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."

Public Assurances, Private Doubts, ( Post, Dec. 11)

The transcript follows.

____________________

Burlington, Mass.: Howie, I enjoyed your interview with Tony Snow, and was particularly amused at the lengths to which Snow had to stretch his rhetoric to put a positive spin on the ISG report and discredit the report's press coverage.

This exchange was particularly good, which followed a long explanation from Snow of how the ISG really supports the president's position:

KURTZ: They also said the policy is not working.

SNOW: No, what they said is that you need a new policy.

Honestly, how do you keep a straight face after a response like that? Snow may as well have launched into a discussion about what the meaning of "is" is.

Howard Kurtz: Thanks. Tony kept quoting extensively from the Baker-Hamilton report to rebut the way the media have characterized the report. He stuck to that notion even when I noted that, for example, the New York Times and Chicago Tribune called the report a "rebuke" of administration policy and the Wall Street Journal a "searing critique."

I thought this exchange was particularly noteworthy:

KURTZ: Let me ask you about something else you said about Iraq. You said, "What I think is demoralizing is a constant effort to try to portray this as a losing mission.

Do you think that journalists deliberately portray Iraq as a losing effort?

SNOW: I don't know if it's deliberate or not, but there is a failure narrative that tends to run through a lot. And you, I'm sure, have talked to servicemen who come back and say, "Why don't they cover what I do? This is not what I see."

_______________________

Annapolis, Md.: Howard,

I enjoyed and was frustrated with your interview with Tony Snow. I thought you asked some great questions. I thought Snow did his typical obfuscating and deflecting of questions.

Were you frustrated by his answers as well? How would you propose that the press should react to non-answers? Right now, it seems as though a lot of media shoulder shrugging goes on without holding the administration's feet to the fire. In other word's any words from the administration will be reported rather than not reporting anything.

Howard Kurtz: Tony Snow is a spokesman for the president. His job is to put the best face on things for the administration. My job is to press him as aggressively as I can. I did get him to acknowledge that, despite his criticism, he thinks David Gregory tries to be fair, and to back off from arguing that Bush was not misleading reporters when he said a week before the election that Don Rumsfeld would be staying on until the end of his term. The great thing about a television interview (and the Reliable Sources video is on several Web sites today, including Huffington Post and National Review Online) is that people can watch and make up their own minds. Was Snow quoting selectively from the Baker report in disputing the notion that it sharply criticized administration policy, or was he pointing out important facts that the media have downplayed? I thought it was an illuminating interview that benefited from our devoting 16 minutes to it.

_______________________

Re: Leaks: When one newspaper (say, the New York Times) reports a leaked piece of information (say, the Hadley memo), how do other media sources factcheck so that they can go on to report that themselves? Do they simply use the original story as the sole source, or do they get confirmation from their own sources? Is there ever a case where journalists at other publications are unable to find any second source confirmation for leaked information reported by another news outlet?

Howard Kurtz: Well, in that case it's actually quite easy. You call up the White House and say, is this an authentic memo or not? And officials there say yes, it was real, and offer whatever explanation they want to offer. (Actually, it leaked during Bush's trip to Jordan, so White House correspondents had a chance to ask Tony Snow and Dan Bartlett directly). If the authenticity of a secret document remains in dispute, and only one newspaper has the document, you would obviously work your sources but it can be difficult to confirm.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Jon Stewart often gets a laugh by showing clips of several politicians or spokes-lackeys saying exactly the same words on the same day, or Bush saying the same phrase five times in the same press conference, giving a vivid illustration of what the talking points are. Why doesn't the MSM do this? I think Stewart's way, in addition to being funny, shows more clearly what's going on than the media does.

Howard Kurtz: I'm all for it. A few shows, like Keith Olbermann's, have picked up on the technique. It would be silly for us to try to be as funny as Stewart in the process, but videotape can be a powerful weapon in spotlighting the repeated use of talking points.

