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."

The transcript follows.

The Right Man For Fox News (Post, Oct. 2)

____________________

Beverly, Mass.: I thought this headline in ABCNews.com was a bit over the top, considering the actual content of the Congressman's e-mails. Thoughts?

'Sick Sick Sick': Former Capitol Hill Page On Congressman's E-mail

A 16-year-old who had been a congressional page notified Capitol Hill staffers after he grew concerned about the appropriateness of an e-mail exchange he had with Florida Republican Mark Foley.

Howard Kurtz: If you read some of the IMs involving Foley, most of which are too graphic and raunchy to be published or broadcast, you wouldn't think the headline was overstated.

_______________________

Parkville, Md.: Howard, With regard to your story on Roger Ailes I've just got this to say:

I find it amusing that Ailes would complain about feeling "out of place" and uncomfortable at Le Cirque, in order to impress upon us just how much of an ordinary, non-elite kind of guy he is. Because, if that's so, then I have to ask myself: what's he doing at "Le Cirque" in the first place? And what exactly -is- "Le Cirque" and why, precisely, are the rest of us working stiffs in Middle America supposed to be familiar with the reference to "Le Cirque" without any further elaboration? Now, as best as I can figure it, "Le Cirque" is a really expensive, hoity-toity, restaurant or club or something where Ailes spends his free time, even though he feels out of place since, after all, he's a regular guy just like you and me, and not an out-of-touch elite liberal like Ted Kennedy, or like my next door neighbor, Susan, who's a high-school teacher and a liberal Democrat (there's a "War is not the Answer" sign right in her yard!!!) and who no doubt spends lots of time hobnobbing with fellow liberal elites at "Le Cirque."

Howard Kurtz: Le Cirque is a very hotshot Manhattan restaurant. I thought its name was reasonably well known, kind of like the Palm or 21 Club. I, as a non-elite, have never eaten there.

_______________________

Re: denials of the denials...: What is the purpose of asking the WH and Rice if it is true what is written in Woodward's book, "State of Denial" -- isn't it expected, almost guaranteed, that this administration will deny everything? And when they do, it seems so rare that the MSM follows up with questions that may refute their denials. In other words, if the WH/Rice says, no it didn't happen, what role should the MSM play in investigating those assertions?

Howard Kurtz: The point in asking them is that government officials have the right, just like anyone else, to dispute what's in a book. Woodward says he has reconstructed conversations based on background interviews with at least one of the participants, but it's hardly unusual for someone to later claim "I never said that" or to soften the description of what was said. Andy Card, for example, has confirmed he tried to get Don Rumsfeld fired but disputed the idea that he was on a "campaign" to do so. Since there is no transcript of what was said in private conversations, people can choose to believe Woodward's reporting, based on his track record, or what Bush administration officials are saying now.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Howard, as a long-time reporter on the media beat (15, 20 years now?), does it strike you as plausible when Daniel Okrent says he never, ever heard a complaint about Linda Greenhouse reporting from the Supreme Court for the Times? That the Times never received a conservative letter to the editor about her work? Or that the blogosphere, from Kaus to Althouse, has never criticized her work? It's just not a categorical statement that stands up, I don't think.

Howard Kurtz: I'm sure someone, somewhere, has criticized Greenhouse's work, but Dan Okrent has always been candid with me and I have no reason not to take him at his word.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Fox has tempered its conservatism? When the were reporting Ahmadinejad's speech at UNGA, the tagline said "Axis Pres Remarks at UN." (And yesterday the news was referring to a "homicide bomber" in Iraq, which I still don't get. Aren't ALL bombers "homicide bombers"? And isn't the point of the term "suicide bomber" to inform the reader/viewer of the tactical method?)

Howard Kurtz: Well, I pointed out some of the loaded headlines that the network uses. I don't think anyone can claim that those were fair and balanced.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Howard - Re: today's "Media Notes." Any objective observer could agree that Fox tilts right, with Hannity and O'Reilly as evidence. But I don't understand why Fox is castigated for that while MSNBC, which is farther left than Fox is right, is given a pass. Mathews screams and goes into tirades against anyone conservative and Olbermann is the most venomous administration-hater on TV. Why do you think MSNBC isn't labeled as a left wing mouthpiece. Is it because their ratings are poor or because the labelers see things through a left wing prism?

