|
Media
Backtalk
With Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 26, 2001; 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" and "Spin Cycle:
Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine."
Kurtz talks about the press and the stories of the day in "Media
Backtalk," Mondays; Noon EST.
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.
Tucson, Ariz.:
In the Sunday New York Times there was an article about the lack of love between Sen. McCain and President Bush. The article overlooked one of the primary sources of friction which also was one of the most vicious political attacks in modern political campaigns, the portrayal of Sen. McCain as unfit to be president due to mental illness caused by his years as a POW. Of course this was not voiced directly by GWB, but his minions certainly pushed the idea, particularly around the time of the South Carolina primary. One of the jokes in Arizona at the time was that GWB was going to change the tone in Washington, he was going to make it more vicious, "Oppose me and I will portray you as crazy." How is it newspapers have such a short memory, since New York Times wrote an front page article about the McCain temper, mental health, and their relationship to his POW years. The negative quotes in that article were all from people directly connected to the Bush campaign.
Howard Kurtz: What happens is a kind of shorthanding of history. Reporters all know about the incredibly bitter Bush-McCain campaign battles, but as time moves on, this gets dismissed with a phrase or not mentioned at all. For me the most telling moment was not the McCain-must-be-crazy whispering campaign but the Bush camp's own TV ad accusing McCain of being against breast cancer research because he opposed the congressional practice of "earmarking" funds for facilities back home. It's true that you can't fully understand the Bush-McCain relationship without understanding what happened in the 2000 race.
Arlington, Va.:
Is it just me or has the "This Week" roundtable turned into the George Will and Stephy face off? Very entertaining, but I can't imagine Cookie and Sam are pleased.
Howard Kurtz: It's probably by design. They obviously encouraged Will and Stephanopoulos to go at it yesterday. The show is making a number of changes aimed at boosting its sagging ratings. Perhaps they believe the roundtable should be have a more high-minded "Crossfire" flavor.
Arlington, Va.:
I don't want to belabor the point of George Will spending an amazing amount of time attacking campaign finance reform. I know that he is paid for his opinion as you have said before. Still, isn't he expected to adhere to some sort of factual explanations of what his stand is. Last week, he called McCain a modern McCarthy.
I suspect that a columnist is valuable in the cases where he deviates from the expected as Will did in the early 1970's when he said he felt that Nixon was guilty and as William Safire does when he says why he is in favor of finance reform. If Will has nothing useful to add to the debate, he might be better off discussing baseball which he purports to understand.
Howard Kurtz: George Will is making an argument that a lot of McCain-Feingold opponents happen to share: that it is an unconstitutional infringement on the free speech of advocacy groups while building up the media, which already has a big megaphone. But I thought the McCarthyism charge was over the top and devalued the meaning of the world. McCarthy actually named names ("I hold in my hand...") and ruined people's reputations. For McCain to say the entire system has been corrupted by money -- and the Keating Five veteran doesn't exempt himself from this -- is very different. Besides, there's a stunning amount of evidence that money buys access and sometimes action (at the White House as well as on the Hill), and many members of Congress agree with McCain.
Silver Spring, Md.:
The Post ran a front-page story this weekend describing the Bush adminstration as strongly conservative. When Bush picked his cabinet, there were many stories pointing out the number of moderates in top jobs: Powell, Whitman, O'Neill. What gives?
Howard Kurtz: That was then; this is now. Seriously, the appointment of a few high-profile moderates early on has been overtaken by a much more conservative cast of characters (particularly in the deputy and assistant secretary jobs that receive little press but handle the real work of government). Plus, it's become apparent that moderates like Christie Whitman have little real power. Plus, the administration has taken conservative actions on a whole host of issues, from bankruptcy law to carbon dioxide to arsenic in the water. Plus, conservative activists are boasting about how much sway they have with this White House. That's why newspapers are often called the first draft of history; fortunately we get to write many subsequent drafts.
Washington, D.C.:
What's the point of the Post and other newspapers recounting the Florida election? Bush won, so what?
Howard Kurtz: It's certainly true that when all the recounting is over, Bush will STILL be president. You read that here first. But the Florida count was the most contested election battle in history, consuming the country for five weeks and ultimately determining the outcome of the 2000 election. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for news organizations to devote some resources to try to figure out what happened and why. For those who don't care, they are free to, in the vernacular, "move on."
