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."

Couric's Journey, ( Post, Dec. 4)

The transcript follows.

____________________

Washington, D.C.: Good article on Katie Couric, this morning. Regardless of who is at an anchor desk, there is still only 26 minutes of time for actual news. It appears that even though CBS is trying different styles for the news and that McManus stated that Couric's mega salary is more than made up for; isn't this business all about ratings? Where do you suggest she will be in, say, one year's time?

Howard Kurtz: Honest answer: I don't know. I suppose the battle is ultimately about ratings in that the Nielsen numbers are what determines advertising revenue. But isn't it also about journalistic quality? In other words, even if a year from now Katie Couric is third with 8 million viewers and Brian Williams is first with 9.5 million viewers, isn't 8 million viewers still a pretty big deal? And therefore isn't it important what goes in the newscast? I think the tendency to judge success or failure SOLELY by ratings is a bit short-sighted.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Hello, Mr. Kurtz, thanks for chatting today. Do you think The Washington Post has a special responsibility to avoid sexist characterizations of the incoming Speaker of the House, her decisions and personnel choices, and her rivalries with fellow lawmakers, especially other women? There's been quite a bit of "misogyny creep" in the Beltway Media lately, and I think The Post should take the lead in policing it. Your thoughts, sir?

Howard Kurtz: Yes. I'll go out on a limb and say we must be fair to all female lawmakers, executives and other babes in important positions.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Your article today about the evolution of the "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric" was interesting. But just who is making the decision to put more hard news in the program? (And who decided to insert now-jettisoned features like "Free Speech" and "Snapshots" in the first pace.) Couric herself? Sean McManus and other top CBS news executives? The chief producers of the program?

Howard Kurtz: It's a collaborative process. Couric, her executive producer and other top producers, and the president of CBS News all have a great deal of input.

_______________________

Windsor Mill, Md.: I noticed yesterday that Fox News Sunday labeled an interview with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer an "exclusive". Since he has been interviewed previously on numerous programs including Sunday morning shows, how can they call this an exclusive? It seems that Fox labels things anyway they wish. Or is this just a trend overall? What is The Washington Post standard for labeling something an exclusive? One further not, how come CNN doesn't repeat your Sunday show like it does others? My Tivo can only record two at a time and I'm sorry but you lose out to ABC and NBC.

Howard Kurtz: On cable these days, "exclusive" seems to mean the interview subject hasn't talked to anyone else for at least a couple of hours and isn't hopping in a taxi right afterwards to do another show. It's quite overused.

I wish we had a replay time for Reliable Sources. But if I'm losing out in the VCR wars, there's always the newly available video podcast!

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: What is your thought on the coverage of Danny DeVito's drunken appearance on The View? I realize this is a bit more low brow that most questions you get, but it occurs to me that if a woman appeared drunk on that show, the media would be incredibly ruthless and negative (as would most people, to be fair). But somehow, I think people treated this much more casually because he is a man.

Is this a double standard by the media or society in general?

Howard Kurtz: I think he's been kicked around a bit, and deservedly so. Both the New York Post and Daily News labeled him "DANNY DEVINO." But I don't see a gender issue here. Lindsay Lohan is taking AA classes and no one seems to be beating up on her (though one of my guests noted yesterday that it's fair to point out she's 20 years old, meaning not of legal drinking age).

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Hadley said yesterday on MTP that the leak of the memo doubting Maliki's competence was not an authorized leak. What does your gut say?

Howard Kurtz: I am fairly certain that Hadley did not want that memo out, not during the president's trip, but that someone else in the administration, perhaps not a fan of the current policy, did.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Howard,

Re: The leak to the press of national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley's report on the Iraqi government.

The are two stories here: (1) The substance of the report and (2) the leak itself. In my opinion, the larger story is the leak itself. However, in situations like this, the press rarely tackles the story of the leak itself, and this case is no exception. Nevertheless, people everywhere (and particularly in Washington) are talking more about the leak and what it means, and less about the substance.

Why does the press consistently ignore this larger story?

Howard Kurtz: Here's the problem. I can speculate, which is fun, but neither I nor anyone else have any way of knowing who was the source who provided the memo to the New York Times. It's the same issue that came up in the CIA leak investigation: As long as reporters protect their confidential sources, as they should, outsiders have little way of judging the motivation behind these leaks. In this case, the Times said only that it was an administration official, but did not address why said official would have shared this classified document.

_______________________

New Hampshire: Hi Howard.

Which version of dictionary is currently in use in the White House? I wonder only because Dana Perino's statement about John Bolton's resignation focused on "the Democratic filibuster" as the reason.

