Related Links • Recent Columns by Howard Kurtz • Media Backtalk • Post coverage: Campaign 2000 • Live: "Free Media" • Who do you want to talk to? E-mail us

Tuesday, June 27, 2000; 1 p.m. EDT

Consumers used to get their news from newspapers, magazines and evening broadcasts from three television networks. Now, with the Internet, cable TV and 24-hour news networks, the news cycle is faster and more constant, with every minute carrying a new deadline. But clearly, more news and more news outlets are not necessarily better. And just because the press has the ability to cover a story doesn't always mean they should – or that they'll do it well.

Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz has been The Post's media reporter since 1990. He is also the host of CNN's "Reliable Sources" and the author of "Media Circus," "Hot Air" and "Spin Cycle: Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine." Kurtz talks about the press and the stories of the day in "Media Backtalk" on Mondays at noon EDT. Read the transcript.

washingtonpost.com: The Michael Saylor discussion here on washingtonpost.com is an example of the sort of behind-the-scenes workings of these discussions that our readers don't see. This question has been asked before by readers in this show: What do you think readers should know or be told about the way live events work on the Web? Are the standards different than the agreed-upon questions that television interviewers often ask their "pundit" guests?

Media Notes column:
I'm a Real Pundit, and I Also Play One on TV (June 26)

Howard Kurtz: Standards on the Web are clearly evolving. The Washington Post newspaper wouldn't publish an interview with Michael Saylor of MicroStrategy based on softball questions; I'm not sure that washingtonpost.com should allow guests to pick and choose reader question in a way that allows them to swing only at softballs. (I understand the dilemma that some big-name guests would refuse to play.) But the key here is disclosure. I got a bunch of calls from people saying The POST was tossing Saylor the softballs. Perhaps washingtonpost.com should carry a line that the guests are picking and choosing, and let folks make up their own minds.

Evanston, Ill.: The Green Party's presidential nominating convention this weekend received virtually no coverage. The press's refusal to pay attention to Ralph Nader's campaign only compounds his other unfair disadvantages: exclusion from the presidential debates because of Democrat-Republican collusion and no access to millions of corporate campaign contributions. Considering that polls indicate Ralph Nader has millions of supporters, why do the media refuse to let other voters know that an alternative to Bush and Gore exists?

Howard Kurtz: Well, "virtually no coverage" is not quite right; I read substantial pieces about Nader's nomination in both The Washington Post and the New York Times. But I remember thinking that both pieces should have been on the front page. One of the network newscasts did a story over the weekend -- all three should have. I think the press falls into the trap of saying that only Bush and Gore can win, so why cover Nader and Buchanan? That, of course, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We're also often wrong. Few pundits gave Jesse Ventura a chance a couple of weeks before he wrestled his way to the Minnesota governorship.

Somewhere, U.S.A: Tom Shales in his column yesterday lambasted a CBS pseudo-documentary on the historical Jesus for what he claimed was shoddy journalism. But his argument appears to rest on the fact that the show made an attempt to look objectively at the life of Christ.

Shales called the program "stubbornly wrong-headed and bogus" and he added that it appears aimed at casting doubt on "deeply and widely-held" beliefs. "This isn't really proper terrain for journalists to traverse," he said.

Now I may be wrong, but...I thought that was EXACTLY the terrain that journalists are supposed to traverse. I'm wondering if you agree with Shales, with me, or with neither of us.

washingtonpost.com: Shales's piece:
He's Everywhere but Here (June 26)

Howard Kurtz: I'm going to duck because I didn't see the show. But it was ABC and Peter Jennings, not CBS. Shales did have a funny line when he said that Jennings had received top billing over Jesus.

Alexandria, Va.: A few months ago Dan Savage wrote an article in Salon about how he volunteered for Gary Bauer's presidential campaign in Iowa. He claimed he tried to spread his illness by licking doorknobs and coughing in other staffer's glasses, because he claimed Bauer was anti-gay. Do you know if any legal action has been taken against Mr. Savage?

Howard Kurtz: Charges have been brought in Iowa against Dan Savage, not for doorknob-licking (dunno if there's a statute against that) but for voting in the state's caucuses even though he is not a resident.

San Luis Obispo, Calif.: Do you think that ABC or CBS will now try to launch cable news efforts now that MSNBC has all but given up the ghost with its A&E lite programming?

