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."

Vieira Adjusts to The View At 'Today' (Post, April 9)

The transcript follows.

____________________

"Today" show goes down hill:: The "Today" show has become nothing but fluff after the headlines at 7 a.m. Some mornings you even have to wait for those as the show breathlessly covers Anne Nicole Smith or the sinking cruise ship. It's nothing more than the USA Today on TV.

Howard Kurtz: Well, I think that's a little harsh. There's a lot of good journalism on "Today," and a lot of trash-talking going on among producers of these morning shows. Sometimes "Today" does go a bit heavy on the tabloid stuff (interviews about love-triangle murders and teachers having affairs with students), but these topics, as well as Anna Nicole, are not exactly unknown on other morning programs. After 8 a.m. they all seem to be pitching themselves to a female audience, with a heavy emphasis on parental advice, cooking, fashion and so on.

_______________________

St. Louis: Mr. Kurtz, I have to be honest with you; the new Post online setup is just awful. It took me more than 15 minutes to find how to get to your discussion group, and I cannot find the other discussions/Q&As. Change is not always for the better.

washingtonpost.com: These pages may help: Live Online section front| Weekly discussion schedule

Howard Kurtz: I'm sorry to hear that. I, of course, think that anytime I'm online it should be bannered across the top of the home page. I see the people who handle the technical stuff have included a couple of links here that should help.

_______________________

Washington: With all the domestic economic and governance issues impacting people's lives in the here-and-now, why does the media spend so much time filling its pages and airtime with the ins and outs of an election so far away? Some might think it's a corporate-owned-media effort to distract voters from things that are inconvenient to report on. Or perhaps there is some other reason that explains the 2008 focus that coincidentally started almost immediately after the November election ended five years of one-party rule. Has the media done such 24/7 pre-election coverage so early for another national election?

Howard Kurtz: You lost me at corporate-owned media. Do you really think some corporate executive is deciding this? To "distract" from other news? In each of the past several elections, I have chided the media for covering the next presidential race at a ridiculously early stage. It's beyond debate that editors and reporters love politics and would rather cover a far-off campaign than deal with the boring substance of governing. But I haven't made that criticism this time around, and the reason is that the campaign is under way in a full-fledged way. Hillary raising $26 million, Obama $25 million, Romney $21 million. Two candidates (Bayh and Vilsack) have already dropped out. Yes, it's absurdly early, most people haven't tuned in yet, and we often lose perspective at this spring-training stage. But the intensity of the campaign is such that we have no choice but to cover it right now.

_______________________

Kennett Square, Pa.: Howard, as a media commentator and reporter, you're certainly free to discuss the editorial policy of The Post. So, can you speculate on the thinking behind giving Kathleen Parker space on Saturday's editorial page? She opined Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "dead-on" in ridiculing England for having women soldiers, and we in the West are "humiliated, foolish and weak" for putting "mothers in boats with rough men." Yes, I know the editorial page is for different voices, but that can't and doesn't answer why such a silly piece of Victorian fluff got precious column space. Doesn't giving space to Ms. Parker imply The Washington Post editors find her views to be responsible and serious discourse?

washingtonpost.com: Mother Of All Blunders (Post, April 7)

Howard Kurtz: I think it says that Post editorial page editors are committed to publishing provocative views. Remember, this is an op-ed page whose regulars range from Novak and Will to Richard Cohen, E.J. Dionne and Gene Robinson.

_______________________

Avon Park, Fla.: Does CNN management think that politics is not that important to spend much time on? The reason I ask is that Jeff Greenfield just left CNN for CBS. I feel that is because CNN canceled the political shows he used to appear on, and thus had no role for him. I think that is unfortunate because that we are entering a presidential campaign.

Howard Kurtz: I don't think Jeff Greenfield leaving CNN means that the network isn't spending a lot of time on politics. I did feel that Greenfield was an underutilized asset on CNN, and why wouldn't he want to jump to a big broadcast network and be reunited with two executives he worked closely with in the past? CNN has lots of other experienced political reporters and analysts, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone new was brought on for the Greenfield slot.

_______________________

Anonymous: How are The Post's good straight reporters feeling about the increasing wackiness and anti-factualness of The Post editorial page?

Howard Kurtz: Meaning that you don't agree with the Post editorial page, therefore it is wacky? I don't agree with the Post editorial page on lots of things, but I'm glad to work at a newspaper where reporters in the newsroom can chase stories and write them as they see fit, without caring what The Post's editorial position is. And when people attack the editorial page for its stances, or for ignoring certain facts, my thought is, it's healthy that people are arguing about this. The worst fate for any journalist is that your writing disappears into the ether and no one talks about it because no one cares.

_______________________

Boston: In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman writes of the GOP's "Little Lies" strategy. That is, the idea of using little lies about an opponent to try to create a negative impression of said opponent. We all remember the countless fake Clinton scandals from pricey haircuts to missing keyboard Ws. The press reported on each with glee, and then a few weeks/months/years later had to acknowledge there was no "there" there. Today we see the same nonsense with Pelosi. These attacks had no effect on Clinton's public approval, and from last week's polls the same can be said for Pelosi, but the reporting of this nonsense does seem to have a negative impact on one key group: the press. So why do your colleagues (especially the chatty-show ones) let themselves be used like this?

