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, Sept. 18, at noon ET to discuss the press and his latest columns.

Loneliness, Lies and Videotape , ( Post, Sept. 18, 2006 )

The transcript follows.

____________________

Mount Vernon, Wash.: Some media outlets, particularly the Boston Globe and the public radio show This American Life, have asked whether some of the people held at Guantanamo are innocent, and they've made convincing cases that the government either knows or could easily prove that the people we're holding were framed or picked up by mistake. Yet even in the current debate over military tribunals, the media with the ability to influence the debate on Capitol Hill, including the Post, have not focused on that question. Certainly the question of detainee treatment is important, but why have the top-tier media not put any emphasis on the question of whether these people are guilty in the first place?

Howard Kurtz: I think it's absolutely a question worth asking, especially since some detainees have been released after lengthy periods with no charges brought against them. I also think it's a hard question to answer because the administration's veil of secrecy means that we know very little about their cases.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Hi, Howie,

Unfortunately, I cannot participate in these chats live anymore, as my computer (at work!) now blocks the Post Web site. But I am hoping you will take my question anyway.

I'm a little puzzled why the media keeps saying and allowing Republicans to say that "Democrats don't have a plan" for Iraq. I have heard a number of Dems speak, on talk shows, C-Span, Imus in the Morning and they do, in fact, articulate plans. Some are more detailed than others, Joe Biden in particular has been very detailed. John Murtha, John Kerry and Chris Dodd have all articulated some type of plan. Yet, every day, there's the media, falling into the same trap that got us into Iraq in the first place, by repeating-repeating-repeating the Republican Machine's Talking Points. When, if ever, do you think the media will wake up and quit being used as a bullhorn for this administration?

Howard Kurtz: Well, it's certainly true that there is no unified Democratic Party position on Iraq. It's also true that while some Democrats have offered a detailed critique of the situation, others have limited themselves to bashing the Bush administration's handling of the war. And indeed, some Democratic strategists say their candidates should avoid rolling out a plan that the other side can shoot at and keep the onus on Bush, and by extension the Republicans, to defend an unpopular war.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I wonder why I've not seen any Post coverage of the disclosure, courtesy of Senator Boxer, that former FCC chairman Powell scuttled a staff study indicating that non-chain licensees were more dedicated to local news coverage. This seems to tie in with other administration efforts to manage or suppress empirical data that is ideologically convenient, and may warrant referral to DoJ or the agency's inspector general. It doesn't look good when a major owner like The Post ignores these items.

Howard Kurtz: We dropped the ball, no question about it. Especially when you consider there have been allegations that other federal agencies have suppressed or shaped findings to fit the political climate. I meant to get this into my blog today but it got squeezed out.

_______________________

Frederick, Md.: That was an interesting item on Libby and Matthews-- and it suggests an effective PR strategy for anyone in Washington: Just make sure you always have a couple of spokesmen with "Jewish-sounding names," and then you can accuse anyone who criticizes them by name of "sounding like an anti-Semite."

Howard Kurtz: I hope things haven't come to that.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Good morning.

Why does The Washington Post consider Michael Gerson, someone who has spent the last five years actively manipulating (and essentially lying to) the public on Iraq and other matters to potentially catastrophic effect, to be a valuable and worthy addition to the newspaper? Thanks for answering my question.

Howard Kurtz: "Manipulating" and "lying" are your characterizations, obviously, and I'm betting you aren't a big Bush fan. When I interviewed him last week about the unusual move of hiring a key White House figure for the op-ed page, Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt described Gerson as having "a really interesting mind" and being "a different kind of conservative from the other conservatives on our page. . . . He's been part of this White House, but I expect he will be an independent voice."

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Mr. Kurtz:

I am not a Nancy Grace viewer, but after reading your column this morning, I checked out the video of her "interview" with Melinda Duckett.

Good grief. A shameful piece of grandstanding and self-importance.

