|
Media
Backtalk
With Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, Jan. 28, 2002; Noon
EST
Consumers used to get their news from newspapers, magazines and evening broadcasts from the 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," "Spin Cycle" and "The Fortune Tellers: Inside Wall Street's World of Money, Media and Manipulation." Kurtz talked about the press and the stories of the day in "Media
Backtalk."
The transcript follows
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and
hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Cherry Hill, N.J.:
Howard,
The last poll I saw shows Bush with an 80 percent approval rating, yet another poll shows less than 50 percent would reelect him. Why is there such a large disparity?
Howard Kurtz: One asks whether the president is doing a good job; the other asks potential voters to weigh him against another candidate in 2004.
Washington, D.C.:
In my opinion the series by Woodward and Balz is an insider spin piece timed for the State of the Union. While it might be interesting to get a view of what happened during this period, the only sources for information are administration insiders. Given the level of 'spin' demonstrated by these sources on a daily basis (see Cheney attack the Republican head of the GAO in today's paper for an example) the question I have for you is -- Why do you think the Post ran this piece now and what does this portend for the inevitable year-end retrospective pieces?
washingtonpost.com:
America's Chaotic Road to War (Post, Jan. 27)
Howard Kurtz: The piece wasn't "timed" for the State of the Union or anything else (it was originally scheduled to run a week ago), and I don't see why it would have any impact on the speech. Given that they're writing about what Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell et al. did after Sept. 11, it makes sense that these people would be the primary sources of information. They are mostly on the record. Balz & Woodward got notes of some of the sessions. I don't see why this is to be dismissed as "spin." Everyone understands that these folks are not trying to put themselves in an unfavorable light.
Boston, Mass.:
Howard,
Why does the press make the Enron scandal sound so complicated? MSNBC interviewed several average people in Houston yesterday, and they seemed to have the situation down pretty well: Enron used its campaign contributions to buy influence and shape policy both at the state and national level to suit its strengths. On the business level, the executives sold when the stock was overvalued, while telling its employees to hold on to theirs. Am I missing something?
Howard Kurtz: Only a whole lot of details. It's fine to say that Enron used campaign cash to buy influence. But journalists also have to examine what the administration did in return (zip in terms of saving the company from bankruptcy; a fair amount in terms of federal energy policy, an Enron dispute with India, etc.). There are also a zillion questions about who knew of the shady financial practices, who authorized the shredding, what the auditors' role was, etc. For example, many accounts have depicted Enron employees as total victims in terms of their retirement accounts. The truth is that, except for the last few weeks before the collapse, employees could choose to put 89 percent of their 401K money into investments other than Enron stock. They obviously feel misled by Ken Lay, but they did put all their financial eggs in that one shaky basket.
Waldorf, Md.:
I keep seeing two different "second references" to the so-called "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh. Some media refer to him in second reference as "Walker," while others (including the Post) call him "Lindh." Apparently his parents' last name is Walker; where does the Lindh come from, and why is there this big discrepancy? I don't remember ever seeing this explained anywhere; sorry if I missed it.
Howard Kurtz: As best I can determine, his name is Lindh but he has chosen to use his mother's last name, Walker.
Washington, D.C.:
Howard,
What is up with the president showboating the book "Bias"? Is he trying to send a message to the press that has been extremely easy on him?
Howard Kurtz: I'm sure it was no accident and a bit of a presidential jab at the press corps - not about being easy on him, which is not Bush's view, but about being biased to the left. He had to know the pictures would be taken with the book prominently displayed under his arm.
Tampa, Fla.:
Howard,
Why is it that the media is fascinated with John Walker? Is that he fought for the Taliban, or is that he comes from "liberal" Marin County, since that seems to be mentioned as almost his suffix, or that he fought for the Taliban? Also, why was there no mention outside of Florida that Charles Bishop, and bin Laden sympathizer, who flew his plane into a building was a member of the young Republicans?
Howard Kurtz: I guess if 99.99 percent of the Taliban fighters are faceless Muslims and one is a kid from California, the media are going to focus on the Left Coaster. Yes, there's been way too much pop psychology about Marin County (and none about the Tampa "culture" that "produced" Charles Bishop, an Osama fan). But it's kind of natural for people to wonder how an American ended up in Afghanistan, taking up arms against his country. Like everything else, though, the media seem determined to turn this into a long-running soap opera.
