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."

Stung by Harper's In a Web Of Deceit | Undercover Journalism (Post and washingtonpost.com, June 25)

The transcript follows.

Media Backtalk transcripts archive

____________________

Oxford, Miss: I agree with the spirit of your piece on reporters donating to political parties/candidates, but you're misusing the term "right" when you say "when you become a journalist, you give up the right to back political candidates or parties with your checkbook." No one gives up their right to back political candidates or parties with their checkbook (or their voice). Even if a reporter (or anyone) signs an agreement not to engage in political activities, they aren't giving up their right to do so; they are simply saying "as long as I choose to stay in this job, I will refrain from doing X." The right, however, remains.

Howard Kurtz: That sounds like semantics to me. Of course a reporter has the "right" to do all kinds of things, but if the practice is specifically banned by his employer, he risks losing his job. So in my book, he (or she) has forfeited that right unless being reprimanded or fired is an attractive option.

_______________________

Oklahoma City: Yes, the journalist/political donation story does raise more questions about the general leftward tilt in the media (long established by many similar studies and surveys). The question is, will major media outlets finally do something about it? I suspect The Post for one has some form of formal or informal affirmative action effort to hire women and racial minorities. How about one for the one media minority that is most under-represented, conservatives?

Howard Kurtz: I've been thinking about this for a long time. I think many young conservatives don't apply for MSM jobs, either because they're not interested, don't think they'd feel comfortable or want to engage in advocacy journalism. I also don't want editors quizzing applicants about their political views. But there are ways, short of that, that editors could move in the direction of greater political diversity as well as racial, ethnic and gender diversity.

_______________________

Washington: You're piece on political contributions by reporters raised a problem I've struggled with. If I work exclusively in local news, I know better than to take part in any way (besides voting) in local politics. But does that knock me out of going to a rally for a national candidate, or making a contribution to a national party? Or conversely, if I'm covering international stories, can I stuff envelopes for a city council candidate or even run for school board myself? I can't make up my mind about the ethics of it all.

Howard Kurtz: I think it does. If you contribute to, say, the DNC or the Democratic presidential nominee, local readers certainly might wonder if you're being fair to the Republican candidates in your area, even though you're not covering the presidential campaign.

_______________________

Washington: I'm getting a real disconnect between the MSNBC report demonstrating that the majority of journalists donate (and presumably support) Democratic candidates and, on the other hand, the Democrats' desire to revisit the "fairness doctrine" aimed at undermining conservative talk radio. Please don't respond with technicalities that the fairness doctrine applies only to licensed radio; I already know that. What I find hypocritical is the Democrats' actions -- apparently, free speech only applies to those media outlets they agree with!

Howard Kurtz: At the moment, I don't see a serious Democratic effort to revive the fairness doctrine, and I doubt it will materialize.

_______________________

Boston: By my count, there are major three newspapers in the U.S. protected from forces of evil (right-wing ownership and/or publicly-owned newspapers with unreasonably profit goals) -- the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. Clearly, the WSJ is going to the dark side. What is your take on this? Is it inevitable that the WP and NYT also will lose the protection of family ownership?

Howard Kurtz: Right-wing ownership amounts to the "forces of evil"? That's an interesting formulation. The NYT and WP stock structure gives voting control to the owning families, so I see very little possibility of any change. But then, the WSJ stock structure gives control to the Bancroft family. The problem arises when future generations come of age and are less interested in the family's journalistic values or are more interested in making money. We saw this in 2000 when the Chandler family sold the L.A. Times (and the other papers and TV stations owned by Times Mirror) to the Tribune Company.

_______________________

New York: Howard, has Bill O'Reilly taken you up yet on your offer to have "Round 2" on your home turf?

Howard Kurtz: Not yet, but I only said that yesterday.

_______________________

Orange, Va.: With all due respect, Howard, I thought your reporting of the MSNBC media donation survey was a little cursory. If you read the actual details of those identified as having given to a particular party, there were an amazing number of the media members who definitely did not cover politics. In other words, who cares to which politician the food critic for the L.A. paper or classical music for the Chicago paper send their monies. Are they going to secret away political messages in their next recipe for corn pudding?

Howard Kurtz: I think it's a legitimate debate whether the food critic or people in those kinds of jobs should be bound by the restrictions. On the other hand, you might think an entertainment writer would have nothing to do with politics. But the MSNBC.com report noted that the Chicago Tribune's entertainment writer had given money to Democrats and then had written a column saying that Oprah had done more than Bush to help the recovery of New Orleans.