_______________________

Milwaukee, Wis.: Mr. Kurtz, thank you again for hosting these chats. In your opinion does the Washington Press Corps understand the realities on the ground in the Middle East? Do they for example understand that Osama bin Laden is Sunni and his al Qaeda is a Sunni supremacist group? Do they understand that Saudi Arabia for example is a predominantly Sunni kingdom, but with a Shia minority who works their oil fields? Do they understand that knowing that someone is Shia or Sunni is not enough, that it also matters whether they are Persian or Arab? Do they understand the historical tensions wrt the Kurds? Do they understand that all these groups have populations in the U.S.? It seems to me that neither the media nor the White House, nor Congress understand the basic forces that drive Middle East politics.

Howard Kurtz: I'm not sure the Washington press corps grasps all the nuances, but certainly the correspondent in Iraq, and those who specialize in foreign policy and national security here, are extremely well informed about the situation there. You may not agree with their coverage, but I don't believe they are writing out of ignorance.

_______________________

"Failure narrative": Would there have been any point to saying to Snow, "the reason for the 'failure narrative' is that anyone with a brain can see that we're losing Iraq"? Some things are so obvious that they can be stated as fact, and the media is often reluctant to do this. No wonder politicians think they can get away with lying. How obvious does it have to be before the media will call it what it is, and confront Snow when he snipes at reporters for recognizing the truth?

Howard Kurtz: My job as a journalist is not to debate him but to challenge him, and there are in fact people with brains who have different views of the situation in Iraq. What I did instead was point out that Bush's own Pentagon nominee, Robert Gates, says we're not winning, and that his own national security adviser, Steve Hadley, expressed little confidence in Maliki in that leaked memo. I also said that he would be asking these same questions if he were still a Fox talk show host as opposed to an administration spokesman.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: David Gregory may be trying to be fair, but that doesn't mean he is. The problem is that Gregory and many like him don't want their fairness questioned by anyone, even though they make their living questioning other people's motives day after day. There's an ego factor here that the WH and other critics of Gregory have correctly pointed out, and the fact that Gregory won't address it and the rest of the press is circling the wagons to stick up for one of their own just highlights the pandemic in the press of not wanting to be held accountable. I'm sorry, but there's a real problem when people who believe their vocational function is to hold the powerful accountable steadfastly refuse to be held accountable themselves with the power they wield. Not everyone in the press falls into this category, but many do, and the country has largely figured it out.

Howard Kurtz: I've interviewed David Gregory a number of times, profiled him in fact, and I don't think that's accurate. He is more than willing to talk about what he does and perceptions that the White House press corps is unfair. He apologized for going too far in one of his contentious exchanges with Scott McClellan. There's a big difference to objecting to being called "partisan" (for quoting from the Baker report and its co-chairmen in a way that Tony Snow found unacceptable) and refusing to publicly account for your journalistic work.

_______________________

Authorized leaks: I gather that the NYT and the Post are trying to do more to shed light on the motives of those who leak ("...would not talk for the record because they were not allowed to..." oh, okay...), but I have to assume that reporters always know when something is an authorized leak or not. How about a policy of always saying that it's an authorized leak when they know it is?

Howard Kurtz: But what exactly does that mean? How high on the food chain does a leak have to be approved to render it "authorized"? If Don Rumsfeld or his PR staff gives me his secret memo on options in Iraq, that would be authorized. If some other Pentagon source gives it to me, perhaps it's not authorized, unless, unbeknownst to me, Rumsfeld's team has asked the person to be a conduit in giving it to me.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Now that the Democrats are in power, can we expect the press to really, really back-off for fear of hurting or weakening Democrats? Howie, you work for and with the most biased people in the world. Surely, no self-respecting journalist would ever treat a Democrat like they treat Republicans! They'd get fired, wouldn't they, Howie. The world's worst-kept secret is how the U.S. media slants the news against conservatives.