Washington, D.C.:
Of course the Bush flacks are not "trying to put themselves in an unfavorable light." But when the Washington Post prints articles that rely exclusively on Bush sources, you give a biased view of this administration's performance. That's why it's spin, and the Post shouldn't be passing it off as serious reporting.
Howard Kurtz: I'm afraid I can't take the criticism seriously. You've got on the record interviews with the president, vice president etc. and two reporters spending many weeks piecing things together (as well as six parts we haven't read yet). Who should they interview, outsiders who don't have a clue what happened? This is not a series that attempts to say whether the Bush team did a good or bad job, simply to chronicle what happened in all those meetings.
Arlington, Va.:
Howard,
You are a media reporter.
How is that in today's analysis of the "Enronization of Politics" you failed to mention the media's desperate, nay, touching, longing to use the TenYawn scandal as a club to beat up on Bush and show him who's boss in Washington?
It is glaringly, blatantly obvious. Perhaps that's why you overlooked it.
Howard Kurtz: I've written extensively about the media going hogwild on Enron. But this is not about "clubbing" Bush. Enron would be a huge story, given the magnitude of the collapse, no matter who was president. And keep in mind The Post and other news organizations have pointed out all the Democrats who got Enron cash, the fact that Clinton golfed with Ken Lay, and so on. This is looking more and more like a bipartisan scandal.
Andover MA:
Mr. Kurtz,
Your discussion of the National Review, Andrew Sullivan and Paul Krugman reminds me of a philosphical debate. It's like the old 'which came first, the chicken or the egg' question. First Sullivan derides Krugman for invoking the 'vast right wing conspiracy' theory when it's really his ethics that are the problem, conveniently ignoring all those conservative columnists who have also taken Enron money while shilling for the company. Then the Review comes up with the idea that it's not his ethics, but the fact that he is not a member of the vast right wing conspiracy. Of course they couldn't criticize his ethics because half of the National Review staff appears to be on the Enron payroll. And where does the Review get off demanding his dismissal for bias? Must be all that fair and balanced work they put out. Have conservatives decided that the only way to prove the value of their ideas is to try and discredit anyone who doesn't share them? It used to be just politicians (Clinton, Gore and now Daschle) who caught the smear routine, but it looks like the trend is spreading.
Howard Kurtz: My job is to lay it out there so readers can make up their minds. Sure, a number of these people have partisan axes to grind. But there's a serious issue at the heart of this controversy: Should journalists take money from companies such as Enron, and if they do, should they write about them later on? How much should they disclose if they do write about the company? What did Enron think it was getting for its money? Conservatives may be out to sink Paul Krugman, as he argues, but the truth is that most of the commentators with Enron ties are on the right.
Rockville, Md.:
How come nobody picked up on Bush holding the Bias book? Except for Fox News and Drudge. Could it be that journalists don't want anyone to know about the book? And how come you didn't pick up on it, except for a mention by someone else here in the forum.
I think Bush is offended with the liberal media and their Enron lust. Ever since Watergate, journalists need presidential scandals as much as drugies need that next shot.
Howard Kurtz: Sorry to disappoint you, but there was a picture and caption of Bush holding the book in The Washington Post on Saturday. And I showed the picture and talked about it on CNN's Reliable Sources. (As for journalists not wanting anyone to know about it, I was the first newspaper reporter to write about "Bias." I interviewed Bernard Goldberg for the piece a number of weeks ago -- this before anyone knew it would be a major best-seller. I also interviewed Bernie on CNN. So that book has gotten plenty of publicity from me.
New York, N.Y.:
Howard, Paul Krugman was criticized, unfairly in my opinion, for accepting something like $50,000 in consulting fees from Enron. If Enron was trying to buy him, a lot of good it did them. But it's also come out that more conservative columnists and journalists received consultancy fees from Enron, including Lawrence Kudlow and William Kristol. Two questions: Is this a scandal for media in the same way as it is for politics, i.e., a symbol of corporate influence peddling among the pundit class? Number two, what is YOUR relationship with Enron?