Kensington, Md.:
Hi Mr Kurtz,
Two questions, please: first, does the Sunday Post's article on Bush's true conservative nature signal the official end of the honeymoon, and what took so long anyway (I mean, where were these articles during the campaign)? Second, I saw Michael Kinsley on a talking head show over the weekend, and I know he hasn't been on the air regularly for a few years since he went to Slate, but he looked emaciated; is he all right health-wise? Thanks.
Howard Kurtz: I do think the Bush honeymoon is ending, but the reason is not the spate of recent articles (the New York Times had one the other day) about how conservative the administration has turned out. It's more reflected in critical stories about the carbon dioxide flip-flop, the difficulty in selling the tax cut, etc.
Anyone following the campaign coverage would have to know that Bush was conservative and had governed conservatively in Texas. But it's also true that what he's doing now--on ergonomics rules, arsenic in the water, carbon dioxide, bankruptcy law--was barely talked about in the campaign, when the governor preferred to stress such issues as education and prescription drugs. It was Nader, not the press, who said there'd be no real difference between Bush and Gore, and he was flat wrong.
As for Mike Kinsley, maybe he's worn out from debating Bill O'Reilly (see today's online Media Notes).
Silver Spring, Md.:
Speaking of moderates in the Bush adminstration, there's already been speculation that O'Neill, Whitman and John DiIulio may already be on their way out. Is there substance to these stories or is this just journalists amusing themselves?
Howard Kurtz: Probably the latter. It's fair to question how much clout they have, and maybe one or more of them won't survive over the long term, but to speculate about who's on the way out just two months into the administration strikes me as a tad premature.
Washington, D.C.:
Seems to me McCain's going about it all wrong. The Supreme Court upheld the analogy that campaign contributions equals free speech, so putting restrictions on the latter is out of the question. But since the primary cost of campaigning is TV airtime, and since the FCC licenses broadcasters to operate "in the public interest," can't legislators just pass a law saying candidates get free airtime? Are Senators and Representatives that beholden to broadcasting concerns that this sort of legislation is unthinkable?
Howard Kurtz: You answered your own question. Legislators could just pass a lew mandating free air time for candidates but, leaving aside questions about whether that would unfairly penalize one industry, the broadcasting industry is very powerful on the Hill. That's why stations and networks never get charged for their use of the incredibly lucrative spectrum on the airwaves.
Herndon, Va.:
Do you feel that the media has laid low (played nice) with Bush? Some members of the media would rather print three day old Clinton stories than talk about an ultra conservative agenda.
Howard Kurtz: The press loves writing about Clinton, that's for sure. In fact, some members of the Central Media Conspiracy are undoubtedly plotting another Clinton comeback right now. But the media aren't exactly laying low on the new president. In fact, the New York Times, Washington Post and L.A. Times, among others, have done big pieces on how conservative the administration is and is doing essentially what big business wants on a range of issues. The era of getting good press for giving out nicknames is over.
New York, N.Y.:
Campaign finance reform: People talk about publicly funded TV commercials, but wouldn't the whole level of political discourse be raised if we just banned them? Take a country like Britain that allows parties long "political broadcasts" and that's it.
Howard Kurtz: Small problem. It's called the First Amendment.
Re: Campaign reform:
"There is a stunning amount of evidence that money buys access and sometimes action" Alright
can you name some for me? Especially the action bit.
Howard Kurtz: Let's start with the Marc Rich pardon. The credit card industry getting its way on bankruptcy law. The oil industry getting its way on Alaska drilling. People contribute big money for a reason. And it's no coincidence that congressmen who serve on the banking committee get the biggest bucks from financial services companies, those who serve on the securities subcommittees rake in the cash from Wall Street, and on and on.
Dupont Circle:
Do you find Bill O'Reilly's "I was soooo poor when I was growing up" schtick just a little tiresome? I mean, who cares? As for Washington's alleged snobbery, the most admired man among the Georgetown-Foggy Bottom - K Street set is a son of immigrants who grew up in the South Bronx and was a C student at the City College of New York -- Colin Powell.
Howard Kurtz: O'Reilly does flog that horse a little too hard, considering that he just signed a $20-million contract. But it's part of his appeal to the Working Men and Women of America.
Boston, Mass.:
Mr. Kurtz,
Why, in your opinion, has Al Gore who spent most of his life in public service kept such a low profile?