_______________________

Granger, Ind.: Mr. Kurtz, thanks for taking questions. I notice "Good Morning America" had Ann Coulter on its program. My question: What constitutes "beyond the pale" in American media -- the point at which someone loses their ability to market themselves? Ann Coulter hasn't publicly used the N word, as Michael Richards did, but she has attacked 9/11 widows and made all kinds of other stupid and toxic statements. Is there a point at which producers of shows like "GMA" say, "enough --- this person is a charlatan and no longer deserves a microphone"? Or do ratings and profit always trump sensible public discourse, whether from the left or right?

Howard Kurtz: Apparently not. You left out her most recent flap -- referring to John Edwards with a six-letter word for gay that starts with F. But it doesn't matter -- programs keep putting her on because she's colorful and apparently good for ratings. Interesting that she went on "GMA," though; I don't think she's been back to the "Today" show since attacking the 9/11 widows in her interview with Matt Lauer.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Can I just cast my vote in favor of Silverstein's sting, and undercover journalism in general? Congrats to those newspapers and magazines that finally want to do whatever it (legally) takes to get back to keeping us (who know nothing without such operations) informed about, in this instance, how good -- and well-paid -- lobbying (and PR) firms are at spinning the news, no matter the client. Now, if only the Silversteins of the world could investigate how our government is spinning the news. I'd bet the lobbying firms would look like amateurs.

Howard Kurtz: You're certainly free to disregard the deception involved and say that the ends justify the means. To me, though, there's a very serious journalistic issue involved. No newspaper that I know of would allow that kind of misrepresentation. But Silverstein makes the argument that you couldn't get this kind of story otherwise.

_______________________

Washington: Howie, there's a really good line in your second printed item this morning (on "Crossing the Line") that can and should be applied to the first ("undercover journalism"). The line is "but they --reporters who contribute to partisan campaigns -- seriously underestimate the public distrust of journalists, which is only fueled by such practices."

Faking anything in the journalistic process undercuts everything we do. To misrepresent yourself in order to see whether a public affairs firm will do its job -- bid for your business as you've requested -- is just awful. It's cute, but destructive. And unprofessional.

Howard Kurtz: A very different view than the previous commenter. And that's the risk that Harper's took, that readers would be sufficiently turned off by the lying and deception involved that in their eyes the story would be discredited. This story on the lobbying firms required fake business cards and a bogus Web site -- not exactly garden-variety journalism.

_______________________

Washington: Over at Daily Kos (I know, I know) they're flogging he idea that The Post's decision to run the "Angler" series during the dog days of summer -- and possibly change parts of it -- show The Post's senior management as trying to soft-peddle the story. That doesn't strike me as too plausible -- the story comes across as a pretty strong indictment of the creepy little veepy. Still, do you know if it was controversial within The Post or if it attracted any undue high-up attention?

Howard Kurtz: Soft-pedal? A four-day, front-page series with a huge amount of space -- four cleared pages for each of the first two installments -- that obviously took months to prepare? If that's soft-pedaling, we're clearly not very good at it. Besides, I thought the dog days don't start till August, or at least July.

_______________________

Seattle: I had my first example of interactive news gathering on Saturday night. I got on the computer and read the first installment of the Cheney series, which was great, but it had an error; it said he was a Ph.D. student at Wyoming. So I posted that that was wrong, and when I read the story again the next morning online it now correctly said he'd been at Wisconsin. Does this happen much?

Howard Kurtz: I don't know. And I don't know whether someone else caught the error. But one of the great things about online journalism is that you can quickly correct your errors.

_______________________

Boston: I took journalism ethics not that long ago, and it seemed a fundamental tenant was that you didn't participate in anything you covered. Period. I'm trying to recall the name of the famous old-school newspaperman who said even joining a political party was cause for bias. I'm wondering where the disconnect is and whether this a new phenomenon and why reporters aren't standing by what seems to be such a basic ethical standard.

Howard Kurtz: Well, keep in mind that 99 percent of journalists don't contribute to candidates or political parties. It's not a brand-new issue -- I did my own piece on such donations a couple of years ago -- so I'm surprised when journalists plead ignorance that the practice is verboten at many places.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Did you see that pregnant girl's dad on the "Today" show this morning? Who jumps on a plane to New York the day after his daughter's body is found in a park? There was also the cryptic remark about being estranged from her for the past year. I think this was one of the weirder "gets" of the year...

Howard Kurtz: I did not see it. But the urge to be on television causes some people to do very strange things.

_______________________

The "undercover" story: Okay, I work in PR but I still didn't see the point of the story you profiled where the editor pretended to be a business exec with ties to Turkmenistan. Not the greatest country in the world, but do we recognize the government? Do we do business with them? From what I read, the responses from the lobbying/PR firms were surprisingly responsible, if I can be honest about my profession. Can you tell me what I'm missing that makes this a story?

