|
Media
Backtalk
With Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, Sept. 10, 2001; Noon
EDT
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 talks 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.
Centreville, Va.:
Rich Lowry and all the other sex-o-phobes are wrong on the Parris Glendening adultery story. Don't you think that if Clinton had named Monica Lewinsky the deputy chief of staff at the White House, their adulterous relationship would have been much more newsworthy?
Howard Kurtz: Well, if you put it that way...
(The writer is referring to a discussion on "Reliable Sources" this weekend in which National Review Editor Rich Lowry chided The Post for printing what he said was a "non-story" about the romantic relationship between the governor of Maryland and his deputy chief of staff.)
Clearly, if Parris Glendening's girlfriend were in the "private sector," as they say here in Washington, instead of on his state payroll, there would be no story at all. The peg for the story was the question of whether Jennifer Crawford was wielding undue influence (she's gotten $30,000 in raises in the last three years as Glendening promoted her). I can certainly understand those who say it's the governor's private life and Post reporters shouldn't be staking out Crawford's town house. But her status as a top official in Annapolis makes it, at the least, a closer call.
Houston, Tex.:
Forgive me if this question has been posed before and I missed the answer. What I am curious about is how are these financial gurus of the media doing now that the stock market is down the tubes? Is anyone listening to or reading their advice/predictions? What changes are you seeing since you wrote "The Fortune Tellers?" Thanks for your response.
Howard Kurtz: I was pretty tough in that book on such Wall Street cheerleaders as Henry Blodget and Mary Meeker, and on a system in which analysts are consistently, almost irrationally, bullish because their investment banks are doing business with (or trying to) many of the companies whose stocks the analysts are touting. Now -- guess what -- just about everyone agrees with that analysis in the wake of the market slide. Everyone from the New York Times to Fortune to Vanity Fair has trashed the likes of Blodget and Meeker. Merrill Lynch paid $400,000 to settle a lawsuit against Blodget, accusing him of offering biased advice. Analysts are clearly damaged goods. So when I was recently writing the epilogue for the paperback edition of The Fortune Tellers, I did feel I had predicted the future, at least in this one respect.
Washington, D.C.:
I'm not quite sure what to make of this new book on the Florida recount. Since Newsweek is promoting it, I would expect it to at least try to be a "balanced" book - like the Wash. Post's book - rather than one of the explicitly left-wing or right-wing books. But just in your excert, I see the author describe Souter's group as "moderates" and Scalia's group as "the Dark Side." Hardly balanced, from my point of view. So is the book just another leftist rant a la Tapper's book?
Howard Kurtz: Hard to say, since I've only seen the excerpt. But it doesn't strike me as a left-wing tract.
Washington, D.C.:
Are press leaks mostly intentional, for example, as a way to guage reactions to a possible policy change, or are there just a lot of loose-lipped unnamed aides?
Howard Kurtz: Most, I'd say (as the beneficiary of numerous leaks over the years) are intentional, in that the leaker wants a story written - either as a trial balloon, or to derail a policy he or she opposes, or to put a positive spin on bad news that's coming out anyway (a Clinton White House specialty), or to get back at someone, or for some other petty or professional reason. Sometimes it's just unnamed aides trying to show off how much they know, or just gossiping with a reporter. But usually there's some kind of agenda behind the leaks.
Boston, Mass.:
Gail Collins was my favorite columnist
before she became the NYT editorial
page editor. Have you seen much of a
change in the page since she's taken
over?
Howard Kurtz: A little soon to say. Slightly toned down, maybe. But I miss her column.
Rochester, N.Y.:
I know that rehashing the election will not
change the outcome in any way, but does it
not bother you on any level of the way the
election in Florida was conducted before and
after?
Howard Kurtz: It bothers me, like most Americans, in about 16 different ways. It bothers me that the count was botched so badly, that many people intended to vote for someone else, that the margin of error exceeds the "victory" margin, that the whole thing was ultimately decided by five judges. But none of this, of course, is going to change the result, though I suppose it could be a factor in 2004 if Gore wins the nomination again. And maybe a factor in Jeb's 2002 race.