They must live in an alternate universe! There was NO democratic filibuster of the recess appointed ambassador. Do you think the "media" will ask for clarification from the White House podium?

Howard Kurtz: The Democrats made clear that Bolton (who was a recess appointee because he could not win approval last time) was not going to get a vote. But yes, that is not the same as a filibuster.

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: Howard, thank you for your good work.

On the issue of should the media call Iraq a "civil war", I agree it is a politically loaded term, but the media uses loaded terminology all the time, "detainee" instead of prisoner, "incursion" instead of invasion, "occupation" instead of liberation. what is so wrong about calling it a civil war if that is what it appears to be

Howard Kurtz: There's nothing wrong with making that judgment. We in the news business make judgments all the time, and words matter (as in anti-abortion vs. pro-life, or pro-abortion vs. pro-choice). What I have questioned is whether NBC engaged in a bit of grandstanding in having Matt Lauer make a big announcement about it, rather than simply start using the term, as the Los Angeles Times and others have done.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.:

Quite an interesting article in this morning's Post by Walter Pincus about the influence in the new congress of some anti-war voices. He also lays out a pretty damning picture of how correct some members of Congress were in their condemnation of the war process, and how poor a job The Post and other media did of reporting on the dissenting voices.

Howard Kurtz: He's right. It was extremely difficult for the media to prove that Saddam had no WMD. It was not difficult at all to give a fair hearing to those who opposed the war and raised arguments about securing the country post-invasion that now, four years later, turn out to be have been valid concerns.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: The Post article today brought to mind a question I've had for a while...in your view, have the Talking Head shows specifically, and Big Media in general, given proper credit to those who were (in retrospect) right about the war, and treated the pronouncements of those for the war with enough skepticism?

Howard Kurtz: No and no. Especially in 2002 and 2003.

_______________________

Helena, Mont.: I like Reliable Sources, but was disappointed that yesterday's show had on two defenders of the media on the topic of media coverage of Iraq. One reason I like your show is that you often have on guests who are willing to do critiques of media coverage of different topics. It is less enlightening, and more boring, when your guests are just there to make excuses for the media.

Howard Kurtz: I would suggest that it is hard these days (as opposed to a couple of years ago) to find people who contend that things are going much better in Iraq than is generally believed and that the problem is overly negative media coverage. In one of our segments, David Gergen, who worked for Nixon, Ford and Reagan (and was later brought in as a Republican adviser to Clinton), agreed with the NYT's Nick Kristof that the correspondents in Iraq turned out to be right and were unfairly denigrated by administration officials. Gergen did say that the press served as "cheerleaders" in the run up to the war and later turned on the administration in part because journalists felt they'd been had.

_______________________

Ashland, Mo.: Given the many recent court cases finding no first amendment privilege to not disclose a source, is the media simply lying to people when they promise confidentiality? Particularly in an age when corporations will find it economically infeasible to contest subpoenas and other discovery devices that do not rely on a reporter's testimony? Moreover, is there any real evidence that sources have dried up given all the supposed confidential material that is still appearing in the New York Times and Washington Post?

Howard Kurtz: No, reporters are not simply lying. What they are saying to sources is that, if there's a legal case, they will go to jail rather than disclose the source's identity. Judith Miller went to jail for 85 days until getting Scooter Libby's permission to testify about their discussions. Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters are facing jail right now for refusing to name their sources in the Barry Bonds steroids case. We can't control what the courts may do; we can only make promises about our own conduct.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: re: the President's trip to Jordan. Media was full of talk of Maliki's slight and the Hadley memo. What I didn't see was an analysis of what a total waste of time this 2 hour breakfast meeting was. This is the same administration that wouldn't send Dr. Rice to Israel in July until there was something on the table. I think it was illustrative of what a miserable failure Bush's Mideast policy has been. But the media didn't seem to want to go there.

Howard Kurtz: Really? I read a lot of analysis of the fact that the summit accomplished very little, other than a restatement of Bush's support for Maliki. It's not like the two leaders agreed on any new strategy or policy, and the most newsworthy thing to have happened was when the prime minister canceled his dinner with the president. The stories and analyses may not have used the phrase "waste of time," but they certainly made clear that little or nothing was accomplished.

_______________________

D.C.: Why hasn't the Post issued a correction to George Will's column on Jim Webb? Is misrepresentation by omission acceptable for columnists? How about for reporters?

Howard Kurtz: Here's what Will wrote:

Wednesday's Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb "tried to avoid President Bush," refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "I'd like to get them [sic] out of Iraq." When the president again asked "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy."

