Critiquing the Press

Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Columnist
Monday, March 27, 2006 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, March 27, at noon ET to discuss the press and his latest columns.

Read today's Media Notes: A Turning Point on Iraq , ( Post, March 27, 2006 )

The transcript follows.

____________________

Baltimore, Md.: Mr. Kurtz: This is a question about lines of authority at The Post. I know you have to continually point out that the editorial and news functions are separate. But can you tell me how separate the post dot com site is from the paper? Does Len Downie have authority over Jim Brady, or are they both equally answerable to the publisher? I think readers would like to know this after the "Red State" blogger uproar. Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: Jim Brady runs Washingtonpost.com, period. He reports to people in the company, obviously, but not to Len Downie, who has plenty on his plate running the newspaper.

_______________________

Wheeling, W.Va.: Last week President Bush visited my hometown of Wheeling, West Virginia for a town hall meeting. The local publisher, Ogden Newspapers, proudly listed itself as a "sponsor" of the visit, along with the local Chamber of Commerce and some other businesses. The papers (yes, we still have morning and afternoon papers, both owned by Ogden) had numerous articles over the course of about a week before and after the visit, as well as several editorials. I would characterize the coverage as supportive of the President to the point of giddiness. I have to say that I was surprised by this - not so much by the editorializing, as the editorial pages of the Ogden papers have always been quite conservative - but by the papers' sponsorship of the visit and the cheerleading news articles. What do you think of the publishing company's sponsorship? Why would a presidential visit even need a sponsor? And what does this say about the papers' ability to cover the visit fairly?

Howard Kurtz: I had not heard that the papers co-sponsored the Bush visit. What a journalistic blunder. Why compromise yourself in that fashion when it's a big local story that your reporters will have to cover?

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: In the post.blog, Jim Brady writes, "We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area." In your article, he said that his goal "is to provide voices from as many perspectives as possible." This is indeed a laudable goal.

I can't understand, however, how having a conservative blogger and no liberal blogger gives "a broad spectrum of ideas" or provides "voices from as many perspectives as possible."

Howard Kurtz: If I was running the show, I would hire a conservative activist and a liberal activist and let them blog their little hearts out. Jim Brady has said that Ben Domenech was not hired specifically to balance any Post.com journalists who are seen as left-leaning -- and I would agree there's a difference between a journalist who may tilt to the left and a former Bush and John Cornyn aide -- but that seems to be the widespread perception.

_______________________

Athens, Ga.: Longtime scribe Helen Thomas was in the news recently when she questioned President Bush on his real motives for the Iraq invasion. She has accused The Washington Post of being particularly "hawkish" on the war and in a March 27 article in The Nation, she refers to "lapdogs of the press." Was The Washington Post, the paper that helped to topple Nixon, hoodwinked by George W. Bush?

Howard Kurtz: Well, the Post editorial page did strongly support the war. You can argue with that judgment, and many have, but the editorial board is paid to have opinions. I don't agree with the lapdogs reference, although there were certainly serious flaws and shortcomings in the coverage of the runup to war and the early aftermath, but it's pretty clear that Helen Thomas is strongly anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war. That's her right, because she's a Hearst columnist now, not a wire-service reporter, but she plainly has a strong point of view.

_______________________

Las Cruces, N.M.: I note with interest that Post.com canned a conservative blogger, not because he called Coretta Scott King a communist, but because the blogosphere documented him as a repeated plagiarist. I have an observation and a question. Observation: I sincerely doubt that a liberal blogger who called Pat Robertson a fascist would have any chance of getting hired by Post.com, or any other MSM. On ABC, George Stephanopoulos hosted a rousing debate on immigration between a Senate Republican and a House Republican--no Democrats need apply, apparently. There was no opinion to the left of moderately conservative presented. It seems to me that such imbalance makes moderate analysis appears liberal by comparison and feeds into a rightward shift in public discourse. Question: Do you agree with this analysis? If so, what can be done to move public discourse to a more honest balance?

Howard Kurtz: I didn't see that segment, but Stephanopoulos also had Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana on yesterday. Jim Brady says he was not aware of Ben Domenech's description of Coretta Scott King as a communist, and I believe that's something that Washingtonpost.com should have known, since the swipe was made only a few weeks ago on Domenech's own RedState blog. Clearly, Brady wanted a strong conservative, but even Domenech seemed unwilling to defend his characterization of Mrs. King, who had, after all, just died.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: On the question of a diverse array of viewpoints -- I'd really hope that Brady would think outside of the box and look to voices underrepresented by both sides of the aisle in today's politics -- e.g. of the 500,000 people at the LA rally, I bet at least one would be an excellent blogger.

