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. 17, at noon ET to discuss the press and his latest columns.

Read today's Media Notes: The Judy Chronicles.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Arlington, Va.: Who owns a reporters notes? If there had been a disagreement between the NYT and Miller or any reporter and their paper, over when to turn documents over to a prosecutor, who gets the final decision. I don't work in media, but any work product I have, such as notes and drafts, are clearly company property.

Howard Kurtz: The Times takes the position that a reporter's notes are his or her property and that it is up to the journalist to decide what to do in case of subpoena. Many other news organizations do not take this view. Time, for example, considered Matt Cooper's notes to be corporate property, which is why the magazine was able to make the decision to turn them over to the prosecutor over Cooper's objections.

_______________________

N.Y.: The more I've read about Judith Miller the more it appears that her reporting on WMDs simply reflected the administration's views with very little critical inquiry of her own.

Isn't it time for her to resign or for the Times to let her go?

Howard Kurtz: The Times long ago decided that while there were errors and flaws in Miller's WMD reporting -- which it addressed in a lengthy editor's note last year -- the paper still had enough confidence in her to continue to employ her. (Although we learned yesterday that Editor Bill Keller took her off the WMD beat, and she somehow drifted back to national security.) Let me just say that Judy had plenty of company when it came to reporting administration claims about WMD that turned out not to be -- what is the word? -- true.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Many questions come to mind after reading the latest Miller pieces. Here's one -- she agreed in '03 to identify Libby in her articles as "a former Hill staffer." That is clearly designed to mislead, rather than inform, readers. Do you think other reporters do this type of thing? How does that fit within journalistic professional ethics? Is it okay?

Howard Kurtz: It's absolutely not okay. It's blatantly misleading. And I hope other journalists aren't playing such games.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: You noted how Frum was suddenly "deluged with media requests" following his criticism of the Miers pick. I similarly recall the last time Frum received so much attention was when he was criticizing the White House, albeit rather gently, in his memoirs. Other conservatives like Robert George have only had their doors beaten down for interviews in the MSM when they address (rightfully so) scandals like Trent Lott's remarks upon Strom Thurmond's retirement.

Isn't this thirst by the media for conservative commentary in this occasions, but not traditional left-right dustups in national policy (Social Security, war in Iraq, etc.) just another example of a liberal media bias.

Howard Kurtz: I don't think so. Obviously, conservatives-bite-Bush over Harriet Miers has been a big story. But look at how often people like Bill Kristol (who has a monthly column in The Post) are quoted by the media. George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Rich Lowry, these and other conservatives don't exactly lack for exposure. And most of the time they are supporting the Bush administration.

_______________________

Sewickley, Pa.: I found the article you and Mr. Pincus wrote to be the clearest account of where we are now in the Miller/Plame case. When the results of Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation are published, if it is apparent that Mr. McClellan fed the White House press corps misinformation (either wittingly or un) will his cred be so shot he will have to leave?

Howard Kurtz: With a press secretary, the question is always whether he knows that something is untrue or is simply repeating falsehoods or exaggerations given him by others in the administration. (During the various Clinton investigations, Mike McCurry frequently referred investigative questions to the lawyers so he would not damage his credibility if the responses turned out to be untrue.) In Scott's case, I'm sure he was simply repeating the talking points when he said from the podium two years ago that Karl Rove had no involvement in the Valerie Plame matter.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Howard, I thought that the article on Jack Abramoff and the gambling issue was stunning in its detail. It is a excellent example of what a newspaper story should be. As most of us complain when we don't like something, I thought we should cheer something that we do like.

Howard Kurtz: Thanks for noticing. Reporting on such a difficult subject requires a huge amount of work and diligence.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Kurtz,

Thank you for your article on the White House Press Briefings and McClellan's increasing antagonism towards members of the press. I watch/read the briefing pretty much everyday, and I noticed it and take exception to his response. First, it seems to me that he is getting personal, by denigrating them professionally. Yet, these are the same people that he faced months ago (when Rove's involvement came out in the leak) and he essentially pleased with them "you know the type of person that I am" and various other comments. So why now is there an attack on them? Do you think this is planned or is just him losing his cool in the face of lots and lots of problems? If this continues, do you foresee a press revolt? It's been interesting to see how reporters have each other's backs.

