|
Media
Backtalk
With Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, Oct. 22, 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.
Rockville, Md.:
Howard,
Thousands of people (maybe even tens of thousands) will die from the flu this year, and so far only one person has died from anthrax. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that the attention that the anthrax scares are getting only result in greater mania about this subject. Why do so many supposedly well educated members of the media allow themselves to be used as the instrument of terror?
Howard Kurtz: I happen to agree that the media have gone way overboard on this issue. Sure it's unnerving - no question about that - but the saturation coverage is not unconnected to the fact that ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Post et al. have been targeted. With Time and Newsweek putting gas masks on the cover and cable devoting zillions of hours to anthrax, it does contribute to a crisis atmosphere. Of course, the story keeps taking potentially serious turns: the infection of 28 Senate staffers, the inhalation anthrax by a Washington postal worker that was revealed yesterday. We need to aggressively report this story without being so high-decibel that we scare the hell out of people.
Washington, D.C.:
Howard,
Until an NBC employee contracted anthrax, NBC reported the name of every single person previously who had contracted it. However, when it was THEIR employee, they did not report the name (although other news outlets did).
This is media hyporcicy at its worst. If the names of the people who contracted it is news, then everyone's name should be reportred. If it's not news, then no one's name should be reported. The "We'll invade your privacy without thought, but when it's one of our own keep it secret," is a horrible standard.
Howard Kurtz: I agree. NBC and ABC did not officially release the names of those who were affected; CBS made Claire Fletcher's name available but did not use it on the air. One striking contrast was at the New York Post, where editorial assistant Johanna Huden wrote a first-person account and posed for a front-page message to bin Laden with her infected finger -- okay, it happened to be the middle one --defiantly extended.
Madison, Wis.:
These articles comparing Bush's pursuit of the war to Al Gore's strike me as being extremely unfair to Gore. Have the sources of these stories peered into a parallel dimension where Al Gore received the winning vote on the Supreme Court? The whole thing smacks of a bad Star Trek episode scripted by Karl Rove and Karen Hughes! How is Gore supposed to respond to this sort of surreal journalism, especially in this strange time where any criticism of Bush's agenda and performance is equated with disloyalty to the nation?
Howard Kurtz: Obviously, it's all speculative (check today's Media Notes for details). Who knows what President Gore would have done? But it's telling that even some Gore aides and Democratic supporters are singing Bush's praises and, in some cases, expressing doubt about whether Gore would have performed as strongly.
Middle East:
During the gulf war we use to receive live pictures of the war from CNN Peter Arnet from
Baghdad. Today Al Jazeera has replaced CNN and it's
reporting live from Kabul. I wonder why so many western media outlets are claiming that such
news & pictures being received from Al Jazeera
are not enough, and that we need another source to check with. We
never asked that Peter Arnet's reports from Baghdad
require another source. Why is the western media demanding that
Mr. Tayseer Alone of Al Jazeera have another media outlet to double check the information?
Howard Kurtz: Even during the Gulf War, other news organizations wanted the same kind of access to Baghdad as Peter Arnett had. Some of that was competitive, of course, but the public always benefits from broader access and multiple accounts. In this case, I certainly don't want the American media to have to rely solely on an Arab TV network that, at least at times, describes Palestinian terrorists as martyrs. Interestingly, the Taliban did briefly let some American reporters in when they wanted to trumpet U.S. bomb damage in residential areas.
Dallas, Tex.:
Re: your piece today about some Democrats being relieved Bush and not Gore isn't commander in chief.
Don't you think that if the New York Times was anywhere as liberal as conservatives claim it is, it would never have run a story like this? (Or least it would have mentioned that Rep. Moran is a bit nutty). This is like the Wall Street Journal running a piece on how some unnamed Republicans were secretly worried that Bush was not up to being commander in chief before September 11. Which, of course, would never happen, even if they had the sources. What does this say about the liberal media's bias myth?
Howard Kurtz: Your question presumes that news stories have to fit a political agenda to be published in the Times. What happened was that Rick Berke, its chief political reporter, called up a bunch of Dems and ex-Gore aides and said, whaddya think? Then he published their responses, with most of those quoted on the record. You could argue whether the premise is valid, but obviously Berke didn't know what these particular people would say before he called them.
The District:
Howie, in your response to Rockville (the first post in today's chat), you mentioned "the infection of 28 Senate staffers." This is a common misconception that has multiplied with the media's saturation coverage.
"Infection" means you actually have the disease, which so far only five people have. The Senate staffers -- and the majority of people invloved in this attack -- were merely "exposed" to anthrax, meaning bacteria may have been found on their bodies or in their noses, but they're not sick.
