Critiquing the Press

Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Columnist
Monday, April 10, 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, April 10, at noon ET to discuss the press and his latest columns.

Read Media Notes: Leaker-in-Chief?, (Post, April 7, 2006)

The transcript follows.

____________________

Fairfax, Va.: You are probably getting a lot of questions about the weird editorial from April 9 in which The Washington Post defended the leaking of (and thoroughly debunked) classified information. What I would like to know is what do journalists in the newsroom do when an editorial is so off-base? Do they just shrug their shoulders and carry on? What is their responsibility to the public? Also, should the editorial board be so disconnected from the news portion of the paper? I think this episode is another in a long line of incidences that highlights the lack of journalistic integrity there is out there today. It tarnishes everyone in the media whether fair or not.

Howard Kurtz: I don't care what Post editorials say, except as a reader. They do opinion, we do news. I agree with some editorials and disagree with others. You obviously disagree strongly with that editorial, but I don't see how that translates into a "lack of journalistic integrity." The only people who have integrity are those who agree with your positions?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Yes, we all know; the news and editorial divisions of The Post are separate. But yesterday's "A Good Leak" editorial, written in blatant disregard of undisputed facts reported in The Post and elsewhere, can't help but damage the whole paper's reputation. What is behind this madness?

Howard Kurtz: Again, I'll let Fred Hiatt and company defend themselves on controversial editorials. But it does underscore the church-and-state division around here, since I don't think anyone would suggest that The Post's news coverage has treated this as a "good leak."

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Howard, as a news media professional, every time I read an account of someone doing something like plagiarizing articles, making stories up, blackmailing story subjects, etc., I just die a little bit inside. Seriously, these people are KILLING us. They may lose their jobs, but our whole industry loses credibility. That in turn makes it easier for the forces that have always wanted to marginalize a free press (government, industry, politicians) to do so.

Congress isn't the only group with bums that need to be thrown out.

Howard Kurtz: Good point, but a number of bums have been thrown out in the last couple of years. I don't know whether there's more plagiarism and embellishment in the biz than, say, 30 years ago, but I do believe there were plenty of instances 30 years ago that got swept under the rug with nobody getting punished. Now, in an age of instantaneous communications, that's no longer possible. But every time I write about a Jayson Blair or Jack Kelley, to pick two stories that I broke, it certainly crosses my mind that this is hurting everyone in the profession and providing ammunition for those who believe lots of journalists make stuff up and rip off material--which, by the way, isn't true.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Howard, I'm glad you reported the fact that Meredith Vieira marched against the Iraq war in New York City in 2004, protests designed to ruin the Republican National Convention. That's an interesting fact. Why do your fellow media reporters (the New York Times, the LA Times, USA Today) find this un-newsworthy? For conservatives, it's a five-alarm fire of media partisanship.

Howard Kurtz: I don't know. I asked Vieira about it when I interviewed her. She explained that she wasn't working for a news division at the time, but now that she's joining NBC News, it's her job to put aside her biases and conduct fair interviews and reporting. People can make up their own minds about that. I would note that this kind of movement is not unheard of. Howell Raines, for example, wrote very opinionated editorials for the New York Times for several years before becoming executive editor.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Howard, in the April 10 issue of "The New Republic" senior editor Ryan Lizza's article on Andy Card's resignation highlights the "falling on a sword" aspect of Card's personality.

Card has taken responsibility for ALL of Bush's mistakes -- ever (as reported in The New York Times).

Do you think that during Andy Card's tenure -- which, of course, parallels the entire Bush presidency -- that the press has bought into this tactic of deflecting blame from the President? And, do you think that the media's relations with Card successor, Josh Bolten, will be more circumspect?

Howard Kurtz: Staff people always try to deflect blame from the boss. I don't see much evidence that the media bought into the notion that everything that went wrong in the Bush presidency was Andy Card's fault. Certainly, after a series of screw ups such as Katrina and the Dubai ports deal, some in the press questioned whether Card, as the gatekeeper, was getting Bush the kind of timely information he needed, but everyone understands that the buck stops in the Oval Office.

