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."

For Virginia Tech Killer's Twisted Video, Pause but No Rewind (Post, April 23)

The transcript follows.

Media Backtalk transcripts archive

____________________

Avon Park, Fla.: I must say that I am disturbed about how the media covers presidential primaries, basing their decisions on whom to cover based on national polls that are really name recognition contests. Those polls determine which candidates get the most money. Why doesn't the press give all the candidates equal coverage and then see how the polls look after a while? Couldn't you then scale back coverage of lagging candidates at that point?

Howard Kurtz: I happen to agree with you, to a point. Every campaign, the media in their infinite wisdom determine who the top-tier candidates are. Everyone else gets short shrift. And every time, someone who we basically blew off surges into serious contention (Howard Dean, Steve Forbes, Paul Tsongas and others) and we belatedly "discover" them. This year it's even more egregious. There's the Gang of Six -- Hillary, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Rudy and Romney -- and everyone else.

Now obviously we have to make some judgments about money and viability. We can't accord Mike Gravel the same level of coverage as Hillary Clinton simply because he's jumped into the race. But there is a circular relationship between money-and-polls and media attention, so the candidates we starve for attention are being starved in more ways than one.

_______________________

New York: In a San Francisco Chronicle article, a Democratic strategist said that bloggers are often "totally mean and irrational," and "it's amplified by the anonymity, and it can be scary that it's so irresponsible." Who said this? I have no idea because the reporter allowed the strategist to make this attack anonymously. How ironic.

Howard Kurtz: Wow -- that's almost like a parody. Listen, most bloggers are interesting, provocative, funny, etc. There are certainly some who are mean and abusive, and unfortunately, plenty of people who post comments anonymously feel free to talk all kinds of trash, especially (as The Post notes in a story today and as I noted in a Michelle Malkin profile awhile back) with vile, sexually explicit stuff directed at women. But quoting anonymous critics about anonymous flame-throwers doesn't get you very far.

_______________________

Prescott, Ariz.: Hello -- interesting exchange about that D.C. Madam on your show. It sounds like this is going to start sucking a lot of people in. Who do you think should be fair game? This madam certainly has a right to get her clients out there saying they only used her for escorts and not for sex services (and no one is going to say different right). The pundit Duncan Black mentioned that there might be media/journalists personalities involved in this. As to how we should get information about them, Black says:

"As for media figures potentially being caught up in this, aside from personal hypocrisy their potential for being fair game is in direct proportion to the degree to which they are "celebrities" rather than simply journalists. There are no clear guidelines here, of course, though at a first pass those who have a tendency to market themselves as a brand rather than simply marketing their work start moving into celebrity territory. If Britney Spears' private life is fair game, then perhaps Tim Russert's is as well (no I'm not suggesting something here). Russert crossed clearly into that territory when he when he used his celebrity status to market a book about himself. Being a teevee figure moves you into celebrity status, though that of course isn't true of all journalists who make appearances on the teevee. If it's about you, you're a celebrity, if it's about what you're reporting, you're not."

Because the media standard is that celebrity lives are fair game for any and all reporting, including potential visits to prostitutes (I'll call it the Grant/Sheen doctrine), this sounds about right, right?

Howard Kurtz: ABC's Brian Ross told me on "Reliable Sources" yesterday that "there are several thousand names...from administration officials to lobbyists to advisers who are well known [and] people who appear on television." I am somewhat conflicted about this. I don't know if I would publish the names. If someone uses an escort service, but it has nothing to do with his job (whether that job is in government, media or elsewhere), how does that become newsworthy enough to publish? Yes, they are breaking the law if they are paying for prostitutes, but that is hardly an uncommon offense, and if that's the case, why only out the prominent ones? In the case of Randall Tobias, who resigned as deputy secretary of State (and says he got only massages from the D.C. Madam's service--pretty expensive massages if you ask me), you could at least argue that he was leading the administration's effort to preach abstinence around the world. But I wonder what the justification will be for airing other clients of the service.

_______________________

Chicago: Any idea why Russert devoted the entire hour to Joe Biden yesterday? I mean, arguably it was more interesting than listening to Condi Rice stonewall, but I'm just wondering if Russert was having trouble lining up guests.

Howard Kurtz: He is devoting a series of programs to presidential candidates, and Joe Biden, if you haven't heard, is running for president.