Howard Kurtz: Tell that to Jim Wright and Tony Coelho, both of whom had to resign their House leadership positions after improprieties that were exposed by The Washington Post. Bill Clinton might also have a different view, since it was The Post that broke the news of the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Howard, what is the difference between a Fox News talk show host and an administration spokesman?

Howard Kurtz: I figured someone might say that. But while Snow has always been an out-of-the-closet conservative, most people think he did a pretty fair job as the moderator of "Fox News Sunday."

_______________________

Nashville, Tenn.: Hello Howard. I have to say I agree with a recent poster about the content of these chats. The poster, last week I think, complained that very few posts come in from the right of center. And frankly, liberal posts are MUCH more likely to be used. On a very regular basis, a comment is posted that Meet the Press has some sort of conservative agenda. The last time I saw this comment was on a week where the guests were Senators Lieberman and McCain. The round table that week was Tim Russert, David Gregory, and Maureen Dowd - from my point of view that's leans left, aggressive liberal and ultra liberal respectively. And the Post chat runs a comment the MTP has a conservative agenda. Seems like you guys bend over backwards to pick up posters from the left and far left. The ratio on the Media Backtalk chats is VERY un-balanced, in my opinion, and the Media generally HATES to be criticized from folks on the right. That's my two cents. Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: Well, I get criticized from both sides, which tells me I must be doing something right. Obviously I can't control who submits questions, but I always field a representative sample of what is submitted and tackle as many as I can get to in the hour. It seems to me we had a pretty caustic, I-hate-the-liberal-media conservative a couple of questions ago.

_______________________

For Arlington: Jeannie Moos from CNN did a great piece on the President's new catch phrase "The Way Forward". Even Tony Blair has picked it up, and Tony Snow said it multiple times during a press conf last week....

Howard Kurtz: Good point. Though I don't think it's all that catchy.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: British reporters:

In the wake of the Bush/Blair press conference, especially the BBC reporter who elicited from Bush the (I thought) incredibly snotty answer "Does that help?" when pressing Bush to say it's bad in Iraq. (All I could think of was the families of the dead thinking "No, it really doesn't...") Anyway, do you think as the Bush slam-dunked an uppity Brit (as the Limbaugh/Hannity axis says) or do you wish American reporters asked Bush harder questions that throw him off his canned talking points more?

Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: I didn't think the president's "Does that Help?" -- which I replayed on my show -- helped his cause. It sounded flip and dismissive, even in the face of a very caustic question from the BBC's political editor.

_______________________

Kansas City, Mo.: A minor thing but has Tony Snow, or any other administration official, explained why the administration uses the phrase "Democrat Party"? Why do they anyway? I think I saw Snow didn't use in your interview, probably figuring you'd ask about it, but does anyone else ask?

Howard Kurtz: I've said before I wish that the president and others in his administration would stop using that pejorative term (especially now that they're talking about bipartisan cooperation!). I don't know that I've heard Snow use it.

_______________________

Rolla, MO.: Regarding David Gregory -- As Dan Froomkin has pointed out, those of us on the Left get frustrated with him as well, because while he is a pit bull in the Briefing Room, his reports on the Nightly News include none of the ridiculousness of Tony Snow's answers. So, if he does have a bias, it doesn't show up in front of the mass audience.

Howard Kurtz: My take on that is that he tries to be fair, even in filing pointed reports. It's not his job as a journalist to make the left happy every night.

_______________________

Authorized leaks, again: I meant things that obviously come from the top. Like, that NYT article last week about Hillary talking to NY politicos about her plans. Her staff couldn't be quoted by name, but it appeared extremely unlikely that they'd have done it without her consent. How about, "In a leak that appeared to this reporter to have the blessing of the Senator..." Would that be going out too far on a limb? Or do we just have to figure it out for ourselves?

Howard Kurtz: Actually, my sense of that story -- and this is just one reader's speculation -- was that it came from pursuing the other New York pols like Charlie Rangel, not from Hillaryland. That's how a lot of reporting is done about the tight-lipped White House as well, by talking to friends and strategists who are in touch with the president's staff and may be a little more willing to share.

