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."

Bill Who? (Post, Jan. 23)

The transcript follows.

____________________

washingtonpost.com: Howard Kurtz's Live Online chat, regularly scheduled for Monday at noon, has been delayed until Tuesday at noon. Thank you.

_______________________

Washington: Here's what has me baffled about the whole Obama-did-or-didn't-get-fundamentalist-Islamic-training issue ... he was 6 years old at the time in question. Which means that no matter what the school's agenda was, he didn't choose to attend it. His parents made that decision for him. So why does it matter? He clearly has chosen a different path for himself as an adult. Hasn't the current president set the standard by saying he shouldn't be held accountable for "youthful indiscretions" (with the word youth being used pretty generously)? So how is the type of school your parents chose to send you to before you were old enough to have any say in the matter relevant?

washingtonpost.com: Headmaster Disputes Claim That Obama Attended Islamic School (Post, Jan. 23)

Howard Kurtz: I've never understood that part. How many of us get to choose anything beyond favorite ice cream flavor when we're 6 years old? I guess the salient charge is that Obama hid this (despite disclosing it in his autobiography) and the fact that he was raised as a Muslim (which as best I can tell is not true). I always used to joke about how reporters will dig up dirt on candidates as far back as elementary school, but this sets a new standard.

_______________________

New York: Here's tonight's big question. Will Fox pre-empt "American Idol" to broadcast the State of the Union Speech? Or just broadcast it on their news stations?

Howard Kurtz: According to the listings, American Idol will be on at 8, Bush at 9.

_______________________

San Antonio: I just wanted to post a comment about today's Washington Post opinion article by Liz Cheney. As a military member who is married to a military member that has had to sacrifice most of our children's childhood away, it irks me to the bone that these political operatives use us as a political tool (fodder). If they would use as half as much energy in finding a political victory in Iraq as they do in sniping one another (in today's Washington Post by Liz Cheney among others)in the media we would already had a plan for victory by now. I wish the media would correct these people when they refer to the collective "we" as in the people that aren't making the sacrifices that my family and other military families have made into a collective "them" the political players ginning up fake outrage for the closest television camera. When these people talk about the courage they have it must take a lot of courage to debate, than to take up arms not knowing if you'll be able to see your children again. Thank you.

washingtonpost.com: Retreat Isn't an Option (Post, Jan. 23)

Howard Kurtz: Of course, the op-ed page is for opinions, and Liz Cheney is a former deputy secretary of state (I guess she had connections or something). It's perfectly clear to everyone that she is writing this as the daughter of a vice president whose administration has been badly weakened by the war. People can read it and consider her opinion, or not read it at all, as they see fit.

_______________________

New York: Dick Morris's false smear of Barack Obama comes as no surprise to anyone who's watched him on Fox News. He has little regard for the facts. But doesn't The Hill have editors or fact-checkers? Can a columnist write any garbage he wants without anyone checking him?

Howard Kurtz: For those who missed it, Dick Morris wrote a column for the Hill slamming Obama for voting against an ethics amendment, when in fact he voted for the amendment in question. Wouldn't have been too hard to check, either. To Morris's credit, he fully apologized to the senator in a posting the next day. But that's not a mistake you want to make.

_______________________

Washington: Howard -- Liz Cheney has an op-ed in today's Post. She is identified as the "former principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs." Now, perhaps she's so well-known people felt it didn't matter, but since her op-ed amounts to a defense of the current administration, shouldn't she also have been identified as the Vice President's daughter?

Howard Kurtz: I suppose so, but she does have a pretty famous last name.

_______________________

Boston: Why are Hillary and Obama the first two (and sometimes only) Democratic candidates mentioned in most articles? Their combined experience equals a small fraction of either Bill Richardson's or Joe Biden's. Yet only news junkies have ever heard of these last two. Do you see think 'People Magazine' popularity will be a factor in the actual races or just in the pre-game hoopla?

Howard Kurtz: My column this morning is on why Bill Richardson isn't getting more attention, given that he is a former congressman and U.N. ambassador and is now a governor (four of the last five presidents have been governors). Not to mention that he'd be the first Hispanic to win the White House. Part of this is poll-driven, but it's also that the media really want a two-person race and are turning this--a year in advance, mind you--into a Hillary vs. Obama melodrama. Every four years we blow off some candidate who comes out of nowhere and we are forced to play catchup. Last time it was Howard Dean, who got very little coverage until he began his Internet-fueled rise in 2003.