_______________________

Columbia, Md.: I would take an opposite view from the others who ask the question. Doesn't it make the reporters look foolish when the editorial page is so dead on with their analysis while the reporters are basically carrying the water of those who are against President Bush?

Howard Kurtz: Okay, so now we have the opposite comment from a couple of earlier ones. The Bush critics say the reporters are right on and the editorial writers have no integrity, are mangling the facts, etc. As a Bush supporter, you believe the editorial was brave and bold and the reporters are a bunch of Bush-haters, or at least allies of Bush-haters. I couldn't ask for a better case study in how the ideology of some readers affects their perception of what is fair or accurate.

_______________________

Denver, Colo.: What oversight, if any, is there over the editorial side of the paper? Are there any criteria used to determine how well those folks are doing their job? Or since their job is simply to voice opinions, is it assumed that there is no way to measure their performance?

Howard Kurtz: Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor, reports to Bo Jones, the publisher, and ultimately to Don Graham. Suffice it to say that no editorial page editor could keep his job without the support of the publisher and the CEO.

_______________________

About Judy Miller...: Now that Libby has basically proven what critics have been saying about Miller all along (i.e. that she was a shill for the admin, passing along their stuff sans any attempt at checking) shouldn't she have to publicly apologize? That isn't journalism, it's stenography to power.

If you want to know why the press loses cred every day, she's another example. Zero accountability. It's now been proven she betrayed the public trust, and acted as an unfiltered conduit for govt. spin...and she gets a multi-million dollar golden parachute and lauded as a hero by her peers.

If most of us screwed up our jobs that badly, and that knowingly, we'd be homeless.

Howard Kurtz: But this particular instance actually does not prove anything negative about Judy Miller (leaving aside the larger questions of her professional relationship with Libby, her willingness to entertain identifying him as a "former Hill aide," etc.). The veep's chief of staff leaked her information from this classified CIA assessment about Iraq, and SHE DIDN'T WRITE ANYTHING. Nor did she write anything about Valerie Plame. So while Miller can be criticized on several fronts, you can't accuse her in this instance of "passing their stuff along" when she didn't.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Another angle on "A Good Leak": wouldn't its author have been better advised to run it as a bylined editorial?

Howard Kurtz: That's not a bad idea, but does not seem to be the editorial page's style. The argument is that an editorial has more force when it's represented as the view of the paper, not just one writer.

_______________________

Bowie, Md.: It appears that with an apology issued the Cynthia McKinney controversy is over in the press.

But should the appearance that she appeared to be entrapping the Capitol Police into stopping her so she could make a race issue out of it be allowed to die that quietly?

Howard Kurtz: I hadn't heard the entrapment theory. This wasn't exactly a public relations triumph for the congresswoman. I guess the future course of the story will depend on what if anything the grand jury does.

_______________________

Iowa: Sort of a media comment--On the West Wing last night, Leo McGarry (John Spencer) died on the night of the hotly contested presidential election. It raised some interesting issues about how such an event would be handled. And I admit I teared up over Leo's death. Then I thought there wasn't a single real politician who would evoke those same emotions in me. Yikes.

Howard Kurtz: Hollywood must love you.

_______________________

Avon Park, Fla.: Do you think that the CBS Evening News will allow Katie Couric to display her personality? I don't think that it will and that's why I'm not that big on her going there. She won't be doing cooking segments, self-help interviews, playing tennis, or interviewing and laughing with movie stars. Couric will be reading heavy news from a teleprompter. How can she change the newscast to show her personality?

Howard Kurtz: Well, Bob Schieffer certainly displays his personality, and he does it without cooking, singing, dancing or any of that stuff. Look, that is the challenge for Katie Couric, and for CBS. Can she take what people like about her in the morning and make it work in the considerably more cramped and scripted environment of a 22-minute newscast? CBS obviously thinks so or it wouldn't be paying her the big bucks. Everyone else will have to wait until September to find out.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hi Howie, what's up with CNN rotating their D.C. correspondents? (Dana Bash from the White House to The Hill; Andrea Koppel from State to The Hill and Ed Henry from The Hill to the White House) Does it not take years to cultivate sources? Do correspondents 'transfer' their sources to another person from the same network?