New York City, N.Y.:
Do you think there is sufficient coverage of the failure of the Democrats to propose any solution to the "dipping into the Social Security surplus" problem? They are quoted over and over as complaining that there is this huge problem (they say it is due to Bush's tax cut, even though the Dem's are the one's who pushed the tax rebates that have caused the problem in fiscal 2001), but never offer a solution! Is it the Administration's job to call them on it, or should reporters be doing it?
Howard Kurtz: Good question. I think reporters should be calling the Democrats on their inability (at least so far) to offer a solution. (I also think reporters should call the White House on the fact that its budgetary numbers don't add up and the flip-flopping on the relative importance of tapping the Social Security surplus.) I don't think journalists should just sit back and wait for the political parties to make charges and counter-charges (which become confusing for most readers and viewers to follow anyway). The fact is, 12 Democratic senators voted for the Bush tax cut that the party is now lambasting, and there's no serious effort under way to repeal it. I-told-you-so will only get the party so far.
Washington, D.C.:
May I just take a moment to register my disgust with Al Sharpton's latest shameless attempt at publicity? The man is a disgrace. I remember reading your chapter on him in one of your books. My question is this: Does he really have a large following among African-Americans? I can't imagine any community wanting such a self-promoting, manipulative man as their spokesperson. He can even find a way to use the death of a semi-celebrity such as Aliyah to get himself on the spotlight.
Howard Kurtz: Disgust registered. I covered Al Sharpton was I was The Post's New York correspondent and wrote about him in my first book, "Media Circus." He does have a following in the African-American community, no question about it. He's made a respectable showing in his last couple of New York races. But he also benefits from the laziness of reporters in relying on quotable "leaders" (Sharpton is very sound bite-savvy) to represent a diverse community, when there are plenty of blacks who don't think much of Sharpton.
RE: Parris Glendening adultery story:
I couldn't agree more that this was a very proper story for the Post to cover. I don't understand why suddenly people are up in arms about it. The reporters did nothing illegal, they merely watched a public figure enter and exit a house. Now if this person's house was someone who had nothing to do with the government then that would be different but come on, this is a person that makes a whole lot more money than most people and maybe, just maybe, she got the job because she slept with the boss. There is no question that this is a proper story. It's not tabloid. It's journalism. Suddenly, just because there is sex involved people say it's sleazy and tabloidy. I truly don't understand it and what I don't understand even more is why the Post is not willing to stand behind this story more. For example, why did The Post not send anyone to discuss this story on your show yesterday? Could they be regretting their decision to publish it?
Howard Kurtz: I don't know why The Post declined to participate in the show. Your point is well taken. But surely you can see why some folks would consider this an excursion into tabloid-ism. This is the same dilemma the press has been wrestling with since the days of Donna Rice and Gennifer Flowers: Are politicians entitled to private lives? What factors must be present to justify a journalistic decision to write about their personal lives? What if the story is a rumor - as the one denied by Jeb Bush about a supposed affair with one of his Cabinet members? Do you try to "prove" it? Do you report it only if the politician publicly denies it? What if the affair took place decades ago, a la Henry Hyde and Bob Dole? These are not easy questions.
Washington, D.C.:
What, NO Gary Condit questions?
Howard Kurtz: Maybe everyone is finally sick to death of that story.
Maybe.
Arlington, Va.:
The local Journal newspapers (I get the one in Arlington obviously) have gone from a six-day publication schedule to five days while eliminating Monday's editions. Although I think that this is a sign of handwriting on the wall, is this a common tactic across the country to retrench financially?
Howard Kurtz: Everyone in the news biz is cutting back these days, given the plunge in advertising. Even the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have resorted to layoffs. CNN laid off 400 people. The publisher of the San Jose Mercury News quit rather than further cut the newsroom budget. Tbe Industry Standard shut down. The Journal got rid of its office plants to save money. In this environment, such cutbacks are hardly surprising.
