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."

He was online Tuesday, July 16, at noon ET to take your questions and comments.

A transcript follows

____________________

St. Paul: HI Howard -- thanks for taking my question. Just wondered if you caught senators Webb and Graham yesterday on MTP talking about Iraq. Russert basically sat there and let them go at it -- first they were talking at the same time, then they were trying to talk over another, and as a result the whole thing seemed pointless and useless with neither one coming off very well, at least in my mind. I wondered why Russert didn't try to restore some order, make them go one at a time, or something. What did you think?

Howard Kurtz: Russert let them go at it because the two senators were engaged in a heated debate over Iraq and it was enlightening, not to mention good television, to watch them go at it. However, when they repeatedly started talking over each other, I thought Tim should have jumped in a few times to say, "Let him finish" or, "One at a time" -- not to start asking more questions, but to let viewers hear the answers.

_______________________

Somerdale, N.J.: Why isn't the media saying that the GOP is FILIBUSTERING in the senate? They keep saying that GOP blocked a vote. This seems less of a loaded way of reporting it. Last week the vote on Iraq was 56-41 and the headline was "Bush wins, GOP blocks vote."

Shouldn't it be majority wants change in Iraq, yet GOP filibusters the issue?

Howard Kurtz: It's a filibuster, and I've seen several accounts say it's a filibuster. Anyone who doesn't is just playing word games. Of course, filibusters aren't what they used to be, in the sense of senators staying up all night and reading from the phone book in order to hold the floor. Nowadays, one side indicates it will talk an issue to death, the other side tries to muster 60 votes to cut it off, and then they move on. But the filibuster, or threatened filibuster, remains a tool that both parties have used when they are in the minority.

_______________________

Boston: Howard, could you please help explain why someone like Bill Kristol is given prominent op-ed space in Monday's Post?

The guy has his own magazine. He is constantly on Fox. His opinions receive constant airing, so there is nothing new for him to add for readers.

On top of his ubiquity, can you think of the last time one of his opinions wasn't slammed by reality?

Howard Kurtz: It was actually in yesterday's Outlook section, and the Outlook editors try to offer lots of provocative points of view, not just ones they agree with. Sure, Kristol hardly lacks for media exposure, but at the same time that makes him a name whose pro-war rhetoric is going to attract attention and rebuttal -- exactly what is happening today.

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: Hi Howard:

But my rave review aside, it raised one major question with me. I'm a journalist myself, so I know that the industry has ethics and standards that it holds dear and one of those is that you don't pay for interviews.

I know some lesser-quality programs have broken these rules but I was STUNNED to learn that 60 Minutes, some 30 years ago, offered big bucks to Nixon for the interview that David Frost ultimately got (and paid for). The fact that 60 Minutes offered money really threw me. Do you know the story behind this? I am curious, and bothered, to say the least.

Thanks!

Howard Kurtz: I don't recall the details, but I do remember that "60 Minutes" paid H.R. Haldeman for an interview after Nixon was toppled from office. I thought it was outrageous then, and I don't believe CBS would allow that today.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Your column today concerns issues that those working for the media don't want to talk about. I'd like to ask about another matter about which Washington-based media seem particularly tight-lipped: their own compensation. Recently Robert Novak made the disclosure in an interview with C-SPAN that CNN paid him $625,000 during his final year there. While I find it fascinating that one can make over $500,000 a year for shouting nonsense and delivering half-baked "reporting" on TV, I would not know this if I had to rely on the newspaper. Why is there so little disclosure/curiosity about the compensation of D.C.-based pundits, particularly compared to the reams of ink spilled about the compensation of athletes, movie stars, and Katie Couric?

Howard Kurtz: It's pretty simple: Like most people in the private sector, journalists don't like to talk about what they make. Sometimes, as in Couric's case, a ballpark figure leaks out, but I have no idea what most TV people make, and I still wouldn't know about Novak had he not chosen to go public (regarding a company that no longer employs him). Is that really so unusual? People on the public payroll, and corporate executives at a certain level, are required to disclose their salaries. But do you know many lawyers, accountants, doctors or hedge-fund managers that walk around blabbing about how much they're taking in?

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: After reading your "Firing Bullets" piece on July 13, I find myself in agreement with you that the press is driven not by independent investigation of the issues, but by what they perceive is popular with the public.

My question is: How did the press get to this sorry state where they have abdicated their independent role of fact finder and truth teller in favor of this absurd pretense of being objective about political leadership that by any commonsense standard is undermining our democracy? And secondly, as the Post's media critic, what do you think can be done to help the media grow a spine and think for themselves again?