Howard Kurtz: You seem to think that these "little" scandals are aimed only at Democrats. Sometimes the controversies are silly and overblown (the missing Ws, which was true); sometimes they're silly and inaccurate (the idea that air traffic was delayed while Clinton got a haircut on Air Force One). It seems to me the substantive debate over a House speaker going to Syria against the administration's wishes is a discussion worth having (though not the idiotic argument about whether she should have worn a head scarf). But it's also incumbent on us to point out that Dennis Hastert once did the same thing during the Clinton administration. And remember the famous Daily News cover of crybaby Newt being miffed because he had to get off Air Force One through a rear exit? That was arguably a silly story, but it resonated because it seemed telling about Gingrich. So to me it's a question of the volume and tone when reporting these little controversies.

_______________________

Washington: To my knowledge, only the "Today" show had continuing coverage of the "hiccupping girl."

Howard Kurtz: That's absolutely true, and was one of sillier episodes on network television. (Of course, as I often observe, nobody forced the hiccupping teenager to go on national television, but then, nobody forced a morning show to book her.)

_______________________

Red Sox Nation: Gene Robinson ripped into The Post's editorial page on TV last week. Are other Posties as concerned about the downward spiral on the opinion page?

Howard Kurtz: Here's the alleged trashing:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Why is The Washington Post trashing Nancy Pelosi for doing basically what Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton said to do, engage the neighborhood over there in the Middle East?

EUGENE ROBINSON, "WASHINGTON POST": I'm pleased to be able to tell you I'm not a member of editorial board, and you know, I write my columns, they do their editorials. I can tell you where I stand on it.

Wow. That was some tongue-lashing. But even if Robinson had said, "The Post editorial page was embarrassingly wrong on this issue, and here's why," so what? Who on earth would expect every Post columnist (who as I noted cover a broad ideological spectrum) to agree with every editorial? And isn't it better that they say what they think rather than shy away from discussing these disagreements?

_______________________

"Today" show -- historical perspective: I never watch any of the network morning shows. "Today" and the others sometimes do find time in their first half-hour for a bit of news, but let's not forget that in its salad days "Today" featured an actual live chimp named J. Fred Muggs and aired from a street-level "studio" that actually was the Florida Showcase, a tourism promotion storefront at Rockefeller Plaza. It's hard to say they've fallen...

Howard Kurtz: It's certainly true that the morning shows have long been a mix of the serious and the seriously silly. The trick is finding the right balance. I don't think there's any question that the network morning shows devoted more time to hard news 15 years ago than they do today. On the other hand, it's a brutally competitive arena with hundreds of millions of dollars in ad revenue at stake, so if they think they can bump up the ratings with celebrity chefs and interviews with adulterous teachers, they're going to do it. If the ratings went down during those segments, it wouldn't take long for them to vanish.

_______________________

Anonymous Ill.: "Meaning that you don't agree with the Post editorial page, therefore it is wacky?"

No, meaning that Post editorials are increasingly likely to be premised on a statement of "fact" that contradicts The Post's own reporting. The most recent example is the Post's April 5 editorial based on the notion that Pelosi had miscommunicated Israel's position to Syrian leaders, when The Post's own April 4 article reported otherwise. It is this willingness to ignore established facts in order to articulate an opinion that would not be justified by the facts that leads some of us to question The Post's editorial page.

Howard Kurtz: Feel free to question. Obviously in the political arena there is plenty of debate and argument over the interpretation of facts.

_______________________

Woonsocket, R.I.: Sorry to comment twice, but I couldn't resist this: "The worst fate for any journalist is that your writing disappears into the ether and no one talks about it because no one cares." This seems to be making the case for a newspaper full of Ann Coulters.

Howard Kurtz: Uh, I don't think so. I'm saying that editorial pages and op-ed pages are in business not just to enlighten but to be provocative. I'm not saying they're in business to be inflammatory and irresponsible.

_______________________

"Mothers in boats": As a woman, I have to admit feeling uneasy when I heard the female RN sailor say that she decided to "confess" to trespassing in Iranian waters when told that was the only way she would see her 3-year-old daughter again. I'm a working mother, but surely there are some jobs a mother should preclude herself from taking? Or would that be an acceptable excuse for a father too -- and if so, can we western countries (I'm from the U.K. originally) ever fight a war again? And how can selling their story to the media possibly be acceptable for service personnel?

washingtonpost.com: Seized British Sailors Can Sell Stories (AP, April 9)

Howard Kurtz: Personally, it's hard for me to imagine why the mother of a 3-year-old would want to be in a combat role or dangerous military role, but that's not my decision to make. I'm not going to judge that, nor am I going to judge what a hostage in a life-threatening situation says in an effort to stay alive. John McCain, whose courage no one doubts, admits he says things he regretted after being tortured by the North Vietnamese. The question of whether the female British sailor should have been on that boat reminds me of the debate over whether Elizabeth Edwards should still be campaigning for her husband despite her diagnosis: Lots of people have opinions, but it's ultimately up to the women involved.

