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."

Interviews, Going the Way of the Linotype? (Post, May 21)

The transcript follows.

Media Backtalk transcripts archive

____________________

Brooklyn, N.Y.: Howie: I wanted to weigh in on today's column, which I found very interesting. I do PR work (I'll wait for the booing to subside) for a number of financial clients in New York City, and many of the journalists I deal with at the Journal, New York Times, Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. are willing to do nearly all of the interviews I arrange on background, and then will e-mail quotes to me before publishing the story. This allows my client to review them for accuracy and clarify any points that might be a little bit off. While there have been rare occasions when they used the quotes out of context, about 95 percent of the time the reporter and my clients end up happy.

I'm wondering whether this goes on outside of the financial world and what your thoughts are on this practice. I get the sense that because some of the financial terms and concepts are so complex, reporters see it as a way to ensure they keep sources happy while making sure their stories are accurate and thus, respected. Thanks for taking my question.

Howard Kurtz: It's certainly not uncommon to begin an interview on background and then have the reporter press for parts he or she can use on the record. That's usually done at the end of the conversation, not by e-mail, but maybe the e-mail thing is becoming more common. I find that, particularly when sources are a little nervous, once they've talked things out they often agree to put much or all of what they've said on the record. But there are also frustrating moments when you have some terrific and provocative quote and you just can't get permission to use that. At least all this flows out of a conversation, though, as opposed to the e-mail interviews I describe in this morning's column.

_______________________

New York: Because of work commitments, I caught only the first few minutes of "Reliable Sources" yesterday, but it was jaw-dropping. When you raised the serious point that the media acts like theater critics, Gloria Borger claimed that it was so early in the process there was nothing else for the media to do. Huh? I thought, well, look into something -- for example, the very wealthy Mitt Romney's use of taxpayer-funded security for campaign trips irritated some Massachusetts taxpayers. It's an open question whether it was abusive -- wouldn't it be interesting to try and figure it out? Or to look into other candidates' behaviors in their home states? Maybe I misunderstood her, but what's the point of being a journalist if you're sitting around waiting for the politicians to do something? That attitude kinda sheds new light on why the country's in so much trouble.

Howard Kurtz: Gloria was being a little flip with that answer, in effect acknowledging that the media were going a bit overboard on Rudy's 9/11 one-liner against Ron Paul. (Ryan Lizza of the New Republic described the media reaction as "hyperventilating.") She was in no way suggesting that there weren't important and substantive questions involving the candidates that journalists should be examining. You know, sometimes we have a little fun on the show.

_______________________

Woodbridge, Va.: Hi Howard. What is it gonna take for the media to stop using the word "czar" (war, drug, Katrina, education, etc). It has become even more annoying than referring to a scandal as "-gate". Besides the fact that czar refers to a Russian dictator, the czar positions are always coordinators that are powerless, and therefore the total opposite of a dictator.

Howard Kurtz: The New York Times had a piece on czar life yesterday, if I'm not mistaken -- which I take as important, since it's the home of language czar William Safire. Look, it's a little silly, but on the other hand, headline-writers are grateful for any title that is four letters.

_______________________

Knoxville, Tenn.: I found it interesting that in your discussion Sunday of the Fox Noise's coverage of the Republican debate no mention was made of Sean Hannity's dismissal of their own instant poll after the debate. Just because the "obscure" Rep. Ron Paul was second in their own poll the results were discarded by Hannity. Even though Rep. Paul's argument matched up with the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group produced by the "obscure" James Baker and Rep. Lee Hamilton.

As usual Hannity decided instead to make up the facts as he went along and yet you Mr. Kurtz still wonder why the Democratic candidates don't trust Fox Noise. Isn't this the same "news" organization that two days after CNN had proved that Fox Noise's Obama's Madrasa story was a fake still was running it on their network still claiming it was a factual report? Isn't this also the same Fox Noise that to this day has yet to offer any public apology for the repeated slandering of Michael Schiavo even after the autopsy of Terri Schiavo proved he had been telling the truth while Fox Noise anchors one and all were busy making up the facts as they went? To be treated like a "news" network Fox still has a lot to prove.

