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, June 5, at noon ET to discuss the press and his latest columns.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Greenville, S.C.: Howie - Re the abhorrent attack on the 3 CBS "journalists"; what do you think about lumping sound persons, camerapersons, drivers, stringers, et al under the umbrella of journalists? I once had a paper route; was I a journalist? I now read 3 newspapers per day and watch the evening news' am I a journalist? What's your definition?

Howard Kurtz: Paul Douglas and James Brolan, the CBS cameraman and sound man who were killed one week ago, were absolutely journalists. Without people like them, television doesn't happen. They travel around the world, go into all kinds of difficult and dangerous situations, and enable the correspondents (who naturally get all the credit) to get on the air. Without them, television doesn't happen. I wouldn't put drivers and translators in the same category.

_______________________

Syracuse, N.Y.: Hi Howard-

As a semi-regular viewer of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" I've seen his tirades on Bill O'Reilly in the past but his undressing of "Bill O" last Thursday was stunning. Olbermann has always used Bill O as a foil for his clever writing but this time it seems like he took the gloves off. Do you detect a new shift in Countdown from tongue in cheek to crusader against Fox/O'Reilly?

Howard Kurtz: I didn't see the latest missive, but as Olbermann told me when I interviewed him a couple of months ago, the "feud" with O'Reilly has been a publicity gold mine for him. After all, O'Reilly draws an audience several times larger than Olbermann at 8 pm eastern, so anything that Keith can do to draw O'Reilly into a public exchange has the effect of increasing Olbermann's visibility. Plus, given that "Countdown" has an increasingly liberal and anti-Bush bent, the shtick undoubtedly plays well with Olbermann's audience.

_______________________

New York, NY: Can you explain in journalistic terms what an exclusive interview is? I saw the promo for Diane Sawyer's interview with the Dixie Chicks and they said it was an "exclusive interview." Yet I saw the Chicks on Larry King Live and some other shows as well. Then today on MSNBC's Web site, they had a promo for meet the press with an "exclusive" interview with Senator Joe Biden. Anyone who remotely follows politics knows Joe Biden is in front of the camera giving interviews almost as much as Oprah. So why was this "exclusive"? Just curious. Thanks

Howard Kurtz: An exclusive interview in television terms is any sitdown where the guest has not been on some other show in the last two hours and plans to stay off the tube for at least another hour after you finish. Or at least, that's how it seems these days with all the promotional hype surrounding people who are, as you note, quite out there on the TV circuit.

_______________________

Harrington Park, N.J.: Isn't it true of the press pool that if you are a reporter and you ask an 'unapproved' question (say about the great relations between Saddam and the U.S. during his worst crimes) that you will not be called upon in the future to ask questions, and that that risk of losing access deters the press from asking tough questions in the first place? What does that say about our 'free press'?

Howard Kurtz: Basically, it isn't true. (What you're talking about, I assume, is the White House press corps as a whole, not the small, rotating "pool," whose staffing is determined by the news organizations.) At every news conference, Bush takes questions from the wires, the networks and the major papers, and beyond that calls on whoever he wants. He might ignore a particular reporter if he's ticked about something, just as Clinton did, but that rarely lasts long. One person who Bush avoided for three or four years (until recently calling on her) is Helen Thomas, the liberal Hearst columnist, but since she's no longer working for UPI, Bush has no more obligation to call on her than any other columnist.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: For months now, Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe has been the only journalist at a major newspaper doing extensive original reporting on Bush's use of presidential signing statements to ignore laws passed by Congress. Yesterday, he reported that the American Bar Association's board has voted unanimously to investigate whether the President has exceeded his constitutional authority. Seems like a major story to me. And yet, there's nothing today in the Post or NYT. Do you think the press is underplaying the story of Bush's signing statements?

