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."

The Blog That Made it Big: The Huffington Post, Trending Up and Left (washingtonpost.com, July 9)

The transcript follows.

Media Backtalk transcripts archive

____________________

Washington: Howard, is Dan Harrison for real? Climate change isn't a political issue? It sounds like someone should ask him if he watches his own news network.

Howard Kurtz: That's what the man said. (This is the NBC senior vice president quoted in this morning's column as saying the network wasn't taking sides by airing Al Gore's Live Earth concerts because global warming is not a political issue.)

_______________________

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Could you please, when you go in vacation let us know in your column ahead of time? Thanks!

Howard Kurtz: Sure, just give me your number and I'll call.

_______________________

Phoenix: In today's column you perpetuate the myth that there is a genuine debate about the fact of global warming. While there is certainly a vigorous debate as to what, if anything, can be done about it, there are virtually no reputable earth or climate scientists who dispute that the planet is getting warmer. Why do you feel it's okay to continue writing that there is any real, scientific question as to the truth of this phenomenon?

washingtonpost.com: NBC's New Climate ( Post, Media Notes, July 9)

Howard Kurtz: There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is real, and even major corporations no longer are challenging that. But there is a very real and vigorous debate about how severe the problem is, what the country needs to do about it and how quickly we need to move. In that sense, it's very obviously a political issue.

_______________________

Atlanta: Howie, a non-HuffPost question. Do you think that one of the positives of the presidential race starting so early is that the media will get burnt out on the stupid stories? I figure by November Hilary and Bill's marriage will have been beaten to death (a subject which we already have too much information on), reporters will be tired on John Edward's hair, the Obama Girl will be old news and not worth reporting, Rudy's crazy marriages/relationships will have been thoroughly dissected -- I can go on an on with the useless data. With all of this garbage out of the way, I'm thinking that the media will focus on the issues by fall, or certainly by the primaries. Do you think I'm being naive here?

Howard Kurtz: Yes. Once we exhaust the current supply of stupid stories, we will go on to new stupid stories, the likes of which we only can guess at right now.

_______________________

Anonymous: I was astonished to read this quote from William Booth's Saturday article about L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa' affair with a local news anchor: "The short quote, devoid of context, is 'Bad girl!' " says Rafael Olmeda, president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. "You don't get involved with your sources. It's inappropriate on any number of levels." Yesterday, the station announced Salinas would be taking a leave while her bosses conduct an ethical review.

But Olmeda is not about to condemn the couple's personal lives. "If these two are making each other happy, that's more important than professionalism and careers. I'm not going to condone adultery or anything. I feel bad for his wife. But this is very serious business; real people's lives are involved with this, and you can't pass judgment on that."

Is this statement truly a reflection of the media's "ethical" standards? If so, I find it appalling that the media makes a living out of holding everyone else accountable but does not apply the same policy to its own.

washingtonpost.com: Sex and City Hall (Post, July 6)

Howard Kurtz: It's not a reflection of mine. I'm having trouble understanding why Salinas still is employed by the Telemundo station. For her to have read that story about Villaraigosa's martial breakup on the air, given that she was in bed with that particular source, is stunning.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Hi Howard. I was annoyed that your Post colleague John Solomon recently gave us yet another article on John Edwards's hair, and led it with a paragraph saying that his hair "attracts more attention than his policies on health care."

Does Edwards have magic hair? Does the hair have the power to hypnotize reporters who, against their will, are compelled to write stories about it?

This lede might have been acceptable if the story had been about the media's bizarre fixation with Edwards' hair, but it wasn't. It was just a lame effort to make it look like Solomon really had not choice in the matter.

If John Solomon is really worried that Edwards's message on health care isn't getting out because of the siren song of the magic hair, why doesn't Solomon write articles about Edwards's health care ideas?

The hair "attracts attention" only because lazy reporters find it easier to write about than they do real issues.

washingtonpost.com: Splitting Hairs, Edwards's Stylist Tells His Side of Story ( Post, July 5)

Howard Kurtz: The haircut thing has been overdone (although Elizabeth Edwards now jokes about it on the trail and it was the biggest laugh line at the last Republican debate). But what John Solomon had -- and this was in a Style piece -- was the first interview with the well-compensated stylist who does the cutting, and who explained that he's been flying around the country to trim Edwards's locks and is sometimes paid as much as $1,250 to do so. (The Post has, by the way, written about the candidates' health care plans and undoubtedly will do more.) I don't buy the argument that Edwards can't be an effective anti-poverty advocate because he's a rich guy, but this has been an unfortunate bit of symbolism for him.