Hiring another rich white man to add diversity of viewpoints to an array of other rich white men seems to be missing the point, in my book.

Howard Kurtz: I didn't know everyone at Washingtonpost.com was rich. Maybe I should move to Virginia and work for the Web site instead. I do know that Post.com's political columnist until recently was Terry Neal, who may or may not be rich but is definitely not white.

_______________________

Milwaukee, Wis.: Appreciate your clarification on Downie's responsibilities. Were you surprised when Domenech told you: "I am not a journalist."

Howard Kurtz: No, because that's pretty apparent from his resume. Worked for Bush, worked for Tommy Thompson, worked for Sen. John Cornyn, and now a book editor for Regnery. On the other hand, I read good blogs every day written by lawyers, activists and others who are not journalists.

_______________________

Spaulding, Okla.: Is there any "statute of limitations" on plagiarism? Does a single lazy or stupid act in college to steal a paragraph from another author permanently close the door on a career in journalism, or does it take a history of offences?

Howard Kurtz: A single act? Well, I know a number of journalists who have been fired for a single act. It's a cardinal sin in our business to steal someone else's words and represent them as your own. A single act when you were a college freshman? Probably not. But what's troubling about Domenech's record is the pattern of his articles that used unattributed material from others, including one from National Review Online after he had left college.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Just a comment, I see the whole Domenech fiasco less in terms of liberal v. conservative, but the result of The Post's desperate pursuit of younger readers and "buzz." Whoever hired Mr. Domenech saw someone young and "edgy," and never stopped to perform due diligence on his background or consider whether he really had anything worthwhile to say.

Howard Kurtz: I think the Post.com editors did conclude that Domenech had something worthwhile to say. But clearly the background check was not as thorough as it should have been.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Why does it take someone who you characterize as "anti-Bush" -- or a senior citizen in Cleveland -- to ask the president obvious questions like "what is the real reason we invaded Iraq"?

It seems like anyone who's critical of the rhetorical jujitsu used by the president (such as Dan Froomkin and Helen Thomas) to justify the administration's actions is labeled a liberal or Bush hater.

Isn't it the press's job to be skeptical, questioning, and comparing the record to the results?

Howard Kurtz: Absolutely. But the "real reason" question, in Helen's case, was preceded by her declaration about how many people had been killed and wounded in the war and how none of Bush's explanations have held up. That's fine if you agree with her view, but it's clearly the formulation of a person with strong views against the war.

_______________________

Louisville, Ky.: Howard,

I'm not sure why you would take up the "media doesn't report the good stories" meme, as you have on CNN recently. Considering that 80 journalists have died in Iraq and that no one can go anywhere without armed transport, it's pretty obvious that the bad news in Iraq heavily outweighs the good news. I'm all for diversity of opinion, but hard news should strive to report facts and not please all audiences.

Do you agree?

Howard Kurtz: I don't adopt the "meme," as you put it, I raise questions about it. Clearly the security situation, as I have written many times, makes it difficult for the courageous journalists there to move around and talk to ordinary Iraqis. And it may be that the violence has gotten so bad in recent months that that is the overwhelming reality of life in that country. But I also think it's fair to question whether declining public support for the war, and the journalists' own views, have played a role. If the media coverage in fact is turning sharply more skeptical, and in some cases hostile, that could have a major impact on the country as it did during the Vietnam War.

_______________________

Anonymous: I thought the immigration segment on This Week with George S. was intended to highlight the differences within the Republican Party, as well as between the House and Senate, on that issue. Including a Democrat in that segment wouldn't have meant much -- Sen. Spector was clearly the "liberal" in that discussion.

Howard Kurtz: Now it makes sense. The equivalent would be having a couple of Democrats on to debate Feingold's censure resolution.

_______________________

Parkville, Md.: Not long ago Laura Ingram and a few conservative talk-radio hosts took a little eight-day holiday-junkett to Iraq, donned body armor and tooled around a bit with the U.S. military just so they could come back and tell their listeners that everything was hunky-dory in Iraq, and they should know because -they've been there-. It was reminiscent of these "fact finding" weekend visits by U.S. lawmakers; visits which are little more than propaganda exercises (how much does a Senator, who is under heavy guard 24/7 and escorted by the military everywhere he goes, really learn about the situation on the ground?)

