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."

Time for a Change, ( Post, Dec. 18)

The transcript follows.

____________________

Nashville, Tenn.: Howard, I really like your columns and appreciate these weekly Internet chats. I have question regarding cable news coverage of live events and developing stories. I, like many, saw some of the coverage of the search for the climbers in Oregon on CNN and Fox News. It seems the cable news could do a better job, but I am not sure what needs to be done on events like these. I remember the Jet Blue Air Bus with the stuck landing gear and both CNN and MSNBC did a very good job. In that situation, they reported and we knew when the plane was going to make the emergency landing so the live coverage made all the sense in the world. With the search for the climbers and tragic discovery of the fatality, there were long periods of not much news to report. Is the answer to go on to something else? What are your thoughts for improving coverage of these types of news stories? Thanks!

Howard Kurtz: As we speak, CNN, Fox and MSNBC all have graphics saying they are awaiting a news conference on the missing climbers. I don't want to sound heartless -- who could not feel terrible about people stranded in the snow, or the CNet editor's family whose car broke down before that -- but I don't remember this sort of thing being huge national news in the past. Cable is increasingly in the market for soap-opera stories with an emotional component. It is a spinoff, in a way, from the drumbeat about missing or murdered white women. So family photographs are gathered and relatives are interviewed in an effort to make the whole country care about the previously unknown persons who are missing. These stories tend to thrive during slower news periods, and apparently that's what we're in right now.

_______________________

A former Time subscriber: Time for a change? Seems like with a dollar increase, it's time for a lot of change. $4.95 cents worth.

Not sure how many people who drink Starbucks but complain about a penny or two a gallon increase in gas ("hey, I'm buying 10 gallons you know, that adds up...") will pay five bucks for the magazine. Seems like Time's time might be coming.

Howard Kurtz: Well, obviously it's less if you subscribe, as most readers do. But that doesn't strike me as outrageously high for a good magazine in an era of $4 grande lattes.

_______________________

Say It Ain't So, Howard!!!: No more Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post?

Please tell The Post big wigs to find a way to make him happy ($$$$$) and keep his columns in The Post.

Howard Kurtz: I'm afraid that train has already left the station. And yes, it will be a definite loss for The Post's op-ed page.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: I read both the Post and the NY Times. Usually, when one has a good story, the other follows up. For, example, when Dana Priest broke the secret prisons story, the Times had several stories on them. The Times has had a number of important stories on the American Gulag, most recently the one with pictures of how Jose Padilla has been treated in his three and one half years of illegal confinement, and the one today of the conditions an innocent U.S. citizen was held under in Iraq. Why is the Post ignoring these Gulag stories?

Howard Kurtz: That was a good Times scoop, but a quick check shows a number of Padilla-related stories in The Post over the last month. Here's the top of one of them:

After he was arrested in 2002, Jose Padilla was considered so dangerous that he was held without charges in a military prison for more than three years -- accused first of plotting a radiological "dirty bomb" attack and later of conspiring with al-Qaeda to blow up apartment buildings with natural gas.

But now, nearly a year after his abrupt transfer into a regular criminal court, the Justice Department's prosecution of the former Chicago gang member is running into trouble.

A Republican-appointed federal judge in Miami has already dumped the most serious conspiracy count against Padilla, removing for now the possibility of a life sentence. The same judge has also disparaged the government's case as "light on facts," while defense lawyers have made detailed allegations that Padilla was illegally tortured, threatened and perhaps even drugged during his detention at a Navy brig in South Carolina.

_______________________

Ottawa, Ontario: Big Fan, thanks for the chats.

What happen to the CNN chief correspondent in Baghdad? He worked before for Time I think. Why they changed him?

Thanks for taking my question.

Howard Kurtz: I think you're probably referring to Michael Ware. He joined CNN from Time a few months ago and I believe is just on vacation at the moment. Iraq duty is so arduous, not to mention dangerous, that all the news organizations that cover the war try to rotate people in and out just to give them a break.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Howard,

Now that it's official, can I now add "Person of the Year" to my resume?

Just askin'.

Howard Kurtz: Yep. You and everyone else deserve the honor.

_______________________

Miami, Fla.: Hi Howard,

Yesterday Fox and CNN, MSNBC didn't have news, gave the mountain climbing tragedy wall to wall coverage all day and night as though it was another 9/11. Was the Iraq War over, were there no quotes from the Sunday talk shows? Is it me,or is this absurd?

