Critiquing the Press

Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Columnist
Monday, December 19, 2005 12:00 PM

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, Dec. 19, at noon ET to discuss the press and his latest columns.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Eugene, Ore.: Howie, ok, so the NY Times finally decides to run a story it has held for "a year" about the government spying on Americans on U.S. soil. The question is: was it held precisely for one year, or could they have run it before last November's election?

It seems to me that this story could have changed the outcome of the 2004 Presidential Election.

Am I the only one who is beginning to think that the Times is losing credibility faster than a tissue in sneeze season?

Howard Kurtz: I agree that the story could have had an impact on the election, and obviously the Times COULD have run it last year, but decided, at the administration's urging, to hold the story. I'm sure the editors agonized. But on the damage to the war on terror argument, it seems to me that terrorists already know the U.S. attempts to eavesdrop on their conversations. Why would they care whether such eavesdropping is or isn't approved in advance by a judge?

_______________________

Baton Rouge, La.: Will The Post, NYT, and others who demanded an investigation into the leaks surrounding Valerie Plame be demanding an investigation into the leaks surrounding the latest NSA surveillance story?

If not, doesn't that speak to the MSM's credibility, or lack thereof?

Howard Kurtz: Well, the Times, as the recipient of the leak, is certainly not going to call for an investigation. But I think one is likely whether media outlets call for one or not.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: In yesterday's article "Pushing the Limits of Wartime Powers," your reporters gathered a quote from former Sen. Bob Graham. They then allowed the administration to anonymously rebut the charge he made about the substance of the meeting in which Congress was told about the warrentless searches. The reporters did, to their credit, attribute the quote to an official who was speaking with White House approval. So why no name? I hope this isn't too cynical, but the refusal by the White House to allow a name gives the official plausible deniability if/when their rebuttal is proven to be a lie. If what they're saying is true, why won't they put a name on it? Why did the reporters play along? If they had said, no name, no rebuttal, what choice would the administration have but to give a name? Do you think the editors made the right call in allowing the reporters to do this?

Howard Kurtz: I am really tired of allowing unnamed administration officials to make charges or respond to charges without their name attached. I know it's difficult to get WH officials to speak for the record, and anonymity is understandable when it comes to confidential deliberations or criticism of the boss. But when it's a question of responding to a charge by a senator, I would say, either give me something for the record or I'll just say the White House had no comment.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Kurtz: Regarding your tribute to Jack Anderson, I would like to know if he ever tried to use his column to badger elected officials into supporting his pet causes, the way that Drew Pearson used to do?

Howard Kurtz: I can't think of an instance, although in 35 years of column writing I suppose you might find a couple. Jack did have his crusades, such as a war on government waste, but badgering particular lawmakers wasn't his style.

I was really out of position on Saturday morning when word came that he had died. I was finishing a vacation in L.A. and about to head to the airport, with 90 minutes until the flight took off. Since I worked for Anderson three decades ago, I really wanted to write an appreciation, but I would then be in the air for five hours and land well after deadline. So I scribbled the story on a pad as my wife drove to LAX and then dictated it by cell phone from the Hertz rental car place. Unfortunately, I cut it too close and American Airlines wouldn't let us board because we had violated some rule (which I'd never heard of) that you have to check in 40 minutes before the flight. Only some vigorous persuasion (read: begging) persuaded the counter man to waive the rule and let my family proceed to the gate, where boarding was almost finished. I wish I'd had more time to work on the piece, but I think Jack would have understood that a deadline is a deadline.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Kurtz,

I understand the concept of a "news peg", but wasn't there something particularly nefarious about the New York Times releasing its story on the domestic spying on the same day that the Senate was voting on the Patriot Act. It sure looks like the Times' news department was trying to influence the vote. I can understand the Times' editorial board trying to influence the vote, but the news side isn't supposed to do this, are they?

Howard Kurtz: I know there's a conservative critique that the Times story was timed for the day of the Senate filibuster on the Patriot Act, but I see no evidence that this was deliberate. Still unanswered is whether the timing was influenced by the fact that the lead reporter, James Risen, has a book coming out on the CIA.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: You wrote:"...I would say, either give me something for the record or I'll just say the White House had no comment." Any chance The Post editors will ever come to this same conclusion, or will they just continue to ignore their written policy?