Howard Kurtz: MSNBC would certainly argue against the "A&E lite" label (though the network has clearly moved significantly into Headlines & Legends-type stuff and a crime-heavy hour at 8 p.m. But no, I don't expect ABC or CBS to go the cable route. It's very expensive, and CNN, MS and Fox are already slicing up the pie quite thinly. ABC planned a 24-hour network a few years ago but pulled the plug; CBS bailed on its Eye on People cable network (unless it's still on and no humans are watching it). So I think they'll concentrate on their Web sites.

New York, N.Y.: Microsoft recently held a conference in Redmond for reporters and analysts at which it unveiled its plans for the future (microsoft.net). Did Microsoft fly reporters in for this event or was each person transported on his or her own dime? Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: With the possible exception of reporters from tiny trade magazines--and even there I doubt it--no news organization would accept travel expenses from Microsoft for a news conference. Even if air fares to Seattle are pretty stiff these days.

Bristow, Va.: When you wrote in your June 26th column that the washingtonpost.com chat rules let the guest pick the questions, why didn't that story come out around Greg Craig's chat instead of Michael Saylor's? Do you find questions of ideological bias less newsworthy or more passe than questions of The Post being used for a businessman's commercial prospects? Or did you just hear less around the office about Craig than Saylor?

Howard Kurtz: I did hear some buzz about the softness of Greg Craig's interview on washingtonpost.com, but just didn't get around to doing it, having been busy with presidential campaign stuff and other matters. When the flap over Saylor took place, one of the reasons I addressed it was that I saw it fitting into a larger pattern rather than being an isolated incident. I was also struck by Post.com's disclosure of a business relationship with MicroStrategy, which raised by a significant notch the question of whether The Post had somehow gone soft on a local CEO.

Fairfax, Va.: I noticed in your column this morning that participants in washingtonpost.com live chats get to pick which questions they'll answer. Do you personally favor the easy ones or the hard ones?

Howard Kurtz: Glad you asked. I try very hard not to duck the hard ones (though I might pass on a subject I know nothing about). The whole point of these chats, it seems to me, is to hit some fast balls; you wouldn't be able to let those go by if you were on a radio call-in show, for example. So I try to answer a representative sample of the questions hurled at me--which, at the risk of being perceived as sucking up to you very fine readers, have on the whole been pretty savvy.

Alexandria, Va.: What is the relationship between The Washington Post and Associated Press? In an article today about the Democratic Party returning a check to a New York gallery, the following line appeared: "Attempts by The Washington Post and the Associated Press to obtain comment from the Pace Wildenstein Gallery were unsuccessful." I've also noticed The Post search page covers AP stories, as well. Is AP owned in whole or part by The Post; do other papers have an ownership interest; or is it independent? And what about Reuters? I figured you, if anyone, would know.

Howard Kurtz: The AP is a news cooperative that is underwritten by all the news organizations, including The Post, that are its members. We don't get any profits out of it, but we are clients. AP stories usually stand on their own, but occasionally The Post will make its own effort to reach someone involved for comment and this will be added to the wire dispatch.

East Pickering, R.I.: Two part question:

1. What do you think of the print media treating "Survivor" (the show, not the phenomenon) as real news, such as previewing each episode, and providing recaps the next day? This would be one thing were each show live or near live, but those people have been back in the U.S. since opening day of the baseball season. How do you feel about the way the press has turned each episode into an event?

2. Say a reporter at any reputable media outlet were to find out (and verify) the name of the winner of the contest. Do you think they would publicize the name of the victor? Do you think they should?

Howard Kurtz: I'm utterly amazed at how much coverage "Survivor" has gotten, but the time-delayed aspect doesn't bother me that much. During the Olympics, television networks often don't say who won an event that already took place so they can show the tape-delayed footage.
If I were to find out who the ultimate Survivor was (assuming I cared, which I don't all that much), my first instinct would be to publish it. But now that I've thought about it for two or three seconds, that would be like giving away the ending in a book review. What's the point of spoiling the experience for the millions of people who are hooked on the thing?

Arlington, Va.: There was a report in the Monday Post that Vice President Gore had gotten Michael Kelly fired as editor of the New Republic. How prevalent is retaliation by politicians upon journalists?

washingtonpost.com: That was mentioned in an item in Monday's Media Notes (under the subhead: "Drawing Blood"):
I'm a Real Pundit, and I Also Play One on TV (June 26)

Howard Kurtz: That's not quite what the item said. Gore himself didn't have anything to do with Michael Kelly being sent packing by the New Republic. As I reported in 1997, Kelly was fired after just nine months in a dispute with the magazine's owner, Marty Peretz, who's been close to the vice president for 30 years. Kelly said he and Peretz had repeatedly clashed over Kelly's criticism of Gore & Clinton. But Kelly seems to have done pretty well for himself since then. If Gore loses, though, he may have to find a new target.