_______________________

Queens, N.Y.: Howard, your discussion on CNN's "Reliable Sources" about the Duke lacrosse case was interesting. Do you think anything was resolved, or can we look forward to the same rush-to-judgment being a part of the scene under such circumstances?

Howard Kurtz: I wish I could tell you that journalists have learned their lesson and that next time accusations of this kind are made, we won't blow it up into a national soap opera, play up the race and class aspects, and essentially convict the defendants in the press on the basis of little or no evidence. Unfortunately, I have no confidence that that's the case. There have just been too many instances of the media rushing to judgment in these kinds of cases. The three men were indicted, and Duke canceled the lacrosse season, and that was obviously a story. But the coverage just spiraled way out of control based on one woman's shaky allegations.

_______________________

Washington: Wow -- Rupert does a two-fer against the Democratic Party's front-runners for the Presidential nomination. First spreads lies about Barrack Obama's religion (smear him, Rupert!) then blames it on Clinton. What is the definition of "too low" to show up in the MSM? Will anybody call Fox news out on this and follow up to kill a "journalist's" career? Despicable! Your thoughts?

Howard Kurtz: I don't think you can blame this on Rupert Murdoch personally. It is true that both the New York Post and Fox News picked up the story from Insight magazine containing the allegation that Senator Obama went to a madrassah as a young boy, and I think that story has been pretty convincingly knocked down. Deciding when to pick up another outlet's charges, especially when there are no named sources and you haven't checked it out yourself, is one of the trickier decisions in journalism. In general, I think making some attempt to check things out is preferable to just repeating an allegation because it's "out there."

_______________________

Sewickley, Pa.: What does the rank and file think about having Rich Little entertain journos at the White House Correspondents Dinner?

Howard Kurtz: Haven't done a survey. I've always liked Rich Little, but clearly he doesn't do the kind of biting humor that you would get from a Don Imus or Stephen Colbert. So it does seem that the White House Correspondents Association is suffering from post-Colbert stress syndrome.

_______________________

San Francisco: Has anyone in the media picked up on the "hide behind the troops" aspect of much of the pro-war talk on cable news and in the White House? It just seems to me that in order to justify their own historically and culturally context-free decisions, they are increasing falling back on complaining that people who think invading Iraq was a stupid decision don't support the troops. I mean, geez, support the troops by putting them in necessary situations with enough manpower to win, not under-equipped ideological pipe dreams.

Howard Kurtz: I think both sides are being heard on the question of what is best for the troops, especially now that John Warner and some other Republican lawmakers are breaking with the president over his troop escalation plan. Since no Democrat that I know of is talking about cutting off funding for troops who are already in Iraq -- as opposed to blocking funds for additional troops -- it seems to me harder to make the argument that opposing the war is harmful to American soldiers.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Howard, with all respect, I think you missed San Antonio's point. Pundits on both sides talk about how "we" should fight this war and the effects on "us". The fact is that this war affects a small portion of the American population -- the volunteer military and their families -- while the rest of the country is more worried about "American Idol". This is why Jim Webb is delivering the SOTU rebuttal, thank god.

Howard Kurtz: There is no question that while most Americans are greatly concerned about the situation in Iraq, only a small slice of the population pays any price. That is one byproduct of the volunteer army. When Bush was asked about this recently, he said that Americans did sacrifice, because they pay a lot of taxes. Democrats have countered that Bush is the first president to cut taxes during a war. I was simply trying to say that Liz Cheney can make whatever points she wants in defense of her argument.

_______________________

New York: From today's Washington Post regarding the Inspector General's Mark Foley report: "Several officials at the FBI and Justice Department -- all of whom requested anonymity at the time -- responded by telling reporters that the messages supplied by CREW had been "heavily redacted" and that the group had refused to provide further information." We now know from the IG's report that those FBI and DOJ officials were lying. Will the aforementioned reporters now burn their sources, or will they reinforce the idea that it's perfectly all right to lie to reporters as long as you do so anonymously.

washingtonpost.com: FBI Faulted for Inaction in Foley Scandal (Post, Jan. 23)

Howard Kurtz: I was stunned by that story and think it deserves much more media attention than it's gotten. The FBI in this case didn't shoot straight with the public, including the press. I haven't read the report yet so I don't know who is said by the IG to have provided the misleading information.