Howard Kurtz: He's trying to figure out what to do next, not harass his former opponent and give the public a break in case he decides to run again. But banning the press from his debut lecture at Columbia Journalism School shows that Gore's lousy instincts about the press haven't deserted him. Even some of his strongest loyalists are shaking their heads over that one.
Arlington, Va.:
There is no evidence that Campaign finance reform is even in the top ten issues on most American's minds; but the elite dailies and broadcast newsrooms give this issue top billing month after month after month.
Do you dispute that the way this issue plays reflects the values of the journalism profession far more than the values of American citizens generally, AND that journalists' have a degree of self-interest at stake?
Howard Kurtz: Journalists are far more interested in campaign finance reform than the general public. There are two reasons for this. One, John McCain. Two, most journalists have written so many stories over the years about how money has corrupted politics that they buy into the basic argument that the system is rotten and must be reformed. But you know, maybe there's something to be said for journalism that doesn't just follow the polls. After all, the Senate is consumed by a two-week debate on a bill that could have a dramatic impact on how campaigns are funded. And while people usually find the "process" stories on this issue a snooze, many certainly responded to McCain's campaign argument of tying well-funded interests to a lack of progress on HMO reform, prescription drugs and other issues.
S. Ertischek:
Why don't American journalist ever use the word "corruption" when describing what goes on in big money politics? How come its corruption in India or Japan but here it's a free speech issue?
Seems discriminatory to me.
Howard Kurtz: I must be reading different newspapers or watching different newscasts. I see the word corruption used all the time -- particularly in connection with the pardon controversy, the '96 campaign fundraising scandal and others. The "corruption" is not always in the prosecutable sense, but in the sense of a system whose ethics have been utterly corroded by big money.
Reston, 20190:
Mr. Kurtz,
CNN is reporting that the favorite male sites across 12 countries involve cars, sports and pornography. I had no idea that men were into those things. Thank God for sites like CNN that report these completely unsuspected statistics.
Howard Kurtz: Tough job; someone's gotta do it.
Fairfax, Va.:
Why hasn't more been said about the administration's eagerness at talking down the economy? It's kind of an act of treason to undermine the nation's security, isn't it?
Howard Kurtz: Treason. Why does that word strike me as a trifle strong? Actually, a whole lot has been written about this. Tom Daschle and other Dems have charged that the Bush-Cheney doom and gloom has hurt consumer confidence. But look at it from the other side. If Bush believes the economy is faltering, why shouldn't he talk about that as a way of building support for his tax cut? If he said everything was hunky-dory he'd be accused, as his father was during the '91 recession, of being out of touch with reality. Every president has to balance the risks of being candid about the economy vs. scaring consumers and investors.
Alexandria, Va.:
Any thoughts on the passing of Rowland Evans?
Howard Kurtz: Rowland Evans was a throwback to an earlier era: a patrician gentleman who got his stories by interviewing the right people and rubbing shoulders at the right parties. The nice thing about him is that when he made the transition to television, he never felt the need (unlike some folks we could name) to be louder or more strident than he really is as a way of marketing himself.
Arlington, Va.:
I fear you may be confusing cause and effect. Journalists are not paying attention to campaign reform because of John McCain. John McCain is getting immense amounts of ink because of his position on campaign finance reform. He is playing to HIS special interest. The press says he did so well in the primaries -- BUT he lost the overwhelming majority of votes. Your response is pure journalism profession spin and self-justification -- any comment?
Howard Kurtz: I beg to differ. Journalists love the issue, but McCain is a media magnet. When he was leading the fight for a tobacco bill, he got plenty of coverage. Same on foreign affairs during Kosovo and other crises. Last week, the three network morning shows all had McCain on to pump up his bill and didn't invite any opponents. Name me another senator who gets that kind of treatment.
Syracuse, N.Y.:
How do you know Bill O'Reilly signed a $20-million contract? If you watched his show last week, you would have heard him say that all media reports of his new contract are erroneous, and that he never, NEVER, reveals to anyone matters regarding his finances.
Howard Kurtz: Yes, but networks are leaky places, and there are some good television reporters who can dig out these stories. The original report on Drudge was that O'Reilly had signed a $30-MILLION contract, and that appears to be a bit high.
