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, Aug. 14, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the press and his latest columns.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Arlington, Va.: Last week a questioner from San Francisco asked about the astonishing number of people polled who believed wrongly that there were WMDs in Iraq, noting: "I do find the poll results absolutely shocking and feel as though this story has been underplayed." You responded: "How do you "investigate" why people believe what they believe, other than by taking more polls?"

Perhaps the questioner was asking why newspapers don't do more background stories about how an administration (both parties long have done this) works to manipulate public opinion. I'm thinking of selective leaking of information; the use of spin doctors; organized letter writing campaigns and sometimes even the use of canned letters to the editor (on the Iraq war and other issues); the use of WH-distributed talking points by surrogates, etc. Most people sense that we live in an age where public policy isn't always handled through straight forward, factual answers that take on criticism head on. (It actually rarely has been handled that way, over the past few decades, but don't you think there are increasing avenues for manipulating opinion?) With one or two exceptions, there are few places within government where they can turn to to get the straight scoop. Except for those who study this, most people lack access to sources that explain the PR mechanisms and tactics, historically. I had the feeling the questioner was asking for more information on methods for manipulating public opinion. Do you see a role for journalists in providing this type of background information, perhaps in special, in-depth analytic articles? Or do you think a newspaper mostly should just present accounts of what partisans (in and out of office) say, leaving readers -- of varying levels of sophistication -- to figure out for themselves the methodologies being used to influence them?

Howard Kurtz: Having written a book called Spin Cycle, I'm totally in favor of journalists trying to pull back the curtain and explain how officials of any administration are spinning, shading and selectively leaking information. I believe there has been plenty of this sort of analysis in major newspapers and magazines, less so on television. After all, the Bush administration's effort to "control the message" has emerged as a significant theme in White House coverage.

_______________________

Cheyenne, Wyo.: In the reddest of red states - the small local paper publishes excerpts of national stories, with headlines that sometimes bear little resemblance to excerpted story content, let alone to the original national story. Common hot-button labels appear to be used carelessly at all levels of journalism, and this labeling seems to have a real impact where people have only minutes to process news from any source. It appears that you personally are also sometimes inexact, such as 'antiwar' rather than 'anti Iraq war.' Are WaPo stories not reviewed for this type of labeling prior to publishing, and what are you doing to eradicate misleading labels?

Howard Kurtz: I think that since Iraq is THE war right now, "antiwar" is an acceptable shorthand for people who are opposed to the U.S. involvement in Iraq. I don't believe reasonable readers would interpret that as meaning that someone is opposed to all wars. In a broader sense, I've become more careful about throwing around political labels and try to scrutinize the practice in the media as well.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: Two peeves about the news these days: Calling the violence in Iraq "sectarian violence" and not civil war. You know, just because our leaders don't believe there's a civil war doesn't mean there isn't one. I heard Condi reasoning it wasn't a civil war because there's a functioning government in Iraq. There are many civil wars that occur in nations with functioning governments, not that the news reporter sought to correct her. Reminds me of how the Clinton administration tried to parse words when it came to Rwanda - that although there were "acts of genocide" what was happening wasn't genocide. How many acts of sectarian violence constitute a civil war?

Also, what's with calling Muslims Islamists? Is it because the media and our leaders think Americans are too stupid to realize that those who practice Islam are called Muslims?

Howard Kurtz: More and more news accounts, including on the evening newscasts, are portraying Iraq as sliding toward civil war. The administration appeared to acknowledge the reality last week when Gen. John Abizaid said in Senate testimony that Iraq was moving in that direction. I don't know how the magical level of civil war is reached, but with an average of more than 100 Iraqis being killed each day, it certainly looks and feels like a civil war.

_______________________

Delmar, N.Y.: Can you remember if a Presidential Press Secretary ever made remarks similar to those made by Tony Snow last week, which criticized Democrats in Connecticut for choosing Ned Lamont over Joe Liberman? Mr. Snow made his comments in his opening remarks and before he took any questions on this topic. Wasn't this highly unusual and is this an appropriate role for the Press Secretary to take on? It was if Mr. Snow was still doing commentary for FOX.

Howard Kurtz: Snow's remarks were plenty sharp -- and I thought may have gone too far-- but other White House spokesmen of both parties have made lots of partisan comments during election seasons. Such remarks have often come when the press secretaries are asked how they would respond to some charge or criticism from political figures in the opposition. Besides, the White House didn't hire Tony Snow to head a polite debating society.

_______________________

Louisville, Ky.: Actually, I think you're mistaken. Many liberals support the military action in Afghanistan (which is still ongoing). We denounce the actions in Iraq. "Antiwar" in and of itself means opposed to war in general. That simply isn't a truthful adjective to use for many on the left side of politics.