_______________________

Port Ewen, N.Y.: Yesterday, I caught the end of "Reliable Sources" and you seemed to be saying that you disapproved of Silverstein's investigative methods when reporting on lobbying in Washington. Today I watched him on C-SPAN, and frankly I don't understand what your objection is. I can't see these lobbyists responding truthfully to a knock on their front door. Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: My objection is that journalists who lie and fabricate to get a story, however important the story, are crossing a line that I don't think should be crossed. Silverstein laid this all out in his piece, and I quoted him as saying that readers of Harper's magazine will have to decide whether they are comfortable with his methods. I agree.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Why do so many media reports on the Libby commutation avoid focusing on the very reasonable possibility that the purpose of commutation rather than pardon was to protect Libby from having to testify perhaps implicating Bush or Cheney if subpoenaed by Congress? And why can't reporters in the mainstream find the courage to state as a matter of fact and not simply their opinion that Bush has thumbed his nose at the American legal process?

Howard Kurtz: I think the reporting on this issue has made abundantly clear what Bush did with regard to the legal system (although other presidents have issued controversial pardons -- see Clinton, Bill, and Bush, George H.W. -- and it is within their constitutional rights). We can't know what was in the president's mind, but I've seen some accounts point out that by not granting Libby a full pardon, Bush enables him to avoid congressional testimony by invoking the Fifth.

_______________________

On Ms. Arianna...: You didn't say or address her business model. Does she intend to finance those 45 employees through donations by rich people or advertising or eventually paid subscriptions? And how many similar Web sites are self-sufficient? Drudge has a staff of two or three (counting himself) and most blogs are one-person operations. What is her plan say, 10 years from now?

Howard Kurtz: I mentioned that Arianna is raising money from investment banks and gets its revenue from advertising. That is what is paying for her rapid expansion of the staff.

_______________________

Nuts-and-bolts question: Sometimes in your on-line column, this appears near a quotation: (TM). What does this mean?

Howard Kurtz: It's a bit of computer coding that is not supposed to appear. Our bad.

_______________________

Pasadena, Calif.: Thanks for taking questions, these discussions should be a must-read for political junkies. I found the Hoyt article to be a breath of fresh air and a needed course-correction in a media market the administration is very adept at manipulating. Has there been any reaction around the Washington Post newsroom?

washingtonpost.com: Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner (Post, July 8)

Howard Kurtz: I thought it was an incisive piece by Clark Hoyt, the new Times ombudsman. Haven't had any conversations about it in this newsroom, but I don't think The Post has written as many pieces citing al-Qaeda as the main perpetrator of attacks in Iraq. But it was certainly valuable to point out the shift in the administration's rhetoric, which inevitably is picked up by news organizations that should point out that the facts don't fully support these assertions.

_______________________

Baltimore: Howard: Can you gauge the impact that the Boston Globe story on Fred Thompson's tenure on the Watergate committee might have on his candidacy -- specifically his treatment by the media? The idea that Thompson, as minority counsel, essentially was acting as a conduit of information to the White House was pretty sensational. Yes, the Watergate hearings were more than 30 years ago, but this story provides some insight into Thompson's character -- and his ethics as an attorney.

washingtonpost.com: Not all would put a heroic sheen on Thompson's Watergate role (Boston Globe, July 4)

Howard Kurtz: I don't know whether the average voter would care, but having lived through Watergate, I think it's a pretty big deal. Keep in mind that Fred Thompson has gotten only an iota of the scrutiny he'll receive once he actually gets into this race.

_______________________

Mt. Rainier, Md.: Figured you would have commented on Stephen Hunter's review of "Sicko" in The Post after you wrote about his donation to the RNC (maybe you did and I missed it). Did The Post have any responsibility to arrange for another reviewer write about this movie? Should Mr. Hunter have "recused" himself, as he said that he attempted to do?

washingtonpost.com: 'Sicko': Michael Moore's Anemic Checkup (Post, June 29)

Howard Kurtz: I don't have any problem with the review. Hunter made the contribution three years ago, recognizes that it was a mistake and has not made any political donations since then. He's a terrific, Pulitzer-winning critic and you can't expect him not to review movies that have any political content.

_______________________

Boston: What is the significance of the New York Times editorial calling for a staged withdrawal from Iraq? Will the jig be up only when the Wall Street Journal and/or Washington Times editorial pages call for a withdrawal?

washingtonpost.com: The Road Home (New York Times, July 8)

Howard Kurtz: I think White House officials realize they lost the Times editorial page a long, long time ago.

