Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Columnist
Monday, November 13, 2006; 12:00 PM
Howard Kurtz has been The Washington Post's media reporter since 1990. He is also the host of CNN's "Reliable Sources" and the author of "Media Circus," "Hot Air," "Spin Cycle" and "The Fortune Tellers: Inside Wall Street's Game of Money, Media and Manipulation." Kurtz talks about the press and the stories of the day in "Media Backtalk."
The Democrats' Turn, ( Post, Nov. 13)
The transcript follows.
____________________
Selmer, Tenn.: I have waited until the election was over to ask your views on these chats themselves. I view them as one of the greatest changes in media in the last few years. They remind me of the days when I was young and in the business when we would sit down as a group (at a bar or elsewhere) and pick each other's brains. Do you and the other participants enjoy them as much as we at this end do? Do you look forward to them or dread them? How do you think they are affecting the relationship between reporter and reader? Thank you.
Howard Kurtz: Well, it is like sitting in a bar, except they don't let me have any alcohol. Something about it affecting my typing. Anyway, those of us who voluntarily sign up to do this definitely enjoy the chats.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Thanks for wondering out loud today about whether the media will have an extended honeymoon with the Democrats. But when the honeymoon ends, won't it be more on grounds of competence than on ideology? A simpatico media gets upset when the Dems can't score on Bush?
Howard Kurtz: Competence, yes. Ideology, no. If the Democrats manage to pass legislation, take clear stands and conduct oversight, they will generally win high marks. If there's a lot of division and finger-pointing, not so much. Whether they decide to challenge the White House on a whole range of things or engage in bipartisan cooperation on many issues won't affect the news coverage. It really comes down to this question: Can they govern?
_______________________
New York, N.Y.: So immediately following a historic Democratic victory, Tim Russert has on a Republican and an Independent but no Democrats. Immediately following a mass rejection of the war in Iraq, Russert has two staunchly pro-war politicians but none who are against it. It must be that liberal media bias again.
Howard Kurtz: But since Joe Lieberman has said he will vote with the Democrats, he is, despite the (I) after his name, essentially a Democrat.
_______________________
Manassas, Va.: On RS yesterday, you cited Miklaszewski saying that Rumsfeld liked to humiliate people. But people watching White House or Pentagon briefings on C-SPAN or cable news can obviously take away the opposite impression, that reporters are out to humiliate Rumsfeld or Tony Snow or whomever. When a cabinet official does it, it sounds undemocratic to the media. And when the media does it, it's just vigilant oversight. Can't the media see the log in their own eye on this battle?
Howard Kurtz: Well, I was just quoting NBC's Pentagon correspondent on Reliable Sources. He wasn't necessarily limiting his comment to Rummy's dealings with reporters. I agree with your point that journalists can be very aggressive at White House and Pentagon briefings, and since many of them are now television, folks can make up their minds about whether they go too far. And I don't have any problem with Rumsfeld or any other politician pushing back hard. Rumsfeld was simply so combative over so many years that it was worth pointing that out.
_______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.: Now that the Dems have a majority in the House and Senate do you think that the talking head shows will feature more Dems than Reps? That was always their excuse for using more Reps than Dems.
Howard Kurtz: I think they will definitely feature more Democrats than in past years. But the fact that administration officials are still the most sought-after guests could give the edge to the GOP.
_______________________
Re: Selmer TN: If I could add to the excellent message from Selmer, what benefits derive to the paper from doing the chats?
Howard Kurtz: Just the general sense that there's a dialogue going on here rather than the one-way communication that defined newspapers for so many years.
_______________________
San Mateo, Calif.: There is a rumor that Cheney will soon be replaced in order to take the fall for Bush. Possibilities include McCain or Giuliani, thus giving them a leg up in '08. What say you?
Howard Kurtz: I will be completely and totally shocked if Vice President Cheney doesn't serve out his term.
Then again, Bush did say he'd be staying on in the same interview in which he said Rumsfeld would serve two more years...
_______________________
Oklahoma City, Okla.: Style headline after 1994 GOP capture of House: "How the Gingrich Stole Christmas"
Style headline after 2006 GOP capture of House: "Nancy Pelosi: Pride of Baltimore"
Yep, sure glad the Post has no liberal bias . . .
Howard Kurtz: Okay, I admit it. We had a big meeting and decided that Nancy Pelosi must receive far softer treatment than Newt in the pages of The Washington Post.