And I really think the media have done a very poor job countering the resultant right-wing propaganda offensive that claims that reporters are missing the "positive" aspects of what's going on in Iraq and focusing only on the negative. I'm not talking about the reporters on the ground in Iraq (they're doing their job, and it isn't their job to defend against the right-wing propaganda machine at home). I'm talking about you guys sitting in studios Stateside who are supposedly supporting your brothers and sisters in the field. If the right-wing propaganda machine starts ramping up their usual "its all the media's fault" campaign, its up to producers Stateside to launch a media offensive defending the objectivity of the methods of the journalists who risk their lives to bring us stories with more depth than possible from just an 8 day guided tour. Honestly, Howard, it's you guys who are falling down on the job.

Howard Kurtz: It's not my job to launch a media offensive to defend the objectivity of journalists. It's my job to question what journalists do and why they do it. Toward that end, I have interviewed many reporters in Baghdad (and their editors) who have openly grappled with the difficulties of reporting from Iraq. The situation is not black and white. I put those questions to CBS's Lara Logan in Baghdad yesterday. Here's some of what she had to say:

As a journalist, if an American soldier or an Iraqi person dies that day, you have to make a decision about how you weigh the value of reporting that news over the value of something that may be happening, say, a water plant that's being turned on that brings fresh water to 200 Iraqi people. I mean, you get accused of valuing human life in a certain way depending on how you report it.

And also, as -- I mean, what I would point out is that you can't travel around this country anymore without military protection. You can't travel without armed guards. You're not free to go every time there's a school opening or there's some reconstruction project that's being done.

We don't have the ability to go out and cover those. If they want to see a fair picture of what's happening in Iraq, then you have to first start with the security issue.

When journalists are free to move around this country, then they will be free to report on everything that's going on. But as long as you're a prisoner of the terrible security situation here, then that's going to be reflected in your coverage.

And not only that, but their own figures show that their reconstruction project was supposed to create 1.5 million Iraqi jobs. To date, 77,000 Iraqi government jobs have been created. That should give you an indication of how far along they are in terms of reconstruction...

I mean, I really resent the fact that people say that we're not reflecting the true picture here. That's totally unfair and it's really unfounded...

our own editors back in New York are asking us the same things.

They read the same comments. You know, are there positive stories? Can't you find them?

You don't think that I haven't been to the U.S. military and the State Department and the embassy and asked them over and over again, let's see the good stories, show us some of the good things that are going on? Oh, sorry, we can't take to you that school project, because if you put that on TV, they're going to be attacked about, the teachers are going to be killed, the children might be victims of attack.

Oh, sorry, we can't show this reconstruction project because then that's going to expose it to sabotage. And the last time we had journalists down here, the plant was attacked.

I mean, security dominates every single thing that happens in this country.

_______________________

Burke, Va.: What do you mean by this?

"If the media coverage in fact is turning sharply more skeptical, and in some cases hostile, that could have a major impact on the country as it did during the Vietnam War."

Do you mean the news media lost the Vietnam War?

Howard Kurtz: Of course not. The Vietnam War was lost on the battlefield, and perhaps in the political decisions made in the White House and Pentagon. But no one who lived through that period, or has studied it, can deny that the media coverage played a role in turning the country against the war. That may be a positive thing, in that it educated many Americans to what a fiasco the war had become and how it was essentially unwinnable under the Johnson-Nixon policies, but whatever your view of Vietnam, the pivotal role of journalism was a fact.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: You did some excellent reporting on the revelation that Bob Woodward had a source on Valerie Plame. Yet it appears that on an important point your reporting may have been wrong. In your November 17 column, you wrote:

Exactly what triggered Woodward's disclosure to Downie remains unclear. Woodward said yesterday that he was "quite aggressively reporting" a story related to the Plame case when he told Downie about his involvement as the term of Fitzgerald's grand jury was set to expire on Oct. 28.

Yet just last week Jim VandeHei reported that Woodward now appears to be telling a different story:

In the course of writing a book on Bush, Woodward said, he had discovered mention of Plame in his notes just as the grand jury in the leak case was expiring last October.

It appears that Woodward came across notes for his previous book that had info on Wilson's wife as he was working on his next book. Does that count as aggressive reporting for a story related to the Plame case? Or is the discovery of the notes not what prompted him to go to Downie on October 24? Why is all of this still so obscure?