_______________________

Washington: What side do you take in the issue of whether the Holocaust actually happened? There are plenty of people who argue it never happened -- they even claim to have scientific evidence to back this up -- despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you think climate change is a legitimate debate, I can only assume you feel the same way about any topic where there is a vocal dissent. See you at the Flat Earth Society meetings.

Howard Kurtz: Apparently, the temperature here has gotten so high that it fogged your computer screen and you didn't read my earlier answer. There is no serious scientific debate over the fact of global warming. But should we now impose a huge carbon tax? Crack down on industrial pollution? Change the content of gasoline? Outlaw gas-guzzling SUVs? Sign the Kyoto treaty? Once you get into what to do about the problem, it is the very essence of a political debate. If there were an overwhelming consensus on what to do about climate change, then Bush and Congress would already have agreed on the measures we need to take, right?

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Howard -- in response to the remark from Canada about your vacation time, surely you mentioned it on your My Space page?

Howard Kurtz: I'm on Facebook, as regular readers know. Well, it's nice to be missed, but even your highly dependable media columnist needs a few days off now and then.

_______________________

Washington: I hardly think it's fair to say NBC wasn't being impartial by giving air time to Al Gore simply because many of you media folks love to implying he is a candidate. He isn't a candidate -- he said he won't be. At what point will the media concede that the guy isn't running? October 2008? November 1, 2008? Come on already.

Howard Kurtz: The point wasn't predicated on whether Gore runs again. I personally doubt he will. But the concerts also served as a fundraiser for his climate change organization.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Are members of the media annoyed at Cindy Sheehan? She became the voice and face of Iraq war protest. She was portrayed by many in a sympathetic light, and by Bush supporters as an irrational nut. I ask because her demands against Pelosi -- and her belief that she can beat her -- seem to confirm the irrational nut assumption.

Howard Kurtz: To me, the main point is not whether she runs -- anyone 25 or older is free to run for Congress, even as a long-shot protest candidate. It's that Sheehan's move comes a couple of weeks after she announced to the world that she was tired of being beaten up by both the left and the right and was getting out of public life. Uh, that retirement didn't last long.

_______________________

New Orleans: Concerning the Glasgow coverage last week, most of us don't have the opportunity to sample the news throughout the day. I did not see the video of the burning vehicle until Sunday, although I was aware of the attack on the airport that Saturday. I don't think it was overplayed just as I had mentioned the story about the New York airport plot a few weeks back.

The Scooter Libby sentence commutation was just not big news here. This story to me seemed to be an inside-the-Beltway and media thing. If some facts were revealed about the Iraq war and its build-up, I think the story would be of more interest -- lying under oath, well some ex-presidents...

The Facebook story was more interesting. I signed up, much to the horror of my 24-year-old college grad! Ah, parental revenge is sweet!

Howard Kurtz: I fully understand that the obsession with the Libby case has an inside-the-Beltway flavor. But we are talking about the former top aide to the vice president of the United States, being convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in a case involving the outing of a CIA operative while the White House was furious with her husband for challenging part of its account on the WMD argument that fueled the case for the Iraq war. And after a federal judge deemed the crime worthy of a two-and-a-half-year prison term, the president of the United States used a commutation power he almost never has invoked to assure that this former White House official never will spend a day behind bars. That strikes me as a fairly decent story.

_______________________

Bradford Falls, N.H.: So you claim that Stephen Hunter's donation to the GOP was a mistake. Typical liberal sliming of a good man. Why do you hate America, Howie?

Howard Kurtz: You don't need to rely on my opinion of it. It was against Washington Post policy, as were a handful of other donations that I wrote about a few years back.

_______________________

Kansas City, Mo.: On the Haircut story, do the GOP candidates and their supporters know better, in that they don't discuss these type of topics with the press, that they are more "on message." Democrats appear to be the focus of these types of stories because someone is willing to talk. I mean, has there been a story about W's barber and what he charges?

Howard Kurtz: Nobody discussed this with the press. The haircut came out because it was paid for by Edwards campaign funds and listed on federal disclosure forms. Had Edwards paid the stylist out of his own pocket, no one would have heard a peep about it.

_______________________

New York: "Hunter made the contribution three years ago, recognizes that it was a mistake and has not made any political donations since then." So? You think this makes him impartial? That he no longer donates to them doesn't mean he doesn't support them. Huffington and Bloomberg aside, most people don't change their affiliation after a few years. I personally take his review with a bag of salt and I doubt I'm the only one. Don't you think that's a problem for a writer and a publication?