Howard Kurtz: I personally think all Internet polls are worthless. In any event, we weren't critiquing everything Fox News does, we were just examining the question of whether the moderators asked good, tough questions at that debate, because there were certainly lots of folks who expected Fox to roll over for the Republicans.

_______________________

The End of "I was misquoted?": Seems as though objective journalists, yourself included, would welcome e-mail exchanges. It must be very frustrating to publish an interview, even one that you taped, only to have the subject claim to have been misquoted. Almost as frustrating as it would be for the subject to see only partial quotes, which might be used out of context even though the words appeared in the transcript.

Howard Kurtz: Well, that's the tradeoff. And e-mail exchanges can be very useful, don't get me wrong. But you lose something when you are not actually talking to the person -- facial expressions, tone of voice, spontaneous combustion in the conversation that changes your thinking -- in a way that doesn't exist with typed words on a screen.

_______________________

Baltimore: Howard, re: interviews -- I did many face-to-face and phone interviews during a dozen years as an arts contributing writer for the Baltimore City Paper. The one thing I always did in a lengthy interview was tape record it (with the subject's permission, of course). This allowed me not only to avoid misquotations, it kept me fully engaged in the exchange and resulted in a very different piece of journalism than I would have created had I concentrated on scribbling notes and saying "uh huh, uh huh."

I remember in particular one in-person interview with a well-known writer of fiction that took a fascinating turn when he learned that I, too, was a recovering alcoholic. It took us in an entire new direction that illuminated his work and his cultural background -- and I think that only happened because I picked up on something he alluded to and ran with it. (The writer had been public about drinking before, by the way -- but I think he felt that I really understood his situation more than another journalist might.)

Howard Kurtz: That's the point I was trying to make. The art of conversation may be dwindling in this age of instant messaging and texting, but sometimes the exchange of views between human beings leads to a more interesting discussion. I take notes even with a tape recorder, though, because I'm always paranoid that the tape will malfunction.

_______________________

Washington: Good Morning Mr. Kurtz. I was reading Media Notes this morning and was struck, as I frequently am, by some of the word choices reporters make. I refer to the White House's "biting rebuke" of Jimmy Carter. Biting? Really? I thought it was political boilerplate. Was Jimmy Carter choking back sobs? It brings to mind a New York Times headline from last week, that, if I recall correctly, called the rejected deauthorization bill a "stinging defeat" for its proponents. Really? Did anyone think it would pass? Feingold actually seemed pretty happy with the outcome. Can you comment on this practice? Was it always this way? Is it just sensationalism? If it is, it seems out of place in a profession that usually goes to such pains to avoid reporting non-facts.

Howard Kurtz: Well, for a White House to say that a former president of the United States is "increasingly irrelevant" comes pretty close to biting in my book. Not in the Mike Tyson sense, but in the rhetorical combat sense. Of course, the administration was provoked by Carter saying it was the worst in American history. Interesting that he backed off somewhat in a "Today" show interview this morning, saying he had been careless in his choice of words.

_______________________

In the spirit of "never use very unless you can substitute damn": How about "god"? It has an even shorter headline count, and considering how offended many readers would be, it would eliminate the use of tsar almost entirely.

Howard Kurtz: In my line of work I prefer mogul.

_______________________

Burke, Va.: As you reported last week, ABC anchor Charlie Gibson refused to begin his newscast with Jerry Falwell's death. Gibson said that leading with the "controversial" televangelist would "lend importance to a figure whose legacy contained a lot of positives and a lot of negatives." Did Gibson tell you what he considered negative about Falwell? Was it the fact that Falwell was influential in getting Reagan elected in 1980? Or that Falwell was pro-life? Or pro-traditional marriage? Shouldn't a supposedly objective reporter let others talk about whether a political figure is positive or negative?

washingtonpost.com: ABC News's Charlie Gibson Calls the Shots, Lands on Top (Post, May 17)

Howard Kurtz: He did not spell out what he meant by a lot of negatives, but clearly he was referring to some of the more controversial and incendiary remarks that Falwell has made over the years. Gibson made the point that ABC rarely leads its newscasts with an obit. And World News did do Falwell's passing as the second story that night, which is a perfectly defensible judgment.