Washington, D.C.:
Regarding the upcoming IMF/World Bank meetings: how much of the perceived threat is real, and how much is media hype? I'm thinking of other events where DC residents were warned of huge crowds, but nothing much happened (the NATO meeting last year, the Million Family March).
Howard Kurtz: True, but it's impossible to know in advance. Certainly IMF protestors pretty much shut Seattle, which no one had quite predicted, and unleashed considerable violence at the G-8 meeting in Genoa. I never discount the role of media hype, but with the D.C. police building a huge fence around the meeting area, it's hard to argue that this is not a story.
Ohio, the Heart of It All:
Dear Mr. Kurtz:
I appreciate your media notes column because it saves me a lot of time when I scan the various news web-sites each morning. I also think you indirectly influence news coverage because reporters like to see their name in print.
Howard Kurtz: I'm not so sure about the second part (no one sends me their stories to be included in the column - at least not yet), but a lot of folks seem to enjoy the one-stop-shopping nature of the online Media Notes. And I enjoy writing it (even though I hate getting up early) because it gives me a closer connection to lots of readers around the country.
Gaithersburg, Md.:
Any word on what Gary Condit thinks of the Glendening story?
(Just trying to fill the quota.)
Howard Kurtz: He views with disdain this latest example of a sensational media intruding into matters that ought to be left private just to boost their ratings and circulation.
Actually, I just made that up. But I bet that's what he thinks.
Washington, D.C.:
Gore is slowly emerging in the public eye. He is supposedly reconciling with Clinton. Is there a danger of the press to overdo this story and cause harm to him should he seek to run again? Is there confusion in the ranks of how much to cover his silence with the ex prez?
Howard Kurtz: I'm not so sure that Gore is reconciling with Clinton, at least at the moment. But obviously the press is going to be all over the story when the man who won the popular vote, only to disappear for months and grow a beard, begins to edge back onto the public stage. We don't know, and I don't think Gore knows, whether he'll run in 2004. But I think the press should just cover the story and not worry about whether it helps or hurts him.
Watertown, Mass.:
Rush Limbaugh seems to have turned up
the rhetoric lately, what with nicknames
like "Little Dick", El Diablo and "that punk."
Last week, he even blamed the Clinton
administration for the supposed "spate"
of shark attacks.
How seriously do journalists and
politicians take Limbaugh? CNN is
apparently interested, but when a man
calls the opposition "the devil" it seems to
me he's crossed into loon territory...
Howard Kurtz: The media had better take seriously anyone who has 20 million listeners tuning in. Limbaugh has always been into nicknames (Puff Daschle is one of the latest) and often this is done with humor. Rush is a very aggressive conservative advocate, but he is, as he's said many times, above all an entertainer.
Washington, D.C.:
Hello, Howard. I always enjoy reading your Media Notes. Today's news on the Bush v. Gore decision is a very painful reminder that Mr. Bush did not win the popular vote and got to the White House under shady circumstances.
That leads me to my question: do you think the news media are too soft on President Bush re: his tenuous grasp of domestic and foreign affairs?
Every time Mr. Bush goes on TV I am deeply embarassed on behalf of this country. The tightly orchestrated way in which his advisers shield him only serves to highlight his ignorance. Isn't it the media's JOB to point out to the electorate that their ostensible president is less than qualified for the job? I am not asking you to make a partisan call, of course, I just want to know whether you think the media go to painful lengths to ignore that giant elephant in the room.
Howard Kurtz: Thanks. I think it's our job to aggressively report on how the president is doing. Lately he's been under a lot of journalistic criticism for his handling of the economy, energy and the environment. The New York Times reported yesterday that Bush's own advisers are worried that he comes across as tentative and not in command of the job. So while Bush clearly had a pretty easy ride in the press the first few months, I no longer think that's the case. And as long as the economy is struggling, the president is, fairly or unfairly, going to take much of the blame.
Rockville, Md.:
Of course, if Glendenning and his girlfriend were in the private sector, there wouldn't be a news story. On the other hand, private sector companies typically have rules prohibiting such liasons and rightfully so. Intimate relationships can destroy the morale of the workplace not to mention the potential for a big mess if the relationship goes sour.