Howard Kurtz: I think the ABA looking into it is not necessarily a big deal, but I agree that the whole area of presidential signing statements -- that is, the White House offering its interpretation of a law passed by Congress -- is an important subject that deserves more attention. It got some coverage during the Alito hearings because of his previous role at Justice. The New York Times has done a story and editorial in recent months. But I would agree that the Globe has been the most aggressive on the subject.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: While the gay marriage issue is not one I personally can get very excited about one way or the other, it strikes me that main stream media coverage misses the point. Every poll shows the majority of to be in favor of banning gay marriage, every state where the issue has been put to a vote has overwhelming voted against gay marriage, the majority of House members and close to if not a majority of Senators are in favor of a ban -- yet news coverage always emphasizes the fact that it won't pass; therefore the administration is pandering to its base or to narrow special interests by not letting the issue die. Why isn't the issue ever framed in terms of why the Democrats continue to ignore the majority will and pander to one of their special interest groups?

Howard Kurtz: You wouldn't have strong feelings about this, would you? Certainly there has been a huge amount written and broadcast about the issue in the couple of years since the mayor of San Francisco and the top court in Massachusetts changed the debate from civil unions to gay marriage. And plenty of stories have recognized that state initiatives have been passing by large majorities. But when it comes to a constitutional amendment -- which, by the way, Bush has barely mentioned from his reelection until this week -- the political reality is that it is not going to pass. So I think it's fair to examine the political motives of those who are pushing it as well as those who oppose it.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Re Olbermann and O'Reilly: What got Keith O so flaming mad was the fact that, in an interview with Wesley Clark re the Haditha killings, O'Reilly said it was nothing new, as U.S. troops had shot down Germans in cold blood at Malmedy during WWII.

The fact, of course, is that exactly the opposite happened--American troops were murdered by SS units at Malmedy. Olbermann was not doing anything for effect--he was genuinely enraged at O'Reilly's ignorance and his defaming of American troops.

Howard Kurtz: Thanks. As I said, I didn't see it.

_______________________

Leesburg, Va.: What's happened to your daily Media Notes column?? I'm going through withdrawal!

Howard Kurtz: They have medicine for that. It resumes tomorrow. I was off last week.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Deborah Howell's attempt to note progress in The Post's use of anonymous sources failed to hit the mark. First off she used 7 of 19 paragraphs talking about anonymous sources in sports articles. To me this seems to indicate that she not fully grasped the concerns of WP readers. What no comment on anonymous sources in the entertainment section.

Second, she focused on only the number of articles that cited anonymous sources, what is the issue is the dependence on anonymous sources. How many articles were able to verify the information given, how many even tried. The article doesn't address how Post reporters decide on confidentiality.

An anonymous source can bring the horse to the trough, but only good reporting (with or without anonymous sources) can make a smart reader drink.

Howard Kurtz: On the first point, Howell noted that readers have not complained about the use of sources in sports reporting, but I thought it was interesting, and something I hadn't thought about, to note their prevalence in that field. On the second point, it seems fair to me to examine how many Post articles actually cite unnamed officials or sources as a way of examining the issue. A discussion of when to grant confidentiality would have been helpful, but you can't cover every aspect of the controversy in a 750-word column.

_______________________

New Hampshire: Thanks for taking my question, Mr. Kurtz.

I was struck by the interview on This Week with Al Gore. I found Mr. Gore to be very engaging and on message with regard to the crisis facing our planet. Not many in the MSM seem to care about the issue of Global Warming except to refute it, as the interviewer tried to. Instead, the media wants to know and guess whether Mr. Gore is running in 2008. Why won't the MSM focus on the issue of Global Warming rather than the fact that Al Gore was in Cannes and may return to national politics?

Similarly, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s well sourced and chilling article in Rolling Stone re the theft of the 2004 election by the Republican party has yet to be covered by The Post. Why is that?

Howard Kurtz: Time just did a cover story on global warming, and the cover piece in last week's Washington Post Magazine was about scientists who argue against global warming. So I don't think it's quite fair to say the media don't care about the subject except in the context of Gore and the future White House ambitions that he consistently denies harboring.

I haven't had a chance to read the RFK piece so I don't know if it breaks any new ground that previous news stories on the Ohio vote have not. Obviously Kennedy writes from a point of view but that doesn't mean his information is not valid.

_______________________

Houston, Tex.: Howard, Does the press have a responsibility to call Bush's gay marriage ban a diversionary tactic? Do you believe this base is aware of the tactic?