Howard Kurtz: But I'm not disagreeing with that. Many liberals (and others) who supported the war in Afghanistan do not support the war in Iraq.

_______________________

Metro Washington, D.C.: The recent events - Israel's actions against Lebanon due to Hezbollah presence in Lebanon are whole hearted supported by the administration.

Our no. 1 enemies - al-Qaeda and Bin Laden are using Pakistan as their hiding and training grounds to carry out their terrorist acts. Shouldn't that justify US to take action against Pakistan just as Israel did against Lebanon?

Howard Kurtz: You seem to have forgotten that the Pakistani government has been a U.S. ally in the war on terror. In fact, it was Pakistani intelligence that helped British authorities last week break up the plot to blow up 10 airplanes flying from London to the U.S. Obviously there are still al-Qaeda operatives hiding in Pakistan, which the government there seems unable to root out.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: What is the status of the Wilson/Plame civil litigation? Is this something that will take a long time to play out?

Howard Kurtz: Since the suit was only filed a few weeks ago, I'd imagine it could drag on for quite some time with depositions and other pretrial maneuvering.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: This question sort of relates to the first question today...I read that Bush tried to divert $6M for finding new technology in order to detect liquid explosives during airport security checks. This isn't the first example of Bush and Co. going cheap on security or not securing at all (ports, terrorism acts are way up since 9/11). When will the press start questioning the meme that Bush is strong on national defense and security?

Howard Kurtz: Well, you said you "read" this. You probably read it somewhere in the mainstream media. I do think the press has raised some questions, but not enough, about potential terror in ports, rail and subway lines and the like. But I had read nothing about the use of liquid explosives until the British plot prompted the banning of drinks, toothpaste, etc. Like the government, it sometimes seems the press is fighting the last war when it comes to terrorism.

_______________________

St. Louis, Mo.: According to everyone we are in a War Against Terrorism. When you use antiwar instead of "against the war in Iraq," it allows partisans to question others patriotism, and offers the opportunity to use that descriptive in a negative light. I don't think we should be in Iraq, we should be using our intelligence and military personnel to go after the Taliban, Osama, sleeper cells, etc. Am I antiwar?

Howard Kurtz: I don't read it that way but will give the subject some thought.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: Howard,

Who told you that it was OK to take off a week from the column? I had no idea what to read on the Web site, I felt so lost.

Howard Kurtz: Sorry to upset you. You'll have to struggle a little longer without me.

_______________________

Rotterdam, N.Y.: Howie,

You wrote, "The White House did not hire Tony Snow to head a polite debating society." At what point did basic decency, civil discourse, and common courtesy exit the job description of the White House press boss? Or, for that matter, The Post media coverage wag?

Howard Kurtz: The question was, is it improper for the White House press secretary to make sharply partisan remarks from the podium, and I said there was a long history of that being the case.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I don't think the Republicans are doing anything unprecedented by backing Lieberman. Back in the '60s and early '70s, Republicans, and Nixon in particular, made no secret of their support for the Democratic senator from Washington State, Henry "Scoop" Jackson. But do you think the increasing partisanship makes it difficult for one party to support a member from another party, at least publicly?

Howard Kurtz: I think Joe Lieberman is the Bush White House's favorite Democrat, and that was part of his problem with his party. But such cross-party respect only goes so far. If there was a strong GOP candidate in Connecticut, as oppose to a guy polling only 6 percent, you can rest assured that the administration would be solidly behind that candidate and try to knock off both Lieberman and Lamont in November.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Is it really a ceasefire if violence is going to continue?

Howard Kurtz: Well, the supposed cease-fire is only 10 hours old and at least no bombs are dropping on either side. But I expect there to be a number of breaches over the next couple of weeks because Israel still has thousands of troops in southern Lebanon and it will take awhile for this international force to be assembled and dispatched to the area.

_______________________

Kingston, N.Y.: Howard,

I love to read these chats, but have never participated. Your response to Wyo. just now, "I think that since Iraq is THE war right now, "antiwar" is an acceptable shorthand for people who are opposed to ..." thoroughly mystifies me. The papers are filled with the Israeli-Lebonese-Palistine conflict, not to mention Afghanistan, that your reply seems a might cavelier. I do not find "anti-war" as a description, in these times, to be anything but spin and I am saddened to think you could be so blatant about it.

Howard Kurtz: What I meant was, in the context of American politics, Iraq is the war. I don't think I've used "antiwar" much myself, but perhaps our participants have a point that it implies views that go beyond the specifics of the Iraq conflict.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: So, CNN has a poll that shows over 60 percent of Americans want to withdraw from Iraq, either now or within a year. Then, Lamont wins, a terrorist plot is uncovered by the Brits, and all of the sudden the MSM "question" is "is the Lamont victory encouraging terrorists?" Even CNN Headline News' Chuck Roberts asked (with the useless preface "as some have said") "is Lamont the Al-Qaeda candidate?" apparently ignoring CNN's poll. His position is not radical, defeatist, leftist, unless 60 percent of the country is.