_______________________

Homewood, Ill.:"Well, I get criticized from both sides, which tells me I must be doing something right."

Not sure what the exact name of this logical fallacy is, but that's like saying if one person criticizes you for building a house too high, and another says you built it too short, that means you didn't build it too wide....

Howard Kurtz: I'll pick my own metaphor, thanks. I'd say it's more like the state of your weight when some people say you're too fat and others say you're anorexic.

_______________________

Conservative Chatters: The earlier questions about a liberal bias in the chat questions is missing the point. I have no doubt that the liberal comments far outnumber the conservative comments on Post chats, for a simple reason: most of us conservatives are at work, so we can pay the taxes to support the slackers and government employees (is that redundant) who frequent the chats.

Howard Kurtz: Ah, the old liberals-don't-have-real-jobs refrain.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.:"The Way Forward" sounds rather Mao-ish, no?

Howard Kurtz: Kind of like a Soviet five-year plan for wheat production.

_______________________

Madison, Wis.: You just wrote:

Tony Snow is a spokesman for the president. His job is to put the best face on things for the administration.

I should have thought his job is to communicate and clarify the administration's views. I know Snow approaches his job as essentially being a PR man, but is that really your view of what his job ought to be?

Howard Kurtz: I've been covering press secretaries (not just at the White House) for decades, and yes, they do have a dual responsibility to provide information to the public (which Snow mentioned in my interview). But they also are aggressive spinners (which is true in every administration). Tony Snow is on the president's payroll, and while it is important that he not mislead the press, he is obviously going to present the administration's best case on whatever is the subject at hand. Emphasize good news and try to deflect bad news. That might not be the way I would design the job, but that's the way it works in modern politics.

_______________________

For Nashville: I would tell the Nashville guy that if there aren't many right-wingers posting here, it's because they'd rather watch Fox News and read the Washington Times than read The Post. BTW, can reporters say that the Washington Times is a "conservative paper?" Or would they have to use some milder formulation, like "right-leaning?"

Howard Kurtz: I just say conservative, in part because Wes Pruden, the editor-in-chief, has told me in past interviews that he considers the Washington Times a conservative newspaper.

_______________________

David Gregory: As a conservative, I don't really see Gregory as a liberal pit bull--he's more of a preening "look-at-me" who lives for the notoriety, and I'd bet he'd be the same way with a Democrat president (hopefully, we'll never know).

By the way, you're by far the most balanced of The Post hosts (at least among those who deal with politics), and thanks for that.

Howard Kurtz: Thanks for that. And if a Democrat (much to your chagrin) wins the White House in 2008, I'll keep an eye on Mr. Gregory's performance. Keep in mind, though, that the Clinton White House thought its press corps was so hostile and unfair that there was practically a state of constant warfare, which I chronicled in my book "Spin Cycle."

_______________________

Jersey City, N.J.: Hi Howard

I wonder If I might take you just a bit off course from politics for a minute. For the past two weeks, Chris Matthews has been missing from his Hardball perch, yet there has been no mention as to the reason. Now I know that there have been web messages posted citing complications from diabetes as one reason, along with some other not so believable ones.

So my question is whether you can tell those of us who are Hardball fans what happened to Chris or, in the alternative, if there is a privacy issue, could you discuss the lack of ANY information from MSNBC on his absence? I mean, I'm sure it won't violate his privacy to have the substitute anchor say something like I'm ____________ sitting in for Chris Matthews, who's under the weather this week" or something, rather than absolutely nothing.

Howard Kurtz: The Post's gossip column had this update yesterday:

Chris Matthews is out of the hospital and ready to start interrupting people again. The "Hardball" host was sidelined by complications from diabetes, which caused him to miss more than a week behind the mike. As of press time he hadn't called back to let us know how he's doing.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Howard,

I've seen gushing stories done on politicians before, but the Obama stories really take the cake. The Sun story with the quote about Obama being the messiah? Come on! Any chance the Senator will be returning to Earth anytime soon?