It seems to me there was a key omission in which Bush preceded his response to Webb's get-them-out-of-Iraq comment by saying, "I didn't ask you that." That does make clear that both men, not just Webb, were being snippy.

_______________________

Centreville, Va.: It's a bit of a straw-man to say you can't find anyone who thinks the media is "overly negative" about Iraq. There are plenty of conservatives (even media critics) who think that Russert and Co. are very, very political in using the war to pummel Bush. Russert on Imus even said Democrats aren't responsible for the war. They were just voted in as a protest. don't they have to govern now?

Howard Kurtz: The Democrats do have to govern now, but Bush is still the commander-in-chief. Not only are the number of conservative commentators who blame the media over Iraq dwindling, the number of conservative commentators who defend the administration's handling of the war has dwindled, as I have shown with excerpts on my blog all year.

_______________________

Howard Dean: In your 2008 crystal ball, do you think Howard Dean is going to take another shot at a Presidential run?

Howard Kurtz: My ball has been known to be cloudy, but I don't think so. Dean promised to forego a 2008 run when he ran for DNC chairman, and has made no noises whatsoever about going back on his word.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: On the front page of the NY Times today is an article replete with pictures of the Bush administration's treatment of Joseph Padilla, an American citizen. Do you think the pictures will have a similar effect on the U.S. public as did the pictures of torture in Iraq?

Howard Kurtz: I don't know. It depends on whether you believe that someone accused of plotting a dirty-bomb attack should have to wear blacked-out goggles and have his legs shackled when he is taken outside solitary confinement for a dentist's appointment.

_______________________

New Hope, Va.: You said, "What they are saying to sources is that, if there's a legal case, they will go to jail rather than disclose the source's identity." Is this actually written somewhere? When I was a reporter and single mother, I'm ashamed to say I wouldn't have spent a day in jail unless I thought the truth would cause irreversible harm to my source. I don't remember taking an oath before I went to work at my small town paper. Do you take an oath at The Post?

Howard Kurtz: There's no oath, and it's not written down. It's simply an understanding between reporter and source when sensitive matters are involved. Nor is the possibility of jail always explicitly discussed; it may be only implicit. That is, if I promise Person X that I will never reveal his identity, am I not bound by that promise even if a prosecutor tries to haul me before a grand jury?

_______________________

RE: Katie Couric Article: Couric stated that war fatigue was the reason that she juggled the order of stories on on of her newscasts. Shouldn't the most pressing news issue of the day take priority?

Howard Kurtz: But all the newscasts (and newspapers as well) engage in this kind of editorial process, otherwise they would be leading with Iraq five days a week. On the day that she led with the Alabama school bus accident -- and I question whether that was a strong enough lead for a national broadcast -- the Iraq news was that Iran had invited Iraq and Syria to a summit meeting, and a follow-up to a Washington Post scoop about Pentagon contingency planning on Iraq ("Go Big," "Go Long," "Go Home"). These are the judgment calls for which anchors and producers get paid. Last Friday, they all led with the big snowstorms in the Midwest. Was that more important in the long run than Iraq?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Will Robin Ghivan be restrained or will she be allowed to savage Nancy Pelosi's clothing and makeup choices?

Howard Kurtz: Well, let's go to the videotape:

The California Democrat was dressed in a blue-gray pantsuit with a blouse in a similar but slightly deeper hue. She wore a necklace that was a complementary mix of colors. Nowhere on her person did there appear to be a flag, an eagle or any other booming statement of patriotism that can so quickly transform a workday ensemble into a Fourth of July costume. Holding a news conference in front of flags was plenty; she did not feel compelled to drape herself in one.

Pelosi's suit was by Giorgio Armani -- the Italian master of neutral tones and modern power dressing -- and she wore it well. She looked polished and tasteful in front of the cameras. It is tempting to even go so far as to say that she looked chic, which in the world beyond Washington would be considered a compliment, but in the context of politics is an observation fraught with insinuations of partisanship and condescension.

_______________________

Crofton, Md.: Who decides the placement of news stories in the A section of The Post? I ask this because whenever I see mention of Walter Pincus, I remember that a lot of his articles discussing concerns about the Iraq War hardly ever made it to the front page during the runup to the War. And, although I like Dana Milbank's wit, I can think of better subject matter for A2.

Howard Kurtz: Editor Len Downie, or if he's not around, Managing Editor Phil Bennett. Other top editors push for stories they like but don't make the final call.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Hi Howard. I appreciate your work. Just wanted to comment on the Couric story you wrote this morning -- specifically, her assertion that people who criticized her "newscast" for lacking news were clearly not watching. Not only was I watching, but I was rooting for her to be great. I was really disappointed (and I'm a woman excited about the first female anchor). I never watch her. Brian Williams gets my vote.

