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 Monday, Nov. 17 at noon ET to take your questions and comments.

A transcript follows

Media Backtalk transcripts archive

____________________

Washington, D.C.: Great column this morning. I'm a registered Republican who voted for Obama, but I have to say that all media, but most especially MSNBC needs to take a breath and step back a bit. I'm also not ant-MSNBC like many others are, I watch all of the three cable channels, but actually prefer MSNBC to the others. However these commercials like the one you mentioned are way over the top. Also just this morning I saw a promo just for the channel during a break on Morning Joe and, while I can't remember the exact wording, it said something about how MSNBC is ready to embrace the change that President-elect Obama will be bringing. Really outrageous if you ask me.

washingtonpost.com: A Giddy Sense of Boosterism (Post, Nov. 17)

Howard Kurtz: I am trying to resume normal breathing.

I'm puzzled by the MSNBC promos. Sure, its liberal hosts have been rooting for Obama, but I don't see why a news network would want to foster an image as a pro-Obama operation. You look at those promos and it's hard to imagine MS running spots with a similar tone if McCain had won the election.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: Even if one agrees with your premise that MSNBC specifically has been pro-Obama, I and millions of other viewers welcome whatever it is they've been doing this year, see the ratings. At long last we have one news network to balance out Fox News. Note that CNN has been very busy adding conservative commentators over the past couple of months, not sure what they are going after.

Howard Kurtz: If MSNBC sees its role as "balancing" Fox News -- that is, being to the left what Fox is to the right -- more power to them. It's certainly had some ratings success with its recent approach. But MSNBC executives deny that they're trying to be the anti-Fox.

_______________________

Seattle, Wash.: That's a good article this morning, but isn't the simplest reason why President-elect Obama is on the cover of every magazine out there is that "Obama Sells"?

And we people in our forties would be more than glad to change our moniker from "Generation X" to "Generation O" for Obama. The Baby Boomers can keep their association with Hippies, Excess, and George W. Bush.

Howard Kurtz: I'm sure media organizations wouldn't be pushing all these DVDs, books, commemorative issues and cover stories if Obama didn't "sell." But should that be the only standard? Are you comfortable with news outlets embracing politicians who sell and shying away from those who don't?

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Howie, thank you, thank you, thank you for today's column.

I was flabbergasted last week when I saw two Newsweek.com headlines asking if Obama could save the print media and capitalism itself.

It may be that putting Barack on a pedestal of monumental expectations may spur him to greatness, but it may also set him up as the disappointer-in-chief.

If Chris Matthews (and other fawning "journalists") wants to do all he can to help Barack succeed, shouldn't he be tamping down expectations as soon as humanly possible?

Howard Kurtz: I do think the expectations for Obama are out of control, that no human being, no matter how smart and talented, could fulfill them. I think the president-elect and his team recognize this dilemma. In the final weeks of the campaign and since the election, we've heard him emphasize how there are great challenges ahead, it's going to take time to tackle them, and otherwise signaling that no one should expect instant results.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: In your Media Notes piece today, you worry and fret over the excitement that Obama's win has caused. You go on to suggest (though never really support with facts) the idea that journalism guidelines have been violated in the process. But I for one found your examples to be exceedingly thin: in fact, you can apparently only point to some 'opinion' writers who used too many "eye-popping superlatives" to describe the Obama win. How come you didn't use any actual news reporting examples of unseemly devotion or Obama water carrying? Couldn't you find any?

Howard Kurtz: Are you serious? In the space of four days, Time runs a cover story likening Obama to FDR and Newsweek runs a cover story likening him to Lincoln?

Besides, my point goes well beyond news coverage. It's the cultural coverage of Obama (who has just been named GQ's Man of the Year) and Michelle (America's new fashion icon) and the kids (where will they go to school and what kind of dog will they get?) that is taking them into another stratosphere, and being milked for profit by some organizations.

As I wrote this morning, I don't see anything wrong with the country coming together behind a new president. If you weren't stirred by the sight of an African-American winning the nation's highest office, regardless of your politics, you don't have a heart. But journalists are supposed to maintain some degree of skepticism.

_______________________

Kettering, Ohio: Good afternoon Howard! I don't think I have ever read so many comments to an article of yours as I have today. Many took you to task for not reporting this media adulation before, but they obviously haven't been following your column or watching you on TV. You blew the whistle on this early on, even before Ms. Howell, the ombudswoman for the Post. The kickers were the posts accusing you of being a Republican shill. You are a lot of things, but a cheerleader for the conservatives you will never be.