Howard Kurtz: I would suggest it's getting a little out of hand. I don't see anything wrong with covering it and providing regular updates, but at the moment on my set, all I'm seeing is snow.

_______________________

Pennington, N.J.: Why do we keep having people who were wrong on Iraq giving advice on TV? MTP this week had a politician and two Times columnists who have been consistently wrong. Why not have Russ Feingold, Paul Krugman, and Bob Herbert who were and still are right.

Howard Kurtz: If you banned pundits or politicians who were wrong about something from further TV appearances, the newscasts and talk shows would have a near-impossible time finding guests.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Howard, was today a slow news day or do you think the story of the 7 Episcopal parishes splitting with the church is that big of a deal? The amount of space given for the story almost makes it seem as big as if a state were to split from the U.S.

Howard Kurtz: The Monday papers often don't have a lot of hard news to deal with. But this is a big local story because it happened in Virginia -- keep in mind that The Post takes local news very seriously and has more reporters covering the region than anything else -- and reflects an ongoing and intriguing religious debate. Plus, Obama had the day off yesterday.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I agree with you the new price of Time isn't outrageously high for a good magazine in an era of $4 grande lattes but "Former Subscriber" has a point. It's the ones who drink the $4 grande lattes and drive the upscale SUVs that complain the most and the loudest about a penny a gallon increase. I don't see them shelling out more for the magazine or resubscribe at what will be increased rates unless it's a waiting room or table top subscription, not subscribing for the news.

I think Time's in for more changes than your column indicated. And for the worse. And at our loss.

Howard Kurtz: Well, we'll see how it plays out. Again, most people are subscribers. But the fact that Time is lowering its rate base -- the number of sales promised to advertisers -- from 4 million to 3.25 million suggests to me that it is chasing a more affluent audience that would be more attractive to companies that advertise. So if the buck increase prompts some marginally interested readers to bail -- magazines often pump up their totals by offering big subscriber discounts -- that could well be okay with Time.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Howard, can you explain to me how three missing climbers is "news".... I'd figure one test for determining a newsworthy story is how many people it impacts --- other than the climbers and families, who cares?

On a side note, hundreds of children go missing all the time ... they get about 30 seconds each on the local news

Howard Kurtz: Well, I think those chatting here have reached a consensus.

Life and death stories involving average people obviously touch a nerve in some viewers, or else the cable channels wouldn't be devoting this much time to the saga. People think, could this happen to me? But I would also ask, why was Laci Peterson big news? And Natalee Holloway? No one knew who they were and they didn't intern for a member of Congress. Ten years ago, these would have been purely local stories. But cable loves stories that pack an emotional wallop.

_______________________

Lake Forest, Calif.: Good morning.....I have been reading your columns and chats for several years, and enjoy them very much. I don't remember other reporters chatting on a regular basis when I first tuned in, were you the first Washington Post reporter with an online chat?

Thank you for your time.

Howard Kurtz: I don't think I was first, but I was definitely in the early wave. I'm glad so many more of my colleagues are joining in. And the idea must be catching on, because the NYT has recently been making top editors available online to answer readers' questions.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Re: $4-5 for Time ... it makes me sad that people won't throw down a couple of bucks for something packed with news about the whole world. The same way that I hate it when people balk about buying a newspaper. I think Gene Weingarten said it in one of the leaked Post critiques that .35 cents for a product so huge and varied is freaking amazing in this day and age. I'll happily pay such paltry prices to learn everything I do from the pages.

Howard Kurtz: Leaving aside the fact that it helps pay my salary, 35 cents is an incredible bargain. At the same time, though, we give it away free on the Internet. If people would agree to pay, say, a buck a month to read The Washington Post online, it would revolutionize the online news world and help support the staffs needed to put not just stories but video, chats, comments and other material on the Web site. But people are so accustomed to the Net being a toll-free highway that they balk at having to pay even pennies. That probably has to change some day.

_______________________

Kansas City: How much of a honeymoon (if any) do you expect new DOD Secretary Gates to get from the press?

Howard Kurtz: Couple of days. Maybe a week.