Howard Kurtz: I don't see those two as contradictory, but all I did in the first instance was interview Woodward (and Len Downie) on the subject. I had no independent information on why Woodward decided to come forward when he did.

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: By stating that the decision on full withdrawal will be made by the next administration, didn't Bush make Iraq policy the focal point of the 2008 campaign? Democrats who want to win primary voters - who usually lean way left - will now be forced to come up with a policy that will get them nominated without turning off so many in the middle that they become unelectable. Am I missing something?

Howard Kurtz: I think the war likely would have been the focus of the 2008 campaign anyway, unless all U.S. troops were withdrawn before it started.

_______________________

Cleveland, Ohio: Howard: I will admit I am a political news junkie and as such try to catch the White House briefings on C-SPAN. After watching "Reliable Sources" and after reading your column today, I am compelled to ask exactly what is wrong with reporters asking the President touch questions. What is wrong with Helen Thomas asking the President a very simple and direct question? For five years I have watched the briefings and TV pundits fail to challenge Bush, Cheney, McClellan or any of their spokesmen when they start their spin. It leaves the viewing public with a misperception that whatever is being said is absolutely true. Now when the reporters finally start pressing, there is this attitude that the reporters are being rude or that they are not affording the President the respect he deserves. What gives?

Howard Kurtz: Well, some people are always going to believe that reporters asking aggressive questions are being rude. There is also a cumulative effect of seeing reporters ask 6,7,8 negative questions in a row that can make it look, fairly or unfairly, like they're ganging up on the president. But if you think White House reporters have failed to strongly challenge Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan at these daily jousting matches over the years, you can't have watched many of the briefings.

_______________________

Truman, Mo.: According to the transcript of your television show, you said: "Sources say the New York senator will now have final say over anything the former president says that could hurt her bid to become the next president."

When you say "Sources say"...

Do you mean YOUR sources, who have personal knowledge of Senator Clinton's instructions to President Clinton?

Or do you mean that a Clinton-hating newspaper CLAIMED that anonymous sources made such claims to the paper?

If it's the latter, you have lied to your viewers because you have no idea if the claim is true.

If it's the former, name the sources.

Words have meaning, Howard. Your job is to debunk unsourced claims, not repeat them as fact.

Howard Kurtz: Maybe if you had watched the show, you would have seen that the item was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. You might also have gotten that I was quoting the Daily News (the cover headline was on the screen at the time) in quoting these unnamed sources, and then expressed skepticism about what the sources were saying. And where did you get the impression that the New York Daily News is a Clinton-hating newspaper? Besides, a headline in which Hillary tells Bill to "ZIP IT" (if anything of the sort actually happened) is not exactly an anti-Hillary story.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: So has Sen. Feingold shot himself in the foot with the censure resolution, or could this be the start of an avalanche that sweeps Bush and his cronies out of office? There was a posting on Dan Balz's chat earlier today from someone who, like me, lived through the protests of the 1960s, and was wondering where all the outrage is today.

An upheaval of the magnitude that would be required to unseat W et al. doesn't just happen overnight, but I have to say, as one who saw the campus protests and the Moratorium here in D.C. in 1969, why aren't our campuses exploding? The poster on Balz's chat theorized that it's because we have a volunteer army rather than a draft, and I think that's correct, but there have to be more reasons. What's going on?

Howard Kurtz: There is a lot of anger at Bush out there, but as I observed last week, the lack of a draft makes this war seem remote to a lot of people, as compared to Vietnam, when anyone with older kids had to be worried that they would be inducted and shipped off to Vietnam. As for censure, given that the Republicans control both houses and only one other Democrat has expressed support, it doesn't seem in any danger of passing.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Maybe I'm just dense, but with this 'media coverage turning negative' discussion going on, might I ask a simple question?

Might the coverage be turning negative simply because the war is starting to go very badly? I mean, even in a hypothetical situation, if the situation starts to go downhill and a journalist starts to report that 'the situation is starting to go downhill', does that mean that the journalist has an ulterior motive for saying that?

Howard Kurtz: Yes, it is entirely possible that continuous bad news in Iraq is driving the negative coverage--the "stark reality" that I refer to in the third paragraph of this morning's column. But it's also fair to ask whether the car bombings and suicide attacks are the only important thing happening in Iraq, or whether the media have a value system (which long preceded this war) that violence is more newsworthy than anything else. (Check out how many times a local murder leads the New York TV news if you have doubts about that.)