_______________________

Washington, re: Walter Cronkite retrospective: I thought the Walter Cronkite retrospective was embarrassing puffery and wondered if you agree. Was this really produced by a news department and not by the CBS publicity folks? It looked like a campaign commercial! First, there wasn't a single mention that I heard of any behind-the-scenes editorial bravery or conflict, not even on coverage of the Vietnam war, Watergate or the civil rights movement; it was all sweet reminiscences. I would've found the piece a lot more (ahem) journalistic and also worthwhile if it'd explored what Cronkite contributed besides emotions, a trustworthy visage and an ability to socialize with George Clooney and the Grateful Dead.

Second, Dan Rather was virtually airbrushed out of the picture except for two paltry sound bites, while Katie Couric was called on constantly for comment, as though she and not Rather had reigned for two decades as Cronkite's successor and worked with him for years before that. Why is CBS still so reluctant to acknowledge that Rather was a major figure at the network? Is someone afraid they'll lose favor with the White House?

Howard Kurtz: The man is 90 years old and had a legendary career. I didn't have any great problem with the broadcast. I was glad that Rather was included (he certainly appeared more than twice) given the unhappy parting between him and CBS, after he worked with Cronkite for all those years. Besides, all the current network anchors were featured on the program, not just Katie Couric.

_______________________

Interviewing Style: You probably don't face the same challenges as a lot of interviewers, given your reputation, but also given that you generally speak to people who are pretty media-savvy. That said, do you ever have a subject who won't allow you to use tape?

Howard Kurtz: Despite my beat, I sometimes interview ordinary folks, or those who are less media-savvy, and my goal is to draw them out, not to get them to say something they'll regret. I can't remember a time when someone didn't want to be taped, but I generally do that only during long sit-downs.

_______________________

Florissant, Mo.: Within a day or two of Chris Matthews' MSNBC interview of the Republicans, the Fox News gang was dissing the quality of the questions he asked. What was your take on both the caliber and probing-ness of the questions that have been asked by the various panelists thus far? Could you tell by the questions the political biases of the moderators?

Howard Kurtz: I didn't think it was Matthews's best hour on television. He asked good questions, but -- perhaps constricted by the 10-candidate format -- I thought he jumped around too much in terms of topics and the candidates had too little opportunity to mix it up. He excels at "Hardball" but I'm not sure "Hardball" was the best approach for this setting.

_______________________

San Francisco: Do you have an opinion about The Washington Post half-pages, Mr. Kurtz? It's a rather burning issue for the Ombudsman.

Howard Kurtz: I confess it's not on my radar screen. I'm just happy if they wrap the thing in an extra plastic bag when it rains.

_______________________

Hokieville, Va.: Howard, I'm astounded that news organizations would equate a "transparent" investigation into the VT shootings with an all-access-all-the-time mentality. Of course the investigating panel is going to need some closed-door sessions. Of course some sensitive, personal information about those involved will be reviewed. Disallowing the news media from those specific discussions doesn't toss the overall investigation into an impenetrable haze of public obfuscation. As an alum, I don't want y'all there -- I want to know the investigation was complete, thorough and fair. I have more confidence in it when the panel members recognize when the media should and should not participate. Don't the protests by The Washington Post and others strike you as sour grapes after a missed opportunity to continue sensationalizing the tragedy?

washingtonpost.com: Va. Tech Panel Holds Closed-Door Session (Post, May 21)

Howard Kurtz: Several news organizations objected to the closing of the hearing. I don't think it has anything to do with sensationalism -- not at this point. Like most journalists, I believe that public panels should meet in the open unless there is a compelling reason to go behind closed doors, such as national security secrets or other sensitive information. In this case the killer is dead, so there's no question about jeopardizing a prosecution.