Howard Kurtz: Hey, it's a democracy and you get to vote with your remote control. Brian Williams puts on a very fine newscast. One of the things I was trying to point out was that the "CBS Evening News" today is not the same broadcast as when Couric started in September.

_______________________

Wilmington, N.C.:"It depends on whether you believe that someone accused of plotting a dirty-bomb attack should have to wear blacked-out goggles and have his legs shackled when he is taken outside solitary confinement for a dentist's appointment."

None of the allegations against Mr. Padilla mention a dirty-bomb attack. Have I missed something?

Howard Kurtz: Well, the second graph of the NYT story says, "Mr. Padilla, a Brooklyn-born Muslim convert whom the Bush administration had accused of plotting a dirty bomb attack and had detained without charges..."

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Regarding the new Post radio, 1500 on your AM dial, it seems to me on the morning drive that the talk reminds me of C-SPAN radio (heard locally in the D.C. area) with a -little- personality or even a Bloomberg-like channel for politicos -- wonkish chatter for those that are involved in the business of beltway and any other folks willing to spend valuable car time getting educated on current events.

Yesterday was a replay of MTP, but I can get that on C-SPAN radio also.

Are these observations at all in line with the mission of the station?

Howard Kurtz: Check me out at 8:05 and 4:05. I am DEFINITELY not wonkish.

_______________________

Arianna: Wondering what you thought of Arianna's very recent post blasting the NYT's 'Hillary's dropping hints' article as not telling people the real story. It does seem at times as though reporters write pro forma stuff rather than what they know to be the case. Your thoughts?

Howard Kurtz: Arianna didn't say the Times wasn't telling people the real story. She was saying it was SO BLOODY OBVIOUS that Hillary is running that the story was a big fat snooze. I disagree. While most of humanity has assumed the senator is planning her White House bid, the Times was the first to report an overt action on her part--that is, consulting with leading New York Democrats about her plans. Sometimes, you know, what EVERYONE KNOWS turns out to be wrong. Everyone knew Mark Warner was running for president until, suddenly, he wasn't.

_______________________

El Segundo, Calif.: Howard,

In the Post Politics Q and A, Dan Balz responded to an Iraq Study Group question with the comment: "Expectations for the impact of the Iraq Study Group may have gotten out of hand...."

Considering the ISG leaks, MSM, 24/7 cable and bloggers, was there any doubt that this would occur? I realize the bloggers are hard to control, but how much does MSM try "to apply the brakes" and not let expectations get out of hand?

Howard Kurtz: We don't. We LIKE when expectations get out of hand. Then we come along and say such-and-such didn't live up to the hype.

_______________________

El Segundo, Calif.: Howard,

In the Post Politics Q&A, Dan Balz responded to an Iraq Study Group question with the comment: "Expectations for the impact of the Iraq Study Group may have gotten out of hand...."

Considering the ISG leaks, MSM, 24/7 cable and bloggers, was there any doubt that this would occur? I realize the bloggers are hard to control, but how much does MSM try "to apply the brakes" and not let expectations get out of hand?

Howard Kurtz: This was the question to which my previous answer was intended.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: Hadley confirmed yesterday that the leak of his memo right before the President's meeting with Maliki was unauthorized. Yet it comes from someone within the administration - and all signs point toward the top of the Pentagon, which also seems to have leaked Rumsfeld's memo to the same Pentagon reporter at the New York Times for publication a couple of days later. That is just extraordinary. What do you make of the idea that Rumsfeld's folks - whom we know, along with other neoconservatives, are not fans of Maliki - leaked Hadley's memo in an effort to undermine Bush's meeting with Maliki, as Hadley suggested? And given how simpatico on all these matters Rumsfeld is with Cheney, don't we have to contemplate the possibility that the Vice President of the United States is condoning, if not actually participating in, action directly undermining the current policy of the President of the United States?

Howard Kurtz: A Pentagon source may well have been leaking the memo to undermine the Bush-Maliki summit, though I sincerely doubt Cheney was involved. Or it may have been someone who just really, really doesn't like Steve Hadley, or who owed the reporter a favor, or whatever. That's the problem with leaks when the news organization doesn't address the question of motivation -- the only thing the rest of us can do is speculate.

_______________________

Marietta, Ga.: Did NBC's David Gregory dye his eyebrows? My Mom thinks so, and she will hardly talk about anything else.

Howard Kurtz: My condolences. I will put that at the absolute top of my list of investigative projects.

Thanks for the chat, folks.

_______________________

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. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.