Howard Kurtz: Number two, I have none.
Number one, this has become a symbol of a company trying to buy up big-name commentators, leaving them in an incredibly awkward position when the company collapses amid a wave of fraud allegations. Not to mention the amount of work these journalists did for the $50,000 or $100,000 -- not very much, in most cases.
Hartford, Conn.:
If the Bush administration had attempted to save Enron, how much flack would they have gotten. It seems that because of the relationship, the administration was paralyzed from doing anything.
Howard Kurtz: That's an argument made by Nick Lemann in the New Yorker -- that it would have been easier for the Bush administration to try to bail out a company with which it had no financial ties. Virginia Postrel argues in the Wall Street Journal that helping Enron would do nothing for Bush politically since he's already strong in his Texas base. But on the question of whether the Bushies could have done something to help shareholders and employees -- had the administration said anything publicly about the calls to Paul O'Neill and Don Evans, Enron's stock would have blown up even more quickly than it did.
Portsmouth, Ohio:
Enron -- as a story, a tragic mismanagement of a corporation. But don't you feel that the media is missing the scandals of the past administration and (with the war not being as popular of late) trying to create a scandal again of presidential proportions?
It would improve ratings and give the mainly democratic media a good run in September wouldn't it?
Howard Kurtz: Sure. Journalists love scandals. They thrive on scandals. But they also don't operate in a vacuum. There's a Justice Department investigation, an SEC investigation, 11 congressional investigators and a White House review of Enron contracts, pension laws and accounting standards. And now a suicide. It would be awfully hard not to cover all of that.
Boston, Mass.:
Howard,
Last year there were a lot of stories bashing President Clinton for making recess appointments. Why has there been none with Bush's appointments, even though they seem to be more controversial?
Howard Kurtz: These have been duly reported, but the Democrats have chosen not to make a major issue out of the appointments, perhaps because Clinton did the same thing.
Arlington, Va.:
I am curious about the bidding wars involving the cable news channels. Is it really possible that CNN viewers will desert that channel to watch Greta on Fox? I think that in the case of national emergencies we tend to go to the channel that we feel will have the best up-to-date coverage, more the news infrastructure than the talking head in front of the camera.
Howard Kurtz: Well, but what happens when there's no longer a national emergency? Cable news viewing often seems driven by personalities. Fox fans watch Bill O'Reilly regardless of what's in the news. Now CNN is getting into that arena (Paula Zahn, Aaron Brown, Connie Chung) because there's not always a war or scandal or calamity to drive people to the news.
New York, N.Y.:
A writer for Fortune, according to a story in the NY Times today, was the first to question the value of Enron stock, but her story was knocked from the cover of the magazine when Enron challenged the story's accuracy. Of course, it now turns out the story was more than accurate. My question is how frequently do publishers allow themselves to be knocked around by the influential figures and companies they write about, and is that a problem? Do the Bush people, for example, call the Post when they catch wind of front page stories that they think might be damaging to them?
Howard Kurtz: I first wrote about the role of Fortune's Bethany McLean in tackling Fortune on Jan. 18. Whether her Enron story was on the cover or not, Fortune deserves credit for courageously standing behind her, under enormous pressure from Enron, at a time when everyone else in the press was upbeat about Enron and its stock was near $90 a share. Some magazines, especially in the entertainment field, occasionally bow to pressure. This is a case in which Fortune did not.
Indianapolis, Ind.:
I know that Enron's failure was on a pretty large scale. However, how is it THAT different than the dot com collapses in 2000-2001. Like Enron, many of the failed dot coms were flagrantly mismanaged, thousands of people lost their jobs, thousands of retirement plans were scuttled by non-diversifying company 401k setups. Venture capitalists made out like bandits, while regular investors were left holding the bag. Financial anyalysts failed to disclose conflicts of interest while talking up the dot coms on cable financial shows. Hardly any regulatory oversight was visible during that period. Yet, if we are to believe some in the press, Enron invented shady business practices.