_______________________

Albertville, Ala.: I suspect that in 10 more years the dead tree news magazine will be a thing of the past. On-line is so much quicker and efficient. Some magazines have started to charge for on-line only subscriptions (ex: Consumer Reports). Do you think news magazines will follow this trend?

Howard Kurtz: Eventually but not real soon. I must be old-fashioned, but I still like being able to hold a paper product in my hands, or take it on the subway.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.:

Your response to New Jersey about the pundits who were wrong about the war was far too facile. How do you explain the fact that much of the media grants so much credibility to those who have been so wrong about the war, while barely giving a hearing to those who were right all along? I know that you can provide counter-examples, but I don't think you can dispute the trend.

Howard Kurtz: A majority of both houses of Congress went along with the president's war resolution, and a majority of news organizations supported the war and the argument that Saddam had WMD. So you had an awful lot of people who were wrong. Some of the publications have run mea culpas, and some of the politicians -- John Kerry and John Edwards leap to mind -- have said they were wrong to support the war. But I don't think anyone has completely been let off the hook. Both politicians and pundits have had to account for the stance they took in 2002 and 2003.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Did you see the piece on the New Republic Web site (also in print this week, I think) about Michael Crighton's bit character, a reporter and child rapist , Mick Crowley, in his latest book?

It's a pretty transparent hit on Michael Crowley, who wrote at lengthy takedown of Crighton and "State of Fear" last year for TNR.

Funny stuff. I suppose some novelists do this kind of thing frequently, but this one is so obvious ....

Howard Kurtz: I thought it was appalling and egregious.

_______________________

"near-impossible time finding guests": Funny, I would think there are amazing numbers of people who would be willing to make big, big bucks to bloviate.

In any other industry, getting critical decisions wrong would get you fired. In the media, everyone circles the wagons and protects each other.

The "thin blue line" has nothing on the "thin newspring line".

Howard Kurtz: Well, I haven't circled any wagons. I wrote an extensive front-page piece about mistakes and misjudgments that The Washington Post made in its prewar coverage; have covered the mea culpas by the New York Times and New Republic; and written as well about the change of heart of many of the conservative pundits who had been big cheerleaders for the war.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: I hate to be the skunk at the garden party, but since when is it "new" that Time is going to try attitude and opinion instead of straight-ahead anonymous reporting a la Luce? This certainly didn't start months ago with Richard Stengel. They've had attitude-heavy cover stories and bylines for at least 15 or 20 years now, don't you think?

Howard Kurtz: It's been a gradual evolution. But Time has relatively few columnists. I can't remember a time when the magazine has gone out and signed up people like Kinsley and Kristol in one fell swoop. And I'm told there are more high-profile hires to come.

_______________________

Oakton, Va.: Howard,

Reference paying for a printed paper versus free on-line content. The Post tried the pay-to-read route over ten years ago. Remember Digital Ink? It was a flop because, in my opinion as a beta tester, it didn't deliver content worth paying for. Today the on-line channels seem to have adopted the broadcast network business model: free content that is peppered with annoying commercials. The Post can sell the paper edition for 35 cents because of all the full-page ads. Isn't the on-line version doing essentially the same thing?

Howard Kurtz: Yes, but without the 35 cents. The Post's Web site is about a zillion times better than it was 10 years ago during that flop, which was a time when far fewer people were online and when the paper was basically just taking stories from the paper and slapping them on the site. This chat is but one indication of how far post.com has come since then.

_______________________

Helena, Mont.: Howard, enjoy your chats, articles and show. You had Dan Rather as a guest yesterday, and he repeated his charge that Fox News uses talking points handed down by the White House. When you quizzed him he seemed to be weaseling, sort of suggesting that the White House may not actually fax talking points to Fox but they still somehow gets them there. In other words, these "talking points" appear to be another case of Rather's use of "fake but accurate" documents. I have no idea if it is true or not if the White House passes on talking points to Fox, but shouldn't journalists be asking him to provide some proof if he's going to make such an incendiary claim? Should they be letting him get away with essentially saying that it must be true because his journalistic friends have the impression that it is true?

Howard Kurtz: Well, I tried to press him on whether he had any evidence, and he didn't supply any. He kind of retreated to the position that people at Fox were repeating the White House line rather than physically receiving talking points.

Here is the exchange from Reliable Sources:

KURTZ: Seriously dopey, says Bill O'Reilly. How do you respond, Dan Rather?