_______________________

Indianapolis: I just did my first full e-mail interview. It was okay -- better than I expected, because the subject gave thoughtful answers -- but the format doesn't allow for follow-up questions and you get no sense of the person you're "talking" to. I hope this doesn't become the preferred method of interviews. My question: If the subject of the interview answers with a typo, do we leave that in? Or put (sic)?

Howard Kurtz: I don't think you can hang people for typographical errors in these exchanges. You can follow up (with more e-mails) but there's a time lag quality that doesn't always make for great exchanges. And it's harder to press someone if he is trying to finesse a question he doesn't particularly want to answer.

_______________________

San Francisco: Can you answer Chris Matthews' burning question after last weekend's "60 Minutes"? Is each presidential candidate going to be asked about pre-marital sex? What about extra-marital sex?

Howard Kurtz: Gawd, I hope not.

_______________________

Washington: Hello, Mr. Kurtz (sorry, but I cannot help but think of "Heart of Darkness," not that you resemble the Colonel...). I am disappointed that The Post seems to be the only media outlet, besides one story on NPR, that has reported on this Gonzalez/Ashcroft/Comey nightmare. This is over the top outrageous and I would think people would be fairly disgusted, but it just sort of went away. Instead, we get reporting on Jerry Seinfeld in a bee outfit. It is fairly depressing. This is not a complicated story, so why no coverage? Thanks, and keep up the great work.

Howard Kurtz: Don't know how you concluded that. There were major stories on the hospital incident in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and other papers, and it was all over cable television, along with NBC Nightly News, and in lots of other places.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Do you believe the White House was wise to respond to Jimmy Carter's charge that the Bush foreign policy is "worst in history"? By having a spokesman say that Carter is "irrelevant" while he's enjoying a short holiday, didn't they leave themselves wide open? Sure enough, there was Carter on the "Today" show this morning from New Orleans rebutting the President while his Habitat for Humanity people completed their 1,000th house behind him. So who has the moral high ground here? And shouldn't Bush bring in some Madison Avenue PR types to give his people a refresher course, Howie?

Howard Kurtz: I suspect White House officials were just ticked off, rather than carrying out any grand strategic plan. Carter smacked their guy, and they punched back. And it seems to have done them a bit of good, with Carter backing off his comments this morning. Plus, it fires up the Republican base, which is especially important to Bush right now given his standing in the polls.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Enjoyed Reliable Sources over the weekend. In your discussion of where the "line" is when doing raunch radio, did you invite anyone from the FCC to participate?

Howard Kurtz: It's not really an FCC question. For one thing, the Federal Communications Commission has no jurisdiction over content on satellite radio, where the Opie & Anthony incident happened. On terrestrial radio, the FCC has banned certain dirty words and could levy fines for obscene talk. Beyond that, a host could be abusive, hateful, racist, sexist or anti-gay, and as long as he or she doesn't use certain terms, no government action can be taken. It wasn't the FCC that prompted CBS to fire Imus. So for me the question is, where is the "line" as defined by the hosts and the companies that employ them? Or is there no line unless advertisers start bailing out?

_______________________

New York: Mr. Kurtz, I hope it's all right if I address this question to you. I am a talk radio producer who finds these chats very helpful for finding topics and angles. However, I've noticed that a lot of the chatters are the same people who write in every day and say the same thing every day. There's a dark art to call screening in talk radio, but we do try to limit regular callers, especially those who always come back to the same subjects, to once or twice a week. Is there any effort to do that among the producers of these chats? Does it matter?

Howard Kurtz: No. I'm not sure that's right, that it's mostly the same people, although I'm sure we get some repeat customers. I try to get to as many questions as I can, and favor those that involve media issues or something I've written or talked about. But we want to widen the circle, not narrow it.

_______________________

Re: half-pages: I hate them, it makes turning pages of the paper much more difficult, especially if you don't have both hands available.