I wish some of these talk show hosts would forgo the table-banging, down-shouting theatrics.

The last thing this world needs is a female version of the late Morton Downey Jr.

Howard Kurtz: Nancy Grace is prosecutorial and aggressive; that's what she does. It is hard for me to believe that Headline News ran that interview with the mother of a missing 2-year-old AFTER learning that the woman had committed suicide, on the day following the taping.

_______________________

Nashville, Tenn.: What do you make of the fact that not a single article on the E. coli outbreak in spinach has mentioned the statement made by former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare upon leaving office, "I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do."? I know your are an easy grader on the media leaving out context, but please.

Howard Kurtz: Um...because there's no indication that this was related to a terrorist attack?

_______________________

Manassas Park, Va.: Why are we so giddy about Katie Couric -- she is no Walter Cronkite? While sitting on top of the desk is supposed to make her seem so friendly. NOT -- it looked like she was ready to fall over. Her little sign off sweepstakes fell flat. This CBS up tick will decline quickly, IF it is hasn't already. Charlie and Brian will have nothing to haunt them this Halloween.

Howard Kurtz: I think there's a great debate to be had here over CBS's new approach to the evening news versus the more traditional approach of NBC and ABC. But I'm going to keep focusing on the journalism rather than get sidetracked by Couric's wardrobe, hair, sitting on the desk and so on. There are plenty of other places to go if you just want cattiness. At least the latest photos of her are real and not digitally slimmed down.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Thanks for doing these chats!

If what you wrote for this morning's paper is true, how petty and mean spirited can some people really be?!?!

Howard Kurtz: Whaddya mean IF it was true? I specialize in non-fiction!

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: How big a story is the piece this weekend in The Post about how critical positions in Iraq were handed out on the basis of political connections? It really seems awfully damning to me. Will it get much play? How would the Bush administration respond to this if asked? Could they just say "how come we never hear the good news about handing out key positions to cronies"?

Howard Kurtz: That front-page story, by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, is based on his new book and already generating a lot of buzz online. I suspect it will fuel the already fiery debate over Iraq and how it turned into such a mess.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: The two nights I tuned in to watch Katie Couric, there was an interview with Bush one night, and a opinion speech by Rush Limbaugh the other. I've tuned out already. I'm sure (I hope) there was some balance on other nights, but Rush? Why such a controversial figure when you know you are going to have a huge audience and this is your chance to "reel them in" so to speak.

Howard Kurtz: It's okay to have "controversial" liberal figures but not Rush Limbaugh? The only question I would raise is whether it makes sense for this segment to offer air time to those who already have a forum -- not just Rush but Giuliani and others -- as opposed to people who are not household names.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: Any comments personally and/or related to the media reportage on Jonathan Turley's remarks to Keith Olbermann last Friday (9/15/06) that the current President Bush has likely committed felonies in regards to the NSA wiretapping program and now more recently with the alleged torture of suspects who were held in secret CIA prisons? Turley stated that is what he believed was a driving force behind Bush's effort to re-write parts of the Geneva convention, so that his authorized practices of torture would then not be deemed illegal (though I'm not sure how this would actually play our legally in terms of ex post facto). Comments?

Howard Kurtz: My comment is that there are a lot of lawyers who go on television, and some believe that what Bush did was illegal, and some believe that it was not. (Just like every other subject under the sun on which ex-prosecutors and defense lawyers routinely spar.) So I'm not sure why Turley's view deserves more weight than those of other smart lawyers.

_______________________

British Columbia, Canada: Good morning and thanks for taking my question. With all the coverage of huge divide in the GOP concerning the detainees' rights, article three, etc., do you think it was a wise move on the part of Tony Snow to answer the press briefing question "are you saying Powell is confused?" and he affirmed, yes he thinks Powell and others are confused. I thought that after the President admitting to secret prisons,etc... that there would be more of an aura of realism in the administration. But a civilian administration with little or no vets, calling military heavy weights like Powell, McCain, and Warner confused over an issue like this, only serves to make it look as stubborn and tunnel visioned and arrogant as ever. Once again this administration is calling on the military to make all the sacrifices, including their own morals. Meanwhile no tax increase, no conservation, no sacrifices by John Q. Public. This CiC will definitely be losing votes for his party from the largely Rep. military with this kind of attitude.