Howard Kurtz: I don't agree that the press has abdicated its role as truth teller and fact finder. Nor do I agree that it lacks a spine. As in most businesses, some of its practitioners are more aggressive than others. What I was trying to get across in that column was that the tone of presidential press conferences has changed because the war is widely perceived as a mess that is opposed by two-thirds of the country. When Bush, and the war effort, were more popular, some correspondents still asked hard questions. But the tone was simply not as aggressive and as skeptical as it is today.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Howard,

I keep hearing the war's remaining supporters (e.g. Lindsey Graham yesterday) bring up the factoid that re-enlistment rates continue to be high among troops serving in Iraq. As a former Marine with two brothers currently serving, let me shed some illumination on this statistic.

The DoD has been handing out fat re-enlistment bonuses -- sometimes equivalent to two years pay. If you are serving in Iraq when you re-enlist, this bonus comes to you TAX FREE. Hence, many servicemen and women will time a tour or TDY to Iraq to coincide with their re-enlistment. This pushes up the numbers there. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're gung-ho about whatever the hell the mission is currently supposed to be in that hell-hole.

Howard Kurtz: Thanks. Of course, some soldiers could feel so strongly about not continuing to serve in Iraq that they would pass up the money and return home. But in an all-volunteer force, obviously financial incentives are a key part of rerouting and retaining enlistees.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: Your reference to the BBC/Gordon Brown news piece marks the second time in a week poor editing has created a problem. (The first was a supposed "early departure" by Queen Elizabeth during an Annie Liebowitz photo shoot. Turned out events shown in a promo about the Royals were sequenced in wrong chronological order.)

What do you think is going on there?

Howard Kurtz: I'm not familiar with the first instance, but in the one I mentioned, unless BBC has a good explanation I haven't heard, it looked like not just sloppy journalism but journalism that distorted the story the BBC was purporting to tell.

_______________________

New Orleans: The fact that Larry Flynt has set himself up as the moral arbiter of the congress is more that just a bit astounding. This man, who admittedly has no morals, is passing judgment on who is moral and amoral? His agenda is obvious -- that only Republicans will be "exposed" (as they are all totally corrupt and have their pockets stuffed with money to paraphrase what he said in your interview of him). I suppose that the fact that people do err from the straight and narrow, and can confess and be forgiven, is only applicable to certain elected officials. I am not saying that anyone on this infamous list should or should not be exposed, but I certainly see hypocrisy in Flynt's action in revealing what he considers the hypocrisy of others.

As to the T.V. reporter in Chicago, what kind of sleaze would use children as bait to catch a story? This is reprehensible and I believe that she was justly fired.

Howard Kurtz: Flynt told me on "Reliable Sources" yesterday that if he came across Democrats who were having affairs or using escort services, he would make that information public, even though, as a lifelong Democrat, he wouldn't be happy doing that. Until then, his public statements had focused on only outing those who engage in hypocrisy, so I'm not sure I understood the reason behind his answer. As for setting himself up as the moral arbiter, he is putting the information out there -- it's up to the voters (and a politician's family) to decide if it's relevant.
As for Amy Jacobson, she says she had her two kids with her when she got the call to visit the man whose wife disappeared in the middle of a bitter divorce, so she just brought them with her. Overall, she says she made a terrible misjudgment, and I agree.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: You have missed the point about what media people are paid. It is not whether YOU want the readers to know what you are paid; it is about whether the public should be privy to the income you receive, and how that might influence your political leanings and in turn your reporting. You obviously don't live in a van down by the river, or your focus would likely be quite different-probably at lot less sympathetic to the elites that run our government.

Howard Kurtz: But the public doesn't have a right to know what people in private business are making, unless they choose to talk about it. As for any impact on political leanings, I'm afraid I find that argument absurd. I know people with plenty of money who are liberal, and people struggling to get by who are conservative. I have made a broader point: that as more journalists become part of the upper middle class, they can fall out of touch with those who can't afford two cars or private school tuition or beautiful homes -- in other words, a significant chunk of their readership or viewership. But that's not the same as saying we have an inalienable right to know an individual journalist's salary.