Portland, Ore.:
I saw an interview with Reese Schonfeld
(co-founder of CNN) where he said he
was watching MSNBC and Fox during the
Florida recount and very little CNN.
He said that CNN has faded into "news
talk" rather than hard news reporting and
that Fox is doing the news talk better.
He also attributed CNN's rating slide
(or at least non-climb) since his
absence to the non-news direction.
Do you agree with that? Do you think
CNN is suffering from too much news talk
of inferior "attitude" than Fox? Is there
any chance of a new 24x7 news network that
will really go for hard news over talk?
Howard Kurtz: Reese Schonfeld feels he never got enough credit for the launching of CNN and is trying to sell his book. CNN has a lot of problems, but non-news is not one of them. Its lackluster ratings over the last year are precisely the period during which it spent more time covering news, not less, than its rivals. It still has the largest global network of reporters by far. CNN's problem is that people tend not to watch when there's no big story going on. It is moving into the talk game a bit more with the new Wolf Blitzer, Greta Van Susteren and Bill Hemmer shows. Whether that helps CNN against the talk-heavy Fox remains to be seen.
Norman, Okla.:
Drudge reports a major new anchor change -- do you know anything about this?
Thanks.
Howard Kurtz: The Drudge headline (with no story at the moment) says Broadcast Network MULLS News Anchor Change. Mulls. Hell, they probably do that every day.
Buxton, N.C.:
Do you find it at all hypocritical that Dick Morris is the leading Clinton basher on the Fox News Network?
Howard Kurtz: It's hard to avoid noticing that Dick Morris has become perhaps the leading critic of Bill & Hill on any network. One might say that he's just being candid in commenting on the flaws of two people he knows real well. One might also say he's marketed himself brilliantly with this anti-Clinton shtick, since there's less interest in a former Clinton adviser saying what a great guy his ex-boss is.
Bethesda, Md.:
Why does George Will use the phrase "the political class" contemptously, when he is usually defending the views of someone like Mitch McConnell or Tom DeLay, who is manifestly part of the "political class?" Doesn't it seem absurd for someone as insiderly and well-connected as Will to pose as a beyond-the-Beltway populist?
Howard Kurtz: Has everyone who doesn't like George Will joined this chat today?
Middleton, Wiss.:
There was a story on the wire recently describing an incident where the Secret Service got the boyfriend of Jenna Bush (the President's daughter) out of a drunk tank in Texas. One can easily imagine what the coverage would have been if Chelsea Clinton had done the same thing (i.e. the barking heads solemnly intoning about the lack of morals in the White House, the improper uses of taxpayer dollars, etc.) Doesn't this lack of coverage indicate that the press is treating the Bush's differently?
Howard Kurtz: I don't agree. The press was extrordinarily restrained in its coverage of Chelsea, with a couple of prominent exceptions (a People cover that was blasted by the prez) after she was off in college. The general attitude seems to be that presidential kids are off limits unless they (and not their friends) do something that thrusts them into the news.
Philadelphia, Pa.:
Speaking of O'Reilly -- do you believe he is as imprtial as he says -- I like his show but his claims of impartiality I find insulting.
Great chat, Mr. Kurtz.
Howard Kurtz: I think it's fair to say that Bill O'Reilly is conservative on most (though not all) issues and hostile to the Clintons on most (maybe all) issues. Even Fox executives recognize that.
Washington, D.C.:
Howard,
Doesn't Ari Fleischer need to be careful with how much he criticizes the press and cries wolf about their incorrect stories? That seems like a slippery slope, especially this early in the administration.
Howard Kurtz: Fleischer can be as aggressive as he wants in taking on the press; they're big boys (and girls) and should be able to dish it out as well as take it. But if he's perceived as unfairly criticizing stories that are basically on target, it could eventually hurt his credibility in the press room.
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to Howard Kurtz, and to
everyone who joined us.
Stay tuned on Live Online:
Post
Magazine: Linda Hales at 1 p.m. EST
Buying
a New Home at 1 p.m. EST
Classical
Music Forum at 1 p.m. EST
Travel
Talk at 2 p.m. EST
Book
Club: "The Makioka Sisters" at 2 p.m. EST
Advice:
Carolyn Hax at 3 p.m. EST
Oscar
Fashion: Robin Givhan at 3 p.m. EST
Horoscopes:
Lichtenstein at 7 p.m. EST
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