Except that if you look back at that 1994 piece, it was not a big Style profile of Gingrich. It was...a column by Tony Kornheiser. This was when he was writing a humor column as opposed to being on Monday Night Football. Just to give you a sense of the joshing tone of the column:
Every single Republican ran against Clinton, regardless of how small or local the office: somebody running for zoning commissioner in Toledo could stand up and scream, "Clinton wears a bra!" and assure himself of a landslide...
(If this all seems a little anti-Republican, I have an excuse. The press is supposed to hate Republicans. It is our job. Wasn't it great watching the liberal media trying to cover this fantastic bloodbath as though they were completely objective? Subtle evidence of partisanship crept through, such as the lead headline in Wednesday's New York Times: "Oh, Poop. We're Toast.")
_______________________
Re-running news stories: Howard:
I've noticed that CNN has begun re-running stories (usually features) over a period of several days. Usually, that's a no-no in TV news, where a story has a 24-hour lifespan once it first airs. Given that many of these stories deal with current events, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, I feel it's a little deceptive to air these stories in this fashion. What's your thought?
Howard Kurtz: It's not deceptive at all because there's always a line on the screen that says "Paula Zahn Now" or "Larry King Live" or whatever show it was taken from. In other words, no viewer would think it was happening live. The general philosophy is that viewers surf in and out of cable, and so lots of people might have missed a big interview on one of the talk shows, and be interested in seeing it the following morning or afternoon. That may or may not be smart programming, but it's not misleading.
_______________________
Austin, Tex.: Conservative talk radio has been a help to the Republicans over the last several years, and the Democrats haven't really had anything comparable. (Air America isn't doing so well.)
But I have a feeling that a lot of people may be feeling less "ideological" and more interested in solutions. In particular, I wonder if a lot of Republicans wouldn't have preferred that Rush Limbaugh not go after Michael J. Fox.
My question: Do you think the influence of Rush et al. may have peaked?
Howard Kurtz: I don't know. I don't think Limbaugh helped himself or his reputation with the way he went after Michael J. Fox. On the other hand, people have predicting Rush's demise for a long time, and he still seems to get the big ratings.
_______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.: So, Howard, you admit that the media skews to the right when it comes to political guests?
Howard Kurtz: No, I'm not saying that at all. We happen to be living under a Republican administration. When Bill Clinton was president, the talk shows tried just as hard to get Podesta and Albright and Cohen and other high-level administration officials.
_______________________
Santa Fe, N.M.: Rush Limbaugh will remain popular for the same reason Larry King remains popular: people know exactly what to expect from them. Whether it's vapid or vicious, the familiar is comforting.
Howard Kurtz: Not sure I buy the comparison. Limbaugh is very ideological, King is anything but. With Larry, you watch because of the guests. Rush doesn't have guests (except Bush and Cheney on occasion), so if you're a fan, you listen because of him.
_______________________
Milwaukee, Wis.: Mr. Kurtz, per others, I really do enjoy you and other Post reporters making themselves available for these chats. Jim Baker's Iraq Study Group is desperately short on Middle Eastern Foreign Policy experts: Lee Hamilton, Vernon Jordan, Jr.,Leon Panetta, William Perry, Chuck Robb, James Baker III, Sandra Day O'Connor, Robert Gates Lawrence Eagleburger, Edwin Meese III, Alan Simpson. The "deer in the headlights" is that the Shiites and the Sunni's won't negotiate. There are a host of other equally serious issues, Lebanon, the Kurds, and the Palestinians, for example that 150,000 U.S. troops (or double that number)attempting to police a country of 25 million are not going to solve. Iraq is "gone" as a functioning state, the only question is whether the rest of the Middle East follows.
Howard Kurtz: Not sure if there was a question in there, but like a lot of blue-ribbon commission, there's a heavy concentration of ex-pols and high-profile heavyweights. Was Tom Kean or Lee Hamilton an expert on terrorism before being named to the 9/11 commission? The detailed investigative work tends to be done by the staff.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: I have no problem with Tim Russert having anyone he or his staff thinks is appropriate without the need to have one person from every point of view as a participant.
You don't have to have a representative from each party or point of view any more than you need a pro-Nazi on the panel when you discuss the Holocaust or a representative of the NRA when discussing gun control after a policeman is shot or there's a school shooting. The show is a news show, not an equal opportunity debate.
Howard Kurtz: Well, I think over time it's important for programs such as Meet the Press to have on politicians who are opposed to the war as well as Iraq war supporters. But critics make a mistake when they focus on one single show and say, Aha! They had one from Column A but not from Column B.
