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."

Howard Kurtz was online Monday, Oct. 3, at noon ET to discuss the press and his latest columns.

Read today's Media Notes: Post Bosses Get An Earful.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Bethesda, Md. : Hi Howard,

Every time I discuss the Miller case with anyone in person, the same idea comes out: Miller, the NYT, and everyone else who promised confidentiality in Plamegate undermined the First Amendment not by agreeing to testify but by making promises of confidentiality to the wrong people. Miller's principle, that reporters should never be forced to breach promises of confidentiality, can only work if reporters (and their editors) exercise some judgment in how often and to whom they offer the promise in return for what. I don't know how she's viewed among journalists, but Miller gets little support from the rest of us because she went to jail to support the principle that journalists should be able to offer promises of confidentiality to powerful people in order to let them trash less powerful people anonymously, and have those promises have the force of law. There is absolutely nothing in any of the "confidences" of Plamegate that merited such a promise. It was offered so that the journalists in question could scoop their competition and keep their access to powerful sources in return for the privilege of being used by those sources.

I know this practice is as old as journalism -- and that's fine if the journalist is willing -- but I don't see a First Amendment principle there. What am I missing?

Howard Kurtz: It's hardly surprising that reporters would grant anonymity to Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, two of the most important people in the administration. And one problem is that as a reporter you often don't know what an official is going to say before you offer that confidentiality. But one reason there hasn't been a groundswell of support for Judith Miller (and before her Matt Cooper), even among journalists, is that the sources in this case were not whistleblowers revealing government corruption. They were talking about the fact that the wife of a prominent White House critic was a CIA operative.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: In the previous issue of Newsweek, Michael Isikoff wrote a negative piece about Bob Ney and a trip to Scotland.

I was surprised that Newsweek assigned Isikoff to the story, given that Ney's recent comments on the house floor were very critical of Isikoff. In light of Ney's comments, Isikoff can't be the most objective reporter re Ney.

Shouldn't Newsweek have assigned a different writer, or at the very least mentioned Ney's critical comments in some sort of full disclosure?

Howard Kurtz: I don't know all the details here, but if that were the standard, any politician could get a reporter off his case simply by making a speech and criticizing the reporter by name. Presidents could get their least favorite journalists kicked out of the White House press corps by rapping them publicly. I don't see how that can be the standard.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Very interesting column today. In times past, I have had a subscription to The Post. I keep canceling when the recycling mess becomes too much for me to handle. I would be happy to pay for an e-subscription to The Post. I am also an occasional (closet) Salon reader and would never pay because it never makes me think. I can predict exactly what the knee-jerk liberal articles say.

Howard Kurtz: I'm sure the folks at washingtonpost.com will be happy to hear you'd pay for an online subscription, though I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future.

_______________________

Why not something for everyone?: I'll confess that I have a hard time staying with the five-part thirty-pages-spread-over-a-week stories about this or that important social problem and have wondered whether they wouldn't reach more people not personally affected by them if they were shorter and more tightly edited. But on a more general level, I don't much understand the call for cutting the paper to attract more readers.

If The Post were charging NYT rates, there might be an argument for that if in return for less content you could cut the price. But The Post costs 35 cents. I don't need to read the entire paper to get my money's worth (I did feel that way about the NYT, which is why I don't subscribe anymore -- not enough time). And it doesn't bother me that the Post spends ink on stories I don't care about (e.g.: the entire sports section on most days) as long as it covers what I do want to read. Don't most readers feel the same way? If you cut coverage, chances are better that you'd lose something I want than that you'd lose something I wouldn't miss.

Howard Kurtz: This is what I've never understood about people who say the Post is too big for them. Who passed a law saying that you have to try to read every article or every page? For 35 cents (and a buck fifty on Sunday, less than a Starbucks concoction), you get a smorgasbord of politics, foreign news, local news, sports, business, arts, entertainment, comics, columns, gossip--and all the ads, movie listings, etc. You can spend 15 minutes reading what you care about or an hour and a half if you want a fuller meal. Recycling can be a pain, but seems to be a small price to pay.