RATHER: Well, first of all, Bill has invited me to be on his program and I intend to be on the program. I stand by what I said on the Bill Maher program. Not only is it true but it is widely known to be true and I do know it to be true.

Bill has a different view. He is entitled to that view but they can't have it both ways. They can't on the one hand, day after day, week after week, take the administration's point of view and use their talking points and then turn around, particularly when the president's own popularity begins to slide some, try to disassociate themselves with that.

I want to make it very clear, Howard, as I did on the Bill Maher program, I have great respect for Roger Ailes and what he has done with Fox News and I think this, contrary to what some people think, I think that the addition of Fox News to the American media landscape has in the main and overall probably been a good thing and I said words to that effect in the program.

But I stand by what I said.

KURTZ: But are you saying that Fox News often takes the same line as the Bush administration or are you saying that pieces of paper are literally faxed over or e-mailed over ...

RATHER: I don't know about pieces of paper being faxed over. I certainly am saying the first, that they often take the same line, and exactly the same line in exactly the same words. That I said that I know they use talking points from the White House and by the way, I did say that's not only not an indictable offense but it's journalism practiced in a certain way. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, quite honestly.

KURTZ: Mm-hmm.

RATHER: It is not the way I choose to operate and a lot of people in journalism don't but I don't see anything wrong with it.

I do think - I wouldn't say wrong, but it's unbecoming on the one hand to do it and on the other hand to say, well, we never do that.

Again, I want to be explicitly clear. Bill O'Reilly may never get White House talking points and I believe him when he says he doesn't get it. I also believe when he says he checked the top management and top management said we never see pieces of paper, whatever.

_______________________

Dallas, Tex.: Howard, you are old-fashioned. (Smile) Once you get away from the East Coast and its subways, the time you have for lugging around a dead tree goes precipitously down. The online model is so much quicker and efficient, and really the only model to outpace cable news (with much more depth and reliability, I might add, at least when one sticks to site/papers like your own). To that end, I would HAPPILY pay to subscribe to The Post online. It has become MY paper, despite the fact I'm in Dallas - a prospect unheard of a few short years ago. I think you underestimate the number of people who share my opinion/willingness to pay.

Howard Kurtz: Happy to pay? My people will get in touch with your people.

_______________________

"pundits have had to account for the stance": Uh...How?! By being forced to write a nice big money book? (ka-ching!) Or take a bunch of big money paid TV appearances? (ka-ching!).

Boy, I must have missed how all of the rest of us could utterly screw up at our jobs, help put the lives of many in danger, and "account" for our errors by getting nice fat bonus. Silly me, I thought people got fired for that.

Howard Kurtz: Sounds like some of you favor tarring and feathering. Please keep in mind that 95 percent of journalists don't appear on TV, go on book tours or even cover the White House or Iraq.

_______________________

Bridgewater, Mass.: Hi Howie,

Do you think the Baker-Hamilton report would have had more than 5 minutes of fame - and effect - if it had been made public before the election so candidates had to respond to it? The press seems to be better equipped to deal with adversarial rather than inquisitorial approaches to truth-seeking. And could you remind me why a decision of this gravity should not a matter for voters to consider in selecting their representatives?

Howard Kurtz: I think it got a full 15, 16 minutes when you include all the leaks that we covered before it came out. It certainly would have become Topic A had it been released during the campaign, but it seems to me that Baker et al made a deliberate decision to hold off so that it wouldn't just become political fodder.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I decided I would never renew my subscription to TIME after they dropped Bartlett and Steele. And speaking of the amazing investigative duo, do you know what happened to them?

Howard Kurtz: I don't. I don't believe they have yet signed on with another news organization. Barlett and Steele have won not just two Pulitzers but two National Magazine Awards. Hey, good investigative reporting is expensive.

_______________________

The Plame/Libby Fiasco: MSNBC is reporting that 2 reporters Scooter Libby plans on calling as witnesses "may resist testifying". Why aren't the reporters named? A national reporter in a direct conflict with the administration should be news, no? Wouldn't that conflict directly and/or indirectly affect their reporting?

So why no disclosure? What about the public's right to know?

Howard Kurtz: Of course they should be named. But maybe MSNBC got a leak from one of the lawyers and doesn't know the names.