A small distinction, maybe, but an important one.
Howard Kurtz: Correct. I meant exposure. There have been only nine confirmed cases of anthrax infection to date.
Chantilly, Va.:
Why would CNN show-offishly send the world its six questions for Osama? Why have no other media outlets done the same? Is this a publicity ploy to get people talking about CNN, or are they really that insensitive to the people this man killed and the rest of the audience he'd also like to see dead?
Howard Kurtz: I'm sure there's a publicity aspect, and idea of turning over air time to Osama to recite his propaganda, with no interrogation or followup, makes me uncomfortable. But I don't think it's a question of insensitivity on CNN's part. What bin Laden does and says is a legitimate part of the story, no matter how hateful or horrifying his views. Certainly every news organization on the planet either aired or published his videotaped threats to America on Oct. 7, when the air war started. For the moment, it's moot, since bin Laden has not deigned to answer the questions.
Stillwater, Okla.:
Hi, Howard
Since every leak has a purpose, I tend to see larger forces at work in the "Gore would have been lousy" comments by unnamed Democrats. Perhaps the purpose is to keep Gore out of the 2004 race?
Howard Kurtz: You can't rule that out. There's certainly an active (if rarther quiet) debate in the Democratic Party over whether Gore II (with or without Lieberman) would be a reasonably strong sequel. The Nation ran a cover story a few weeks back urging Gore not to run. But his foreign affairs experience could lend him more gravitas than some of his potential rivals in the wake of September 11.
Tokyo, Japan:
I've been a bit surprised to see so much specific information coming from the Pentagon about the Special Forces activities in Afghanistan. I would intuitively think that they would want the enemy to have as few specifics as possible on what they're doing. Is there an extent to which the information is released because they want the Taliban to be intimidated, or because it serves America's war-related interests some other way? Also, if a reporter knew this to be the case, would it be appropriate for the reporter to say so in the story, as in "The Pentagon is believed to have released this information for the purpose of..."?
Howard Kurtz: I think it would. The Pentagon is being very careful about what it releases. For instance, it didn't have to disclose those two Army commando raids over the weekend at all. But defense officials clearly wanted to publicize that, even releasing night-scope videotape of selected portions of the raid in the knowledge that television would find the footage irresistable. At the same time, Pentagon officials (and Colin Powell yesterday) refused to say what the purpose of the raid was or just what was accomplished. The result: a spate of upbeat reports in which journalists were really unable to assess whether anything significant had been accomplished.
Tucson, Ariz.:
I think your article on Gore and response to the earlier question, fails to respect the loyalty to America of Democratics and if the shoe was on the other foot (Gore as President) the loyalty of Republicans to America. Further, the sobering effects of Sept. 11 both on the country and the President raises the level of performance. Gore's rambling speeches like Bush's slaughter of the english language would have disappeared or not been reported. The situation expands the support and the performance of the President whomever it maybe.
Howard Kurtz: Well, it was a New York Times article, but I don't find such questions to be disloyal by any stretch of the imagination. Part of what we're fighting for is a democracy in which people are free to criticize both the winning and losing candidates for president.
Shawnee, Kan.:
Could you explain why the main stream press has not reported the Zogby poll that showed that voters preferred President Bush over Bill Clinton in a war situation such as we are now fighting? They couldn't wait to report foreign polls that said that foreign leaders preferred Clinton in foreign affairs.
Howard Kurtz: I thought it might have gotten a little more play. I reported it prominently in Media Notes today.
Somewhere, USA:
Why is the media so eager or complicit in now painting President Bush as a world-class statesman and leader? Where was the world-class statesman and man-of-the-hour with the voice and vision to define for us the real, if unglamorous, enemies of mankind: poverty, famine, slavery, tyranny, drugs, bushfire wars, racial and religious intolerance, greed?
Howard Kurtz: No one's saying that Bush is solving every problem on the planet. What the media are generally saying -- echoing the view of politicians, diplomats, political observers and maybe a dose of patriotism as well -- is that the president has turned in much stronger post-9/11 performance than anyone had expected. That his public presentation seems steadier and more determined than in the first eight months of his tenure. This 90 percent approval rating will not last, no more than it did for his father, and over time the criticism will grow louder. But for now he is getting high marks.