Howard Kurtz: I can see where it would be tough on the subway.

_______________________

Prescott, Ariz.: Since you are praising FOX for asking good questions at the debate (and I agree for the most part, more on that in a sec), I was wondering if that means you automatically think they would ask Dems good questions? Looking at the Republican debate, I think I can make a case that Dems wouldn't get the same fair treatment. It isn't a stretch to say Ron Paul is a non-favorite of FOX -- they proved it afterward. Now while other candidates got a wide assortment of questions asked of them, as I recall, every single question asked of Ron Paul was about Iraq. While this could be just an unfortunate coincidence, it could also indicate that he was being marginalized. So again, do you think Chris Wallace and Brit Hume want to ask Dems questions about universal health care plans or haircuts?

Howard Kurtz: I don't know, and I don't think I'm going to find out, since the Democratic National Committee has stiffed Fox for all the remaining debates this year.

_______________________

Bowie, Md.: Why are so many 0.5 - 1.5 term Senators getting so much coverage as serious candidates? Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Thompson have more interesting off-political biographies than histories of effective governance. Is the news hole too big to fill with coverage of what kind of presidents they'd be?

Howard Kurtz: I think the standard is whether they appear -- based on polls, fundraising, and the other crude tools available to journalists -- to be serious candidates for the White House. Based on resume, for instance, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson are very credible presidential candidates with decades of experience. Yet the media are treating them as second-tier types -- unlike Obama, whose national experience is limited -- because of the almighty polls.

_______________________

Washington: Re: White House vs. Carter: When the White House fired back, I just wish Mr. Carter had said "okay, everyone in this discussion with a Nobel Peace Prize raise your hand." Unfortunately, he's never been known for his sense of humor.

Howard Kurtz: Maybe he needs a joke writer.

_______________________

Question on chats: Hello Howard -- this is a little off-topic, but a recent experience with the Washington Times leads me to question the policy of the post regarding its online postings. For kicks, I checked out the Washington Times Web site and read a blog by one of their political columnists regarding the U.S. Attorney firings that was strikingly counterfactual and ignored the relevant issues, and re-visited the Times's obsession with the sexual life of Bill Clinton. The blog allowed readers to provide feedback, so I did: I pointed out the logical fallacies imbedded in the blog, and was very critical of the the Times for promoting dubious arguments and for being sloppy with its reporting.

A few days later, I checked to see whether there were any responses to my post. There weren't any, because the Times never posted my comment. There were about 30 other comments posted, and some were posted after I submitted mine, but for some reason mine was screened out. My comment contained no offensive language whatsoever, although it was very critical of the columnist's opinion. I suppose, given a paper of the Times's caliber, it should not have surprised me. So that leads me to my question: What is The Post's policy regarding the posting of comments by readers? Does The Post automatically post reader comments, or does it screen such comments before posting them?

washingtonpost.com: Washingtonpost.com Discussion Guidelines

Howard Kurtz: My understanding is that all comments are automatically posted, and that based on complaints from readers, a fraction are later removed if they are deemed obscene or offensive.

_______________________

Washington: How is it that Jimmy Carter makes these ridiculous comments and remains angelic in media coverage? Reporting live from Habitat for Humanity this morning? Come on. Carter was one of our worst presidents in history, so I guess you can say "it takes one to know one." His comments on Bush may have been right on -- but they were inappropriate from a former president and would have carried greater weight from a far greater president (a la Bill Clinton). And his comments on Tony Blair? Don't even get me started.

Howard Kurtz: I think the media consensus is that Carter's presidency was unsuccessful but that he has done admirable work, particularly with Habitat for Humanity, in his post-presidential years. However, I don't think he gets a pass for his controversial pronouncements on politics (witness the furor over what he said about the Middle East in his last book). In fact, I think the reason his slam at Bush got so much coverage in the last 24 hours is precisely because it is so unusual for a former president to slam one of his successors with such harsh language.

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.