Howard Kurtz: I'll let the public judge whether it was a wise move. It's a common rhetorical device, by politicians and spokesmen alike, to respond to a critic by saying he must not understand the issue, or surely if he took the time to study the matter he would realize, etc. etc. It's a way of being dismissive without having to directly say, "That idiot doesn't know what he's talking about."

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: I think people like Tim Russert should stop asking people if Iraq was a mistake. Of course it was a mistake. But getting a GOP public official running for office to say that is like saying "Oh, that thing where we destroyed a country that didn't attack us? Oh yea, that was a mistake."

Howard Kurtz: I think it's still worth asking the question. It's only the country's most important foreign policy issue. If people try to duck or finesse it, viewers are smart enough to figure that out.

_______________________

New Hampshire: Hi Howard!

Did you see Bob Novak on CSPAN last week? He was clearly more mean-spirited than usual with his comments that David Corn was an "ideologue" and a "nasty piece of work".

How is it possible that people can even take this "journalist" seriously anymore?

Howard Kurtz: I played that clip yesterday on Reliable Sources, where Corn was a guest. Here's how it went:

ROBERT NOVAK, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Mr. Corn is a nasty piece of work, let me tell you that. And he was the one who really built the story up.

Here's (INAUDIBLE), what I think is a deliciously ironic situation, because he was one of the people much more, I believe, than Chris Matthews, for building the story up at the -- at the outset. As I said, he was advising Joe Wilson, which he never puts in his -- in his column.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Go ahead.

CORN: Well, that's not true. I was never advising Joe Wilson. In that same interview he called me a left wing ideologue.

Being called an ideologue by Bob Novak is like being called a cheat by Jack Abramoff. I mean, he's the last one to talk.

And I think he's mad, because this past week I pointed out that three years ago he wrote a column saying the leak was an "offhand revelation." This week he wrote a column saying it was a deliberate act.

So Bob Novak has an argument with Bob Novak.

_______________________

Was Bush's 9/11 speech political?: As they say in grade school, duh. Didn't the TV networks have the common sense to know that's what they would get? How many times has he asked for national air time and given obviously political speeches? Why don't networks ask for advance copies of the speech, and refuse to run it if they don't get it, or if they judge it as too obviously political?

Howard Kurtz: I suspect the networks simply didn't want to be in the position of denying the president air time on the fifth anniversary of 9/11. But the tenor of the questions by some network reporters at the Tony Snow briefing the next day indicates that they feel they were misled by the White House.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: With all due respect, Mr. Kurtz, your answer "my comment is that there are a lot of lawyers who go on television, and some believe that what Bush did was illegal, and some believe that it was not" smacks of reducing absolutely every issue to "he said/she said." Do you think at times that your focus on media issues (which you do a great job) blinds you to the existence of an objective, verifiable reality? If Bush said the earth was flat, and Democrats said it was round, would you simply write that some experts say it is not round, because it is an olbate spheroid, not a perfect sphere?

Howard Kurtz: I specialize in pointing out when politicians are not telling the truth and when the media are not calling them on it. But whether Bush's domestic eavesdropping program violates the law is not an "objective, verifiable reality." It is a matter of legal dispute. Some lawyers say yes; some say no; one judge has ruled that it violates the constitution; no prosecutor has yet brought a case. I think the legal, ethical and political aspects of this should all be debated. But the fact that Jonathan Turley thinks the program is illegal doesn't necessarily make it so.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I don't know if you saw "Today" this morning, but this upsets me. When Laura Bush comes on, she does get some typical First Lady softballs, but she also gets grilled on how her husband's running a "Fear Factor" presidency, according to Hillary Clinton. But when Hillary Clinton goes on the same programs, she gets 100 percent softballs, and no one brings up critical stuff, like last week, she didn't get "Path to 9/11" questions. Why does this happen? Hillary Clinton lays down conditions?