Charlottesville, Va.:
If the flu deaths the first poster cited were the result of a virus spread by the U.S. mails, I would agree that the coverage of the anthrax scare has been disproportionate. But obviously it's the instrument by which anthrax has been spread which makes the story so newsworthy and the comparisons to flu coverage so irrelevant. Aren't we guilty a bit of playing shoot the messenger when the media becomes the bad guy in the anthrax story?
Howard Kurtz: Not really. This is an important and disquieting story in many ways. Most Americans don't think they'll be in a skyscraper or airplane that comes under attack, but everyone gets mail. Still, the volume and sheer relentlessness of the media coverage - filled with occasional hype, scares and misinformation - have contributed to whipping up a frenzy.
Having said that, I've just received word that another person - not the postal worker reported today as gravely ill - has died from anthrax.
Mililani, Hawaii:
Why does the media portray America as in a panic? It is the media that is pushing this nonsense.
Howard Kurtz: Well, it's not totally nonsense. Not with thousands of people demanding Cipro and buying supplies and generally freaking out. But I think part of the media's job, while reporting the facts, is not to boost public anxiety unnecessarily. Turns out, for example, that the two suspect letters sent to the New York Times did not contain anthrax. Neither did the letter sent to the Microsoft office in Reno. The followups get lost in a flood of new headlines. I'd like to see the press adopt a policy of refusing to report anthrax scares until it's confirmed that anthrax was actually detected.
Barnet, Vt.:
ABC reported in the "loose lips" incident that the White House had to intervene to stop publication of additional material leaked by Congress, information which may have put our troops in jeopardy if published. If this is true, why did the Post ombudsman characterize the controversy as having to do solely with the published report of a 100 percent chance of further terrorist attacks? Isn't this an effort to portray the administration's reaction as overblown when, in fact, a very serious security breach nearly occurred?
Howard Kurtz: I'm not sure that's right. The controversy *was* largely triggered by a Washington Post report of a classified administration briefing to Congress. (The White House did not ask the Post not to publish some of the information, which the paper voluntarily withheld without checking with the administration.) But the incident provided an opportunity for a White House that sees the Hill as a leaky place to tighten restrictions on information.
Herndon, Va.:
Mr. Kurtz: The "oversaturation" coverage on anthrax just continues something that's been going on for a long time. I recall a garbagemen's strike in New York quite a few years ago which received continuing, prominent play on all the networks. I finally realized this was due to the fact that it was slightly affecting the lives of the network execs and anchor people -- therefore it was automatically of great importance. The same strike, quadrupled, in Chicago might have been on as an afterthought in the midnight roundup.
Howard Kurtz: It's certainly true that news that happens in New York gets far more national play than news that happens in Kansas City or Des Moines or Phoenix. I remember being a New York correspondent during the Central Park jogger case, and being surprised at how quickly a local (if horrifying) crime against a young woman became a national phenomenon. Throw in the fact that ABC, CBS, NBC and the New York Post were targeted and you've almost guaranteed huge media coverage.
Fairfax, Va.:
So the Taliban lies. We know this. So why is it that the AMERICAN media continues to put their lies on the air?
Examples of lies: The Taliban shot down the helicopter in Pakistan on Saturday morning, successfully repelled the Rangers on Saturday morning, and this morning saying the US bombed a hospital.
Howard Kurtz: Because even in a war, American journalists don't unilaterally declare that they're going to suppress what the other side says. Even Hitler and Goebbels had their say in American newsreels during World War II. Western journalists should certainly report skeptically on what the Taliban says, and most have. They should certainly point out that there's no evidence to support Taliban claims of 1,000 civilians killed by U.S. bombs. They should certainly quote American officials who denounce the Taliban for lying (as Colin Powell did yesterday). But they shouldn't adopt the view that only one side's pronouncements can be reported. That's what totalitarian countries do.
Not to be cynical, but..:
I think what Tuscon was expressing was NOT that it was disloyal to ask such questions, but that the media (whoever was responsible for the article) did not give enough WEIGHT to the loyalty to America (not parties) by either party members in influencing the answer . In other words, Republicans in this situation would have been equally behind a Democratic president as the Democrats are behind a Republican. Now would not seem to be a prudent time to start with who's guy woulda done a better job. In the face of conflict, everybody is behind the current leader. Give it a year and then ask it again.
Not to mention that it's a stupid question in the first place. Don't you guys have some real issues to focus on?
Howard Kurtz: It's one thing for Democrats to say they stand behind the president during wartime. It's quite another for Dems to say that Bush is handling the crisis better than Gore would have (though again, no one will ever know). Given that the NYT had at least two dozen other war/anthrax/rebuild New York stories in the paper that day, I don't think throwing in a little politics is such a terrible thing.