Howard Kurtz: Tensions between the two sides are hardly unusual, though in the case of McClellan it's gotten more acerbic in recent months. Scott's view, as he explained it to me, is that his job is to mix it up with the press, and that the tone of his criticisms are mild compared to the heavy artillery fire he comes under. Though it seems to me that when you question reporters' motivation, as opposed to their reporting or analysis, you are stepping onto treacherous ground. Still, the White House press corps people I interviewed continued to say they like McClellan personally and recognize that he's just doing his job.

_______________________

Prescott, Ark.: Congrats Howard on getting a full hour for Reliable Sources on CNN. NOW I wanna ask what's the plan? Do ya'll plan on bringing in more contributors and having more guests?

Howard Kurtz: Thank you. Yes, we'll definitely be having more guests and tackling more subjects. Yesterday, for example, I was able to have Arianna Huffington and others on the Judy Miller controversy, a long interview with Tom Friedman on Iraq, a sit down with Lanny Davis on the Clinton/Freeh dispute and some other items. With a half-hour show, you'd have to throw out some of those segments.

_______________________

Miller vs. Frum: Getting back to an earlier post... When Zell Miller went "against" the Democrats, didn't he get all of the attention as well from "Right-Wing Media Outlets"? My point is, what made the news is the fact that someone from the inside, disagrees with the inside and is willing to say it for the record.

Howard Kurtz: Yes, but Zell Miller actively sought out that attention, both by writing a book ripping the Dems and making a big speech at the Republican convention (this, after making the keynote speech at the '92 Democratic convention). So it's not like journalists simply decided to descend upon Zell.

_______________________

Maryland: According to her story in the Times, Judith Miller agreed to identify Scooter Libby as a "former Hill staffer", rather than a "senior administration official." That seems unethical--failing to mention that an anonymous source is currently working for the administration makes it much more difficult for a reader to weigh that source's motivation. What do you think?

Howard Kurtz: As I said a moment ago, I thought it was highly misleading.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: I am struck by the fact that Time Magazine and the New York Times, derided as liberal organizations bent on destroying George W. Bush, in fact protected confidential Republican sources in the Plame/Wilson affair at a time when revealing those sources might have changed the outcome of the 2004 election. Take in contrast Fox News's behavior around the same time. Jim Angle, Roger Ailes and his so-called news organization were only too happy to unmask Richard Clarke, then threatening to torpedo the re-election with his account of the Bushies' lackadaisical pre-911 behavior, as the unidentified source in an earlier pro-Bush briefing session.

Howard Kurtz: That's not a fair comparison, because Fox wasn't outing Clarke after promising to protect his identity; the network simply identified him, as I recall, for having conducted a background briefing. As far as the NYT and Time, when you make a promise to withhold a source's identity, you can't just throw away that promise later because you don't like their politics. Your word is either worth something or it's not. Whether the promise should have been extended in the first place, especially in a case like this, is an entirely different matter.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Maybe it's just me but, as the Judy Miller story goes along a lot of the "First Amendment Crisis" seems to meld away as we learn more about the story.

I am a staunch supporter of press freedom and protecting news sources in order to report on government doings. Unlike the Watergate story this one seems to be very nasty and unnecessary if you remove revenge from the mix.

Why is it the NYT editors uphold Ms. Miller's journalism skills when she already has reported the WMD story wrong? Why not be suspect with any additional work from her? Was this normal for a reporter to be so cozy with the government that she was allowed to run amok?

Howard Kurtz: Well, not every reporter is nicknamed Miss Run Amok. But as I noted earlier, if you fired every reporter who got the WMD story wrong, there'd be an awful lot of empty seats at major news organizations. (Of course, there was nothing "inaccurate" in reporting that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. were making all kinds of claims about WMD that turned out to be based on shoddy intelligence. Where the press fell down is in not being more skeptical of those administration claims and not pursuing the issue more aggressively, though some journalists certainly tried.)