Howard Kurtz: You mean he's not the messiah? I only know what I read in the papers.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: Are you aware of a growing call in the blogosphere to recognize voices who were right in opposing the invasion as a mistake in 2002/2003 in the discussion of how to get out now? I tend to give those voices (not including known pacifists) a little more credence as actually being "experts" if they correctly foretold what actually happened.

Howard Kurtz: Fair enough. The Post ran a Walter Pincus piece a week ago about the House Democrats who argued against the war in 2002 and 2003 because of the difficulty of winning the piece, and how little attention their views got -- including in The Post.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: You say your job, and all journalists job are not to debate, rather to challenge. I submit that the art of the "follow up" to a question that was obviously dodged or spun has been lost. There were several times when Snow was giving the talking points answer. There are many times that you, and other journalist just let horrible answers just hang there. There is a difference between follow up and debate. No one follows up, and if they do, pols just get mad.

Howard Kurtz: The entire interview consisted of my following up. What you have to decide is how often you're going to follow up when you've got a set amount of time and there are other important questions you want to get to. Snow and I went several rounds, for instance, on whether the Baker report did or did not criticize the administration. I happen to think viewers are smart and can recognize verbal dodges and talking-point answers as long as you press the guest sufficiently. When I said my role is not to "debate" the White House spokesman, I meant that I'm not coming in as either pro-administration or anti-administration, but as a journalist trying to get answers.

_______________________

Loudoun, Va.: Another one on Tony Snow (and any other administration's person in that position)...

Do you think he really believes what he says, or does he realize, internally, that a lot of the things he says are simply spin - and silly, empty spin at that - that many people see through?

I can't imagine how any of the administration press officers (Bush's, Clinton's, anyone's) can leave that room, look themselves in the mirror, and be proud. At a minimum, I'd be embarrassed to say some of the things they have to say with a straight face.

Are they "true believers" and believe what they say, or do they know it's just a job and they're spinning what they've been told?

Howard Kurtz: I can't read his mind. I did tell him at one point that he would be asking the same questions I was if he was still at Fox and interviewing an administration official. I also got at the notion that he now has to toe the line with this exchange:

KURTZ: Listen to this quote: "President Bush hates responding to the press, hates responding to political enemies. He thinks it's beneath him. He's got a stubborn streak."

Who said that?

SNOW: I don't know.

KURTZ: You did, last March on FOX News.

SNOW: Did I? Yes, OK.

_______________________

Grand Rapids, Minn.: Good morning, sir.

Many times, we heard pundits say that Howard Dean was "unfit to be President" because he had too much of a temper.

Yet, several times, we have witnessed President Bush lose his temper, the most recent expressed in a Post story when he barked at a reporter, "WE KNOW IT'S BAD IN IRAQ."

So, why aren't the pundits saying Bush is unfit to be President? Do they have a double standard?

Howard Kurtz: Temper is in the eye of the reporter, I suppose. Actually, that wasn't example of Bush losing his temper at all. He was trying to defuse the BBC reporter's question by making a little joke, after which he chortled. Bush may have been mad, but he didn't look it. Nor was it a terribly effective answer.

_______________________

Departure?: Why is Rene Syler leaving the CBS Early Show? Do the producers think this will help their ratings? Were they expecting a bump when Katie Couric left Today and it didn't happen?

Howard Kurtz: The Early Show has had a four-person anchor lineup for some time that I never quite got. CBS's new morning show chief, Steve Friedman (who was twice executive producer of Today), said that in the audience's eyes the anchors had become interchangeable. I don't know that the Early Show was expecting a post-Couric bump, since it's long been mired in a distant third place, but obviously it wants to become more competitive. Four anchors always did seem like a bit much, and I don't know whether there are other shoes yet to drop.

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.