Howard Kurtz: I don't agree with what Chuck Roberts said (though he said "some" are calling Lamont the al-Qaeda candidate, I haven't seen anyone say that. What I HAVE seen is Dick Cheney saying that "al-Qaeda types" would welcome Lamont's victory. So with the exception of that Roberts remark, I don't see the MSM questioning at all whether Ned Lamont's win has implications for the war on terror. I do see a huge amount of media chatter about whether it will drive other Democrats to more forcefully oppose the war in Iraq.

_______________________

Buenos Aires, Argentina: When are your "Media Notes" coming back? I miss them .Thank you.

Howard Kurtz: I didn't know my empire extended to Argentina. Couple more weeks and I'll be back in action. Thanks.

_______________________

Dunn Loring, Va.: The president is reading Albert Camus on his summer vacation? Right--I'll be reading Proust at the beach myself. Last year, as I recall Mr. Bush was said to be reading three 500-page tomes. One was on the pandemic flu epidemic of 1918, another of the history of salt, and the last on the "last great Tsar." However, in Crawford, the president himself was asked what he was reading and he said "a little Elmore Leonard and then I'll take a nap." My question is: Is this White House flackery a long-standing tradition, should we believe it, and why bother to print this stuff at all, even if it only winds up in The Reliable Source?

Howard Kurtz: I'll get back to you when I finish reading war and peace.

_______________________

Anonymous: "What I HAVE seen is Dick Cheney saying that "al-Qaeda types" would welcome Lamont's victory."

I just wish someone would ask Dick how often he talks with Al Qaeda types about American politics.

Howard Kurtz: Maybe they have his email address.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: By regularly showing pictures of bombed houses and injured Lebanese civilians, but never photos of rockets being launched from civilian neighborhoods or weapons being stored in houses, hasn't the media become an ally of Hezbollah? Some reporters mentioned these actions in their stories, but no one ever showed them - and we all know a picture is worth ...

Howard Kurtz: Of course, the media have also regularly showed pictures of bombed houses and civilian victims in Israel. But Hezbollah has certainly managed to hide its rocket launchers from the press, and has very tightly controlled access by journalists, some of whom have gotten guided "tours" of bomb damaged areas that have allowed no opportunity for independent reporting.

_______________________

Seattle, Wash.: Is there a precedence for the RNC not to endorse a Republican candidate? Ken Mehlman was on the weekend talk shows and seems to want to "cut and run" on the Connecticut Republican candidate.

Also, Mehlman talked about "adjusting to win." Is this the new "catch all" phrase for the Republican campaign? Or should we anticipate be more of a Rove-style attack on Nancy Pelosi?

Howard Kurtz: I've never heard of the RNC not endorsing a Republican candidate, but of course if the committee isn't enthusiastic about someone, it doesn't provide much financial support.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Your thoughts on the doctored Reuters photo? I've looked online and it seems that this type of thing is fairly common. Is this not a very dangerous road for the MSM?

Howard Kurtz: An absolute journalistic felony, the equivalent of a fabricated news story. It's hard to imagine how, if Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs could quickly conclude the picture was a fake, this got by the Reuters photo editors.

_______________________

Port Jefferson, N.Y.: Howard, thanks for your work. What's your impression thus far on Lamont-Lieberman - i.e. the kind of coverage they're both getting, emerging strategies, etc.

Howard Kurtz: It's amazing to me how much coverage focused on Lieberman and how little on Lamont. Now that he's the Democratic nominee, I expect to see a lot more about him and his views on issues well beyond Iraq.

_______________________

Medford, N.J.: I frequently hear references in the MSM about the "left-wing blogosphere" and its various, negative earth-shattering implications for the history of the western world. I won't give specific examples here (but i.e. Jane Hamsher's Lieberman blackface), but why is it that the horrifyingly racist comments and rhetoric spewed by the "right-wing blogosphere" is rarely mentioned?

Howard Kurtz: I, for one, have written about liberal and conservative bloggers in equal measure. When conservatives are swarming against a target, such as Dan Rather over the National Guard story, or objecting to Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers, they get the spotlight. The way that liberal bloggers galvanized support behind Ned Lamont was a major factor in the Connecticut race. So the spotlight tends to shift depending on who is fully engaged.

_______________________

Adrian, Mich.: Glad to hear Media Notes soon will return. You have quite a large following out here in the Great Lakes State as well. Hope you're enjoying some quality time off.

Howard Kurtz: I hope the good folks at washingtonpost.com are paying attention so they will give the column REALLY BIG headlines.

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.