Howard Kurtz: The PR firms involved didn't propose anything illegal, and I guess it's in the eye of the beholder whether their conduct was unsavory. PR types, like lawyers, sometimes represent some pretty shady actors. But my point in writing about it was to focus on the question of journalistic ethics.

_______________________

San Francisco: Mr Kurtz, the only thing more boring than coverage of Paris Hilton is coverage of the coverage of Paris Hilton. You really should be ashamed -- covering 2 a.m. calls to Barbara Walters!

But, since you've brought it up: how did Paris Hilton get phone privileges in jail at 11 p.m. at night?

washingtonpost.com: Paris Hilton's Plea For ABC Interview (Post, June 23)

Howard Kurtz: See? You can't help yourself!

Paris was able to call her aunt, who conferenced the call to Barbara Walters' apartment. I don't know what the jail policies are in terms of calling relatives.

_______________________

Harper's mag: Whether or not undercover journalism is right or wrong, I don't understand the overall point of the piece. PR people are paid to spin? Wow. They represent people you may not like? Stunning. How about in the next issue, they spend 10,000 word on how defense attorneys represent murderers, robbers, and corporate swindlers. That would be shocking!

Howard Kurtz: Fair point.

_______________________

Baltimore: Howard: As a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat, I agree completely that journalists giving to candidates and/or political parties only fuels allegations of bias. I had a good laugh, though, at Stephen Hunter's comment re: the fact that drinking was probably involved when he gave money to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. Again, as a liberal Democrat, I believe that being drunk is the only plausible excuse for giving money to Republicans!

washingtonpost.com: Crossing the Line (Post, June 25)

Howard Kurtz: LOL

_______________________

Port Jefferson, N.Y.: Mr. Kurtz, interesting coverage today of reporters and their political contributions. And about Murdoch: "Stephen Hunter gave $250 to the National Republican Congressional Committee;" Rupert Murdoch gave $250,000 to Trent Lott. Will we ever see a list of political contributions by publishers and owners? I'm guessing they have slightly more influence on the political slant of a newspaper than reporters do, no?

Howard Kurtz: It's widely known that media corporations and executives make political donations to protect what they see as their interests. I'm not wild about the practice, but they're in a different category than working journalists. Murdoch, for example, once donated $1 million to the California Republican Party, and more recently hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. Some news organizations, such as NBC and ABC, are part of much larger conglomerates (General Electric and Disney, in this case) that obviously spread the PAC money around.

_______________________

Severn, Md.: Since you chose to use the comment that Daily Kos was "flogging" the idea of the Cheney story being a soft-pedal, it would have been nice had you checked to see what was actually said before reacting to it. But perhaps fact-checking is only done by those "liberal" journalists.

The question asked was, were paragraphs 7-10 in part II written by someone other than the two people whose names appear in the byline? A legitimate question.

Howard Kurtz: I have checked. As for one Kos commenter's suggestion that several paragraphs must have been inserted by a "bad" editor because they're different in tone than the rest of the piece, that's rank speculation. All Post articles are edited, but in consultation with the authors. That commenter ended by wondering whether Fred Hiatt had a hand in the piece -- an absurd comment, even as speculation, because the editorial page editor has absolutely nothing to do with newsroom coverage. Those who profess not to believe that simply don't understand how this newspaper works.

_______________________

Kettering, Ohio: I appreciated your discussion this morning of journalistic ethics and campaign/candidate donations. After reading the article that started all this, I was surprised at the disconnect a couple of journalists seem to have at having their own ethics questioned. Every profession has their bozos, e.g. the D.C. administrative judge and his pants case -- which he thankfully lost -- and myriad doctors who are sued for malpractice each year. But, short of dismissal, is there an arm of journalism that focuses on policing its ethical lapses?

Howard Kurtz: You're looking at him.

Seriously, there's no official body that does this, other than the ombudsmen at roughly 30 newspapers. And there aren't all that many media reporters in the MSM. But there is certainly no shortage of columnists, bloggers and others pointing out what they see as the media's lapses.

_______________________

Washington: Kos, et al, are entitled to their opinion, but I think you can pretty reliably assume that he/they will use any opportunity they can to attack The Post because of their views on the paper's war coverage. I'm not trying to shoot the messenger, but readers should certainly feel free to consider how thoughtful anyone's arguments are when they only seem to have one argument to make. It's the same reason most smart people have stopped listening to the president.

Howard Kurtz: It is interesting that when The Post makes a major commitment of resources to document some troubling things about Vice President Cheney, the reaction of some on the left is to gripe that this wasn't done earlier. In fact, every issue dealt with in the first two parts, such as Cheney's role in national security investigations and treatment of detainees, has been reported on widely by The Post and others. What this series does is dig deeper into the techniques he has used, aided by some people who have left the administration. It's a difficult level of detail to get, and it takes time to develop sources who are willing to help.