_______________________

Floris, Va.: Fox News and its allies are making a big deal about leading Democrats refusing to participate in a forum/debate this fall because of the unspoken belief that Fox is an arm or the Republican party. But I've seen little or no mention in the press of the debate/forum hosted by the NAACP last week in which all the Dems showed but only one Republican (Tom Tancredo). Also, all Democrats have agreed the debate on the gay cable channel Logo this fall, but not a single Republican. I think that sort of neuters the Fox argument. What do you think?

Howard Kurtz: I think it should be pointed out, but there's a difference between politicians refusing to show up at a debate sponsored by an organization with political views (such as the NAACP) and a network. I would think that Democrats, whatever their complaints about Fox's coverage, would want to reach Fox viewers, just as Republicans have taken the opportunity to reach CNN and MSNBC viewers.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Re: Amy Jacobson. I think the assertion that she was on her way to one pool when she suddenly got invited to another pool should be met with a certain degree of skepticism. I suppose there's no real way to check her story, even if someone were inclined to do so.

Howard Kurtz: Regardless, she could have dropped off her kids somewhere or changed out of her bathing suit. I know lots of journalists who have conducted interviews under strange circumstances, but haven't tripped across a previous case of bikini journalism.

_______________________

Wilkes-Barre, Penn.: I know news groups don't pay for interviews, but do they pay for the taxi/flight/hotel to get someone to the studio to do the interview?

Howard Kurtz: Absolutely, plus sizable sums for pictures or home video if it's a big-name guest. That came up in the Paris Hilton imbroglio and in other high-profile cases. But there was no such fig leaf when David Frost interviewed Nixon or 60 Minutes interviewed Haldeman back in the '70s. A check was cut, and that was that.

_______________________

Secaucus, N.J.: I am a media figure. You don't know me. I would like to review the new iPhone and products like that. Why shouldn't I accept free samples of these devices? I feel if I have to purchase them I am placing a personal stake into the product and thus I would be biased.

Howard Kurtz: You can do whatever you want, and I'm entitled to be skeptical of what you write, since the company has given you free goods. I have the same feeling when I read pieces by travel writers who have accepted freebie junkets.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: The NLRB sued the W. Post last week over labor practices involving WaPo Radio and the Post's advertising services for the Onion. I don't think this was front-page news, but I think page D4 was burying it just a little. Would the front page of Business have been just right?

Howard Kurtz: That sounds about right to me. But I don't run the paper.

_______________________

Falls Church: Regarding the bikini reporter, is the ethical problem her being in a bikini, or her being in the house at all? It's obvious that the whole episode looks bad on videotape, but her side of the story is not implausible either and does help put the seemingly compromised videotape perception into some context. I'm all in favor of scrutinizing journalist coziness with the people they cover (a la Cronkite/Couric and the Kennedys). But it does seem to me that it can be taken too far. In this case, an undercover videotape portrays a negative perception that may significantly distort the context of the meeting, and somebody loses their job because of it. It just seems a little scary to me.

Howard Kurtz: Well, beyond the bathing suit issue -- and clearly, this would not have attracted national attention without that video -- Amy Jacobson has confirmed to the Chicago Tribune that she shared information about her encounters with this fellow, Craig Stebic, with the police, and did so without the knowledge of her bosses at WMAQ. They, in turn, are reported to have been concerned that she was too close to the cops. I can't tell you precisely because executives at the NBC station are granting no on-the-record interviews. But the combination of the visit, the attire, and the dealings with police add up to a pretty unorthodox picture.

_______________________

Washington: "...if he came across Democrats who were having affairs or using escort services, he would make that information public, even though, as a lifelong Democrat, he wouldn't be happy doing that. Until then, his public statements had focused on only outing those who engage in hypocrisy, so I'm not sure I understood the reason behind his answer."

Wait a minute, are you saying that Dems who were clients of Palfrey would NOT be hypocrites? That only Repubs speak about morals and "family values" and that Dems don't? I can't believe that's what you meant, so please set me straight. Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: What Flynt and his people originally said was that they were only interested in outing politicians who publicly make an issue of morality, family values and the sanctity of marriage. It's no secret that those who emphasize such issues the most are in the Republican Party. That doesn't mean Democrats are not of high moral character, but there tends to be less of a record of railing against same-sex marriage and so on. That's why I asked Flynt if he would also disclose any Democratic clients of the D.C. Madam. Here is the exchange:
KURTZ: I've heard you talk about hypocrisy in terms of your mission to expose some of these sexual activities by people of different philosophies. But doesn't that mean really that you're targeting conservative Republicans and giving liberal Democrats a pass.





