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."

Brian Williams, Anchoring and Hunkering in Iraq (Post, March 12)

The transcript follows.

____________________

Washington: Do you find it at all strange that The Post allowed Robert Novak to write an Op-Ed on the Scooter Libby trial? I know the trial was not directly about the Plame leak, but it still strikes me as a conflict of interest to have a guy who was involved in the whole affair writing on it the next day. Your thoughts?

washingtonpost.com: A Verdict on the Plame Affair (Post, March 8)

Howard Kurtz: First of all, The Post doesn't "allow" or "not allow" Novak to write his pieces. He's a syndicated columnist who actually works for the Chicago Sun-Times, and The Post is one of many papers that runs him. Second, why wouldn't we want to hear the point of view of someone who was at the heart of the Plame case? It's not like that was some deep dark secret that Novak failed to disclose.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Did you catch Frank Rich's editorial in yesterday's NYT connecting what he considers an inevitable pardon for Scooter Libby with the Walter Reed mess? I thought it was interesting but left out an important part of how the U.S. was sold on the Iraq invasion: the support by major media outlets, including the Times and Post. Has anyone written a story recounting the decision by editorial staffs at those papers to publicly support the invasion?

Howard Kurtz: The EDITORIAL staffs? Not that I'm aware of. I have written extensively about The Post's prewar news coverage, and to a lesser extent about the Times's prewar coverage. But editorial boards consist of paid opinion writers. In consultation with the publisher, they decide what stands to take on lots of issues, including, in this case, whether the U.S. should invade Iraq. They may be spectacularly wrong, or their reasoning may prove to be faulty, but there's nothing particularly mysterious about the process.

_______________________

San Francisco: I have read that some of the newspapers that have cancelled Ann Coulter are replacing her with Michelle Malkin as their conservative voice. Do you think this will make Malkin a more responsible commentator, given the trajectory Coulter seems to be on lately?

Howard Kurtz: I haven't seen that. I only know that seven newspapers at last count have dropped Coulter's syndicated column. Malkin seems to infuriate people on the left as much as Coulter, but it's worth noting that she quickly and strongly denounced Coulter's anti-gay slur.

_______________________

New York: Howard -- a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll asked "How closely are you following the 2008 presidential race?" And 73 percent of Americans say they are following it closely with 27 percent saying "not closely."

Do you think such numbers at this time in the race are an aberration, or do they mark the beginning of a new never-ending campaign for the presidency, with the public going along for the ride? Do you think the new timing of early primaries and caucuses also play a role?

Howard Kurtz: I do think we're entering an era of the never-ending presidential campaign, but the unusually high public interest right now reflects the unique nature of the Hillary and Obama candidacies and the fact that so many candidates (including McCain, Giuliani and Romney) are getting in or on the verge of getting in. The heightened passions over the war is probably a factor as well. Six months from now, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone is sick of the candidates and public interest goes down until we're actually on the verge of Iowa and New Hampshire. Of course, there's always the possibility that some of those people are lying to the pollsters. What are they going to say, that they're following Anna Nicole more closely?

_______________________

Washington:"Why wouldn't we want to hear the point of view of someone who was at the heart of the Plame case?"

Maybe because we already know what it will be? Robert Novak hasn't written an interesting column in years. This was no exception.

Howard Kurtz: I'll put you down as a non-fan. Fortunately, The Post op-ed page offers a choice of columnists every day.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Thank you for doing these chats. I know the media is not a monolith, but what reading would you suggest as a way to get a better insight on how the media in the U.S. sees itself and the role it plays? It seems to me that the whole notion of bias from a political perspective misses a huge point about the media and I think this has been illustrated by the Libby trial. There is a self-protected mode that the media goes into and I think that provides the real bias. How does the media cover the prosecutor in the Libby trial when they have such a beef with him violating the unspoken rule of not pressing journalist for their sources?

Howard Kurtz: There's no shortage of media criticism out there these days, on cable, online, and just about everywhere else. While the media may be self-absorbed and self-interested (did I say maybe?), I don't think anyone can make the case that the coverage of Patrick Fitzgerald has been unfair. Sure, most card-carrying journalists don't believe prosecutors should send reporters to jail, or threaten to, in an effort to compel their testimony. But most of the news stories and profiles I've seen have been more positive than negative about Fitzgerald, portraying him as dogged but not ideological, a good U.S. attorney in Chicago, etc.

_______________________

Baltimore: What is the biggest problem with the MSM? Too close to the people they cover? Too much concern for false balance? Too willing to cover non-stories like Anna Nicole?

Howard Kurtz: I vote for Anna Nicole. It's amazing to me that several weeks after her death, I flip on the TV and still see all those pictures of her and hear new blather about the strange characters that hung around her. I'm thinking that even people who were very interested in the story after she died must have had their fill by now.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: Nice piece on Brian Williams reporting from Baghdad. NBC deserves a lot of credit for this, IMHO. I have a question about the Fox News brouhaha. I read over at Politico (in an excellent Ben Smith piece, you ought to link to him more) that the LAT and WSJ have in the past offered retractions when Fox was referred to as "conservative" in straight news pieces. Doesn't that seem ridiculous to you? Fox clearly has a conservative slant. Is that really any different than describing the Earth as "round"?