_______________________

Charlotte, N.C.: With the John Roberts nomination it seemed the media was all able to latch onto story line. That being that he was intelligent, qualified, and a pick that "threaded the needle." Where do you see the coverage of Miers heading?

Howard Kurtz: Hard to predict just four hours after the announcement, but I'm sure the unhappiness of some conservatives will be an element, along with the fact that she's never been a judge. Journalists have plenty of research ahead of them to answer the question, Who is Harriet Miers, and is she qualified to sit on the highest court in the land?

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Is releasing big news on a Monday morning the opposite of Friday afternoon - instead of trying to bury it over the weekend, you want to dominate the week's news? Could that have been a Bush administration strategy this morning with the Harriet Miers announcement?

Howard Kurtz: It does mean you're the first big story of the week, but 8 o'clock in the morning? That's not exactly prime time.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Kudos to TWP for having the chutzpah to encourage employee criticism. Many times ideas of greatness are brought by the great unwashed (so to speak). I do have one comment on your article though. In the last paragraph, quoting Leonard Downie as saying the reporter's comments prove we have a diverse staff, I would have drawn the opposite conclusion. That is, to paraphrase, we have a staff that is markedly pro-progressive (or whatever the democrats are calling themselves today) and not enough conservative reporters? Maybe I missed the context of the quote?

Howard Kurtz: That's certainly what Book World Editor Marie Arana meant, but Len Downie chose to emphasize the fact that she made the rather sharp criticism, thereby demonstrating that not everyone at The Post thinks alike. Just from a management point of view, it's an interesting experiment to institutionalize the kind of daily criticism by employees that goes on in private conversations and around the water cooler.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: A quick tour of the blogosphere reveals that the left wingers are upset because Miers has no judicial record to review, is a crony of Bush's, and has the support of Democratic leadership. On the other hand, the right wingers are upset because Miers has no judicial record to review, is a crony of Bush's, and has the support of Democratic leadership.

So can we finally give Bush credit for fulfilling his 2000 campaign promise of being a uniter?

Howard Kurtz: He hasn't united the conservatives on this one, I can tell you that.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: What do you make of Judith Miller's statement that it was very important to her that the prosecutor limit his questions only to her contact with Mr. Libby? What did she think he might ask her without that limitation?

Howard Kurtz: About conversations with other sources, for example. This is a standard concern of journalists and one that Matt Cooper and others involved in the Plame case have also tried to insist upon.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: I think that the news media makes too much of polls showing that Congress' approval ratings are low. It seems like reporters forget to mention that people favor their own member of Congress which leads to high incumbent reelection rates. So how important are those polls on overall Congressional approval ratings? They don't mean anything.

Howard Kurtz: I wouldn't say they're totally meaningless, but I agree with you. Most people hate the Hill but like their own senators and House members.

_______________________

Delmar, N.Y.: The timing of Bush's announcement of his nominee for the Supreme Court seems odd. Can anyone remember such a major televised statement being made at 8 a.m. Eastern Daylight time when much of the nation is still asleep? Is the White House concerned about rumors that the President and the Vice President may have been directly involved in the Valerie Plame leak and this is an attempt to "change the subject"? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Jewish High Holidays start at sundown tonight and Thursday would be the nest full working day after Rosh Hoshanah?

Howard Kurtz: I suppose the lack of a prime-time announcement could be related to Rosh Hashanah, but Bush still could have done it at noon or 3 pm this afternoon.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Interesting question about getting stories in the media early by announcing on Mondays. It's a well-known tactic of the business press that companies will "leak" big news to the Wall Street Journal (or others) on Sunday to get it into Monday's paper in time for the market's open...

But the Bush administration doesn't seem big on "leaks." They seem perfectly happy to have the media follow their lead, rather than the other way around.