Howard Kurtz: You're making the mistake of judging the whole network by a couple of talk show hosts. Neither Fox nor MSNBC is as opinionated (to the right or the left) during the day, and regular news shows, as O'Reilly, Hannity, Olbermann and Matthews. They are commentators and are paid to sound off. It would be like judging The Post's news coverage based on the editorial and op-ed pages.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: What continues to drive me crazy about the media is the apparent lack of any long term memory. I just watched CNN's blurb on Woodward's book and they reported it in a vacuum -- that is, simply stating some points of controversy, noting that the White House is "hitting back," and leaving it at that.

I'm reading "Fiasco" right now. In the larger context of things, "State of Denial" is so absolutely believable it's beyond me how this is even controversial. But the MSM just continues with its point/counterpoint style of reporting everything. Never the bigger picture. Why can't they at least cross-reference things? In other words, fine, publish the White House's rebuttals, but at least note as you're doing so that nobody outside RNC leadership actually believes any of this stuff anymore, and why. Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: Well, television teases are short, so it's hard to deal with the nuances. But I agree that coverage has to be careful not to reduce everything to he said/she said. For example, the same White House that is now challenging parts of Woodward's book vouched for him as a great reporter on his two earlier books. Also, some of the administration's denials of specific points are less than categorical.

_______________________

New Hampshire: Howard, why is everybody that is reporting on the Foley scandal asking if the Democrats are playing politics and linking it to the November elections? This was not generated by the Democrats and is a huge Republican cover up, in my honest opinion. Why is the MEDIA playing the politics card???

This is about the predation of kids and is a felony.

Howard Kurtz: I haven't seen much of that. I've seen journalists observe that the Foley mess, by exploding in the campaign's final month, could influence the election, but not blaming Democrats for their reaction. Many Republicans are appalled as well. The problem for the GOP is the earlier warnings to Dennis Hastert and John Boehner and the perfectly legitimate question of what the GOP leadership did about it.

_______________________

La-la Land: "It would be like judging The Post's news coverage based on the editorial and op-ed pages."

I got news for ya, Mr. Kurtz: that's what people do.

Based on a lot of the comments I see on these chats -- many many readers don't believe you when you say editorial doesn't influence news coverage.

Maybe not directly. But a lot of readers receive your reportage through the filter of your editorial pages. If a paper leans right or left -- readers read bias into the news coverage. That's my theory and too bad I'm not a PhD candidate in media studies 'cause I'd love to test it out.

Howard Kurtz: Well, that's frustrating, because it couldn't be further off base. Everyone is free to criticize The Post's news coverage, but it could not be more divorced from the editorial writers and columnists.

_______________________

Harrington Park, N.J.: Howard,

What do you think about the media's use of the word "terrorism"? I ask this because it seems as though they readily adopt the word "counter-terrorism" for all U.S. actions and adopt "terrorism" for all actions against the U.S. Shouldn't this word be used more carefully by journalists? If Israel bombs Lebanon, isn't that "terrorism" also? Does The Post have a working definition of "terrorism"?

Howard Kurtz: Terrorism is the deliberate killing of civilians, period. If the U.S. or Israel conducts bombing raids and tries to avoid killing civilians, but some die anyway, that is a fair subject for debate, but it is not terrorism. Sending rockets or car bombers or suicide bombers into crowded places is done for only one reason, to deliberately murder men, women and children who are not part of a country's armed forces.

_______________________

Cambridge, Mass.: Howard, you have a journalist reporting on a critical meeting between Rice and Tenet/Black, and you have Rice denying the meeting or at least its importance. Yet in all of the reporting of these observations and interpretations, no one in the press has reported on what Tenet or Black have to say about it all. Why not? Does The Post accept Woodward's book as its reporting, or do Tenet and Black refuse to go on record? For something so important, the amount of "reporting" seems disappointingly thin.

Howard Kurtz: I'm sure that Tenet and Black are perfectly capable of speaking out if they want to dispute any part of Woodward's account. We know that Woodward talked to Rice, and I assume he talked to George Tenet, but under the ground rules he is not identifying the sources for that particular incident.

_______________________

New York City: Howard, thanks for taking our questions.

Do you think that the media is going over-the-top on the Foley coverage? I do. Here's an interesting comparison. The Post (not to pick on your paper - it just has a nice search feature) has had stories on Page A1 for each of the last three days, together with stories on pages A7, B2, A4, B6, A4, B4, and C6. Remember Rep. Mel Reynolds? He was convicted of statutory rape, of a worker on his campaign, twelve years ago. In that case, The Post had a total of THREE stories the week the scandal broke - and they played on pages A5, A3, and A4. None were on the front page.