FLYNT: No. That's not true. We're not interested in exposing anyone's sex life. But if someone takes a public position contrary to the way they live their private lives, as far as I am concerned, they are fair game.
KURTZ: So if one of your editors at "Hustler" magazine came to you and said, "We've been going through the D.C. madam's phone records and we found another prominent guy and he's a Democratic senator," Would you make that information public?

FLYNT: Absolutely, we would make it public. I don't want to, because I've been a lifelong Democrat myself. But I would.
KURTZ: But why would you make it public involving a Democrat if that Democrat has not taken a stand on family values and the sanctity of marriage?
FLYNT: Because I think that's ethically the proper thing to do, because when we really try to expose these people, you know, we're primarily doing it because of their voting habits, their work with lobbyists, their overall corruption problems. You know, people go to Washington with a lot of great intentions, and by the time they get to getting money shoved in their pockets, you know, it's a hopeless situation.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: "I would think that Democrats, whatever their complaints about Fox's coverage, would want to reach Fox viewers, just as Republicans have taken the opportunity to reach CNN and MSNBC viewers."

I don't get the sense that this is about snubbing Fox viewers as much as it is about the Democrats not wishing to play along with the idea that Fox News is a serious news channel. Why give them amm? They'll just use to continue to insist how fair and balanced they are? "See, we hosted the Democratic debates ergo we've got no biases."

But look at their coverage, even the "straight" news coverage seems to come packaged with editorial asides. No wonder the base of the Democratic Party is trying to discourage candidates from playing along with the charade. It's gone on quite long enough.

Howard Kurtz: That does seem to be what Democrats, under some pressure from liberal bloggers, have concluded. John Edwards has been particularly outspoken against Fox.

_______________________

Prescott, Ariz.: Howard, you wrote that David Vitter wasn't getting any love from fellow Republicans, then to prove it you produced a two part quote from Rick Moran that chided Vitter, then viciously attacked Larry Flynt for "abusing the First Amendment not in order to express himself but to bully and browbeat his ideological foes while lowering the bar of acceptable political combat to unheard of and unimagined levels."

I wouldn't normally consider myself a Flynt apologist, but since you approvingly quoted this anti-Flynt statement I just have to ask: What is Larry Flynt doing to "lower the bar of acceptable political combat"? Flynt is, if you recall, a person whose political enemies tried to throw him jail for a very long time, and had to take his case to the Supreme Court in order to remain a free man. May I remind you he was also shot and paralyzed by those very same enemies?

Am I reading your selective use of quotations correctly? That you think political assassination is somehow acceptable political discourse, while taking out a full page ad in the Washington Post is "lowering the bar"?

Howard Kurtz: I hereby object to your word "approvingly." In my daily blog, I try to provide a cogent summary of what people with all kinds of viewpoints are saying. I don't agree with much of it, but I am giving you a survey of the media landscape. Some people think what Flynt is doing is great, while others see him as a self-promoting pornographer who has no business exposing the private lives of politicians. For what it's worth, Flynt told me on yesterday's show that he isn't bothered at being called a slimeball (his word). He said he doesn't care what people think of him.

_______________________

North Port, Fla.: Re: Freebies and reviews, I always feel more comfortable with a reviewer who states that he was loaned, and, we assume, has returned the product under review.

Howard Kurtz: I don't have any problem with loaning. If you get to keep the iPhone, that's another matter.

_______________________

Michigan: Tony Snow Joined the White House with a pre-existing condition. If he was going to a private employer, he would not be eligible for healthcare (cancer treatment). Why has this issue not been raised?

Howard Kurtz: I am not an expert on this subject, but my understanding is that when you are hired by a company, organization or government unit that provides health insurance to its staff, you get coverage regardless of preexisting conditions. It's when you try to buy medical insurance on your own -- and this is a big and growing problem -- that insurers can turn you down for preexisting conditions, even if you once had the condition but are now healthy, or charge such exorbitant amounts as to make the insurance unaffordable.

_______________________

Re: Filibuster...:

Doesn't the Republicans' constant use of filibustering violate their own gentleman's agreement they made last term, or is their agreement no longer valid now that they are in the minority? I do not recall Democrats making use of the filibuster once during Bush's tenure while they were in the minority ... however, I may be mistaken. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you. ...

Howard Kurtz: You are wrong. Democrats invoked the threat of filibuster more than once, most notably in the battle over Bush's judicial nominees. That threat was averted only when the so-called Gang of 14 senators cut a deal that allowed some nominations to go forward.