_______________________

Minneapolis: Quite a week for the New York Post -- the Obama story and their headline on Richardson's announcement indicating he threw his "sombrero" into the race.

Howard Kurtz: I've heard some liberals attacking the tabloid over the sombrero headline, but I didn't find it offensive. It's okay to have a little fun in political journalism.

_______________________

Webster Groves: For the life of me, why, oh why, do you and others in the news media, give any credence to Dick Morris? It is obvious that he has an axe to grind due to his shredded relationship with the Clintons, and this now extends to the Democratic Party. He has hit a new low with the Obama phony controversy. And Fox has hit a new low by printing it. Why don't you stick to the legitimate news media?

Howard Kurtz: If someone is a Fox News commentator and has a column in the Hill, then that person is obviously reaching an audience. It's not my job to ignore someone because I may or may not agree with their views. Just to be clear, though, the story on which Morris made the mistake was not the Obama/madrassah story, but the one where Morris claimed the senator had voted against an ethics amendment (banning campaign committees from hiring senators' spouses) when in fact he had voted in favor.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Regarding the Hillary-Obama double smear in the Washington Times' Insight magazine: by writing about it in your column today (and giving the Insight reporter another opportunity to repeat the lie), aren't you pushing this very suspect, dubiously sourced story even further into the mainstream press? Do you remember when Drudge "reported" that John Kerry had an affair with a staffer? When will the legitimate press stop taking this bait?

Howard Kurtz: I view it as accountability reporting. If you simply repeat an unsubstantiated charge made by some outlet, you are helping to spread it. If you challenge its veracity, yes, you are helping to spread it, but providing important information to readers or viewers as to why it is unproven or, in some cases, not true. I view that as part of my job, and have challenged flimsy stories about both Republicans and Democrats.

_______________________

Pittsburgh: Thank you for giving me a window into how Fox News conducts itself. I consider myself a moderate but cannot watch the blowhards over there for more than 6 1/2 seconds. Speaking of blowhards, how did you assess the O'Reilly-Colbert exchange programs? Colbert seemed sharp and completely in his element on his own show. How did he do on Fox?

Howard Kurtz: There are plenty of blowhards around, not just on Fox. The O'Reilly/Colbert home-and-away series was a great publicity stunt that benefited both shows. Colbert was obviously funnier, but I thought O'Reilly was a good sport.

_______________________

Wilmington, N.C.: Sunday with Stark and Riehl about KSFO you implied a free speech issue. I've noticed this a lot lately. I have always thought free speech was not immunity from criticism but freedom from government interference. Was Stark advocating the government muzzle those talk shows? Am I misunderstanding the concept of free speech? P.S. -- Shame on you for accepting the "Half-rican" "satire" without condemnation.

Howard Kurtz: You're thinking of censorship, which no one is advocating here. Quick summary: Hosts at San Francisco's conservative KSFO radio have made what many regard as offensive statements on the air. A liberal blogger sent audio clips of such statements to advertisers in an effort to start a boycott. ABC Radio, which owns the station, responded by contacting the blogger's Internet service provider and getting the company to delete the clips. In the interview, I asked the liberal blogger, Mike Stark, whether he was challenging the right of these hosts to say what they wanted, and he replied that he was fighting their free speech with his own free speech.

_______________________

Washington: I realize that it's easy to use the term war when discussing the Iraq occupation, but don't you think it helps the President to term it as such because he can then continue to say that we need to "win"? To my mind, we're in the midst of a bungled occupation during which we have allowed an insurgency to take hold. I think the term 'war' has a lot of political benefits for the Bush administration and that the media should be wary of using it.

Howard Kurtz: But it is a war. More than 130,000 U.S. soldiers fighting and in some cases dying in a foreign land. It also happens to be an occupation (although less so now that there's an elected government than in the early months when the U.S. was running the show). I don't see the terms as mutually exclusive.

_______________________

New York: You kind of missed my point regarding Dick Morris's column. Do columnists normally have to go through editors or fact-checkers? This column apparently did not.