What are the differences in the cases? Reynolds actually had sex with an underage person, while Foley did not have sex with any of them nor were any actually underage under DC law. Also, Reynolds was charged with child pornography and witness tampering, while there's no evidence that Foley committed any crime yet. Oh, and Reynolds was a Democrat, and Foley is a Republican.

Howard Kurtz: There's a huge difference, and it goes beyond the fact that Foley was hitting on members of the House page program, which brings young people to Washington and promises their families that they will be well cared for. And the difference is the warnings about Foley's questionable conduct that House leaders Dennis Hastert and John Boehner received, and the involvement of House GOP campaign chief Tom Reynolds. If Foley had just been caught sending sleazy IMs to a campaign staffer, or even having sex with a campaign starter, and no other member of Congress knew about it, I believe it would be a two-day story.

_______________________

Re: Foley: Howard, you mentioned that Hastert and others may have known -- I just read on ABCNews.com that as far back as 2001 people would warm pages to stay away from Foley. WOW! Maybe this is a bigger cover up than we think.

Do you think this, with sex and scandal all over it, will overshadow the recent important facts of the NIE, Abramoff scandal and Woodward's book? Can the media handle more than one story?

Howard Kurtz: Woodward and his book will get plenty of publicity, especially with all the high-profile TV interviews he is doing. But I certainly think the Foley scandal has already outstripped the NIE flap, not because it's more important but because it's more of a human drama, and has a mystery element with these questions of what House GOP leaders knew and when they knew it.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: You write "Le Cirque is a very hotshot Manhattan restaurant." You mean WAS. It closed last year.

Here's my questions:

(1) If the White House were to call a terror alert or announce that a major plot had been foiled this week, coming on the heels of the Woodward book and the Foley investigation, how much suspicion (if any) would that arouse among the media.

(2) No less an authority than Bob Woodward came very close to calling the president a liar with regard to Iraq. Is this a sea change in media attitude? Reporters and columnists have been loathe to call Bush a "liar" (though they used the term quite freely to describe Clinton).

Howard Kurtz: Some columnists and commentators have definitely called Bush a liar. That's not language that reporters would use, and Woodward still considers himself a reporter. But if you say Bush said X but the facts are Y, people can draw their old conclusions.

As for the terror alert, it would depend on how much substance was behind it -- how advanced the plot was, etc.

And I told you I never ate at Le Cirque.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: Hey, Baltimore -- I think MSNBC has a couple of conservatives hosting programs, Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, where is Fox's liberal host? Oh, and don't give me Colmes, he's simply Hannity's punching bag.

Howard Kurtz: I cannot name a liberal Fox host. Greta Van Susteren is certainly more sympathetic to the liberal side than, say, Sean Hannity, but she is not especially political and doesn't use her show as a soapbox in the same way.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: The ombudsman's column yesterday missed one of the reasons that the Post and other media had to continue printing stories about the macaca incident - the Allen campaign's ham-handed response. For days after the incident, they came with different excuses as to why he said what he did, each time the papers had to report on the new excuse and the underlying incident. Same thing with the Jewish heritage issue. If Allen didn't say his mom made great pork chops, there wouldn't have been anything to write about that day.

Howard Kurtz: Some politicians have a great talent for keeping an embarrassing story alive.

_______________________

Ocala, Fla.: Howie,

Why are Post reporters referred to as 'Staff Writers'? Why the title change?

Howard Kurtz: It's been that way for as long as I can remember, well before I got here.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: What is the journalistic rule when a politician gives you a quote, you put it in a story, then when the quote doesn't quite fit the story line the politician's political party has decided to pursue, he/she calls you up and asks to change the quote. Are you obliged to change it?

Howard Kurtz: Just the opposite. You're obligated NOT to change the quote. You can write, Senator Jones later called back to say such and such, if someone is trying to soften their remarks or claim a faulty recollection, but you can't deep-six the original comment.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Here's the answer concerning Rice and Tenet/Black: State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, responding on behalf of Rice, said Tenet and Black had never PUBLICLY expressed any frustration with her response.

Of course, they didn't do it publicly.

Howard Kurtz: Good point. You've learned how to parse official responses.

_______________________

Kettering, Ohio: Good afternoon Howard. Re the above comment about bias in reporting, I agree The Post is very good and certainly better than most in terms of bias in its reporting, which I believe is at least partially based in the fact that the big sandbox you play in is your literal backyard. It is difficult not to see bias in the NYT and LAT reporting, however, and perhaps in part it is because there is a certain distance from their centers and D.C. I would rather imagine it is easier to gripe to The Post in D.C. than it is to complain to NYC or LA.

