme Court's public proceedings aren't available on cable (like CSPAN). I know a hyper-traditionalist like Rehnquist might find it undignified, but making oral arguments available to the public would go a long way to educating the public and demystifying the process.

Howard Kurtz: I couldn't agree more. And unlike in criminal trials, where judges might fear an OJ-like circus with lawyers and witnesses playing to the cameras, oral argument before the Supremes is invariably quite serious and dignified. In this respect, the court is still living in the 18th century.

_______________________

Re: Oklahoma City's Claim Of Liberal Bias: With Judge Ginsberg, there was much history in her opinions. With Judge Roberts, we don't have that. So like any scientific research analyst would do, the news media looks for other details to understand the nominee better.

Howard Kurtz: It's true that Roberts has a limited paper trail, which is making him more of a challenge for the media, although we'd probably be doing a lot of the same things even if he had been a judge for 20 years.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Hi Howard-What percentage of questions do you get accusing your of liberal bias versus accusing your of conservative bias? Are we liberals catching up on the blame game? Thanks for all your hard work, from those of us who appreciate a free press!

Howard Kurtz: About 50-50. Depends on the subject, the day and whether there's a full moon out.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I swear I'm not being snide, I'm honestly curious: What's the point of McClellan's White House briefings? It appears to me that the only thing produced from them are repeats of the exact same thing someone in the administration said earlier. He does not answer questions that haven't been addressed, and answers questions that have been addressed using almost the exact same words as Bush, or whoever, did originally.

Does any news ever come out of a White House briefing?

Howard Kurtz: Occasionally, when the administration decides it wants to make news. But even half an hour of we-can't-comment-because-it's-under-investigation can be revealing of an administration's mindset. Also, the briefings are the only daily crack at a top White House official that the press corps gets. Keep in mind that for decades, until Mike McCurry, these briefings were not televised, so people didn't see, or only read summaries of, the rhetorical combat.

_______________________

Downingtown, Pa.: A few days ago, a pregnant woman from Philly disappeared. Surprisingly, the national media don't seem to care.

Wait, she's black. I guess it's not surprising.

Howard Kurtz: I'm not familiar with the case, but apparently it didn't fit the Missing White Women template.

_______________________

Skaneateles, N.Y.: Howard

Your colleague David Broder had an interesting slant on the Roberts nomination. His position is that John Roberts, while intelligent, hard-working, successful and so forth has lived a life of seclusion. Seclusion in that he has essentially never been exposed to anything other than his tight knit law circles unlike the person who he will presumably replace, Sandra Day O'Connor who toiled in local politics and other more common experiences.

I always find Mr. Broder's columns insightful but I must admit that this one is a little off the mark. John Roberts comes from big money law and has never sullied himself in the world most of the rest of us work and live in. And this would be different from almost every other politician today how?

Howard Kurtz: Well, it might be true of most appellate lawyers in Washington, but not necessarily of most politicians. Some of them, believe it or not, have grown up in modest circumstances (the man from Hope comes to mind), served in the military (Dole), served as a POW (McCain), worked as a bodybuilder (Arnold) or a wrestler (Ventura) or otherwise logged time in the real world. But Broder's is an opinion column, so you're welcome to disagree.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Howard, color me skeptical about opening up the Supreme Court to oral or visual coverage would increase the amount of reporting time versus Aruba or that kind of story. The commercial value of each type of story would remain the same, right?

Howard Kurtz: I'm not saying the Supremes would then blow away Aruba-type tragedies. But think how much more journalists could do--and the public could learn--if you could actually watch Scalia or Kennedy or Ginsburg asking questions about a case and dissect the responses of lawyers in the case. If the problem is that these are seen as abstract issues, watching the justices grapple with the cases at hand would surely help.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Thanks for taking our questions. Re: "whether he was or wasn't a member of the Federalist Society (a group most Americans have never heard of) doesn't strike me as a galvanizing issue..."

I agree with you. But, if so, why are we treated to a Front Page article on "Are You Now Or Have Your Ever Been"? Seems to me that it is just Charles Lane playing the role of Joe McCarthy.

Howard Kurtz: Well, that's unfair. The White House called the Post and other news organizations and asked for corrections on the Federalist Society business, which we and others provided. Then it turns out that Roberts may have belonged to the group after all. Reporting that is not exactly disclosing membership in the Communist Party.

_______________________

Escondido, Calif.: Mr. Paul, sir:

I get a most uneasy feeling when I look at John Roberts face and observe his body language. He seems so cold and compassionless - and, all media cooperates in not disclosing the bald spot on top of his head.

Hopefully, I'm getting the wrong picture. Eh?

Howard Kurtz: I guess further reporting is unnecessary, since you can divine all you need to know but looking at a nominee's face--and hair.

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.