Howard Kurtz: Since Hillary Clinton is a United States senator, it seems to me she gets all kinds of difficult policy questions. I haven't seen (or read) any softball interviews with her lately.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: A little inquiry about your spots on Washington Post Radio? Are a bunch of you on every weekday? Do you feel that the station is taking off, from the buzz you hear?

Howard Kurtz: I don't know. I have been getting more feedback in recent weeks. I'm on every day at 8:05 a.m. and 4:05 p.m., and some other Post people appear with varying degrees of frequency. The first ratings book showed the station (1500 AM, 107.7 FM, as they remind us endlessly) to be in the middle of the pack, 20th out of 41 local stations if I recall correctly. I would describe it as a work in progress.

_______________________

Kingstowne, Va.: Now today comes Rajiv Chandasekaran's Bush-stinks-in-Iraq book, following up on Tom Ricks and his Bush-stinks-in-Iraq book. Isn't it clear to everyone that The Post reporters on the ground must come back and yell at the editorial writers who backed this war?

Howard Kurtz: Leaving aside your rather simplistic description of two very serious books -- Ricks, for example, focuses on blunders by the U.S. military -- we don't yell at editorial writers and they don't yell at us. They are in the opinion business and we are in the reporting business.

_______________________

Potomac, Md.: If I read your points about Katie Couric correctly, there is no real dramatic expectation for her, at CBS, is there?

Howard Kurtz: There are MAJOR expectations for her at CBS. The network has invested an awful lot of money in her and in relaunching the CBS Evening News.

_______________________

Newport Beach, Calif.: Howard -- it seems as if the Bush Administration keeps hitting on as many diversionary issues as possible to keep the spotlight off Iraq, and the media appears wiling to go along. Why do they let this happen?

Howard Kurtz: Well, the president has a huge megaphone. If he talks about terrorism every day for two weeks, it tends to get a lot of coverage. I have criticized the media for letting other subjects, such as immigration and lobbying reform, slip off the radar screen (the Post does have a front-page piece today, pegged to the Montana Senate race, on how most people OUT THERE don't care about the Abramoff scandal). Rajiv's piece on the botching of Iraqi reconstruction shows that good reporting is still being done on the war. But it is really striking how the White House, through presidential speeches and interviews, can really drive the agenda just about any time it wants.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: I didn't realize Tom Ricks was an editorial columnist. I thought he was a regular reporter.

Howard Kurtz: He IS a regular reporter, a Pentagon beat reporter. He also happens to have written a book on the war called "Fiasco" that hit No. 1 on the NYT best-seller list.

_______________________

Superior, Wis.: Good morning, sir. Too often, you get complaints from one party about the other.

Well, I am a Democrat and I would like to applaud heavily the actions of John Warner, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Colin Powell. They correctly argue that tampering with Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions could endanger our OWN troops. Why "fix" what has worked for 57 years?

If all Republicans were like Warner, McCain, Graham, and Powell, I'd cross party lines in a nanosecond!

Thank you for listening...

Howard Kurtz: Thank you for sharing.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I was out of the area, so I'm not sure if I missed any coverage or observations of the Bush/Lauer interview last week. But I did see a clip where Bush says to Matt Lauer something close to "Matt, I asked about your family before, these people want to -kill- your family". Um, this was pretty over the top, right?

Howard Kurtz: Well, it was certainly up close and personal. Here's the exchange:

Pres. BUSH: Matt, I'm not going to talk about techniques, and I'm not going to explain to the enemy what we're doing. All I'm telling you is that you've asked me whether or not we're doing things to protect the American people, and I want the American people to know we are doing so.