_______________________

Women on the Web: I was totally floored by the article in The Post today about women on the Web, especially this bit: "A 2005 study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that the proportion of Internet users who took part in chats and discussion groups plunged from 28 percent in 2000 to 17 percent in 2005, entirely because of the exodus of women. The study attributed the trend to 'sensitivity to worrisome behavior in chat rooms.' "

I'm a woman, and I've departed several chat rooms because I thought they'd gotten a bit "ooky." But I'd really thought I was just being oversensitive, or perhaps had gotten too involved in the community to just laugh the creepy comments off. I suppose that's still possible, but nice to know I'm not the only one who feels a bit vulnerable.

washingtonpost.com: Sexual Threats Stifle Some Female Bloggers (Post, April 30)

Howard Kurtz: You're not the only one by a long shot. Even relatively nonpolitical female bloggers, such as Kathy Sierra, get all kinds of sexually graphic abuse and threats, such as the picture of her in a noose that prompted Sierra to give up blogging.

_______________________

Milwaukee, Wis.: I caught part of Stephanie Miller's show in Imus old slot this morning. As you know Goldwater picked her dad, a Roman Catholic, to balance out his ticket. I was wondering if you thought MSNBC would stick with her?

Howard Kurtz: Well, she's getting a tryout, as Philadelphia radio host Michael Smerconish did last week. I guess it depends on the viewer response. It's interesting that MSNBC is trying to stick with the radio-show approach, which was considered a gamble when the network first tried it with Imus in 1996. The fear was that having guests on the phone wouldn't be much to look at.

_______________________

Somerdale, N.J.: Re: D.C. Madam -- Howie, I don't see any reason not to release all the names of the clients. Every day in local papers people who are busted for soliciting prostitution are listed in the police blotter section. Just because these people are rich power brokers in Washington shouldn't make them immune from the same treatment any of us out here would get -- re: our names published in the paper. Also, this is before trial/conviction, so guilt is not a factor.

Howard Kurtz: But of course, the names would not be published in agate type inside a newspaper. They would be broadcast on national television (and then picked up by everyone on the planet). I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, I'm just trying to examine the journalistic dilemma.

_______________________

Chicago: I'm curious (from a nuts and bolts journalistic standpoint) why it took seven people, including Glenn Kessler and yourself, to research and write Saturday's 879-word article " Rice Deputy Quits After Query Over Escort Service."

Howard Kurtz: I contributed at least 20 words! Actually, they were being a little generous, since my role basically consisted of checking with ABC. Although I was able to alert the newsroom when Brian Ross posted a story about said madam on his blog at 9 p.m. Friday.

_______________________

Re: Madam's list: I can understand the ethical qualms about whether to name names. On the other side of the coin is the potential for newsmakers to lose credibility if it appears they are protecting their own names and the names of their sources. What do you think?

Howard Kurtz: I don't know that Randall Tobias (who forced the issue by resigning) was a great source for anyone. I suppose the name of some sources might be on the list (through the law of averages) and many others won't be. So I don't think that's the main question to resolve.

_______________________

Dallas: Re: The D.C. Madam, you answered: "But I wonder what the justification will be for airing other clients of the service." ... Um, shame, maybe? I fail to see how this is any different from local police departments posting John's pictures online. What's good for the led might be good for the leaders...

Howard Kurtz: I understand the shame argument. Although you'd have to be careful that those who are listed as clients were actually having sex as opposed to some kind of fantasy/massage thing, as Deborah Jeane Palfrey claims and which would not be illegal. When johns are listed in the local paper, it's because they're been charged with something. In this case, while Palfrey has been indicted, none of the men have been charged. All we know, at least initially, is that their phone numbers were in her company's records.

_______________________

Philadelphia: I praise MSNBC for trying out a liberal in the Imus spot. But: "She's getting a tryout, as Philadelphia radio host Michael Smerconish did last week" -- she is getting Monday-Wednesday, Smerconish, a righty, got Monday-Friday. Why the difference?

Howard Kurtz: Originally Smerconish got Monday to Wednesday, and then he was extended for the rest of the week. I don't know whether that will happen with Stephanie.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: These "unnamed clients" of the alleged D.C. Madam would have no problems if they would just get their massages at Elizabeth Arden like the rest of us.

Howard Kurtz: Touche. And they'd probably save a little money. But I'm out of my depth here, having never gotten a massage OR a $400 haircut.

_______________________

Missouri: I have always felt you gave too much credit to many bloggers whose ranting did not deserve publicity. Now, with the Kathy Sierra story, I more strongly believe that the Internet and its anonymity has developed a coarser society. Right and left alike rant and rave, with little intelligent discourse. Of course it makes for "fun" reading when you reprint the comments, but does it add anything to our society?