Clifton, Va.:
If Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw had gotten a
fatal case of anthrax would the viewing
public really miss them? It would not have
stopped the network news. What is the
perceived goal of the
terrorists in striking the network news shows?
Howard Kurtz: Obviously, you wouldn't miss them. But Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw are two of the most famous people in the country. They've been coming into people's living rooms for two decades. We see them during war, impeachment, election recounts, space shuttle disasters and so on. Whether you like them or not, their targeting by anthrax-wielding fiends is news. And so is their reaction, which has been, understandably, to express anger that their female assistants got sick from attacks intended for them.
Florida:
I agree that the media, in some cases, has gone completely overboard with the anthrax coverage. For example, a couple of weeks ago I was watching Fox News on a weekend, and an "expert" was on the show saying that anyone living in New York who didn't own and tote around a gas mask would be sorry. Talk about the potential for whipping people into a frenzy.
Howard Kurtz: God save us from the "experts."
Arlington, Va.:
Howard,
I read reports on Drudge and other sites that Hillary was loudly booed by police, firefighters and others while speaking during the weekend concert in New York -- but no mention in the Post's review or other major media outlets. What really happened?
Howard Kurtz: I missed that part of the concert but others who have seen it tell me the senator did draw a noticeable number of boos. That probably should have been mention. On the other hand, her husband got a pretty good ovation (then again, so did Howard Stern).
New York, N.Y.:
As far as the Gore question goes, why have we not seen him in the news to deliver his opinions himself? We saw highlights from one speech in which he praised Bush as his president, but he has gotten zero coverage since then. Is he absent, or just not getting coverage?
Howard Kurtz: He's laying low. Trust me, if Gore were speaking out in front of cameras, you'd see it on the tube.
Hey, this just in: According to a Pew Research Center poll, 42 percent of those surveyed say the media are exaggerating the dangers of anthrax. That's up from 34 percent in a Post/ABC poll last week.
Arlington, Va.:
An article in today's LATimes about Al-Jazeera says that there have been attempts to attempts to "manipulate and smear Al Jazeera." Do you believe that the response in this country to the Al Jazeera coverage is at the level of censorship and "smear?" I'm trying to understand the biases that play into these recriminations on both sides.
Howard Kurtz: Well, Colin Powell and other U.S. officials criticized al-Jazeera and asked that it not air so many anti-American voices. Al-Jazeera officials were understandably critical of what they saw as an attempt to muzzle them. The Washington bureau chief told me the network airs many hours of Bush speeches and White House and Pentagon briefings, and less than 5 percent of its air time is devoted to bin Laden or al-Qaeda statements. As for attempts to manipulate al-Jazeera, people try to manipulate the American press all the time, with varying degrees of success.
Barnet, Vt.:
Just to be sure I understand your response on the security leak controversy, are you saying that Dr. Rice did not make an explicit request that the Post refrain from publishing additional information as ABC reported?
Howard Kurtz: Len Downie, The Post's editor, says that no one in the administration asked the paper to hold back anything on that particular story about the classified Hill briefing, but that the paper did so voluntarily. There have been a couple of other instances where The Post has withheld sensitive details after administration officials argued that national security would be jeopardized if they were published.
Arlington, Va.:
First, an accolade to the Post for some very good and informative articles on this whole terrorist situation (although I'm getting a little tired of Anthrax scares: Not the Post, but WTOPs headline the other morning was "Manassas man does not have Anthrax!" and proceded to interview the doctor to confirm he only had a cold or something.)
So now my comment: I seem to see reporting begin to inject a slight bias that makes us subconsciously think the work of the government agencies is crude and uncalled for. One example that comes to mind was a recent article declaring the FBI was demanding colleges and universities check immigrant student records. Makes us think the FBI is just being rough when they are doing what should have been done by INS long ago. Is this kind of wording or insinuation considered good reporting?
Howard Kurtz: Seems to me it's in the eye of the beholder. Some would see the FBI request as a long-overdue attempt to crack down on potential bad guys who use student visas to inflitrate the country. Others would see it as a civil liberties nightmare in which lots of perfectly innocent students are caught up in a dragnet. What journalists should do is report these developments with comments from both supporters and critics, rather than "insinuate" anything.
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:
Film:
Desson Howe at 12:30 p.m. EDT
Classical
Music Forum at 1 p.m. EDT
Post
Magazine: Sietsema on Fall Dining Guide at 1 p.m. EDT
Travel
Talk at 2 p.m. EDT
Live Online Special Coverage: America
At War
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 | 