Howard Kurtz: I'm sure they and the reporters would say such decisions are made on a case by case basis. I'm just giving you my two cents.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Why has there been such little reporting on the success of the elections in Iraq last week? A missing teenager gets more press than an event that could reshape the Middle East. Was there no way for the media to put it's typical negative spin on something positive for a change?

Howard Kurtz: Well, it was a huge story when it happened, but the fact that we don't know who won or who the next prime minister is means some of the natural follow ups will be delayed. On the other hand, the Bush TV blitz, continuing with last night's prime-time address and this morning's news conference, has certainly kept the Iraqi elections and the whole question of the war front and center in the American media.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: In your appreciation of Jack Anderson, you wrote the following:

"Although the 750-word columns were often devoted to exposing nefarious misdeeds, when it came to the person under fire, Anderson said, "Act like you're his defense lawyer." In other words, make the strongest possible case for the innocence of the public figure you were prosecuting."

I've always believed that a responsibility of reporters is to question authority. Since much of the public does not have "access" to the President, or other leaders, many of us look to reporters to be our proxies. In other words, to ask the questions we would want to ask if we all had a press pass.

Anderson's philosophy seems in conflict with this responsibility, and I was hoping you might comment.

Howard Kurtz: Gee, I don't think you're reading it right. Jack was a tough reporter and when he had the evidence, his columns could really skewer the person under fire. But he basically told us to allow the person being written about the strongest possible defense in the section of the column devoted to the response. That seems to me the essence of good journalism.

_______________________

Iowa: With Congressional watchdogs like Sen. William Proxmire and Jack Anderson gone from our midst, it is hard to see who is going to have the courage to replace them in the current political climate. Certainly, there is no shortage of contenders for Proxmire's coveted Golden Fleece Awards. Jack Abramoff could receive a Lifetime Achievement Award in this category.

Howard Kurtz: In an era of an Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere, the explosion of pork worthy of Proxmire's old Golden Fleece awards is out of control. But it shouldn't take a single senator to focus on wasteful federal spending. The press should do more reporting in the Fleece tradition.

_______________________

Re: Jack Anderson: I always believed that Anderson did not write for the people in the know in politics, the folks who live in New York and Washington. I recall he frequently had items about how people used pull to get a government job and the money was basically the equivalent of a Grade 7 at the time, $15,000 or $20,000. He must have written for people for whom that is a heap of money.

Howard Kurtz: His whole philosophy was to write for the Kansas City milkman. You could see that in his prose and his choice of topics. Although he lived in the Washington area for half a century, I think Jack was still very much the Mormon from Utah, his crusading journalism fueled in part by his beliefs.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I for one have grown really tired of suggestions that leaks about secret CIA prisons, random wiretapping, etc. should be pursued with equal fervor as the Plame leak has been. There's a major difference here, folks: In these other situations, the leak has been the mechanism for finding out about something that may or may not have been a crime; in the Plame situation, it's very very likely that the leak itself was the crime. Completely different situations.

Howard Kurtz: Duly noted. But it's still against the law to leak classified information.

_______________________

Re: Your comment on Anonymous Sources: WOW! BRAVO!

I think your comment is right on the mark! Can you tell us The Post's counterargument in not adopting this standard?

Howard Kurtz: The counterargument is basically that most White House officials won't be candid (or talk to you at all) if you insist on on-the-record interviews.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Who's the guy from The Post who asked the question about unchecked powers? I love him. Seriously, I thought there were some pretty softball questions for a President who rarely gives press conferences. Did you watch? Do you agree?

Howard Kurtz: White House correspondent Peter Baker asked that question this morning. It appears the president didn't much like the question. No nickname for him!

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What did you think of the media's performance at today's press conference?

To me, some reporters were back on their game, others still seemed to let the president off too easily.