Howard Kurtz: I think the press has a responsibility to raise the question of whether Bush suddenly expressing interest in a constitutional amendment that is extremely unlikely to pass is a diversionary tactic or sop to his political base. But I don't think straight journalists, as opposed to columnists and commentators, ought to come down on one side of the issue.

_______________________

Seattle, Wash.: Admittedly, Iraq has caused more casualties for the press, but possibly because the press was unwilling to pass on the truth of the quagmire that it was and continues to be, thus making it more dangerous.

However, what I'd like to know is why, when I travel or listen to news from BBC or CBC or news from other countries, it becomes obvious that U.S. news is censored about what's really happening in Iraq and Afghanistan? At most I see a snippet here, when it's a five minute major battle, pics of wounded, interviews with locals, etc - for any real Middle East news - anywhere else?

Howard Kurtz: I can't really answer that without specific examples. I'm also not following your logic about Iraq being more dangerous for journalists because the press has been unwilling to report the "truth" of what a quagmire it is. (Administration officials, for their part, say we make it sound worse than it is.) There is an actual level of danger in Iraq that doesn't change based on headlines or television accounts. And the statistics show the danger, at least to journalists: More of them have now been killed in Iraq than in all of World War II.

_______________________

Seattle, Wash.: Why has it been three years with a medical privacy bill and no press coverage of the inaction of the Administration in arresting, indicting, or trying anyone even though many violations have occurred? Was the press distracted by fake issues like gay marriage, or were you trying not to cover real issues like massive budget deficits?

Howard Kurtz: You mean, until today's lead story in The Washington Post? My colleague Rob Stein deserves credit for digging out that story, but by and large, the media do a lousy job of covering government regulation. We will cover a controversy over proposed legislation and stick with it until it passes, after which most reporters go on to other controversies and rarely check on whether the law is working or being properly enforced, unless some group puts out a report. There are exceptions, of course, but in general the regulatory agencies are not considered sexy and this remains an area of weakness.

_______________________

Charleston, S.C.: Howard,

Do you think it is unethical for reporters to investigate each other? Specifically, the recent Hastert/ABC news controversy would be a great example. Why do we never see exposes regarding the truth and motivations of certain reporters, especially when the material that has been published is so controversial. Your thoughts?

Howard Kurtz: Obviously, I don't think so, or I wouldn't be in this job. And I, for one, called ABC's Brian Ross and interviewed him about the Hastert/Abramoff story and reported that other networks didn't think much of his piece. But I think the era when journalists didn't look into the work of other journalists is over. Just look at all the media scrutiny in the Valerie Plame case and who were the sources for Judith Miller, Matthew Cooper et al.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Yesterday on your TV show you wondered aloud whether the media was driving Bush's low poll numbers. Stop wondering. I was on a city bus last week and witnessed a spontaneous burst of outrage about all issues related to Bush. We were sitting in traffic and a woman started complaining about the cut in terrorism funds. The next thing I knew everyone on the bus was screaming out their particular discontent. The overwhelming consensus was Bush is an awful president and we are paying the price in our children's blood for this hideous war. We're broke - even if Henry Paulson doesn't know it. This is a very unhappy country. It's not the media.

Howard Kurtz: That's a new concept to me -- a focus group on wheels. Who needs pollsters? Look, Bush has had a very difficult year on just about every front -- Iraq, Social Security, Katrina, Harriet Miers, Dubai ports, the Libby indictment, etc. The question I was raising was whether the media were also piling on the president because he is way down in the polls.

_______________________

Louisville, Ky.: Considering there are scores of conservative Republicans upset with Bush at this moment, I think you are doing your audience a disservice by insinuating that "anti-Bush" and "liberal" are the same thing. They aren't.

Howard Kurtz: I insinuated nothing of the sort. There is no shortage of conservatives fed up with Bush on various issues, although most of them are not what I'd call anti-Bush.

_______________________

Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Good Afternoon Howard,

The Libby case is in the news again today (facts, not speculation!), and gives me a reason to post something that's been in the back of my mind for a while. When Scooter was indicted, punditry focused, for its usual span of concentration, on the reorganization of power in the VP's office. One person prominently mentioned as extremely influential, and possible top dog, was Cheney's wife, Lynn. Now I know that there is a high threshold of hypocrisy inside the Beltway, but did NO ONE in the Fourth Estate notice that Cheney's office was particularly ill suited to question the credibility of Joe Wilson, or anyone else, on the grounds of nepotism? If anyone, even Jon Stewart, picked up on it, I missed it.