Howard Kurtz: And there were no leaks here. Word of Miers's selection was put out to the AP and maybe a few others about 45 minutes before the 8 am announcement. In fact, the Boston Globe has a story this morning saying it wasn't clear whether Bush would announce his choice this week.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: Although I don't believe that there is a vast right-wing media conspiracy, I was nonetheless surprised yesterday that the CBS program "Face the Nation" included only administration and Republican points of view. I was particularly disturbed that Bob Schieffer had a panel of three Republican Congressmen to discuss what he termed the current Republican troubles because, as he stated, he thought it was a Republican issue. Not only do I disagree with Mr. Schieffer's premise, but his three Republican guests had nothing remotely insightful, much less critical, to say. Rep. David Dreier used the opportunity to plug permanent tax cuts, for goodness sake! Viewers would have been better served by having some alternate points of view, including the thoughts of a respected Congressional observer such as Norm Ornstein. Any thoughts?

Howard Kurtz: If the question is the degree of upheaval and discontent in the Republican Party, it doesn't seem to me unreasonable to have Repubs on to discuss it. Remember that Schieffer, unlike the other Sunday show hosts, only has a half hour.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: When the nytimes.com site was free, there were links to Maureen Dowd's pieces on other Web sites. Now they are not linking to her pieces since nytimes.com started a cover charge. How long will her pieces be protected before we can read them for free?

Howard Kurtz: Either forever or until the NYT changes the policy. If I, as a Times Select subscriber, include the link, it won't work for someone who has paid the Times fee (or is a print subscriber, in which case you can register for free). And if some Web sites consistently make Times columnists available by cutting and pasting, I'd expect they might get a call from a Times attorney.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: I was infuriated by Robert Novak's tirade against Ronnie Earle. It was classic Novak/Will garbage, where you take a plain statement, add a lot of unsupported adjectives, and change the meaning completely. He finishes up the piece by damning Earle for his pursuit of Bob Bullock, who I have heard quoted as saying "I was guilty as hell." Novak failed to mention that. I understand that the editorial page is trying to present "both sides" of an argument, but there is no argument in Novak's material, (or Will's, for that matter) just bags of innuendo. I assume that more critical conservative readers feel the same way about some of the more liberal columnists. What is the point of The Post publishing what has to be considered intentionally misleading material?

Howard Kurtz: Well, in fairness, it was Earle who was quoted by The Washington Post as saying Bullock had later told him he was guilty as hell. Bullock has been dead for several years. So it's hardly an undisputed fact.

_______________________

Long Beach, Calif.: I've read in one article that Judith Miller was used so that other officials, such as KARL ROVE, could say they learned of Plame's identity via the press.

Have you heard this theory? If Libby told Miller, so Miller could tell Rove, so Rove could claim innocence of having learned via the secret report seen on Air Force One, do we have conspiracy charges on the horizon?

Howard Kurtz: I don't do theories. I try to stick to what can be demonstrated based on the facts. There are a lot of theories floating around about Judy Miller. She could clear most of this up by writing the definitive piece about her role, just as Matt Cooper did when he avoided jail at the last minute. She's testified and faces no further legal liability. We all know that Libby was her source, though she declined to say so at her brief press conference Friday. I don't know if Miller plans to write such a piece, but so far it hasn't appeared.

_______________________

Knoxville, Tenn.: How many news departments will be looking into Harriet Miers' involvement in the Traitorgate investigation ? Bush had to be asking her legal advice in regard to his legal responsibilities in the leak investigation. If she is mentioned in Mr. Patrick's investigation or in possible criminal indictments will she be force to discuss this during her Senate interviews? She is according to Newsweek in 2000 is also the lawyer hired to sanitize the records of Bush's National guard service.

Howard Kurtz: I'm sure the press will dig into all of this and more, and that the White House will try to throw a blanket of attorney-client privilege over many of these issues, especially when it comes to releasing documents.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Do you think reporters will be wary of using Libby as an anonymous source now that they know that he is willing to let them sit in jail for three months? For all of the protests by the Libby camp, Abrams does make a reasonable point that Libby could've called at anytime in the last 90 days.