Howard Kurtz: I was struck by how many questions there were about the warrantless eavesdropping and the war. It almost reached the point where I felt like a few more domestic questions might have been in order -- like, why did you promise to do whatever it takes to rebuild New Orleans and yet the federal response remains woefully inadequate? Also, I'm sure no one who watched failed to notice that Bush ducked CBS's John Roberts when he asked an updated version of "what was your biggest mistake?"

_______________________

Anonymous: Robert Novak, who just flipped from CNN to Fox News, hasn't been questioned by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald. Will his time come?

Howard Kurtz: Novak simply hasn't confirmed that he testified. The widespread assumption among those following the case is that he has, thereby avoiding the subpoena problems that ensnared Judith Miller and Matt Cooper.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Once again, the media covers itself in embarrassment by failing to reveal information that could help people decide an election. I am, of course, referring to the New York Times sitting on the wiretap story for a year. There is NO WAY Bush could have pulled out a victory if this was known by the general public. It's now obvious where the Pentagon got the information for that database -- illegal phone tapping of Quakers and others exercising their Constitutional rights of free assembly and speech.

Howard Kurtz: Well, I guess there's no way to know whether publishing that story in 2004 would have helped John Kerry win the presidency.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: So The New York Times makes a deal with the White House not to run the NSA Spy story for an entire year. Since when does the White House decide what a free press can and can't print, and why in the world would a once-reputable paper agree to this?

Howard Kurtz: I don't think it's fair to say the NYT made a "deal" with the White House or that the administration gets to decide what is published. The Times's decision is certainly fair game for criticism, but its editors did what editors everywhere do -- listen to the White House argument and then decide whether publication would harm national security. Editor Bill Keller offered the following explanation:

"The Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security."

"Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions," Keller continued. "As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time."

In the ensuing months, Keller wrote, two things changed the paper's thinking. The paper developed a fuller picture of misgivings about the program by some in the government. And the paper satisfied itself through more reporting that it could write the story without exposing "any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: "But he basically told us to allow the person being written about the strongest possible defense in the section of the column devoted to the response."

I agree I may not understand the philosophy. I guess my question is, Why? Why allow the person being written about the best possible defense? To just look at this chat, wasn't it the best possible defense to allow the White House official responding to Senator Graham to do so anonymously?

Howard Kurtz: The best possible defense meant the best possible on-the-record defense.

_______________________

Nashville, Tenn.: Hello Howard, welcome back. I really enjoy your work at the Post. Why did the NY Times sit on the NSA spying story so long and why did the story run the day after the Iraqi elections? The timing certainly lends itself to the appearance of political bias, no?

Howard Kurtz: Appearance, maybe. But does anyone seriously believe the editors of the Times sat around and said, "Hmmm. Why don't we run this story the day after the Iraqi elections to throw the administration on the defensive? And that's the day the Senate is debating the Patriot Act, and maybe we can get it defeated. Perfect!" Newsrooms don't work that way.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: But Howard, who is John Roberts at CBS to lecture others about not admitting mistakes when Dan Rather keeps insisting that his story on Bush's National Guard memos is accurate, and that no one has proved that his memos are fake?

Howard Kurtz: Roberts didn't lecture anyone. He just posed the question to the president. And Rather, you may recall, stepped down as anchor after that debacle.

_______________________

Anonymous: Can we please stipulate that there is a difference between the White House leaking the identity of a CIA agent to punish that agent's husband, and a government employee leaking that a law is being broken and Americans are being sued upon by the White House?

Yes they are both leaks, but it is intellectually dishonest - and frankly tedious - to listen to spin that the two events are equal in import to the nation, or damage to the constitution, or our democracy

Howard Kurtz: I'm not saying they're equal in importance or impact. The question posed earlier was whether there would be an investigation into who leaked the eavesdropping story as there has been into Plamegate. And whether we personally think a leak was "good" or "bad," there is an automatic referral to the Justice Department when classified information is involved.

_______________________

To Baton Rouge --: To the person who asked "Will The Post, NYT, and others who demanded an investigation into the leaks surrounding Valerie Plame be demanding an investigation into the leaks surrounding the latest NSA surveillance story?"