Howard Kurtz: Yes, I think it's a problem, which is why I report on these issues. People are entitled to take his review of Michael Moore's movie with however many grains of salt they want after learning that he once contributed to the GOP. But I'm less bothered by this one-time incident involving a movie critic than I am by all the political writers and commentators who made contributions (mostly but not exclusively to Democrats) and don't see anything wrong with the practice or plan to stop.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: "Once you get into what to do about the problem, it is the very essence of a political debate." Perhaps in theory this is true. But in reality, it's hardly a political debate when one side's idea of what to do about a problem is to do nothing. Has the president acknowledged climate change? Has he even acknowledged evolution?

Howard Kurtz: The Bush administration has acknowledged in the past year or so that climate change is a problem. But even if it hadn't, that would underscore my point. If one side says it's a major problem, and the other side says it's no problem, that is a political debate. As I said earlier, the debate has moved on to the more difficult terrain of what to do, which would involve real sacrifice to make headway against the problem.

_______________________

John Solomon: I'm not sure I understand your reasoning on the Solomon/Haircut article. You just wrote "But what John Solomon had -- and this was in a Style piece -- was the first interview with the well-compensated stylist"

However, in an April 17 article the Associated Press wrote "Torrenueva -- who specializes in men's haircuts -- confirmed in an interview with The Associated Press that Edwards is a longtime client and friend." Doesn't this make the Solomon "interview" old news since the AP had done it two months earlier?

Howard Kurtz: I should have said the first extensive interview. And Torrenueva clearly is steamed at Edwards, for he not only did the interview but provided billing records for all the times he worked on the former senator's hair.

_______________________

Avon Park, Fla.: I know this is old news, but why weren't Al Sharpton and other civil rights leaders asked their reaction to Mike Nifong being disbarred and the Duke lacrosse case being dismissed? Considering they were out in front in support of the accuser, shouldn't the media have asked them their reaction?

Howard Kurtz: Yes. I don't know that they weren't asked, but journalists certainly should have followed up with anyone who injected himself or herself into the case in those early days, when there was a great rush in the media to convict the lacrosse players.

_______________________

Washington: When people like Bradford Falls says nonsense like "Why do you hate America" -- which seems to be some sort of RNC slogan -- do you think they really mean it? Are some people that deranged?

Howard Kurtz: I think there was a little tongue-in-cheek thing going on.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Re Cindy Sheehan. Your snippy comments was uncalled for. Ms. Sheehan didn't "retire" from all political activity ... she retired as the "face of the anti-war movement". How do I know? I read her actual letter rather than relying on others' spin of it. Her running for Congress is perfectly consistent with her letter: she made it clear said she's angry at both parties.

Howard Kurtz: I read her letter too, and she said she was getting out of public life. She's entitled to change her mind, and I'm entitled to comment on it.

_______________________

Brooklyn, NY: What was your opinion of that news reader who refused to read the lead story about Paris Hilton the other week? Was she being unprofessional to do that on the air, or was it a show of integrity? And another thing -- didn't her refusal to read the story do nothing but add yet another news clip to the Paris Hilton scrapbook?

washingtonpost.com: Inside the Mind of Paris (Post, June 27)

Howard Kurtz: I wrote about what Mika Brzezinski did on MSNBC in my profile of Joe Scarborough last week. Look, however strongly she may have felt that Paris shouldn't have been the lead story in each segment of that show, it was shtick -- very well-executed shtick. In fact, the footage of Mika trying to shred and burn the script apparently has become a big hit on YouTube.

_______________________

New York: In an article last week I read that Bloomberg had assured the New York Republicans that he would continue to be on their side -- in fact he's donated close to $800,000 to them this year alone. Do you think the media will give his spending the same attention they give to Edwards haircuts? He seems to think that everyone is for sale -- and he's got two elections behind him that gave him that idea.

Howard Kurtz: It would be easier for me to comment if you'd referenced the article, which I did not see. There is no question that Michael Bloomberg would not be mayor of New York today were he not an extremely rich man who spent more than $150 million on his two elections. Having deep pockets is a pretty big advantage in politics. Still, some zillionaires fail to get themselves elected, and there's certainly a consensus in New York that whatever his presidential prospects -- and remember, he keeps telling the media that he's not running -- he's been a pretty good mayor.

Thanks for the chat, folks.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over 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.