_______________________
More about that Selmer, Tenn. comment: Oh, I'd add another benefit to these chats...increasing The Post's span as a -national- newspaper rather a good local paper...I live in Atlanta and there's no way I'd check The Post on a daily basis if it weren't for the chats. Now I have three sites- the Times, CNN, MSNBC, Post.
Howard Kurtz: Well, if it helps drive traffic to our site, that's a definite fringe benefit. The Web has been incredibly valuable for a newspaper whose paper product is basically available only in D.C., Maryland and Virginia. So I'll keep chatting away if it helps draw people to my work here and that of my colleagues.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: re. "liberal" Russert:
Tim Russert said on Meet the Press yesterday that both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were invited to appear on the show, and both declined.
Howard Kurtz: Bingo. I see that Harry Reid was on Face the Nation, so I suspect he'll be turning up on Meet the Press soon. When you book someone like that, you try to get the exclusive for that morning. So while Russert was undoubtedly happy to have McCain and Lieberman, I'm sure Bob Schieffer felt it was a coup to get the incoming Senate majority leader.
_______________________
Oxford, Miss.: Two reasons Bush will keep Cheney:
1. He'd have to get a replacement approved by Congress
2. Cheney is the best impeachment insurance around
Howard Kurtz: He also may feel Cheney's doing a good job. Maybe not a heckuva job, but a good job.
_______________________
Seattle, Wash.: Why has the media written off Bush's lie about Rumsfeld? This doesn't make me think less of Bush, but it makes me think a lot less of the media.
Howard Kurtz: I wouldn't say it's been written off, but I was a little surprised that I was one of the few journalists last week to do a separate story on whether the president misled reporters by saying six days before the election that Rumsfeld would stay on until the end of his term. On Reliable Sources yesterday, ABC's Martha Raddatz said she felt misled by that answer and that it made her question the administration's veracity. One reason it got little attention, of course, is that it was overshadowed by the Democrats winning control of Congress.
_______________________
Bristow, Va.: On the Russert issue, a conservative can easily say and yes, a roundtable discussion with liberal columnist Maureen Dowd and Tony Snow-whuppin' David Gregory doesn't exactly say "right-wing media."
Why don't the liberals who don't like the booking agents actually WATCH these shows and show us where Russert is favoring the Republicans in his choice of questions?
Howard Kurtz: Well, that panel probably could have used a conservative.
_______________________
Stanford, Calif.: Why do you think the White House press corps - and the political/national press in general - is making less of a deal of President Bush's admitted lie about not replacing Donald Rumsfeld, something that may have had an effect on the election and certainly had a significant relationship to the war, and yet went into overdrive on Pres. Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" claim?
Howard Kurtz: Again, maybe it was drowned out by last week's political earthquake. But Bush's own explanation of it at Wednesday's news conference made clear that he had already been discussing a departure with Rumsfeld, even if he hadn't settled on a replacement, and that he simply didn't want to tip his hand to the wire-service reporters before the election. I was just surprised he didn't find a better way to finesse the question (declaring "full confidence" in Rumsfeld or some such formulation) rather than claiming he'd keep Rummy for two more years.
_______________________
Crofton, Md.: Not really a question, but a comment. I thought '60 Minutes' did a great job last night paying tribute to Ed Bradley. They showed a lot of aspects of his character - his professionalism, his humor, and his compassion. Boy, I sure wish there were more Ed Bradley's out there.
Howard Kurtz: It was a very touching program, made all the more remarkable by the fact that his friends at 60 Minutes had to crash it in three days while dealing with their own sadness over Bradley's passing.
_______________________
Burke, Va.: Value of the chats: It helps me understand what you news guys do a lot better - and respect you more.
Howard Kurtz: And these days we could certainly use more of that!
_______________________
Anonymous: Howard you wrote "... the televised pictures of growing casualties were hard to shake off"
This is also something the Pres has said over and over.
My question is what stations are you watching?
I rarely see the "carnage" as the President calls it. I saw much more coverage of carnage in Lebanon in one month than I've seen in Iraq all year.
Howard Kurtz: By carnage I mean scenes after a bombing, interviews with grieving Iraqis, interviews with soldiers whose units suffered casualties and the family members of those killed or wounded. I didn't mean the actual showing of dead bodies.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: Don't you think the story about Steele and Ehrlich (purposely trying to mislead voters that they were Democrats) should have been on the front page of the A section and not the Metro section?