Howard Kurtz: Thanks. This notion that I suddenly woke up and discovered Obama was getting favorable coverage is bizarre. Here are just a handful of the things I've said and written over the last two years (and I've noted as well when he was getting beat up, such as during the Jeremiah Wright period):

Dec. 17, 2006 (CNN)

Obama in the o-zone. The media's love affair with Barack Obama heats up after his frenzied trip to New Mexico and a star turn on Monday Night Football. Are journalists giving the senator a pass on his record and lack of experience?

Dec. 19, 2007 (WP)

After weeks of bad news, Hillary Clinton and her strategists hoped that winning the endorsement of Iowa's largest newspaper last weekend might produce a modest bump in their media coverage.

But on Sunday morning, they awoke to upbeat headlines about their chief Democratic rival: "Obama Showing New Confidence With Iowa Sprint," said the New York Times. "Obama Is Hitting His Stride in Iowa," said the Los Angeles Times. And on Monday, Clinton aides were so upset about a contentious "Today" show interview that one complained to the show's producer.

Feb. 4, 2008 (WP)

When Ted and Caroline Kennedy gave Barack Obama their political blessing last week, it was treated as the second coming of Camelot: live cable coverage, lead story on all the newscasts, anchors intoning the old JFK line that "the torch has been passed."

Oct. 20, 2008 (WP)

With the numbers breaking Barack Obama's way, it's hardly surprising that poll-driven journalists are suggesting, insinuating or flat-out forecasting a Democratic victory. But could they affect the outcome? And what if they turn out to be wrong about John McCain being toast?

_______________________

Are you comfortable with news outlets embracing politicians who sell and shying away from those who don't? : Howard, how long do you think your show would be on CNN if no one watched it? Yes, Obama sells -- I still see salt and pepper shakers in older folks homes that have the likeness of Jackie and John Kennedy...so this is not knew, just popular and embraced.

Howard Kurtz: What, ultimately, are journalists selling? Fairness and credibility, I would say. We can certainly have outlets that lionize Obama and others that are waiting for the next Reagan, if that's how they choose to attract customers. But then, they aren't really "news" outlets, are they?

_______________________

Sure, its liberal hosts have been rooting for Obama...: So, just to confirm, Joe Scarborough is one of those liberal hosts who has been rooting for Obama?

Howard Kurtz: Joe Scarborough is the only openly conservative host on MSNBC, and he does a fine job in the morning. The network used to have another conservative, Tucker Carlson hosting a show; his program was dumped last year. The network used to have Dan Abrams, its former general manager, hosting a show; he was yanked for Rachel Maddow.

_______________________

Bloomington, Ind.: Hello Howard, Having just watched the online version of last night's 60 Minutes' interview with Michele and Barack, I was, as many others, struck by the elegant casualness of these two people. Can the media remain objective regarding Obama given the fact that there is such a feel good quality to the story? If anyone were to point out something less than faltering now, wouldn't they be painted in a negative way?

washingtonpost.com: Video Clip: Obama On Economic Crisis, Transitional (CBS News, Nov. 16)

Howard Kurtz: Well, they're impressive people, no question about it. But in Barack's case, he's going to have to make some tough decisions after Jan. 20, and some of those decisions are going to disappoint some of his followers. That is the natural progression for any new president. At some point, it will no longer be enough to talk about how smart and steady he is; people will want to see results.

_______________________

Carrington, N.D.: Did The Washington Post and other news organizations retain a degree of skepticism when Bush was saber rattling in the run-up to the Iraq invasion? I do agree that we need to temper our expectations of the Obama administration. They are only human and we have a big mess on our hands. We should also realize that we are all in this together and we will not be able to just shop our way out of this mess. This is still an exciting historic time. Let us celebrate a little before we go back to reality.

Howard Kurtz: I'm certainly not against minimizing the importance of this moment or throwing cold water on people who want to celebrate. And based on early indications (such as Washingtonians renting out their houses), an awful lot of them will be here for the inauguration.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Mr. Kurtz, although I thought your article today was well done, it seems to portend this type of adulation is something new. While I agree that it sets the expectations really high -- it also is a sign of hopes and expectations for a better future.

And even if Obama fails miserably, it will be just as many headlines and articles reporting that as well...and you will not issue one column saying, are we being too hard on the new president? I suspect it will read more like, see I told you not to believe in hope and change.

Howard Kurtz: I am sure at some point I will have reason to question whether the media, or at least some of the media, are being too hard on the new president. But as for this level of post-election euphoria not being new, I put that question to historian Michael Beschloss, and he said that even Kennedy and Reagan did not come close after they won the White House.