Howard Kurtz: I'm afraid I'm a little dense on this one. The vice president's wife always plays some kind of public role, as did Tipper Gore, Marilyn Quayle, etc. How does that amount to nepotism?

_______________________

Wilmington, N.C.: "Administration officials, for their part, say we make it sound worse than it (Iraq) is". Do you think they are correct?

When was the last time you saw an actual dead body in Iraq on TV? I only ask, because those pictures seem very rare.

Howard Kurtz: Television shies away from dead bodies in general, worried about offending viewers' sensibilities. But that doesn't mean that its reports, especially in the last year, haven't been heavily negative or heavily focused on the continued carnage in Iraq. And certainly there's been no shortage of video of the aftermath of suicide attacks, car bombs and the like.

_______________________

Carrboro, N.C.: A few weeks back the NY Times published a front page article speculating on the state of the Clinton's marriage and the effect it would have on Hillary Clinton's run for the Presidency. David Broder mentioned the piece in a column of his a few days later. Both the Times (through a column by their Public Editor) and Mr. Broder (on the radio) said that the reaction had been overwhelmingly negative yet both concluded that the story was important because "people" were concerned about it. Who are these people besides reporters for the Times and Post?

Howard Kurtz: I believe their argument -- which I'm not necessarily endorsing -- is that many Democrats are wondering what role Bill Clinton will play in his wife's candidacy (and, if she succeeds, administration), along with the general public fascination with the marriage that predates the Monica mess.

_______________________

Neb.: The President seems to have a legitimate concern that the Roman Catholic Majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts and Alito is about to strike down all State laws mandating marriage between a man and woman. The only way to protect against these activist judges is a constitutional Amendment. Right?

Howard Kurtz: There's a better chance that I will become a Supreme Court justice than that this court will strike down traditional marriage laws.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: The William Jefferson case is frequently (nearly invariably) portrayed by journalists as a counterpoint to Republican corruption that will hurt the Democrats' "culture of corruption" theme. But the fact of the matter is that of the federal and state-wide politicians and associates who have been found guilty or indicted, 95% are Republican (on the GOP side, you have the Kentucky Fletcher political corruption scandal, Ohio Coingate, Cunningham bribery, DeLay ARMPAC money laundering, Abramoff scandal, Plame investigation, the NH phone jamming scandal; on the Dem side you have Jefferson and maybe Mollohan).

Isn't the more important question what corruption really is out there, not who can do a good job of "painting" a picture of corruption?

Howard Kurtz: Factually speaking, there have been far more corruption investigations and allegations about Republicans in Congress than about Democrats. But I think it's fair to point out that having a Democratic congressman found with $90,000 in his freezer, after the FBI says it videotaped him accepting a cash-stuffed envelope, doesn't help the party make the case that corruption in Washington is exclusively a Republican phenomenon.

_______________________

Rotterdam, N.Y.: Howie,

Warren Buffett, one of the largest shareholders in The Washington Post Co., wrote an Op/Ed a few years back in strong opposition to the estate tax.

This week, the Senate is expected to repeal the estate tax.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post staff seems to have ignored the issue. The second wealthiest individual in the world, a man with a fair idea about how to make and save money, expressed strong, reasonable opposition to eliminating the estate tax. The WaPo staff refuses to address the issue, offering no more than the occasional sop column for purposes of behind coverage.

Are we to assume that The Post staff believes that it, as a collective, knows more about the estate tax and the ability to make money than Mr. Buffett?

Or, is The Post staff simply working in lockstep with its political allies on the Hill and along Pennsylvania Avenue?

Howard Kurtz: As a megabillionaire and smart investor, Warren Buffett (even if he were not on the Post board) is entitled to his opinion. And that's exactly where it belongs, on the opinion page.

The Post has devoted acres of newsprint to efforts to repeal the estate tax over the last five years. It had kind of faded from the news since the last attempt fell short, and if it comes back I have little doubt that the paper will cover it -- without consulting the oracle of Omaha.

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.