I think this person is seeing some equivalency between the destruction of a career and risking national security, all for short-term political gain, with the recent news that the administration has decided that mere laws don't apply to it.

I'm more interested why the Administration felt it should avoid taking wiretap requests to the FISA "rubber stamp" court, anyway.

Howard Kurtz: Bush was asked that question this morning but didn't really answer it.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: So, the Times sat on the story of the wiretaps for a year before publishing. What changed recently to change the Times' mind?

Howard Kurtz: Bill Keller says it was the realization of growing doubts about the program within the government, and the belief that the story could be reported, with some technical details withheld, without damaging national security. Why that second point wouldn't have been equally applicable last year is not clear.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do you anticipate any firings or resignations over at the Times because of this?

And incidentally, I've been a Post subscriber for over twenty years. I don't care which party is in office, if you guys ever pull something like this, I'm gone.

Howard Kurtz: Of course, sometimes it's not black and white. On Dana Priest's scoop about the secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, for example, The Post agreed to withhold the locations, although these have been widely speculated about elsewhere. Many people were mad at the paper about that, while others were mad that the story was published at all, viewing it as harming the administration's anti-terror efforts. Some of these are not easy calls.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Whenever there's a national security story in the news, and questions are raised about the propriety of leaking classified information, press commentators are often heard to say things like: reporters take national security very seriously; they make careful judgments about what to publish; they listen carefully when the government objects to disclosure.

Doesn't the NSA story tend to discredit those arguments? Here is a program that was disclosed to Congress (including opposition leaders), vetted by lawyers and arguably 100% legal, which the Government asked the NYT not to disclose. Apparently, the Times delayed for a while but then published, over the administration's objections.

Isn't it basically the case that the press will disregard classified status, and the laws protecting such information, whenever it thinks the needs of a good story require it? Reporters like to say that this is done in the public interest, but what if the public doesn't agree? If people disagree with a government official's handling of national security issues, they can vote him out of office, but there's no such recourse with a reporter.

Howard Kurtz: Well, the very fact that the Times delayed publication for a year -- the subject of much criticism among our chat participants today -- shows that its editors took the administration's request very seriously. In my own view, since U.S. efforts to eavesdrop on terrorists is widely known, the significance of whether a court order is obtained seems to be to have far more significance in terms of domestic politics and the Constitution than on terror suspects themselves.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Could the wording of the executive order have allowed the NSA to monitor and transcribe communications between The Washington Post and its reporters in Baghdad and Afghanistan?

Howard Kurtz: I suppose it would. Although administration officials would have to have some terror-related justification beyond the fact that they don't like us.

_______________________

Delmar, New York: In the President's discussion with Jim Lehrer on Friday, when Mr. Lehrer tried to get Mr. Bush to comment on the domestic wiretapping matter that was divulged by the New York Times earlier that day, Mr. Lehrer stated "... the story is now all over the world. ... and it's going -- it's the main story of the day." The President interrupted to say "It's not the main story of the day. The main story of the day is the Iraqi election." While every administration wants to control the agenda of what news is being discussed and highlighted by TV and newspapers have you ever heard a President declare what the main story of the day will be or should be? It was quite revealing of the President's mind set, especially one who claims not to pay much attention to the news on TV or to read the papers. Did you notice this or have a reaction to this?

Howard Kurtz: I did notice it. Bush was clearly in an untenable position trying to no-comment such a huge story, and the White House must have realized this, for by the next morning the president was confirming the very facts in his radio address that he had refused to discuss with Lehrer.

_______________________

Anonymous: Just curious why Brit Hume didn't follow up on Bush saying DeLay was innocent. The question, to me should have been more about "do you believe he is innocent and why."

The why part of any question is key and would provide a lot of insight.

Howard Kurtz: It did cry out for a follow up. But I know that when you're interviewing a president and have limited time, you sometimes want to move on to other topics on which you hope he'll make news. What was surprising to me was that the president, who regularly refuses to comment on ongoing criminal investigations (such as Plamegate), broke his own rule in this case by declaring his belief in DeLay's innocence. And yes, it would have been nice to know how he reached that conclusion.

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.