_______________________

Dover, N.H.: Hi Howard, I don't have access to a paper copy of The Washington Post and find that by reading on-line I can read the NYTimes, Wash. Post, Newsweek, TNR and Slate all with slightly different takes on a story. Would be happy to pay a dollar a month for each, but not the NYTimes $50/year because it is only one of many I enjoy checking out. Really miss reading Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman etc.

Howard Kurtz: Well, you can't really get paper copies of The Washington Post much beyond D.C., Maryland and Virginia, which is why the Net has been so important to this place. It used to drive me crazy when I was traveling and couldn't see the paper.

_______________________

Post Fan, Va.: This is not a complaint, but a compliment. I know you don't get many posts like this one, so after you pick yourself up off the floor, I hope you run it.

This might be more appropriate to send to The Post's ombudsman, but I thought I might get a more direct response from you.

I don't have a question, but a comment about the Washington Post, and its Style section.

Here it is: I love Peter Carlson's "The Magazine Reader" column. Every time it runs, and I think it's only monthly, it proves to be a delight. His most recent column, on sensationalistic headlines, was a riot. But it's also fun without being mean, a balance that the Style section never gets right.

Woops! I said this wouldn't be a complaint, but a compliment!

Carlson is great. Tell him I said so, OK?

Howard Kurtz: I will pass it on.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Howard,

Isn't the 35 cents used to offset the cost to print the paper edition and the ads used to pay salaries? With the online version there are no printing costs.

Howard Kurtz: Of course. But someone still has to pay for computers, servers, office space and the sizable staff of both journalists and technical people who get this stuff online. Beyond that, though, they essentially get free content from the hundreds of reporters, editors and photographers who work on the dead-tree side.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Why doesn't The Post have a section called Labor that would parallel the in-depth reporting we get everyday in the Business section of the paper? After all there are many more laborers than there are investors in this country and just telling one side of the story is kind of biased of The Post isn't it?

Howard Kurtz: Labor is covered as part of the Business section, just like media, Internet businesses, automakers, and so on. But I would be the first to say that labor unions as a beat have slipped in importance at most papers, including The Post, in a way that goes beyond their declining membership.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I agree with the commentary regarding the "sensationalized" news. It seems as though cable news stations are trying to tug at everyone's heartstrings to make them watch every second, and treat it like a soap opera when sadly, it is real life. Even the cable news Web sites are getting more tabloid by the day, splashing huge headline stories about celebrities, human interest stories as top news.

And, another side note to the person who commented about the hundreds of missing children who go missing every day. I used to work for a well-known organization that dealt with missing children, and stranger kidnappings are rare-- again, part of the media sensationalizing these stories to make us believe children are kidnapped every second. Hundreds of children do go missing every day from family abductions and runaways, but do you think the media is really interested in those less-exciting scenarios?

Howard Kurtz: No. There has to be something unique or eye-catching about the situation to separate it from all the other crime news.

FYI, the cable channels have now moved on to a news conference by family members of the missing climbers.

_______________________

But cable loves stories that pack an emotional wallop. : And they are cheap to cover and use up a lot of air time. Just get a guy in a parka in front of the mountain, show helos flying around, interview "experts", and cut into a news conference. Call me cynical but it beats the cost of actually going out and doing some original reporting.

Howard Kurtz: Well, there is some reporting that goes on with these stories. But I can't really argue with your larger point. It's not just cable, though. People just did a cover on the MIRACLE RESCUE of the CNet editor's family who were found after more than a week, although he unfortunately did not make it.

_______________________

St. Paul, Minn.: Howard:

Here's a tough one for you. Last week, many outlets printed or linked the transcript of the phone call when Sen. Tim Johnson became ill.

It seems to me this was tacky (in the least) or a grotesque way to get attention (in the most). Where do you stand on this issue?

Howard Kurtz: It was chilling and upsetting to listen to. It was also part of the story, which is why the network newscasts played it. I know a lot of people feel that the media were too quick to turn the story of one senator's medical emergency into a political saga, but there simply was no way around that. Had Johnson died, which seemed like a possibility at the time -- and I'm so glad that he seems to be recovering -- it was very likely that control of the Senate would flip, with South Dakota's Republican governor appointing a GOP replacement. (I've already fulminated about how these laws are unfair.) So the short answer is that it WAS a bit ghoulish to focus on the political ramifications and play the tape, but, in my view, unavoidable under the circumstances.

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.