Howard Kurtz: Maybe, but it was a follow up to a story we had already covered as opposed to being breaking news.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: Did you see Dan Abrams touting Keith Olbermann's show as a possible model for Newscast of the Future? Is he just trying to scare conservatives out of their wits? Or is MSNBC going to tilt more to the left now?
Howard Kurtz: I don't think Dan Abrams is saying they will be putting on more liberal shows -- not on a network where Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson are among the most prominent hosts. I think he's saying they want programs with edgy and opinionated hosts.
_______________________
Replacing Cheney?: Am I missing something? Cheney was elected to VP. He does not serve at the pleasure of the President like a cabinet official and, therefore, cannot be fired. I think he could be impeached under the Constitution but no one within the West Wing can force him out.
Howard Kurtz: He was elected, absolutely. But if Bush went to him and said, Dick, it's been real, but for the good of the country (or my presidency or the Republican Party) I think you should step down, I believe Cheney would probably do it. I put the odds for this scenario at zero percent.
_______________________
Gainesville, Va.: This is out of the outfield somewhere, but when can we expect the media to stop describing John Murtha as "hawkish"? When you're ascending up the charts of power by calling for rapid withdrawal of our armed forces from Iraq, doesn't that sound like a dove in flight? Can't a former Marine be dovish?
Howard Kurtz: I think the shorthand reference is that Murtha has a history of being strongly pro-military and hawkish BEFORE the Iraq war.
_______________________
Boston, Mass.: It's my belief that a combination of Keith Olbermann's commentaries, the efforts of the progressive blogs, and the influence of progressive talk radio (which while not so powerful in DC is doing well in a number of cities) motivated Democrats and independents to get out and vote for change. Yet not many media critics seem to think bloggers or liberal talkers or even Keith (my hero), had much impact. What's your take on this?
Howard Kurtz: I'm not sure why you say that. I've read a million stories about the netroots and the impact of liberal bloggers this year. (Many conservative bloggers were disillusioned, as some of them have written or said to me.) I think people like Olbermann and liberal radio hosts like Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz and Al Franken -- even though they're way outnumbered in their respective mediums -- helped fire up the base as well. None of that was as important as the Iraq war or the GOP corruption scandals, but in the midterms it's all about turnout, so advocates can play an important role.
_______________________
Kennett Square, Pa.: Howard,
Loved the column today, but your "Now the question is whether a press corps that has been openly at odds with the president will hold the newly empowered Democrats to the same tough standards" is still a little ambiguous. Shouldn't it have been: "Will the press corps also give the Democrats an almost free pass for six years of systematic lying, gross incompetence, and open irresponsibility." Wouldn't that be a more accurate way of describing your "same tough standard?". Thanks,
Howard Kurtz: You wouldn't happen to have strong views about the Bush administration, would you?
_______________________
Greenbelt Gal: I know you're being peppered with questions on the election results, but aren't you concerned about the huge wave of buyouts, layoffs and consolidations in the newspaper world (LA, Philadelphia, etc.)? I'm getting concerned that pretty soon, I won't have anything to read EXCEPT ideological blogs.
Howard Kurtz: Sure I'm concerned. I've written two columns about it in recent weeks. I know there's this grand debate about how newspapers need to change or die and maybe they don't need so many people, but when you start slashing newsroom staffs by as much as 30 percent -- and firing editors who refuse to go along -- you are cutting into the muscle of journalism.
_______________________
Kansas City, Mo.: Just wanted to also add a note of agreement on how much these chats are valued. Thank you and please pass along to your editors and colleagues. Do your journalists ever find a conversation thread in the chats that they develop into a story?
Howard Kurtz: Not sure about others, but I do.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: On the Sunday show, 2 bloggers discussed advocacy and work for hire as compared to promoting the cause. My question is, what is your opinion of a blogger who started out expressing opinion in support of Condi Rice in 2008 and then evolving into a FEC approved 527? Would you see this as a more proper and honestly ethical way to transit from just being a blogger into a more serious political action group?
On that same note, what is your viewpoint of Condi Rice maintaining the support of 20% of the national polls for the past 2 years?
Could she follow in the footsteps of Eisenhower and still keep her post in the State Department? Thanks.
Howard Kurtz: Condi seems pretty determined not to run. As for bloggers who wind up on political payrolls, I don't know all the legal ins and outs, but it raises questions for me about when and whether they are sacrificing their independence and just becoming a new class of high-tech spinners.
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.