Howard Kurtz: The difference is in part one of scale; the collapse of Webvan or pets.com did not throw thousands of people out of work. The Enron implosion is actually having ripples of impact on the economy. Also, while the dot-com stocks were kept levitated by ridiculously optimistic and conflicted Wall Street analysts, in most cases there was no deliberate hiding of losses, blessed by auditors, nor deliberate misleading of employees despite internal warnings. Finally, the fact that Ken Lay is a Bush buddy and the company spread plenty of cash to politicians (and a few journalists) has given the story an extra bit of sex appeal.
Vienna, Va.:
Should the New York Times take action against Paul Krugman for not revealing his ties to Enron?
Howard Kurtz: Actually, Krugman did reveal his ties to Enron. He worked for the company before joining the NYT. He disclosed that he worked on Enron's advisory board when writing a piece for Fortune, and again last January, the first time he wrote about Enron for the Times. He did not repeat the disclosure in subsequent columns, and it wasn't until a Times news story that we learned Krugman had been paid $50,000 to attend a couple of meetings.
Boston, Mass.:
Howard,
I am reading the Post articles on Bush's decision making after Sept. 11. Do you think there will be a series on what he did on terrorism before Sept. 11?
Howard Kurtz: Actually, The Post did a major piece on what the Bush administration did (and failed to do) on terrorism before the attacks. This followed a lengthy piece about the Clinton administration's handling of the same issue.
Boston, Mass.:
Howard,
How are the ratings for CNBC's new 8pm talk show with Larry Kudlow & Jim Kramer. I find that its much more informative than many of the other shows.
Howard Kurtz: I don't have any word on the ratings, but Kudlow and Cramer are an interesting and volatile combination. The Enron story has been perfect for these two Wall Street guys and they have been pounding it night after night.
Knoxville, Tenn.:
Why when The Houston Chronicle and the Dallas Morning News ran stories that Bush had lied in his response to how long he had been good friends with Enron CEO Ken Lay the Washington press corps totally ignored it? If President Clinton had made that kind of claim about someone he knew the washington press corps would have been still be bringing it up every day. This double standard in the "liberal press" also shows up in the pundits. Where are Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly asking about the immorality of George Bush? After the lies involving Air Force One, stem cell research, Arigate, the Hart-Rudman report cover-up, it looks like this administration will be the most corrupt ever if the public at large ever gets to hear about it. But since the Washington press corps barely acknowledges these and other stories we out here have little hope.
Howard Kurtz: The Washington press corps didn't "totally ignore it"; it was certainly reported by The Post and other news organizations. Still, I was surprised that Bush's Ken-Lay-supported-Ann Richards-and-I barely-knew-the-guy remarks didn't get bigger play, or become more of an issue among the pundits.
Arroyo Grande, Calif.:
What ethical obligation does a newspaper journalist have to admit they were wrong (in print) and to give a reason for why the error was made?
In the last year we have continually seen reporters whom I previously respected simply repeat what they are told by the Bush White House. Unfortunately, all too often we later find out that the Bush White House was, once again, playing fast and loose with the truth, and the reporter, in not investigating the White House's assertions before repeating them, simply became the White House's unwitting pawn.
In the real world of today's journalism, with the rapidity in which news must be launched in order for the publication to be competitive, is it even possible to verify facts before publishing them?
Finally, in the real world of today's journalism, is their any repercussions at all from the newspapers publishers if the journalist sends to be published "facts" that were not verified and later turned out to be wrong?
Thanks for your consideration.
Howard Kurtz: You don't offer any specifics, but it was the late Post publisher Phil Graham who said that newspapers provide the "first rough draft of history." If the president or VP or secretary of state or transportation secretary say things, it's our job to report them, get reaction from politicians and critics, poke around and point out any factual problems, inconsistencies, etc. This has been true since the days when Ron Ziegler was dismissing Watergate as a third-rate burglary. Inevitably, information comes out later and we have to go back and recast and challenge the earlier version of events. That doesn't make journalists "pawns."
For instance, the press first reported that there had been a 9/11 threat against Air Force One. Then it was reported that this was a misunderstanding. Now the Balz/Woodward series talks about the use of the code word "Angel" to refer to AF1, and the mistaken belief that whoever called in the threat had used it. That's why it's worth going back again and again on such stories.
Thanks for the chat, folks.
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