Howard Kurtz: It's not so unusual. Reporters change beats all the time. At The Post, for instance, Jim VandeHei went from covering the Hill to the White House; Peter Baker went from Moscow to the White House; John Harris went from political reporting to editing; Juliet Eilperin went from the Hill to the environment, and on and on. Sure, you build up sources over the years and that can be valuable, but there's also some benefit to a media organization in having someone bring a fresh eye to a beat.

_______________________

Nashville, Tenn.: Editor and Publisher Magazine points out a paper has an editorial page to try to influence its readers to the views of its publisher. So how then can an aspiring beat reporter ignore the views of the publisher when writing an article?

Howard Kurtz: Easy. I do it every day.

_______________________

Cape Cod, Mass.: Mr.Kurtz, in response to your question posed to Fairfax Va above in which you ask, does integrity only mean agreeing with people who hold your opinion? No, integrity means arguing and basing ones' opinion on facts and the truth...no matter if I agree or disagree and as long as it is done openly and honestly. And integrity means signing the controversial Lead Sunday Editorial of major Paper of Record in Washington, D.C. and not hiding behind that anonymity.

Now back to my question, in your column today about McCain, you often seem to use the word "liberal" disparagingly and with derogatory descriptors placed nearby. Whether this is intentional or not I don't know, but my question is, Would you consider a married, working class mother of two children and typical soccer mom description, fit into your definition of liberal?

Howard Kurtz: I use "liberal" disparagingly? I don't know where on earth you got that idea. I think most people have a mixture of opinions. I don't pigeonhole people unless they identify themselves according to their views - for or against the war, abortion, the president, you name it. But when you're talking about opinion columnists with a substantial body of work, I don't think it's a stretch to say that Paul Krugman and E.J. Dionne are liberal, any more than it is to say George Will and Robert Novak are conservative.

_______________________

New York City, N.Y.: What is it about Judith Miller that causes so many lefties to go berserk? Your earlier question about her stated as a fact something that was EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the truth. It's as if the leftie who wrote that question was living in some alternate reality where up is down, left is right, and Judith Miller actually wrote a story based on what Libby told her. I just don't understand the visceral hatred toward her, even to the point of inventing patently untrue things about her. Is it because she's a woman?

Howard Kurtz: I would need a degree in psychology to explain it. But obviously, as Miller herself has acknowledged, she has become a symbol of the media's failure during the runup to Iraq because she reported a number of stories about WMD, based on her sources in the administration and elsewhere, that turned out to be dead wrong.

_______________________

Oxford, Ohio: Re: "Nor did she write anything about Valerie Plame. So while Miller can be criticized on several fronts, you can't accuse her in this instance of "passing their stuff along" when she didn't."

This is only the second time I have read this, which is the correct interpretation. No one, right or left, seems to be willing to recognize this, using Miller as a punching bag for the President or the MSM. She may have a problem with journalistic ethics, but not from this particular issue.

My problem is, how did journalism allow itself to become a recognized advocacy institution (the MSM)? Aren't you trained to report the facts without spinning? Is there a canon in journalism ethics that forbids such reporting?

Howard Kurtz: Well, because in America everyone has an opinion. Most denizens of the MSM don't see themselves as advocates or crusaders, but if segments or the audience, on the left and right, believe we are, that is a fact of life we must deal with. It doesn't make the critics right, but it's not something to be automatically dismissed, either.

_______________________

Re: Nashville: "Easy. I do it every day." Thanks - but the question specifically referred to ASPIRING REPORTERS - not established names with TV income to boost their Post salary. Please address the question from the standpoint of a new hire.

Howard Kurtz: Sorry, I missed that. The ethos of the newsroom is such that new reporters are encouraged to go out and do their jobs as aggressively and fairly as they can, and they get feedback (and ultimately raises) from their bosses, the editors who work on the news side. They have almost no contact with the editorial page folks, nor do people in the newsroom spend much time debating the paper's editorial policy.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Kurtz,

David Corn today takes note of your, um, taking note of his back and forth with Woodward.