Howard Kurtz: Anyone happen to see my piece Saturday on Walter Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal? He's become a one-man media empire--online, on TV, in print--and such a powerful critic of computer and high-tech products that CEOs routinely come here to Washington to kiss his ring. What is it about Palms, cell phones, computers, CD players and the like that arouses such passion and gives a writer like Mossberg so much sway over a zillion-dollar industry?

Arlington, Va.: While I agree that the chat with Michael Saylor, not to mention those with a few politicians, have been pretty shoddy, what I don't see is what you're suggesting as an alternative? If the system they use now is bad, what SHOULD they be doing?

Since there's no way that a guest can answer every question submitted, it seems that the alternative to having the guest choose the questions would be to have The Post assign someone to choose the questions. But that seems to me like a cure that's worse than the disease. The whole point of this forum is that it's a public figure answering questions from the readers. If Post staff is going to ask the questions, you might as well just do the interview offline and publish the transcript.

To take this from too long to way too long and go off on a slightly different tangent: There's going to be bias in the choice of questions, somehow. The question is, do we inject The Post's bias or the interviewee's bias? Now, I understand that journalists are trained to avoid bias and I think The Post's are among the best in the business at it, but there's always a little. And that, such as it is, gets into what we see in the paper. One of the values of this forum, I think, is that it's really the readers and the subject, with very little middle-man intervention. Some guests clearly abuse the process, but, even then, we still learn something about them. The fact that Michael Saylor only takes softballs may not tell me anything instructive, but the same attitude from a politician I might be voting for will certainly be valuable information on election day.

Howard Kurtz: I wasn't suggesting The Post should ask the questions instead. I was saying that at a minimum the pick-and-choose method should be disclosed in every chat. But here's what I believe is a better idea: Every question submitted (assuming it's not libelous or incoherent) should be posted, and the guest can respond to whatever he or she likes, addressing people by name or jurisdiction. That way, you folks get the unvarnished version--all the Qs and As--and if the guest is retreating to the safety of puffball questions, everyone can see that and draw their own conclusions. I will now make that part of the official Kurtz platform.

Washington D.C.: According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. spends roughly $1 billion a year patrolling Iraq (enforcing the blockade & the no-fly-zones with our military in the region). We've been bombing 3-4 times a week for a year and a half. And the U.N. reports that the blockade (sanctions) has resulted in over 1,000,000 deaths.

It was great that The Post did a story on the no-fly-zones last week, but 1 or 2 stories a year on this issue seems a bit weak. I mean, um -- isn't this a war? So why isn't war-level scrutiny, coverage and analysis done on this by the media? Seems kinda weird to me.

Howard Kurtz: The truth is, the media can only focus on a couple of foreign crises at a time. If there's a showdown over the Cuba embargo and a thawing in North Korea and a crackdown against a media mogul in Russia, that's going to eat up most of the available column inches and minutes allotted for international news. When Saddam acts up, that becomes a huge front-page story and other countries get overshadowed. I'm not defending that system, but that, in the real world, is the way it works.

Washington, D.C.: In an article published recently on SAT preparation (I believe it was in April), the Post glorified Kaplan centers. Curious as this was (for The Post never glorifies anyone/anything), I went to washpostco.com. Low and behold, The Post owns Kaplan Educational Services! Isn't it a complete conflict of interest to publish an article like this?

Howard Kurtz: I don't recall the article--and I agree that The Post isn't usually in the business of glorifying anyone--but I would be stunned if the piece in question didn't disclose The Post Company's ownership. That's standard practice here, whether it involves Newsweek, a Post Co. TV station or whatever. If the disclosure isn't included, it's a serious mistake. What disclosure does is let readers say either 1) the paper's going soft on one of its subsidiaries, or 2) the paper did a reasonably fair job DESPITE the ownership. The Washington Post allows such criticism far more than most newspapers, as you may have gathered from my item on washingtonpost.com and the Michael Saylor incident.

Fairfax, Va.: Howard, Howard, Howard. Re: the "Survivor" posting, the answer to the question for many, many of your brethren is "because I can..."