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: Howard, one of the main aspects of the Wilson case that seems to get lost in most press recaps is that Wilson used the NYTimes (first, as Nick Kristoff's anonymous source, then in his own op-ed) to deliberately mislead the American people about his mission, both who sent him and what he found. (Based on his autobiography and the Senate report). In fact, I would suggest that a faction within the CIA that was opposed to the war and the administration were engaged in counter-leaking regarding Wilson and Plame. Now Fitzgerald is said to be using a broad law covering release of classified information to get indictments rather than the very narrow identities protection act. What do you think about prosecuting leakers from side A but not side B? What will happen to D.C. journalism if all leaks are criminalized? Is this a good thing for journalism? For Democracy?

Howard Kurtz: Regardless of what you think about Joe Wilson and his credibility, he did not leak classified information. His leak to Nick Kristof, and his subsequent op-ed for the NYT, concerned what he had found on his mission to Niger. You can't be prosecuted for leaking something about your work to a newspaper unless it involves classified information. That's very different from government officials outing a CIA operative.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: When professional media/political types read quotes from "Senior administration Official" and so on in the newspaper, would you say that they typically have a pretty good idea of who's being quoted?

Howard Kurtz: I think there's a relatively small group of officials who are known to go on background, but we don't necessarily know who said what.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md. Howard - Wonderfully interesting story Sunday about the sniping between Scott McClellan and the press. To this daily viewer, it appears that TV guys like Gregory, Moran and Roberts have strong antipathy for the administration and often ask questions with a liberal bias and even disdain for Bush. So if it's OK for the questioners to be blatantly personal, why shouldn't the dog who's getting kicked respond in similar fashion?

Howard Kurtz: Well, you're entitled to your view. They would say they're just doing their job. And White House correspondents were, if anything, even more harsh and confrontational in covering Clinton, particularly during the various scandals and impeachment, and that White House used to complain vociferously about unfair treatment.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: It seems to me we need a little more reporting on why Judy Miller was meeting with Libby before the Wilson article came out. My understanding was that the Times wanted to find out why they "got it wrong" on WMD. Since Judy Miller wrote those stories, is it so hard to imagine that she and Libby were comparing notes and getting their stories straight? Both were under tremendous professional pressure to explain this miscalculation (or in Miller's case, inaccurate reporting), and getting their stories straight on whose "fault" (CIA's according to Libby) it away.

Howard Kurtz: Well, we don't know. That's one of the many unanswered questions.

_______________________

El Segundo, Calif.: Howard,

I have occasionally seen your "Reliable Sources" show and have enjoyed it very much. Unfortunately, I'm probably one of about 10 people left in the U.S. who does not subscribe to cable (or satellite) so I only get to see your show when I'm visiting someplace that does have it. Any chance that one of the networks is looking to put it on? Chris Matthews is okay, but he likes to shout and interrupt and don't get me started on the McLaughlin show!

Howard Kurtz: I'd say the chances of that are...about zero. Maybe you can get someone to tape it for you.

_______________________

Annandale, Va.: Howard, back to Judith Miller and the claims of WMD in Iraq. Why does the press, including it seems yourself, believe that the claims of WMD in Iraq began with the current administration? President Clinton used these claims to bomb Iraq in December 1998's Operation Desert Fox ( Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike ); Judith Miller's articles about WMD predated this administration. It would be much more helpful to the public if it was underscored that intelligence was poor in both administrations.

Howard Kurtz: That is true, and it's also true that many Democrats in Congress cited the WMD claims as a reason for supporting the war.

_______________________

"Outing of Clarke": New York mentioned Richard Clarke but I'd like to ask in a broader context. Supposed someone tells a reporter something with a promise of anonymity, then turns around and says something very different in a public forum. (John Doe privately criticizes a SCOTUS nominee but publicly praises him/her; or department head Jane Smith tells a reporter her agency is a corrupt mess, then testifies to Congress everything is above board.) Must the reporter protect the source's anonymity even though it may be highly significant that the source has changed his story? Or can the reporter burn the source, and if so, who decides whether the circumstances warrant it?

Howard Kurtz: The one justification that reporters have for identifying an anonymous source is if they discover that the source has lied to them. In that case, the source has violated the agreement by being untruthful, so the reporter no longer feels bound by the agreement.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: What is the full, correct name of Scooter Libby? You seem to be unaware of his first and earlier his middle name. Was he baptized "Scooter"?

Howard Kurtz: I. Lewis Libby. I've read the "I" stands for Iriving but I don't have a second source on that.