Howard Kurtz: Libby's side says that he offered Judy Miller a waiver of confidentiality a year ago, just as he did to Tim Russert, Matt Cooper and Washington Post reporters. Floyd Abrams, Miller's lawyer, told me in a "Reliable Sources" interview yesterday that this was true, but that Miller felt it was not voluntary, based on some remarks by Libby's lawyer, and that therefore she could not accept it.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: The remarks from your Book World editor are revelatory. I guess we now know why the Book Review has been using right leaning reviewers with such frequency. It's apparent she has returned to her 15 year old roots - that often happens to people who make extreme conversions (joining the SDS indeed!). As for her assessment that The Post leans way left, that was never true and certainly is not true today. I would call it moderate to center right but the stakes have been moved so often in the last few years that a moderate might seem like a progressive these days.

Howard Kurtz: Without adopting your thesis that Book World reviewers lean to one side--and there are several editors in that section, not just Marie--I'd say this is one heckuva interesting debate to have.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Howard, when, if ever is CNN going to allow "Reliable Sources" on again? Does Wolf really need the extra 30 minutes? What hot story was covered yesterday that they needed to preempt you yet again?

Howard Kurtz: We were actually on yesterday, with a one-hour special, from 1 to 2 eastern (which included the Floyd Abrams interview I mentioned earlier, journalists including Andrea Mitchell and a panel of bloggers--InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds, Arianna Huffington and Buzz Machine's Jeff Jarvis). We had the same time slot two weeks ago, which you probably also missed. I'll update you on our future time slot when I have more information.

_______________________

El Segundo, Calif.: Howard,

You mention in your column today that Business reporter, Sara Kehaulani Goo, would prefer not to see "4 stories on the same topic in one day" except Hurricane Katrina. I agree that there is a great deal of repetition of information when that occurs and many events get downright dull then.

Disasters, as unpleasant as they are, are part of life, though, and a reporter can highlight a very needed area. The Los Angeles Times did that on Sunday with a very painful and distressing article on what has happened to many of the deceased in Hurricane Katrina and the anguish their relatives are confronting. ( Families Lose Loved Ones Again -- in a Bureaucratic Mire )

I can only hope the media does not let this just drift away. This was very distressful and FEMA and local governments are not behaving well.

Howard Kurtz: That is the challenge for newspapers--to bring alive the human stories at a time like this, but not publish so many overlapping stories that readers feel overwhelmed.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I know this isn't directly related to journalism, but hope you'll post it anyway... a big part of the reason I don't get The Post is that I can't see killing trees for hundreds of pages of classifieds that I will NEVER EVER look at. If I could get The Post without wasting resources for classifieds I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Howard Kurtz: The economics of the business are such that if you take away classifieds, newspapers take such a hit that they'd have to lay off a whole lot of reporters and maybe a few editors. Plus, some people find ink-on-paper classifieds useful.

_______________________

Charleston, S.C.: Howard,

re:Journalists have plenty of research ahead of them to answer the question, Who is Harriet Miers, and is she qualified to sit on the highest court in the land?

Should it be the "job' of the press to make such a determination? Perhaps you meant to say that journalists have a lot of research to do regarding her past, present and stated views on various issues.

Howard Kurtz: I didn't mean that we would rule on whether she was qualified. I meant that we should dig out as much information as possible so that readers can reach their own conclusions. At the White House briefing happening now, some reporters are asking whether Bush engaged in cronyism by naming his own lawyer to the Supreme Court (Miers is not just White House counsel but has served as Bush's personal lawyer).

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Is it unusual that Roberts was selected to be the Chief Justice, rather than naming a current justice to that position? Rehnquist had been an associate justice for 14 years before becoming the chief. Was this a snub of Scalia or others on the bench? Why didn't Bush choose the conservative Scalia?

Howard Kurtz: My best recollection is that it is not unusual. Earl Warren, for example, had been governor of California and was named chief justice, not one of the other eight justices at the time.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: RE: Post being too big

Sure you can ignore the articles you don't want, but there is still the environmental cost of printing and distributing. Great thing about post.com is that I can read what I want without feeling wasteful.