_______________________

Alexandria,, Va.: Howie, is it fair that you seem to muddle the supposedly objective outlets (Time, Newsweek) with the attitude magazines (New York)? Or do you think they are all a blur today, Henry Luce be damned?

Howard Kurtz: Readers are smart enough to get the difference between Time and Newsweek and the New Republic, or New York, or People and Us Weekly, or MSNBC. But I have to say that this Obamamania is pretty widespread.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Can you remind me who the "one liberal" democratic host is on Fox News?

Howard Kurtz: Alan Colmes. But again, does MSNBC want to be the anti-Fox?

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: What time and day is your show on CNN? Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: Sunday mornings from 10 to 11 eastern. Thanks for asking.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: Howard, Just throwing this out there... Is it possible that news consumers today no longer believe there is an unbiased source for news (one way or the other)? Therefore, they are only willing to listen to the news that they believe is slanted in their direction. If news outlets are looking at their ratings to determine how they will report on events, eventually they will just be reporting what we all want to hear.

If this is true, I think the popularity of blogs is having a lot of influence.

Howard Kurtz: Sure. There's a lot of that going on. That's certainly true with many talk radio listeners and blog readers. It's why Olbermann and Hannity, as I wrote a few weeks ago, seem to present mirror images of the world. But I stubbornly insist that there ought to be some places where people go for balanced news, or at least as fair and unbiased as flawed journalists can make it.

_______________________

Can the media remain objective regarding Obama given the fact that there is such a feel good quality to the story?: I could say the same thing of Matt Lauer's interview with Sara Palin in which he apologized for her having such a hard time during the election.

Howard Kurtz: I've watched the interview twice and I didn't hear an apology. To note that Sarah Palin had a rough campaign is simply to acknowledge reality.

_______________________

Dallas, Tex.: Regarding what MSNBC and other media are doing regarding Obama, is it really that much different that what Fox News has done with Bush, from the "First 90 Days" special to "Fighting to the Finish"? I don't understand why there seems to be so much more concern about what MSNBC and others do than Fox, which was quite the cheerleader for a candidate who lost the popular vote. Obama won in a blowout and people are saying don't get carried away? Where's the (recent) perspective?

Howard Kurtz: Whether you like Fox or don't like Fox, its model has been quite consistent. Go back to 2000 and its lineup included the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity. MSNBC has been through many incarnations since its 1996 launch, when Brian Williams anchored an hourlong newscast every night. Olbermann rejoined the network about five years ago but wasn't transformed into a crusading liberal delivering special comments until a couple of years later. Rachel Maddow got her show two months ago. So its move to the left is of more recent vintage. Plus, MSNBC is very much part of NBC News, some of whose stalwarts complained about, for example, Olbermann and Matthews anchoring on primary and convention nights. Fox News has no such issue.

_______________________

Shepherd Park, Washington, D.C.: Howard,

I've been thinking about the charges of media bias in favor of President-elect Obama, such as Deborah Howell's column last week. When you're relying on a simple numbers-analysis, isn't there a distinct possibility that one candidate is doing and saying more newsworthy things and deservedly gets more ink and better placement?

And if one candidate has a better, or at least more positive, message than the other candidate, it seems that would lead to more positive coverage than a candidate who is presenting a more negative, or attack-driven, message.

It seems to be that in these cases, presenting "balanced" coverage would actually be biased against the candidate who "deserves" the better coverage.

washingtonpost.com: An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage (Post, Nov. 9)

Howard Kurtz: Not in a campaign. One candidate may be more positive, more effective, more interesting, and of course that's going to be reflected in the coverage. But it's no excuse for bias, and no excuse for one candidate to get MORE coverage than his rival.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Howard, this is not a question, but something funny I noticed in all the Obamamania. The cover of the new Time magazine is a photo illustration of Obama tricked out to look like FDR. Coincidentally, last week's issue of The New Yorker contains a full-page cartoon drawing (by our very own Richard Thompson) that shows Obama tricked out to look like FDR!

Funny, no?

Howard Kurtz: Great minds apparently think alike.

_______________________

Re: Acknowledging Reality: I think The Daily Show beat you to the punch on the whole 'balance' vs. 'reality' debate, when John Oliver declared, "Yes, Jon, reality has a liberal bias." Sorry, but Google, RSS, and wire services provide me with facts, which aren't fair and balanced. I read papers for investigative reporting (more than a recap of yesterday's events) and analysis of the bigger picture. If such things, i.e. reality, slant towards one party or the other, isn't that that party's problem, and not a reporter's?