_______________________

Judy, Judy, Judy...: One of the letters to the Editor in today's NYT says, "If Judith Miller investigated Judith Miller's story, even she would agree that it was full of holes and made no sense."

Howard Kurtz: An interesting way of putting it.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: To get your take on a disagreement that we were having in Dan Balz's chat earlier, I would like to know how you feel about The Post publishing misleading information by editorial columnists. For example, I specifically remember George Will promising us that the "WMDs will be found." I don't remember the apology that would normally come following such an error from an honorable person. I don't understand why The Post should publish his work until after he offers such an apology. This stuff is not "healthy debate", it is innuendo and partisan bloviation.

Thanks for pointing out that the "former hill staffer" characterization was absolutely not OK!

Howard Kurtz: I have not gone back to the Will column in question, but saying that "WMDs will be found" is a prediction. And predictions are part of what columnists do--who will win the election, how long it will take to win the war, etc. It may be reckless--I avoid predictions like the plague--but it's not false information, it's punditry. And if a columnist's predictions are wrong again and again, I suppose that person might lose credibility over time.

_______________________

Greenville, N.C.: I have read that there is a third source for Wilson/Plame's name and that most reporters in N.Y./D.C. know who this source is. However, because this source is very well-liked, no one will write about it or identify the source.

Do you think this is true? Do you think there is a third source? Do you know who it is?

Howard Kurtz: I think there is at least one more source, but I don't think most people know who it is, and I certainly don't.

_______________________

Westminster, Md.: Hi Howard,

Subhead from yesterday's online edition of the Post: "Senate Democrats face choice of affirming White House insider Harriet Miers or joining ranks with hard-right activists."

Now try doing a search for "hard-left" on your site, and see if it appears in heads or decks. You won't find it, because it doesn't exist. Those sorts of terms are reserved for the political right. The only mentions I could find on your site search and a Google search of your site were from opinion pieces or from people quoted in articles.

This sort of labeling is still rampant in the mainstream media, no matter how much commentators on the left, and mainstream journalists, say it just ain't so. I assume the Post just doesn't care, or says complaints like this are just more whining from right-wingers like me (and notice how there are no left-wingers in the MSM?)

So, fair charge or not? And even if it is fair, is there any chance whatsoever that things will change?

Howard Kurtz: I think that's a fair criticism. We should avoid terms like hard-right unless we're writing about a specific person or group who merits that description.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: When Judy Miller consented to refer to Scooter Libby as "a former Hill staffer" to camouflage the White House's attack on the Wilsons, shouldn't that have been a sign to her that she was abandoning journalism and entering the realm of disinformation and propaganda? Is there a way to check such imbalances at that level of political reporting? Shouldn't all reporters be required to identify their sources to their editors at least? Would that be a sufficient check (assuming editors know that they owe more to their readers' right to accurate information than to their reporters' sources' right to protection)?

Howard Kurtz: At The Post and many other news organizations, reporters are required to identify their sources to at least one senior editor. As for the "former Hill staffer" biz, I've said a couple of times how misleading that was, but there are lesser examples of this as well. How many times have you read about sources "close to the investigation"? Well, those are usually lawyers or prosecutors who are PART of the investigation but don't want to be so identified. There's a bargaining process that goes on so the source feels he or she has anonymity while the reporter (at least sometimes) pushes for the most specific attribution possible.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Howard,

Am I too skeptical in not believing Thomas Friedman when he told you on CNN's "Reliable Sources" that his upcoming trip to China is known only to his assistant and himself, but not to his editors at the Times?

Howard Kurtz: That's what he said. Tom Friedman is such a brand at this point that I'm sure he can do whatever he wants. I read NYT Editorial Page Editor Gail Collins saying the other day (in denying that she had asked her columnists not to write about Miller) that she doesn't even see their columns until they are published, that only a copy editor works on them. So apparently they have a huge amount of autonomy.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Howard,

Judy Miller has hurt a lot more than her own reputation and that of the NY Times. She has hurt the credibility of American journalism in general, and in particular, of journalists who use unnamed sources from the government. On the other hand, perhaps she provided the service to readers to make them think twice about who those unnamed "former Hill staffers" for example might be and why they're talking through reporters anonymously.