I'm glad the Post did the story.
Howard Kurtz: There have been a couple of occasions on which hotshot CEOs and businessmen have had press scrutiny of their private lives - Warren Buffett and a former chief executive named William Agee, for example. But by and large you're right: When you go into political life, you seem, like it or not, to hand reporters a hunting license.
Chapel Hill, N.C.:
Mr Kurtz,
Why is it that the media, in general, is reporting, unchallenged Mr. Daschle's absurd claims that George W. Bush is to blame for the economic downturn. Specifically, Mr .Daschle said yesterday that the "deficit" (WHAT DEFICIT?) was Mr. Bush's, the slowdown was a result of Mr. Bush and that the tax cut is the cause of it all? None of which are true. And you don't have to be a partisan Republican to believe this. It is well known that a lie repeated often enough becomes believed, and I am sure that that is what Mr Daschle is banking on.
Thank you for your response.
Howard Kurtz: It doesn't seem to me that Daschle is blaming Bush for the slowdown. It seems to me that Daschle is blaming Bush's tax cut for the disappearance of the non-Social Security surplus. Since most Democrats had argued that the tax cut could blow a big hole in the surplus, that seems to me to be a fair political shot.
Florida:
I was interested by the recent speculations that Tom Brokaw may be considering a run for president. While he's popular with many, I wonder what duties he's performed as a journalist would prepare him for a political career. Also, if he runs, would it be the first time a journalist has run for office, or do you know of others?
Howard Kurtz: I must confess I don't know how that got started. Tom Brokaw is not going to run for president. If by some quirk of fate he did, his anchorman aura would quickly dissipate as he was subjected to the same sorts of attacks as everyone else in political life (like, what qualifies you to run the country?). Right now he's a relative blank slate; suddenly he'd have to declare positions on abortion, affirmative action, Alaskan oil drilling, Medicare prescriptions, etc., and alienate all the poeple who disagree.
Plus, he'd have to take a pretty big pay cut. $400,000 is a rounding error to Brokaw.
Washington, D.C.:
A hunting license? It's no wonder people hate politics. The media is clearly responsible for the cynicism by believing that it is their responsibility to hunt down any possible hint or appearance of scandal. It's no wonder we can't get decent people to run for office in this kind of fishbowl.
Howard Kurtz: Well, I agree the media are often too scandal-hungry and prosecutorial, but some politicians, after all, give them plenty of fodder for negative headlines.
Upper NW, Washington, D.C.:
Re: the 'media hype' regarding IMF protests:
Media hype? You can't blame the media for this one -- Charles Ramsey and the D.C. Police are hyping this to the hilt to justify their crypto-Fascist tactics to squelch legitimate protest. True, the LOCAL media, at least, hang on Ramsey's every word and cover his preparations like its the Gulf War. But its the media-savvy DC Police Dept. who is running this particular show. I do give them credit for hoisting the protesters on their own petard of hyped-up estimates of participants, but where's the outrage at the security fences, the shut-down of an entire university campus, etc.? Your thoughts?
Howard Kurtz: Crypto-Fascist tactics? I guess you have strong views about this.
It's certainly true that without the elaborate preparations being mounted by the D.C. police, there wouldn't be much of a story. Maybe they miss being in the spotlight now that the Chandra Levy story has died down.
Thanks for the chat, folks.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay tuned to Live Online:
Post
Magazine: Condoleezza Rice at 1 p.m. EDT
Politics:
Stuart Stevens at 1 p.m. EDT
Siberia
Diary at 1 p.m. EDT
Classical
Music at 1 p.m. EDT
Travel
Talk at 2 p.m. EDT
Author
P.J. O'Rourke at 2 p.m. EDT
Advice:
Carolyn Hax at 3 p.m. EDT
Astrologer
Charlene Lichtenstein at 6 p.m. EDT
Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at
the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and
forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live
Online transcripts.
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