Howard Kurtz: You should see what I don't use! I try to use bloggers who are sharp and provocative from the left and the right but not those who are personally abusive. You're free to scroll past those who you don't think are worth your time.

_______________________

San Francisco: Good morning, Mr. Kurtz, and thanks for this chat today. With regard to Tim Russert, have you done an actual analysis of his administration guests since Cathie Martin testified at the Libby trial that "Meet the Press" is a place where the OVP can "control the message"? It really does seem, as a previous questioner mentioned, that top-tier administration guests are appearing on the other Sunday shows more than on Russert's. As a media critic, you may want to evaluate that by the numbers sometime soon.

Howard Kurtz: Well, it is the top-rated show by a substantial margin. But as another commenter noted, he devoted yesterday's show to Joe Biden.

_______________________

New York: Hi Howard. On "Today" this morning, there was a much-touted "first live" interview with Tenet. When it aired, the interview was conducted in the studio not by Meredith Viera (Lauer is off globe-hopping), but by Tenet's self-admitted "good friend and admirer" Tom Brokaw. To my knowledge this is the first time ever that "Today" has gone to a different non-show interviewer for a live in-studio interview. So my question is, what gives? Did Tenet insist that Brokaw be the interviewer? Is "Today" disappointed in Viera and sending a message? Here's your chance to either shoot a media rumor down just like that or to tell us "Well now that you mention it..." Like I said, it may all be nothing, but its certainly something that makes you go "Hmmmm."

Howard Kurtz: My reaction is: He's Tom Brokaw. He can interview anyone he wants and any NBC show would be happy to have him. I don't think it's a slight to anyone in the "Today" lineup.

_______________________

Crestwood, N.Y.: Howard, I see you got a starring role and favorable mention -- deservedly so -- in the Moyers show about the embarrassing conduct of most of the mainstream media, which acted as Bush and Cheney's enablers in the run up to the Iraq War. What bothers me is that articles like yours seem to have had no effect whatsoever on most of your journalistic brethren prospectively. If, for example, the administration stages a Gulf of Tonkin-style pretext to launch a preemptive attack on Iran, I am confident that big media will fall into line and act as dishonestly as they did in 2003. And the problem is as much editors as it is reporters. Why am I wrong?

washingtonpost.com: A Media Role in Selling the War? No Question. (Post, April 25)

Howard Kurtz: Well, it's hard to predict what would happen in a hypothetical situation. But I believe that the media's more aggressive tone in covering this war is tied in part to a feeling of having been had during the WMD debate. An interesting test case a couple of months ago was when the administration started charging that Iran was supplying deadly weapons to Iraqi insurgents. I saw a number of skeptical reports examining just what we knew and didn't know about the level of Iran's involvement, and concluding there was little hard evidence. That was in marked contrast to what happened in 2002 and 2003.

_______________________

Washington: I don't see much of a journalistic dilemma -- it's not like respecting the madam's clients' privacy is actually an option, here. If The Post doesn't publish the list of names, someone else certainly will. Liberal blogs already are salivating at the thought of multiple Bushies appearing. So, as the information will be out there anyway, why not go ahead and report it?

Howard Kurtz: I'm not questioning whether The Post should report this once it's out, I'm examining what ABC News can and should do. ABC is the only news organization that has the list of phone numbers, so the rest of us have no independent way, at least for now, of reporting any name that is not first reported by Brian Ross and company.

_______________________

Washington: Howie -- I keep hearing that Tobias is the first big name outed from the D.C. Madam list. I heard that Harlan Ullman, defense pundit and author of the phrase "shock and awe," was outed last week and offered the typical non-denial denial. I'm crossing my fingers that my boss is on the list!

Howard Kurtz: The name of Harlan Ullman was leaked last week, and he denied being a client of the service.

_______________________

New York: Howard, can you gauge what the reaction from the media has been to Bill Moyers' sharply critical "Buying the War" (in which you appeared)? What was your own reaction to it?

Howard Kurtz: It's gotten a tremendous amount of attention, certainly within the news business. And while those of us in the profession are familiar with many of the arguments, I think Moyers took the issue of the media's shortcomings in the run-up to war to a much wider audience.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md. : Given the colossal magnitude of the errors made by many of the major U.S. media organizations prior to the Iraq War, such as those outlined by Bill Moyers in his terrific special "Buying the War," why hasn't there been more examination and corrective action taken? Why are so many of the nonexpert pundits still being given venues to say what they think? One would think that simple self-respect would require many of these people to at least resign and take up a new line of work.