Howard Kurtz: Apparently not. And that's a good point. Even the biggest newspapers don't have fact-checkers, but they do have editors who raise questions, like, are you sure this is true, and have you called the senator's office for comment? If Morris had called Obama's office, he would have learned that his premise on the ethics vote was flat wrong.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: Funny, I didn't any reports that Joe Lieberman "threw his yarmulke" into the race in 2004.

Howard Kurtz: Well, that's a good point. But sombrero still seems less offensive to me since it doesn't involve religion.

_______________________

Just a Comment to You: I thought you got unfairly treated by posters in last week's online session. Was there a full moon that day? I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up.

Howard Kurtz: Thanks. I don't mind if things get a little rough. The whole point of these sessions are for people to be able to talk back. It works better when they're tethered to reality though.

_______________________

Frederick, Md.: The Post just added Story Conference, where reporters discuss stories in a video format. This means a reporter essentially can "write" the same story four times -- the original article, the chat, on Washington Post radio and now in a video discussion. Is there really that much more to the story? Does there reach a point of diminishing returns when dissecting the same 10-20 paragraphs over and over?

Howard Kurtz: I think it's a cool idea -- if it's a chance to take readers behind the scenes and talk about how a story came about and how you handled it, as opposed to just regurgitating what was in the paper. If it turns out to be a snooze, you can always refrain from clicking.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: Howard, you did a good job addressing the inaccuracies of the Insight story that the Clinton campaign was alleging Obama attended a fundamentalist Muslim school. This was clearly a right-wing rag's attempt at smearing two top Dems with one story. However then on its Web site Insight accuses The Post of a "hit piece" for being a competitor of the Washington Times, despite having its story disproved. What does it take for some of these "media" to be held accountable for distributing shameless lies?

Howard Kurtz: I don't do hit pieces. I link to the Washington Times regularly and think the paper does some good work. This piece was not Insight's finest hour. It was frustrating for me that I couldn't reach anyone on Sunday to respond -- I sent the editor an email, but despite five attempts the phone system would not allow me to leave a message -- but I did include Insight's response in this morning's follow-up piece.

_______________________

Columbus, Ohio: Is there a place on shows such as "Reliable Sources" to discuss media reform (in terms of FCC regulation, corporate ownership, etcetera) or is this topic considered too sensitive for mass media to cover?

Howard Kurtz: I don't consider it too sensitive. I once had John McCain on to talk about some legislation he was pushing on regulating the television industry. We talked a lot about the FCC in the wake of the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction. I do keep the focus of the show on working journalists and editorial decisions and ethics, but we should look at questions of regulation from time to time.

_______________________

Columbus, Ohio: Do you think the "debate" about media bias is one worth having or is it merely an inflammatory, unproductive exercise? As "alternative" forms of media flourish on the Internet (whether or not they truly represent a diversity of viewpoints), is selectivity in media consumption making this a moot issue? Are the costs of such a debate (polarization, failure to address underlying substantive issues) greater than the benefits (making the public more skeptical -- which they likely already are)? Thank you.

Howard Kurtz: It's very much a debate worth having. For all the explosion of media choices, the major networks, newspapers and magazines still have the most impact. And they're increasingly distrusted, not just by conservatives but more and more by liberals. I think the debate is more useful when we focus on specific stories and mistakes rather than broad generalizations.

_______________________

Tucson, Ariz.: Hi Howard. Maybe you could find out who the media marketing moron was who placed the video of a man in an elevator being filled with snakes on today's Washington Post front page video link that purports to show video of a cute deer being helped by a helicopter. Speaking for phobics, it was terrifying. It seems rather a violation of browsers' trust, too. Thanks! P.S. -- I enjoy your column!

Howard Kurtz: I'll have that person tarred and feathered. I'm not a big fan of snakes either.

_______________________

San Francisco: Hi Howie. Have you seen the Fox News "We're the only station without the usual left-wing bias" ads they are running now? Do you think those ads are appropriate? Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: All's fair in love, war and television. Fox sees itself as an alternative to a left-leaning media establishment, so it's not surprising that its marketing would take that tack.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Just checked out the Politico site.... Zzzzzzz.

Howard Kurtz: I thought it had some interesting stuff. And it's been in business for all of six hours or so.

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.