Howard Kurtz: Outing the survivor would certainly be a way to make a name for yourself. But I think if I did it I'd have somebody start my car.

New Jersey: Are people using message boards, chat rooms, etc., subject to libel charges?

Howard Kurtz: Excellent question, New Jersey. I don't think the sponsoring media organization (read:us) is liable, but individuals may well be. Some big companies have started suing to get the names of anonymous posters who criticize them on message boards and then going after the critics. Of course, you'd have to demonstrate that the person knowingly posted something that was both false and damaging. But I think the name of the game with these corporate lawsuits is intimidation.

Orono, Maine: Hey there! I saw a reference to the trade press in one of your earlier answers. In your opinion, how well do such publications do in covering/breaking real news? Do editors and reporters at papers like the Post take the trade press seriously?

Howard Kurtz: Yes, and yes. Obviously trade magazines vary in quality, but when I've covered various agencies (in my pre-media incarnation) I've found that they do a terrific job and get lots of stuff way before the so-called mainstream press. In fact, the Big Media types often follow what's in the industry press, sometimes with credit and too often without.

Arlington, Va.: When will you report on the networks' apathetic response to covering the political conventions? They're all calling them "infomercials." As in CBS saying "we're not in the infomercial business." Isn't that ridiculous considering they're all about making money? What next? No inauguration "infomercial"?

Howard Kurtz: Good point. The broadcast networks have basically ceded the conventions to cable, having concluded they can draw bigger audiences showing preseason football (in ABC's case) or other entertainment fare. Having covered this debate in '92 and '96, here's the networks' argument: No real news is made at these conventions. They've become so scripted and pre-packaged that they're little more than party propaganda, and we're not just going to turn over our airwaves to the parties. And anyone who wants to see them can watch on cable news or C-SPAN or PBS. Convincing? Not very. Especially when these networks are licensed by the government for their piece of the spectrum in the "public interest," a concept that seems to fade when it collides with ratings.

Howard Kurtz: Anyone have any thoughts on Fred Barnes, Bob Novak, Mark Shields, Paul Gigot, Al Hunt, Paul Begala and other pundits playing themselves in a TV movie for Showtime? I was at the taping last week and it was fun to watch these esteemed commentators work themselves into a blather over two fictional presidential candidates.

Delhi,NY: Good afternoon. I am told the rules on the Debate are that third-party candidates must get at least 10% in media polls. So, I was wondering, does the media actually ask about Nader or Buchanan -- the major third-party candidates -- when they do their polls? Thank you.

washingtonpost.com: A recent Post poll question asked about both Nader and Buchanan.

Howard Kurtz: Yes, media polls almost always ask about Nader and Buchanan. But both men complain--I wrote about Buchanan's lament a couple of weeks ago--that they can't reach the threshold (it's actually 15 percent) set by the presidential debates commission without more exposure to the public, and that media outlets use their low poll numbers as an excuse not to cover them. It's a real dilemma, though I suspect both Pat & Ralph will be getting more coverage as the campaign heats up, if only because they may affect Bush and Gore's ability to win certain states.

Landover, Md.: Since the Washington Post gives nods to Newsweek, Kaplan and the Associated Press, why isn't the suburban Gazette papers ever mentioned? Do you ever swap stories? Out here, they're referred to as the Baby Postits.

Howard Kurtz: The two editorial operations are completely separate. But if I had occasion to write about the Gazette, obviously I'd mention the corporate connection.

washingtonpost.com: As your struggling host today, let me ask this about your proposal to post all questions in online talks like this. With some guests -- such as a well-known politician, or a media celebrity like yourself ;) -- wouldn't we risk overwhelming readers with long lists of questions, many of which would be repeating? One of the reasons we moderate talks like this, as on talk radio, is to make for a better, more structured conversation. -- Mark

Howard Kurtz: You could use very small type to list the questions. Or you could create a link to the total number of questions for people who didn't want to be distracted. I don't say it's a perfect solution, but the current system seems to put too much influence in the hands of the guest and leave the readers in the dark.

Howard Kurtz: THANKS FOR THE CHAT, folks.

washingtonpost.com: Some of you were looking for a link to the Mossberg story Howie asked about. Thought we'd given you that. Here it is:

Curmudgeon on the Info Highway (June 24)

Please plan to post any follow-up questions you might have about that or anything else you see in the news when Howie returns after the July 4 holiday.

   |       |