Howard Kurtz: There was a fair amount of self-examination in 2004, when I wrote a front-page piece about The Post's performance during the prewar period, the New York Times ran an editor's note on its shortcomings, the New Republic said it had been wrong to back the war, etc. Whether there has been a more lasting effect on journalism is an interesting question. I certainly saw more skepticism toward, for example, the administration's repeated claims of progress in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, but I also see unnamed administration officials quoted all the time, and not just about the war.

_______________________

"Today" Show: I started watching CBS "Early Show" and think it is, by far, a better program than "Today" or the ABC show (don't know the name). Harry Smith really grew on me and Hannah and Julie are just so sweet and real. I just don't get the "appeal" of "Today" show's anchors. They claim to be number one in the ratings. True? I find that hard to believe, but maybe I am in the minority.

Howard Kurtz:"Today" is No. 1 by a significant margin, "GMA" is No. 2 and the "Early Show" is a distant third.

_______________________

El Segundo, Calif.: Howard, there are times when I can get very irritated with Russert's "Meet the Press" show, but yesterday's sole interview with Joe Biden was great. He has a sharp mind, focusing on America's interests, and speaks in complete paragraphs -- sometimes he's too verbose, but he's up front with his answers. I really wish the MSM would focus less on the top six and more on the Bidens, Dodds, Huckabees and Thompsons (at least the one that's declared).

Howard Kurtz: But it's much more fun to focus on those who aren't declared! Actually, given their level of experience, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson are quite credible presidential candidates, but the media have collectively decided that because they're low in the polls and have raised ONLY a few million dollars, that they're second-class citizens in this race. At this point in 1999, John McCain was at 3 percent in the polls, as he reminded a group of us on his bus in New Hampshire last week.

_______________________

From a female perspective: I am a woman who posts comments to various blogs (usually the leftist ones) using a gender-neutral handle. Invariably, other commenters engage me as though I am male ("he says", "his comment", etc). It's pretty interesting.

Howard Kurtz: Maybe you've solved the problem, Ms.!

_______________________

New York: Why was Tenet on the "Today" show at all? Is this interview something their demographic is interested in? I doubt it. "60 Minutes" makes sense, but I don't get this on either Tenet's side or NBC's.

Howard Kurtz: Doesn't seem odd to me. Today often books interviews with well-known people peddling newsworthy books. Tenet is going on Larry King. Why wouldn't NBC's morning show want him?

_______________________

Chicago: George Tenet claimed that Bob Woodward used/was fed the "slam dunk" quote out of context. Do you think Woodward will respond to Tenet? And if the usage was wrong, would a reporter "out" the person who fed the line?

Howard Kurtz: I don't know if Woodward feels the need to respond. The context that Tenet claims -- that he was talking about marketing of the WMD message as opposed to the intelligence itself -- doesn't seem that different to me from what was in Woodward's book. And no less a figure than Vice President Cheney (in a clip that's been much replayed for the last couple of days) has cited Tenet's slam-dunk comment as justification for the administration's actions.

_______________________

Publish 'em: These folks broke the law. There was much screaming about President Clinton "breaking the law" when he lied under oath about having consensual sex. What's good for the goose...

Howard Kurtz: I'm not disputing your point, but Clinton had testified before a grand jury. If any of the men on this list were summoned as witnesses, or charged with a crime, reporting that would be a slam dunk, to coin a phrase. But if it's just a phone number on a list, at the very least, you've got to be careful. What if someone was trying to call Blockbuster and got the escort service instead?

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Do you think other news organizations will follow the New York Times' lead and stop attending the White House Correspondents Dinner?

Howard Kurtz: Maybe a couple. I'm not a big fan of these dinners, as I've said a number of times. But if you abolished them all tomorrow, would the press corps suddenly be far more aggressive and less cozy with those it covers? I think the dinners are a symbol, and not a cause, of the flaws in Washington journalism.

_______________________

Female Journalists: Perhaps Ms. Viera wasn't 'seasoned' enough, but Mr. Brokaw is an excellent interviewer, and Mr. Tenet has proven to be a sensitive subject. That said, who do you think is the most effective female interviewer on the air today?

Howard Kurtz: Diane Sawyer and Katie Couric are pretty good.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Howard, admit it: You contributed to Blaine Harden's article on fluorescent lightbulbs and their disruption of domestic tranquility.

washingtonpost.com: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquility (Post, April 30)

Howard Kurtz: I don't even own one of those things. And now apparently I have to check with my wife before I can buy one.

Thanks for the illuminating 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.