_______________________

North Carolina: Howard, you obviously care a lot about ethics in journalism. Please explain: Why is it acceptable for the newspapers to reprint, verbatim, DOJ press releases about charges being brought? How is that not patently unobjective? The accused are rarely ever contacted. Furthermore, the DOJ has been shown to be more than willing to lie to the public.

Howard Kurtz: The accused are very rarely contacted? I'm not aware of any story where charges were brought where there wasn't some attempt to reach at least a lawyer representing the defendant. Those folks aren't always willing to talk, or to provide more than a two-sentence statement, but that's not for lack of trying.

_______________________

Washington: Hi Howard. On Bill Dedman's work, I thought it had some element of cheap shot about it. For the life of me, I can't get excited about a classical music critic or a fashion writer making political contributions. And graphic artists don't have any kind of editorial control -- can they truly be considered journalists? And when people have strong opinions that everyone knows, like Scarborough, Bill O'Reilly or Rolling Stone, no one is going to be surprised by their making such contributions. One person was listed because they went to a concert that benefited a particular cause -- that was the Bruce Springsteen concert that benefited MoveOn. I do think the working journalists should not make campaign contributions -- but when you whittle down the list even more, it becomes less than 100. He also didn't put it into context by estimating how many journalists are out there. If he's including everyone in the newsroom, then that 144 is really miniscule, because there must be at least 50,000 such employees.

Howard Kurtz: Well, our fashion writer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Robin Givhan, regularly reviews (and mocks) the sartorial choices of politicians (remember Cheney wearing the big overcoat at a state funeral?). She has not made any donations, however. The good thing about the MSNBC report is that for every example, you could click on a link and find out more detail about what happened and the journalist's explanation. Yes, it's a small percentage overall -- no one is disputing that -- but some people in fairly important jobs did engage in the practice.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Did you notice that the front page of this Sunday's Washington Post had no news stories at all -- just four feature stories, including an extremely wasteful (space-wise) and self-serving presentation of the VP story. The first news story appeared on A7. I thought I was buying a newspaper on Sunday. What's with this trend?

Howard Kurtz: Depends on your definition of news. I would argue that the first part of the Cheney series is news of the highest order. News isn't always what happened yesterday; it also can be the product of sustained journalistic inquiry. All newspapers run more features than usual on their Sunday fronts because readers have more time to read longer stories, editors want to showcase their best enterprise work on the day with the biggest circulation, and because not much happens on Saturday. But I do think there can be lots of news embedded in feature stories.

_______________________

Washington: "Those who profess not to believe that simply don't understand how this newspaper works." Isn't it more than that? Isn't it that these people have no idea how real news organizations work whatsoever? I know these people aren't MSM and don't want to be, but even a summer internship would teach you what these people don't seem to get.

Howard Kurtz: Everyone's entitled to an opinion -- but it's nice if the opinion is grounded in fact. And the fact is, if the editorial page editor was allowed any input into the shaping of a news story (not that he would attempt such a thing), the reporters in question would strongly protest and perhaps even resign.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: While I'm not fan of Fox News, I'm fascinated that a cable news network that on its best day is watched by 1 percent of Americans (3 million of 300 million people) scares the MSM and Democratic party so much. Two questions: What does Fox's success say about the news industry in general? And isn't it fair to say Fox and conservative radio talkers like Limbaugh and Hannity are simply filling a void that the MSM missed for years?

Howard Kurtz: I don't think the MSM is "scared" of Fox News. But there's no question that it is a very big player in the world of cable news, and even though cable's audience is far smaller than that of the broadcast networks, that arena is increasingly where many people turn to for news (since the broadcast nets do it only in the morning and evening). And yes, there's absolutely no question that both Fox and talk radio filled a void for millions of conservatives who felt, and feel, that the MSM lean to the left.

_______________________

Washington: The "Predator" show on MSNBC doesn't tag along with law enforcement. In fact, law enforcement isn't allowed inside. They nab the men (and sometimes taser them) once they leave the residence. The men are lured there by television producers (adults) who know how to chat and flirt with men online. Of course, the danger isn't from 13-year-old girls spoiling to get some action -- they'll find what they need from another boy or girl or a grown adult. The danger is from predators like teachers, priests, coaches, etc., who select shy and timid children because they are less likely to resist or voice their shame. It's less like journalism and more like entertainment, and of course viewers love it!

Howard Kurtz: Yes, but my point is that "Dateline" is working directly with law enforcement, and it's the cops who make the arrests.

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.