Howard Kurtz: Sure. But as I've said before, it's hard to read long articles online, or to get as full a sense of what's in the guts of the paper as simply turning the pages or scanning the section fronts. Plus, as much as I value the journalism, a lot of people like the ads.

_______________________

Windsor Mill, Md.: I found it interesting that Fox News chose to disregard the obvious claim of bias by having Tom DeLay speak for two segments to promote his point of view, while at least one other Sunday program had it's invitation declined by DeLay. Since the bias is so obvious does this in a sense insulate someone like Brit Hume who parrots the Republican Party line but is a Fox News manager. How unprecedented is it to have a managing editor serve as a regular on a Sunday News program? It seems he gets to control the stories Fox covers then can comment on the news he decides to cover.

Howard Kurtz: In fairness, DeLay also did interviews with earlier in the week with CNN and MSNBC. When he appeared on Fox's Hannity & Colmes, though, it was all Hannity, no Colmes.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Howard - Marie Arana's comments supported what many of us believe - that Post reporters are to the left side of the scale. Great example -Dana Milbank, also mentioned in your column, can't seem to keep the smile off his face or glee from his voice when he appears on MSNBC to bash Bush. Would it be practical to have an honestly unbiased in-house person or committee read news stories for obvious bias and then to replace reporters who can't be objective?

Howard Kurtz: I don't agree with you on Dana, but how exactly does a news organization pick an "honestly unbiased in-house person"? What if not everyone agrees that this person is unbiased?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why did Fitzgerald finally agree to limit his questioning of Miller to Scooter Libby?

How long would Miller have stayed in jail if Fitzgerald had maintained his negotiating position that journalists should be used as police investigators of last resort (or first or middle resort) in solving crime?

Howard Kurtz: Obviously, Fitzgerald wanted to get Miller's testimony. But I don't know that there was a serious attempt earlier to negotiate a limited scope of questioning because Miller hadn't cleared the first hurdle--obtaining a waiver of confidentiality that she felt she could accept from Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff. As for the duration, the Plame grand jury expires this week, but Fitzgerald could have impaneled a new one, sought an extension or brought criminal contempt charges against Miller, which means she easily could have been looking at another six or more months in jail.

_______________________

Washington Post: My vote is for leaving the paper as is. The size doesn't bother me- after all, I choose what to read and what not to read.

But if there's something you can do about the ink that coats my fingers each time, it would be appreciated.

Howard Kurtz: I'll pass it on.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I noted with interest your mention of two big analysis pieces that were severely critical of Tom DeLay that came out over the weekend.

Why did we have to wait until he was indicted to see this kind of bare-knuckled journalism? Seems to me like they waited until he was down and then started kicking. Far from courageous journalism, if you ask me.

Howard Kurtz: There have been many, many analysis pieces, in this paper and elsewhere, of DeLay's fundraising, his bare-knuckled style, his relationship with lobbyists, and particularly with Jack Abramoff, etc. And there were many more about the three different incidents in which DeLay was admonished by the House ethics committee.

_______________________

St. John's, NL: I LOVE the Post, and went through serious withdrawal leaving the area. Thankfully, there IS a way to subscribe on-line: ee.washpost.com.

It is the actual paper, but as PDF files. I am a real fan of this option, and it is very reasonable. Even though I read washingtonpost.com, I enjoy the differences between the two and am glad to keep up (without the recycling hassles!).

Howard Kurtz: Well, that's one way to get the paper, especially for those who don't live in the D.C. area. One of the great boons of the Net is that it allows people all over the world to read us in real time.

_______________________

Dulles, Va.: Do you know if the Times continued to pay Miller's salary during the time she was in prison? Does The Post have a policy for similar situations?