Howard Kurtz: We could debate this endlessly, but too many people confuse Fox's reporting with the high-decibel conservatism of O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. In the 2004 campaign, I called several Democratic presidential campaigns and asked whether they thought Carl Cameron, Fox's chief political reporter, was unfair. All said they found him very fair. Now Cameron has made mistakes, and I disagree with other things Fox has done, such as running with that flimsy, anonymous-sourced Obama-attended-a-madrassah story. But the journalists there don't view themselves as providing "conservative" news coverage, any more than those at the other networks see themselves as liberal.

_______________________

Worcester, Mass.: If Fred Thompson runs for president, what will "Law & Order" do?

Howard Kurtz: Work it into the plot?

_______________________

Bastrop, La.: Is it an unwritten rule that reporters do not challenge their own editorial page when there are factual shortcomings in the editorials? Or is it broader than that and reporters do not challenge any editorials, even of rival papers?

Howard Kurtz: No. I have written about problems with Washington Post editorials and op-eds in the past -- an undisclosed corporate conflict in one case, and failure to fully describe the funding or agendas of contributors in others. I once wrote about whether a Tom Toles editorial cartoon that outraged some readers went too far. What I don't do is argue with whether their opinions are valid, because their job is to be opinionated. Whether they make good arguments is up to the readers to decide.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: Good morning! I wonder if you'd like to comment on the role of Josh Marshall's site talkingpointsmemo.com, in particular regarding his reporting on the issue of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys. His site has evolved from a blog to something different and unique, and sort of like firedoglake.com's liveblogging of the Libby trial put a pure Internet outlet ahead of "old" media, Josh's site is emulating "old" media at the same time he's doing something really completely different. Is this a movement away from old-fashioned blogging, or a couple of isolated cases? Where do you see it going? How would you predict it will affect entities like The Post, which, like those sites, communicates with words? How would you predict it will affect entities like CNN and Fox News, which, like the Internet, produce new content throughout the day?

Howard Kurtz: I don't know what the impact is on the rest of the world, but Josh's site is very good at spearheading an issue and banging on it even while others have moved on. He kept pulling on the tale of the fired prosecutors and lo and behold there was plenty there. A lot of what Marshall does is link to MSM reports, of course, but a turning point, I think, was his hiring of two staffers for his Muckraker site. The more that bloggers are able to do original reporting, the greater the impact they're going to have.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Frederick Kagan is one of the primary architects of the so called surge in Iraq. His brother, Robert Kagan, wrote an op-ed in yesterday's Post about how great the surge is working and how the media is covering that up. The Post never informed its readers about the relationship between the two Kagans. This is incredibly dishonest.

washingtonpost.com: The 'Surge' Is Succeeding (Post, March 11)

Howard Kurtz: I don't know -- Robert Kagan has been such a strong supporter of the war on his own that I don't think there's any doubt where he is coming from on this issue.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Why Anna Nicole Smith? Don't the TV news folks have immediate, minute by minute ratings data available? (Not for all of the ratings data but a useful sample.) It was my understanding that CNN and Fox News and the other cable channels know exactly which stories make viewers stay tuned-in and which stories are "about Africa." We can argue about how much "oatmeal" they should be serving us, but am I right in thinking that when it comes to Anna Nicole Smith that this is based on ratings data?

Howard Kurtz: You are right that they are very focused on ratings. (Not a sin, by the way; newspapers are very focused on circulation). When you're a cable news channel, all it takes is another 500,000 viewers to give you a major bump. You may be ticking off millions of other potential viewers who want to hear more about Iraq or health care or the campaign, but if you draw enough hard-core Anna addicts, it helps your numbers in the short term. Long term, I would argue, is another question.

_______________________

Keeping Coulter on the air: Howard, some of the people involved with the TV news talk shows say Coulter has earned further airtime because her best-selling books show she has an audience. My question is, do they offer the same airtime to somebody like Michael Savage, who sells books and has an apparently popular radio show, and also regularly says vile things about those who oppose him? Because I'm pretty sure they don't, then what's the difference?

Howard Kurtz: Well, MSNBC liked Michael Savage so much that it gave him a show, then dumped him when he made incendiary comments having to do with AIDS. When Coulter was attacking the 9/11 widows, I asked the producer of the Today show why he had her on, and he said she's "good television." After Coulter's anti-gay slur against John Edwards -- which she defends as merely being a "playground taunt" -- Hannity & Colmes had her on. Paula Zahn also booked her for CNN, but Coulter canceled.

_______________________

Philadelphia: Howard, CNN is reporting that Gen. Kiley is out. When do you think he will get his medal of freedom from Bush?