_______________________

London, U.K.: Howard Kurtz: "I'm all in favor of scrutinizing journalist coziness with the people they cover (a la Cronkite/Couric and the Kennedys)."

Well then, Howie, tell us which media figures you socialize with. Or, if you refuse to do so, tell us what's the difference between your stonewalling and WMAQ's.

Howard Kurtz: Is this a trick question? The truth is, I don't do much socializing at all. I mostly work.

_______________________

Chicago: Thanks for mentioning the Amy Jacobson fiasco going on out here. But could you please explain why her presence at the pool party was such a big deal? Was it that she was at a family social event, or that her kids were there (in close proximity to a suspected murderer), or simply that she was in a two-piece bathing suit (and she's pretty easy on the eyes)? If she'd been wearing a pantsuit would this be no big deal? I'm just having a hard time understanding how a local newscaster going to a pool party to get a story calls the station's objectivity into question. Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: A combination of all those things. Remember that she was covering the investigation into the disappeared wife when she appeared to be socializing with the estranged husband. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, her briefing of police without telling her bosses at the station seems to have exacerbated the situation.

_______________________

Columbia, Md.: Love your show and chat, but have to disagree with a statement you made yesterday on your show that journalists should never give money to political organizations or candidates.

It seems to me that we would have more honest journalism if reporters were allowed to donate money to politicians or stated their political beliefs openly instead of pretending they are "objective" by hiding this information. This way, the reader would be able to know the particular political leanings of a journalist up front and take that into account when reading their story. It seems to me that this provides more open and honest journalism instead of charade of "objectivity" trying to be created by banning political donations.

Banning political contributions doesn't hide the fact that certain journalists inject their political philosophy (mostly liberal) into their news reporting.

Howard Kurtz: There's plenty to debate about journalists' opinions and whether they should be more up front about them. But to me, contributing to a candidate or political party is a whole different level of involvement than simply sympathizing with a candidate or party. (And by the way, many journalists don't care much which candidate or party wins as long as they get a good story out of it. That happens to actually be true.) I just think donations are over the line, that they are a right that you surrender upon becoming a journalist. And most news organizations agree, having banned such contributions.

_______________________

Alexandria Follow-up: Spot on about re-enlistment. My son just called me from Iraq last week. If he doesn't re-up he goes into the ready reserve -- and guess where they are! If he does re-up he gets a bunch of money, a promotion, a new school training for a new MOS and a posting to Hawaii.

Which way would you go?

Howard Kurtz: I understand the dilemma.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: Howard: Since I expect you're getting bombarded with attacks on the Post for Bill Kristol's column, closely followed by Fred Hiatt's op-ed, I'd just like to actually congratulate the paper for publishing such a wide array of views. I think Kristol is a pompous twit who is lying through his teeth when he claims Bush is going to look great in the end, but he deserves a chance to be read. Frankly, I hope people do read his column and Hiatt's, note their reasons for staying the course and compare them to the real events on the ground in Iraq. Then you'll be able to see how wrong they are.

Howard Kurtz: We report, you decide. Or is someone already using that slogan?

_______________________

Ohio: Howard, does the profession as a whole realize how much this smells, and how much this contributes to public distrust of all journalists? You're supposed to report the news, not become part of the news! Don't have an affair with the mayor, don't bring your kids to visit someone involved in a wife-disappearance case.

I'm hoping someone posts a manifesto at the next annual professional convention about this. I understand the owners not wanting to make a bold statement, probably because they don't want to get sued, but please tell me that the rank and file will stand up against this kind of thing.

Howard Kurtz: I plan to take your advice. I will not have an affair with Mayor Adrian Fenty, and I will not bring my kids to meet with anyone involved in a crime investigation. There, that was easy.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Howard -- Why does the Post feel the need to show they are unbiased by running pure Republican propaganda like yesterday's William Kristol editorial? There were 166 pages of negative comments. That even broke the record previously held by Cheney's daughter. If something is undeniably wrong say so. Don't give both sides equal weight.

Howard Kurtz: I'm going to have to disagree. You obviously oppose the war; you therefore think that any other position is "wrong" and not worthy of publication in the opinion section of a newspaper. For The Post to publish the views who those who say the war was a tragic mistake and should be ended immediately, then, would be okay in your view, even though war supporters would regard that as wrong.
The purpose of an opinion section is to air competing views on important issues and stimulate debate. On that score, it looks like the Outlook section succeeded.
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.