Howard Kurtz: Absolutely. The Times also paid for her legal representation. And any self-respecting newspaper would do the same thing if the case involved the reporter's journalistic work.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Ok Howard, let's put you on the spot the way you've been trained to put politicians on the spot. Based on the facts as you now know them, what really happened with this Scooter/Judy he said/she said situation. Has Abrams just lost his fastball and botched this? Did she get tired of life in Martyrville? Did Scooter really, materially change his tune? C'mon Howard, don't give us this "I don't do theories" nonsense. You've been studying this for months -- tell us what's going on!

Howard Kurtz: Despite having interviewed some of the people involved and read just about everything written about it, I remain as puzzled over some aspects of this case as everyone else.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Eleven out of 17 Chief Justices came from the outside. It is not, traditionally, a promote-from-within position.

Howard Kurtz: I'm glad we have smart readers.

_______________________

Flatlander: Your colleague Chris Cillizza has been doing some digging and finds Ms. Miers donated to the Dems in the late 80's (Gore, Bentsen, DNC). I saw some pretty wild posting on anti-Bush sites about what a menace she posed. Maybe she had an epiphany in the 90s, who knows. Do you suppose this will stoke some discomfort on the right side, do the think the Bushies knew this, and could they pull the nomination at this point?

Howard Kurtz: I think the conservative disappointment with the Miers pick is so strong that some 20-year-old donations to Dems will just be a minor factor.

_______________________

Brooklyn, N.Y.: I sure feel like a sucker for having thought Miller a noble person when she went to jail to protect a source. Didn't we know all along that Libby was her source, and didn't he say long ago that she wasn't obligated to protect him? So now, out of the blue, she comes out claiming that her source has finally allowed her to testify with a clear conscience. What happened? She didn't get Libby's phone message few months ago? She didn't believe him? What happened now to change her mind?

This is all highly dubious, and this smells like it a long-calculated move. And unless she's fine with a lot of people thinking that, she needs to explain in detail why she had to stay in jail all that time. For all I can tell she was just avoiding a brutal New York City summer in time to see the leaves change colors.

Howard Kurtz: I reported some months ago that Miller and Libby had had breakfast during that week in 2003 before Novak wrote the Valerie Plame column, but could not say for sure whether they had discussed Plame.

What happened is that Judy Miller moved from a position of saying she could not accept a waiver of confidentiality from Scooter Libby to a telephone call in which she says she was persuaded that this was a personal and voluntary waiver. Needless to say, many people have a hard time understanding why such a deal couldn't have been worked out before she went to jail.

_______________________

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Delay is OLD news. Miers is the NEW news. With her nomination sucking up all the oxygen in the room - someone once said D.C. can only focus on one major issue at a time - his non-stop tour of defending himself and attacking the Travis County prosecutor on the public airwaves is over. Now all DeLay has is a fat rolodex and a date with an arraignment.

Is the Bush nomination the capstone to the movement to remove Delay from the public focus as I believe or do you think it was just fortunate timing?

And, how many famous U.S. Congressmen are going to publicly send the checks back to Delay's PAC?

As a former Navy sailor I can tell you: rats don't go down with a sinking ship. They get off at the last port.

Howard Kurtz: I don't think the timing is related. Even before the DeLay indictment, the White House had signaled that Bush would nominate someone soon after Roberts was confirmed. Keep in mind that the court convened for the new term today and that O'Connor has stuck around but wants to leave.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: I don't think The Post needs to worry about losing local subscribers. What else are you going to subscribe to? If you've been a Post reader, you're not going to switch over to the Washington Times.

If anything, The Post should focus on retaining out of town and expat readers. I no longer live in D.C. but get a lot of my news from The Post online. If The Post didn't have such a great online service, I probably would have adopted one of my local papers. As it is I live in a city with five daily papers and I choose to get most my news from The Post.

Howard Kurtz: I think you're underestimating the fact that The Post has plenty of competition--with more local papers in many suburbs, with the Baltimore Sun in parts of Maryland, and more broadly competition for people's time. Folks who get news online, from cable, from talk radio, from blogs may feel less need to read a daily newspaper unless that paper proves itself compelling and indispensable. Which is what this debate is all about.

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.