_______________________

"Today" show: While I am not a terribly big supporter of the "Today" show and its ilk, I would like to point out that it did host the infamous Bob Dole interview about his ties to Big Tobacco and has had some good hard news. Let's take it for what it is, a morning show with a quick preview of news stories for people headed to work and a lot of programming dedicated to those not going to work...

Howard Kurtz: There have been many newsworthy, hard-hitting interviews and substantive segments on "Today," "Good Morning America" and the "Early Show" over the years. But these do tend to come in the first half-hour to 45 minutes. I'm not one who believes that the republic is threatened because Matt and Meredith are cooking pancakes or Diane and Robin are chatting up a movie star. (Diane Sawyer, as I noted, is reporting from Afghanistan this week.) But I do think the fluffiness of the latter parts of these programs has turned off some folks, even as they draw about 14 to 15 million viewers.

_______________________

Washington: I for one, have loved the "Today" show for years but I have not warmed to Ms. Vieira as the new co-host. Your piece was right on in describing how Meredith is at times awkwardly trying to carve out her own niche on the show. Count me as one of the many who immediately e-mailed to complain when she offhandedly called Matt Lauer an idiot one morning (though I found nothing about it on her blog). She clearly is uncomfortable in the domestic arena that are the show's bread-and-butter (fashion, cooking, decorating, etc.). It comes across loud and clear that she does not identify with the people who want this information, as she spends so much time making self-deprecating jokes. Did you uncover any behind-the-scenes tension in your reporting for this morning's piece? I have detected numerous awkward Meredith moments with both guests and the other hosts. Clearly NBC thinks the "Today" show is their cash cow as there are plans to expand it to four hours next fall!

Howard Kurtz: My sense is that the "Today" folks love Meredith. And she told me herself that she has not always been comfortable in this new role, though after all it's only been seven months. And she's the one who wrote about the reaction to her calling Matt Lauer an idiot (a jibe seems rather mild compared to the O'Reilly/Geraldo smack-down last week). But I must tell you, on-air chemistry is an elusive and hard-to-define thing. Why do people like one anchor over another? The same questions are asked about the evening news. If the ratings rebound at "Today," few people will remember Vieira's transition problems.

_______________________

Dale City, Va.: Howard, one other question on the editorial column -- why is the writer of the main column not identified? As you and several other Post columnists have pointed out, the editorial page is for opinions. Why then is it presented as The Post's opinion rather than identifying the writer? Some of these recent "opinions" are more twisting of facts than opinions or interpretations of news. On a rainy day, just calling it sunny is not opinion but a myth.

Howard Kurtz: This is true at virtually every newspaper in America. The thinking is that the opinions are the consensus of the entire editorial board (and often the publisher) and therefore are not the province of any one writer. Personally, I'd rather see many more signed editorials. Even if it's a group effort, in this age of transparency, it would be nice to know who wrote the prose in question. Newsmagazines once didn't give bylines to present their work as that of a single corporate voice, and that now seems ridiculously anachronistic.

_______________________

Germantown, Md.: Hi Howie, I've been struck by the number of people who only want the editorial pages of a newspaper to publish views that agree with their own. I think that the point of the editorial pages is to explore argue the gray areas of life. However, I do find it interesting that newspapers will run editorials that try to use incorrect facts to argue their points. I think you can agree that there is a difference in facts versus opinions, and that there are certain facts that are agreed on. Could editorial boards consider disclaimers that still allow varying points of view to be presented but reminders readers of agreed upon facts? For example, if Rosie had made her WTC 7 comments in an editorial versus "The View," the board could insert "scientific tests have concluded that the steel could melt under the temperatures present, see Washington Post article on X date to read more" Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: I think that's a fair point. I also think there's a lot of liberal anger at the Post editorial page for taking more conservative stances, especially on the war. But for someone who doesn't work on that side of the wall, I seem to be spending a lot of time talking about it.

_______________________

Midwest: Any comments on Mark Halperin's departure and the changes in ABC's The Note?

Howard Kurtz: Mark Halperin WAS The Note. So it couldn't survive once he stepped down as ABC's political director. At the moment it's just a daybook with no editorial voice. Sometimes the old Note could be spot on, and at other times it could be so wrapped up in inside-the-Gang-of-500 humor that even those of us who are arguably IN the gang had trouble deciphering it.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: I don't know if you can answer or comment, but yesterday's front page story on Mr. Kerik mystified me -- I considered that old news. I remember reading a long time ago about how he was in and then out as revelations on his background and shady dealings came to light. Was this story published because of the Gonzales connection? I'm no Bush fan, but it seemed like The Washington Post just was restating this to embarrass him and Gonzales.

washingtonpost.com: White House Looked Past Alarms on Kerik (Post, April 8)

Howard Kurtz: I think Giuliani's candidacy has sparked a lot of interest in just what happened with that botched nomination. The fact that Alberto Gonzales personally vetted the Kerik nomination makes it newsworthy as well. Sometimes we in journalism go back over old events because with the passage of time we can find out more about what actually happened, and that can be quite valuable.

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.