LAUER: At some point, Mr. President, if techniques--these alternate--alternative techniques you use...

Pres. BUSH: Matt, I'm not going talk about techniques.

LAUER: I'm not going to ask you to specifically say anything about them.

Pres. BUSH: OK.

LAUER: But if they are used, are you at all concerned that at some point, even if you get results, there's a blurring the lines of--between ourselves and the people we're trying to protect us against?

Pres. BUSH: Matt, I'm just telling you what this government has done is to take the steps necessary to protect you and your family. You asked me about your family, and you represent a lot of other people.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: Has President Bush made any public statement regarding the passing of Ann Richards? I would have expected something that included "worthy opponent" or "fellow Texan". Did I miss it?

Howard Kurtz: Yes, Bush paid tribute to the woman he unseated as Texas governor 12 years ago.

_______________________

Bristow, Va.: When will the ever-present rumors about Air America folding lead to reporting on the actual story, someone trying to nail it down?

Howard Kurtz: The latest report was on the Think Progress Web site, saying that Air America was on the verge of declaring bankruptcy. Air America flatly denies that. But clearly it is having financial difficulties. In fact, the New York Sun did some reporting and quoted Al Franken as saying he has not been getting paid because of the network's cash-flow problems.

_______________________

Milwaukee, Wis.: I was extremely impressed with the Post's coverage of Rajiv Chandrasekaran's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City." From a media perspective, however, I learned that Kate O'Beirne's husband, Jim, works at the Pentagon administering neocon loyalty tests as a prerequisite to work on the reconstruction of Iraq. No wonder it is such a disaster. How can Kate O'Beirne comment, as a journalist, on shows such as Hardball, without disclosing that her husband is so involved in the alleged rebuilding program?

Howard Kurtz: I don't know whether she has disclosed that or not. It certainly seems to be relevant if one is discussing Iraq.

_______________________

In dispute?: "whether Bush's domestic eavesdropping program violates the law is not an "objective, verifiable reality." It is a matter of legal dispute."

Howard, I love your column, but if you think you there is a legitimate dispute about the legality of a warrantless wire-tapping program, you have jumped the shark. This is not a close call. It is a text-book 4th Amendment violation, too easy to be a 1st year law exam question. Please tell me it's not true that in the interest of being PC you have just joined the "what global warming," "waterboarding is not torture" crowd.

Howard Kurtz: I am not taking a position on the legality. I am not a lawyer. I am obviously concerned, as a citizen, that this program was hidden from the American people until it was disclosed by the New York Times, and that only now is the president asking Congress for permission to do what he has secretly been doing all along. But that is not the same as saying there is a 100 percent, slam-dunk consensus that the program is flatly illegal.

_______________________

Point of Rocks, Md.: Any comment on how The Post -- ever-pushing the "macaca" story in almost every George Allen story, often on the front page, didn't put much prominence in Maryland candidate Ben Cardin dropping a racist/anti-Semitic blogger from his staff? Democratic race gaffes are buried in the B-section? Isn't that obvious bias in the last weeks of a campaign?

Howard Kurtz: The Post's story yesterday on a junior staffer for Senate candidate Ben Cardin being dropped for using racial and ethnic slurs in a blog ran on Page C-6. I think it was underplayed. Obviously, the actions of a junior staffer are not comparable to the actions of the candidate himself, when it is George Allen using a word (the infamous macaca) for an Indian-American, something for which the senator has repeatedly apologized. Allen also had the misfortune of having his slur captured on tape and posted on YouTube by the campaign of his Democratic opponent. So while the two stories are hardly comparable, the Cardin story deserved a little more exposure.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do you see Tony Snow still loving his job?

Howard Kurtz: He seems to me to be having a great time as he fences with reporters. It's like doing his talk show, except a lot more people are paying attention and the stakes are considerably higher.

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.