Howard Kurtz: These days? With email and blogs? It takes about two seconds to gripe about anyone's reporting, even if they're halfway around the world.

_______________________

On La-la land's comment: It's regrettable that a lot of readers read news content through the op-ed page's filter. It's my impression that people who participate in these chats especially are well-educated types who should know better. I don't see why it is so hard to cleave the two as a reader. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but I think the Wall St. Journal's news reporting is the best (or, ahem--one of the best) in the country. Is fighting these constant accusations of bias just the stone you, as one of the major papers, have to push up the hill every day?

Howard Kurtz: It's life. And I can understand where the natural instinct would be to believe that an editorial page reflects some kind of newsroom culture that also affects the reporting. But the Wall Street Journal is daily proof that this is not the case.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Regardless of whether Linda Greenhouse's reporting showed her now-admitted biases or not, don't you think her credibility is now shot? Of course, the Times has previously let her off the hook before after she marched in an abortion-rights parade, so I guess it's not surprising they would let her off the hook. Just another in a long list of exhibits of how you can be a liberal in today's major metro newspapers (a list added to by Tom Edsall last month as well).

Howard Kurtz: That judgment is up to readers. She made what I considered to be some pretty opinionated remarks; she says they're just statements of fact; readers are free to pick apart her stories and decide whether they reflect any personal leanings. For what it's worth, I've never had anyone call me and complain about a Greenhouse piece.

_______________________

St. Petersburg Times: Hi Howard -- The St. Pete Times said today that it held off reporting the Foley story last fall because it felt it couldn't get enough sourcing on the piece. Even though the the accusations appear to be true, I admire the Times' restraint on this topic -- or at the very least, their attempt to be thorough. But they're getting hammered in some circles over this. What do you think of their call on the story?

Howard Kurtz: The editor told me that, with the benefit of hindsight, he wished the paper had been more aggressive in pursuing the matter. (The Miami Herald, I learn this morning, also had the email and also decided not to run anything.) I understand the dilemma of having an unnamed source and a troubling but still ambiguous email and whether that amounts to a story. ABC's Brian Ross dealt with it by writing about it online, and that opened the floodgates.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I caught a segment on your show this week that I think exemplifies the problem with the media being unable to distinguish between different levels and aspects of discourse. The piece was talking about anger in commentary and juxtaposed Keith Olbermann's special segments where he has been delivering commentary on political, constitutional and moral issues under the Bush administration with Nancy Grace's rants on salacious criminal legal cases. How are these comparable?

Howard Kurtz: How are they not in the same category? They're both talk show hosts sounding off on issues they feel strongly about.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Regarding the "over-the-top" questioner. The gold standard for media coverage of salacious scandals is l'affaire Lewinsky. I gave up reading the NY Times for an entire year because I wouldn't buy it if there was any reference to Lewinsky, Starr et al on the front page. It permanently reduced my interest in and respect for the Times. I assume this one, given its salaciousness, will be played to the hilt, but tough. Sharks are sharks. If you cheer when they're devouring someone else, you can't complain when they pursue your wounded comrades, can you?

Howard Kurtz: Live by the sex scandal, die by the sex scandal. But you know, it was kind of hard to keep Lewinsky and Starr off the front page that year when the sordid little matter, fairly or not, led to a president's impeachment for only the second time in our history.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: So I read the 9 pages of IM transcripts on ABC's Web site that the former page apparently hung onto as some sort of trophy I suppose. It sure doesn't seem like the kid was uncomfortable with the direction of the chat. Nor does it appear that he stopped it or told anyone else about it except for some other former pages. 16 and 17 year olds are pretty sophisticated these days. It's not like Foley was going after little kids here. I think the fact that he was hitting on male pages or former pages is part of why this has blown up so big. It seems that people who are in the closet for so long have a sort of arrested development that keeps them in a high school mentality. Look at all of the closeted priests who go after teenage boys.

Howard Kurtz: The onus is not on the teenage boys. The question is whether that's acceptable behavior for a member of Congress in interacting with either current or former House pages. And if Mark Foley had sex with any of these teenagers, that would be illegal, not to mention a horrible abuse of power.

_______________________

Oxford, Ohio: Re the Foley matter. How does this differ from Barney Frank's escapades from a few years ago?