Howard Kurtz: I haven't seen that CNN report. But the Pentagon is now in the Gates era, not the Rumsfeld era, which is why Kiley got dumped as interim Walter Reed head one day after the Army had announced that the man who had presided over the medical center before would be returning to that post.

_______________________

Washington:"Robert Kagan has been such a strong supporter of the war on his own that I don't think there's any doubt where he is coming from on this issue."

And here we have one of the primary problems with the MSM. The assumption that the general public (i.e., me) knows more than we actually do. I had never heard of Mr. Kagan, and his connection to the other Mr. Kagan would have certainly given his opinion some much-needed context.

Howard Kurtz: I have to think about that. I don't know if it's fair to hold someone responsible for a brother or sister's views. Bill Bennett (Reagan Cabinet member and talk show host) and Bob Bennett (Clinton's impeachment lawyer) don't agree on many things. It would be different if Fred Kagan were a Bush administration official, but he works at the American Enterprise Institute and as far as I know was informally consulted by the administration on Iraq.

_______________________

Fox News or Opinion: Howie, doesn't a lot of the responsibility for viewers' confusion about the difference between Carl Cameron and Bill O'Reilly lie with Fox News? While newspapers like The Post and Times are very clear about the differences between their reporters and opinion writers, Fox News does all it can to merge the two into one product. O'Reilly says he is fair and balanced with no spin, and Brit Hume recently has thrown opinion pieces in with his reporting. FNC has been successful in graying the line between fact and opinion. So if people think that Fox News reporting is conservative-biased, can you really blame them?

Howard Kurtz: The blurring is a fair point. You get conservative opinion on Fox's morning show, where you wouldn't necessarily be expecting it, and Fox analysts like Newt Gingrich are often popping up with their views. The latest Fox News contributor: Rick Santorum.

_______________________

Keeping Coulter on the air: So news channels are trying to be entertainment channels rather than reporting the news? Yep, that's how they get the ratings. Ratings are more important than reporting that the top law enforcement officials in the United States have broken the law?

Howard Kurtz: I fervently cling to the old-fashioned belief that you can do both.

_______________________

New Hampshire: Hello Howard. Your thoughts on the Democrats pulling out of the Fox debate? Do you think Ailes owes the candidates that he insulted an apology?

Howard Kurtz: I think Roger Ailes' ill-considered joke about Barack Obama was a bit of a pretext for a Nevada Democratic Party that was under strong pressure from liberal bloggers and MoveOn to kill the debate. John Edwards had already dropped out before the Ailes crack.

_______________________

Washington: I'm a huge fan of Katie Couric but am concerned with the lack of viewers that she has at CBS. What are your thoughts on what CBS eventually will do with her seat at the anchor desk, and how will this "expose" book being written about her shape any decisions?

Howard Kurtz: She averages 7.5 million viewers a night. That's more than triple the biggest newspaper in the country and more than triple the highest rated cable news show (O'Reilly). The problem for CBS is that it's well behind the 9.5 million or so being drawn by Brian Williams and Charlie Gibson. But CBS made a long-term bet on Katie Couric and will stand by her.

_______________________

Merrifield, Va.: The Post contained several articles with criticism of Ann Coulter's remark about John Edwards, but following Bill Maher's comments advocating Cheney's death, The Post instead writes a puff piece about Maher. Why the double standard, or does The Post not believe that suggesting that someone should die is worse than calling someone gay?

washingtonpost.com: A Real Live Wire (Post, March 9)

Howard Kurtz: First of all, The Post ran only a one-paragraph mention of Coulter's crack until I came along and wrote a media story about it. Second, Bill Maher did not advocate Cheney's death. He said that more people would be alive if Cheney hadn't been vice president or had died. I'm sure lots of people found that tasteless, but it wasn't advocating someone's death.

_______________________

San Francisco:"On The Plane" has been a fascinating glimpse of how the journalism sausage is made when covering the President abroad. Will that model ever change, such that only a single pool reporter travels at all, with the rest of the White House press corps getting its news remotely (and comfortably!) at home? Seems like a lot of expense and trouble for very little actual news generated.

washingtonpost.com: On the Plane blog

Howard Kurtz: I hope not. Reporters learn a great deal by traveling with the president, in part because they have more access to top aides than they do at home. But in this era of belt-tightening, the trend has been toward fewer reporters going on White House trips because of the cost.

_______________________

Long Beach, Calif.: Hey Howard -- thanks for taking my question. When will we see the Post publish a chart of the candidates and their positions on the issues of our time? I've seen virtually nothing on positions and I look for them daily, but each morning I do see stories, chats, and blogs on the meaningless horse race at The Post. When? Ever? Thanks!

Howard Kurtz: To be fair, it is 11 months before the Iowa caucuses. I guarantee you that by the time the voting starts, The Post will have told you the candidates' positions on the issues many, many times. Or at least those who haven't dropped out by then.

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.