Perhaps it would be helpful to readers to include truth hazard warnings with every article using an unnamed source in the future. "Warning: Sources in this story may be trying to pull wool over reporter's and readers' eyes. Reporter may be shamelessly trying to advance her career."

Howard Kurtz: Warning: Post media reporter may be trying to suck up to readers by agreeing that such a disclaimer is very funny.

_______________________

Parkville, Md.: Howard,

With respect to the latest Judith Miller revelations: it seems to me that a reporter crosses an ethical boundary when she actively conspires to deceive her readers. In Miller's case, I think this was going on when she agreed to refer to Lewis Libby as a former Hill staffer, as opposed to a current, high-ranking administration official. In doing so, Miller was agreeing to intentionally shield the administration even as she facilitated its propaganda offensive/smear campaign against Wilson. And she did this by offering up a misleading account, to her readers, of who her source was to her readers. That, in itself should be enough to get her fired.

The only thing I'm not sure about is whether Miller actually carried through with this ruse. Is there any evidence that she sourced Libby in this fashion in any published articles?

Howard Kurtz: I don't know about the firing part, but you've got no argument from me on the rest. Since Miller never actually wrote a story about Plame, I guess she never used the "former Hill staffer" formulation.

_______________________

Herndon, Va.: Howard, First let me commend you for THE best coverage of Judy Miller, and her Tenure at the times, you articles about her Time embedded in Iraq, particularly have been unparalleled.

Now to the latest chapter of this extremely puzzling Saga. I am the last person to believe in Tin-foil hat theories but, do you think more investigation is warranted into Scooter Libby's mash note to Judy just before she testified? Specifically, that strangely clunky and potentially encoded section about the entangled roots of Aspen trees

IT seems passing coincidental that Both Libby and Miller are members of the Aspen Group ( link ) along with a who's who of the current administration including almost all the members of the WHIG and the PNAC. Do you think more investigation is warranted on what exactly Libby might have been trying to say to Judy?

Howard Kurtz: I think Libby is getting pretty intense investigative scrutiny right now from Patrick Fitzgerald, who according to the Times asked Miller about that letter and whether Miller thought he might be trying to influence her testimony. Either that or he's a frustrated poet.

_______________________

Indianapolis, Ind.: Love your new time. And thanks for showing the reporter in the boat in 4 inches of water. Do this guys know that they lose all sorts of credibility when they do this faking?

Saw Anne Coulter on Bill Maher's show this weekend and she was very critical of Bush. So I was a little disappointed that you didn't ask Arianna if she was going to start supporting Bush so I would know if the world has gone off it's axis.

Howard Kurtz: I didn't think of that!

The boat reference, for those not familiar, is to a Today show reporter who was covering flooding in New Jersey and thought it'd be a neat idea to do her report while paddling a canoe. Unfortunately for her, two guys walked into the shot and made clear that her boat was maybe in 4 inches of water. Not exactly New Orleans.

_______________________

Wake Forest, N.C.: In her article, Miller says that she doesn't think the source was Libby but that she can't remember who the "sources" were. She went to jail for 85 days to protect someone she can't recall? Why bother even writing something if you are going to say something that stupid. It only leaves the reader with more questions one of which is why was this person considered a good journalist?

Howard Kurtz: Just to clarify, Miller testified that Libby was a source in telling her about Valerie Plame, but she thinks that another source in one conversation gave her the name she recorded as "Valerie Flame." In her mind, she was protecting Libby. Although her attorney, Floyd Abrams, downplayed the notion of a second significant source in an interview with me yesterday.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: What does the The Today Show canoe incident say about network news especially in the morning?

I saw the clip on the Internet and found it incredibly funny.

However, I didn't even realize, until my girlfriend pointed it out to me, that the reporter didn't even break stride as her stunt became clear. Then I read on Drudge NBC's response: ""It's not like we were trying to pass it off as something it wasn't," spokeswoman Lauren Kapp said." Call me crazy, but being in a boat in water you can walk in seems to me exactly like passing something off as something it wasn't. Other then degree I don't see a big difference between this and the Dateline exploding truck incident.

Howard Kurtz: I wouldn't go that far, but it was a silly stunt.

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.