_______________________

Bedford, Mass.: Mr. Kurtz,

It strikes me that media is following, not leading, public opinion on the Iraq war. The media's skeptical approach to Iraq seems to ratchet up every time there is a new poll indicating waning public support for Bush's war. Is it that in an era of intense media competition and "tight" margins (ha!) that the corporate media does not want to get TOO far out in front of the public tastes?

Howard Kurtz: The leading-versus-following thing is a chicken-and-egg question that can never be fully resolved. I wouldn't attribute any of it to the "corporate media," since executives at the NYT, WP, CBS, NBC, ABC etc. aren't telling the reporters in Baghdad or the political reporters what to say. I do think it's more difficult for a journalist to challenge a president at 70 percent in the polls over a war that has majority support, than to challenge a president at 38 percent in the polls over a war that now has only minority support.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Do you think it is unfair or rude for reporters to ask a series of tough questions of the President or his press secretaries?

Do you think it is unfair or rude for the President or the press secretaries to refuse to answer the questions, to repeat the same talking points no matter what, or to claim that reporters are falling asleep when they're supposed to be working?

I'd hope you consider it your job to help us understand why reporters keep on asking the same questions -- i.e. if they're being stonewalled, etc.

Howard Kurtz: I write about this all the time. I don't think tough questions are unfair or rude, and even if they are, the president is a big boy and he can handle them. There aren't many opportunities in our system to hold a president accountable, especially when his party controls Congress, and press conferences are one of them.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Perception is based on expectation. The government told us that invading Iraq would be easy and quick. It hasn't turned out that way. Hence, you can put 1000 stories about schools opening in the newspaper and it will still seem like things are going badly. This whole blame the press line is such bunk. In terms of infrastructure and general safety Iraq has yet to catch up to pre-invasion levels. How can there be a good story?

Howard Kurtz: If you compare the situation in Iraq to the way the Bush administration forecast the aftermath of the war, there is simply no question that, on many fronts, things are far worse than the nation's leaders predicted. There isn't even continuous electricity in much of the country.

_______________________

Charlottesville, Va.: Two Democrats have explicitly expressed support for Feingold's resolution: Harkins and Boxer. And 42% of the American public supports it, despite the fact that it has received relatively little media coverage.

Howard Kurtz: You are certainly right on the 42 percent. I didn't know that Senator Boxer had endorsed the measure.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Follow-up to the question about Sen. Feingold -- what if any buzz do you in the MSM hear about possible reinstitution of the draft? I know that administration figures have repeatedly said that they will not reinstitute the draft, but at some point the cold reality of missed recruitment targets and armed forces stretched to the breaking point is going to intrude. At that point I think they would find themselves well and truly between a rock and a hard place; your thoughts?

Howard Kurtz: I hear no buzz. It's politically unrealistic at this point. Not gonna happen.

_______________________

Tampa, Fla.: Will al Jazeera International have any trouble getting US cable operators to carry the new network? If they do get in, would it be part of the basic or premium package? I assume conservatives would vehemently oppose allowing it in the U.S. They claim al Jazeera is so biased it's actually the Fox News of the Arab world.

Howard Kurtz: Like any new cable network, al Jazeera International will have trouble getting widespread cable carriage in the U.S. The fact that it's inherently controversial probably makes it more difficult. But I'm sure it will be seen in some places if cable operators conclude it can draw an audience.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I was really annoyed to read Brady say that he would have fired Domenech today if he hadn't resigned on Friday. Wouldn't a thorough investigation be in order first? I somehow doubt that if you or Froomkin were accused of plagiarism, you'd be given the boot so quickly.

Howard Kurtz: I think Jim Brady looked at the pattern of plagiarism unearthed by liberal bloggers, asked Domenech for his explanation and found the explanation unconvincing. Domenech was unable to explain to me in an interview why a post-college article in National Review seemed so similar to a movie review in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, except to say he thought his was published first. I checked, and it wasn't.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The biggest story in Iraq is the violence.

The second biggest story in Iraq is whether the press is biased.

A little navel-gazing, my dears? Or maybe just self-importance? Press bias is obviously an important issue, but I think I could go a day--or even two!--without reading about it. I know we write about what we know/do/are, but perhaps the press could move on to something that doesn't smell of them defending themselves against an administration that hasn't gotten anything right since the first inauguration anyway?

Howard Kurtz: The reason it's not navel-gazing--not that I'm opposed to navel-gazing, by the way--is that it's an argument that has been pushed by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. So it's not just a bunch of self-absorbed journalists running around saying "how we doing?"

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. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.