Howard Kurtz: I have no quarrel with Google or RSS or any other form of aggregation spitting out facts and people making of those data bits what they will. Although if you think about it, those facts are generally drawn from MSM outlets, which, as we've endlessly discussed and debated, are not always models of perfect fairness. Google has no reporters.

But I do think that newspapers, magazines and networks, which market themselves as covering a locality, the country or the world in a fair-minded way, should be held accountable for how they do that.

_______________________

Murfeesboro, Tenn.: Newsweek's cover story last week noted, in an aside, that the reporters covering Obama weren't as big fans of his as their editors (the later who perhaps like the story better than the candidate).

Have you found that to be the case?

Howard Kurtz: I wrote several times during the campaign that for all the good press he got, Obama had an arm's-length relationship with the reporters who covered him, and has not cultivated relationships with, say, liberal columnists who would be his natural allies. I noticed this when I first went out to Iowa a year ago, and it never really changed.

_______________________

Howard in Cincinnati: Hi, Howard

Hope to squeeze this one in...

I used to watch MSNBC a lot, even though I am a Republican. I even like Chris Matthews and his shtick. But Keith Olbermann's disdain (to be polite, as it is stronger than that) for all things Bush or McCain made him unwatchable. And his love affair with Obama made me urge him to get a room.

He almost makes the people at Fox News look as if they are Edward R. Murrow.

My question: I can't watch him on Sunday Night football any more. His credibility has gone -- and he is a terrific and knowledgeable sports guy.

Do people at NBC Sports worry about this?

Howard Kurtz: I think Olbermann the sportscaster is in a different ballpark, so to speak, than Olbermann the political pundit. And even though some Olbermann fans think he's gotten too shrill and predictable on "Countdown"--hence the killer Ben Affleck parody--he's made great progress on the ratings front, which is why MSNBC last week tore up his contract and gave him a new four-year, $30-million deal.

_______________________

Hometown, America: Howard Kurtz: "Not in a campaign. One candidate may be more positive, more effective, more interesting, and of course that's going to be reflected in the coverage. But it's no excuse for bias, and no excuse for one candidate to get MORE coverage than his rival."

Howard, are you arguing that ALL candidates should then get get equal time and coverage, no matter what party they represent?

Howard Kurtz: No, I'm talking about the two major-party candidates in a general election.

_______________________

Stafford, Va.: When will Sen. Obama hold a press conference and face a few fastballs instead of puff balls that 60 minutes served up last night. Prop. 8 passes in California, some protestors and activists are getting violent, intimidating some, disrupting church services etc... and we have no leadership or comment from the president- elect? Does he support the court challenges? Does he think the courts should overrule the vote of the people?

Howard Kurtz: He held a press conference a couple of days after the election and the questions were reasonably serious (although the most popular query was the one by Lynn Sweet about the dog). I thought Steve Kroft did a fine job, running through a whole list of issues that the president-elect should be asked about, at least in that segment before Michelle came on and the conversation was more about family and personal feelings.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: "Plus, MSNBC is very much part of NBC News, some of whose stalwarts complained about, for example, Olbermann and Matthews anchoring on primary and convention nights. Fox News has no such issue."

If I didn't know any better -- I'd say you are jealous of the MSNBC people.... maybe YOU want to be on that show.

Howard Kurtz: I've been on Countdown, Hardball and Morning Joe, thanks very much. And had a fine time. You'll recall, though, that months after I raised the issue of how the opinionated Olbermann and Matthews could also anchor big political events--and, more important, after Tom Brokaw objected--MSNBC switched gears. David Gregory began anchoring the coverage and Keith and Chris were designed "hosts," allowing them to say whatever they wanted.

_______________________

Chicken or Egg: Isn't part of the media's problem just reflecting actual public sentiment? I mean, you say you can't imagine the media acting this way if McCain won. But can you imagine people dancing on the streets if McCain won? Hard not to smile while covering news like that. (This does not excuse all of it, of course)

Howard Kurtz: Obama's win is more historic than McCain's would have been, for obvious reasons. But keep in mind that 55 million Americans voted for McCain.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Not sure you'll know this, but its sort of related to the BlackBerry issue. I've heard that Obama keeps a personal journal, and that he'll have to stop writing in it during his term in office or it would be open to subpoena. Is this true? If so, historians are going to have a terrible time trying to figure out modern Presidencies.

washingtonpost.com: Obama may have to give up his beloved BlackBerry (AP, Nov. 17)

Howard Kurtz: And that's a shame, one much lamented by historians. Any written or digital record can be subpoenaed in an investigation. That's the legacy of the special prosecutors.

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.