Howard Kurtz: Barney Frank got in trouble over a male companion who was running a prostitution service out of Frank's apartment. But this was a grown man who had no connection to the House of Representatives.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Not to defend the extra-creepy actions of the ex-Congressman, but in DC the consenting age for certain activities that he was interested in is 16.

Foley certainly was wrong ethically, should have been stopped, shame on the leadership for not taking action sooner. But it probably isn't fair to call it, as some have suggested, pedophilia.

Howard Kurtz: Some of the kids were not in D.C. at the time. One of the 16-year-olds was in Louisiana. But that is, in my view, a technicality. Foley's conduct was so indefensible that he immediately resigned.

_______________________

Farmington Hills, Mich.: One thing that was particularly shocking to me was that Foley served on the House Caucus for Abused and Exploited children. He continued to serve even after a page made a request to essentially leave him alone. I would think that if the House leadership should have at least asked him to step down from this post when they learned that their "might" be inappropriate behavior. This has been mentioned in articles I've read but I don't think its been emphasized enough. Don't you feel that at the very least the House leadership was "negligent" in determining who should serve on this caucus. I also believe if the pages picked up on his creepy behavior the adults around Foley had some idea as well.

By the way, I great show yesterday on CNN.

Howard Kurtz: Thanks. I don't know whether the House leadership was negligent or not. I do know there are a whole host of unanswered questions about what they knew and why they took no action, and so far they have not fully answered them, or answered them with conflicting accounts.

_______________________

Helena, Mont.: I enjoy these conversations, and follow them regularly. I have noticed that the vast majority of questions that reflect a particular political point of view come from the left. It seems to indicate that the Left sees The Post as one of their forums, but the Right does not. Is that a concern to the people who run The Post?

Howard Kurtz: I get a sizable number of conservatives in these chats as well. Anyone can log on and ask a question, but obviously we have no control over who chooses to do so.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: A lot of people are denying (to various degrees) different parts of Woodward's book.

My question: To what degree, after allegations are made by a respected reporter in a high-profile book, are we likely to get strong confirmation about whether certain things are or are not correct?

As a concrete example, are we likely to get clear, unambiguous confirmation that Rice was (or wasn't) warned about an impending terrorist attack in mid-2001?

Or will it always be one person's word against another's?

Howard Kurtz: Well, I think books like those by Woodward, Ricks, Gordon and Trainor, Isikoff and Corn, and others are helping to unravel some of what happened behind the scenes. Inevitably, some of the officials will write their own books; Tenet is already working on one. History can move slowly on such matters.

_______________________

Leesburg, Va.: I'm curious - has there been any reaction or statement by the conservative "family values" group about Foley and the finger-pointing among the Republican leadership over who knew and how long they've known? I haven't seen or read anything by Dobbs or Focus on the Family or other such groups yet - have you?

Howard Kurtz: I have not.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: Wouldn't it be more accurate to say he "immediately resigned" after the lid was finally going to be blown off the story, despite the best efforts of the House leadership...

Howard Kurtz: Whether the House leadership was passive, negligent or actively tried to keep this from getting out remains to be seen. One thing, though, is clear: in political terms, it doesn't look good.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Wrong! The age of consent in D.C. is 16. The GOP passed a bill making it illegal to solicit sex from minors if they are under 18. In other words, the internet chat could be illegal. The actual sex act would not have been!

Howard Kurtz: Weird.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Bob Woodward stated on the "Today" Show that it was important to him and the publisher that his new book be published prior to the election. Since the book seriously damages the administration, doesn't the timing "importance" call into serious question Woodward's objectivity and maybe even veracity?

Howard Kurtz: Not in my view. Woodward is a guy who had no problem writing a book (about the Afghan war) that was largely favorable to Bush, or one about the planning for the Iraq war (that was more mixed) which was published during the 2004 campaign. Publishers love to get books out during a campaign, when interest in politics is high.

_______________________

Lexington Park: Le Cirque reopened about a month ago in NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg's immense new headquarters skyscraper. In one of its pervious incarnations, Le Cirque was the favorite dining spot of Richard Nixon. The current King of Spain is another favorite client.

Howard Kurtz: What a relief!

_______________________

Albuquerque, N.M.: Hope this isn't too late, but WHY did you spend time on Terrell Owens yesterday? This man is manipulating the press with his antics, has been for years. It seems the best thing that could happen is no reporter citing any activity except his stats.

Howard Kurtz: Because manipulating the press is part of what I cover (though it seems unfair to blame him for this particular incident). And the T.O. "Did he attempt suicide?" drumbeat pounded all day on television that day, including on the network newscasts.

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.