"I remain convinced that the central issue is that Woodward's account--based on his interviews with Bush and other insiders--did not include the news that Bush was so committed to full-scale war in Iraq that he was willing to discuss creating a pretext for an invasion. I'm disappointed that Kurtz did not see this.'

There's more, but that's the jist. Any comment?

Howard Kurtz: I fairly presented Corn's argument and Woodward's rebuttal. David, as an opinion writer, may want me to adopt his argument, but that's not my role, and he understands that.

_______________________

Jersey city, N.J.: Howard:

Re: your comments of Meredith Viera and the questioning of her journalistic 'bias' because of her antiwar march. Is that any different from those who, before they were reporters, were government spokesmen, e.g. Pete Williams, Tim Russert et. al.?

I mean, we can take this whole "what did they do before they were TV newspeople a bit too far, can't we?

Howard Kurtz: Well, if someone worked in politics before becoming a TV anchor or reporter, it's certainly fair to take note of that as well, and the burden is on newly minted journalists to show that they are independent and not merely carrying water for the politician, party or administration they previously worked for.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: "Easy. I do it every day." What's your secret for being completely uninfluenceable? Or are readers influenced by editorials simpletons, unlike you?

What a callow non-response to an honest and serious question.

Howard Kurtz: Callow -- I think that's the only name I've never been called. It sounds bad. What I meant was, no matter what editorial position The Post takes, it has zero impact on how I do my job (unless the edit page gets in some sort of ethical scrape and I have to write about it). As a reader, as a citizen, I may believe that a particular editorial is persuasive or not, but as a journalistic member of the institution it is irrelevant to me and to others in the newsroom. Just like the reporters at the Wall Street Journal.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How bad would Katie have to bomb at CBS for them to think they made a mistake? Moonves certainly wouldn't admit it, but it's a risk.

Howard Kurtz: Well, if she doesn't get good reviews for her journalism and the ratings tank, many people will believe that CBS made a mistake. Although there are some quality news programs out there that don't necessarily draw big ratings, and many TV critics tend to use the Nielsens as virtually the old gauge of success.

_______________________

Media Bias?: Regarding Meredith Viera...I think it's unreasonable to expect that when someone becomes a journalist they give up all their opinions and political life. I expect journalists to recognize their own opinions and biases and work hard to present fair, unbalanced stories, but they have as much civic responsibility as the rest of us and as such -should- be voting and participating.

I am suspicious of anyone who tells me that they do not have any political opinions on major issues. As human beings that is just not possible and that makes it even more important for journalists to see themselves realistically so that they CAN write/present fair stories, regardless of their own opinions.

Howard Kurtz: I do think it's important to recognize one's own biases and try to compensate for them by being as fair as you possibly can to people whose views you disagree with.

_______________________

Ordinarily...:

I would agree with you not those writing editorials for a newspaper as a whole need not identify themselves; but given the fact that several Washington Post staff members met privately and off-the-record with President Bush, does seem to raise some suspicions. Those staff members have been identified. It would be of more comfort to the reader to have those writing the editorial with a byline to make sure these are separate individuals and not influenced by the Bush Administration. There has been too many instances of the Bush Administration influencing opinion columnists and this step would help to alleviate any mistrust.

Thank you for listening...

Howard Kurtz: As far as I know, those the president met with in this recent round were all reporters. And I have qualms about these sessions. But I would point out that Bill Clinton often had off-the-record meetings with reporters too, as I wrote at the time, and nobody seemed terribly exercised about that.

_______________________

Pasadena, Md.: I read this past weekend that Washington Post reporter Tom Ricks is writing an anti-war book that attack the Bush administration on the handling of the war in Iraq. I believe the book will be called "Fiasco". Yet this morning, I see Ricks is writing a news article. Why is someone who already has a staunch anti-war position allowed to continue to write "objective" news articles in The Washington Post?

Howard Kurtz: Tom Ricks is one of the best Pentagon correspondents in the business, as he proved at the Wall Street Journal before coming here. On what basis do you conclude that he has an anti-war position? This is a guy who has risked his life by spending time with the troops in Iraq. Wouldn't it be fair to actually wait until his book comes out before attacking him for what you THINK it says?

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.