|
Media
Backtalk
With Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, Nov. 13, 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," "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.
New York, N.Y.:
In your "Media Notes" today, you left out Josh Marshall's ending to his comments re: the Florida recount:
"The only question that's still out there is
who really got the most votes. For the
historical record, if all the votes had been
accurately counted under Florida law as it
existed at the time, who would have gotten
the most votes in the state? And the study
seems to say pretty clearly that that 'who'
was Al Gore.
To me, that seems like the story."
To me, your leaving this out of your story give a very different overall impression of his comments. In essence, aren't you "spinning" his comments re: the media spin on the recounts?
Howard Kurtz: Not at all. I provide the link so people can read the full pieces on their own. If I ran EVERYTHING these folks write rather than excerpting, the column would take four days to read. Josh Marshall's comments were clearly quoted in context.
Springfield, Va.:
I'm about finished reading Marvin Kalb's book "One Scandalous Story." In it he depicts the Washington press corps as losing it's moorings during the Clinton/Lewinsky mess. Have you read the book and how well has it been received by your colleagues?
Howard Kurtz: I've read the book and I like it; in fact, I devoted a Media Notes column to the Kalb book a few months back. Haven't heard much buzz about it within the business, probably because of the war.
Harrisburg, Pa.:
"George W. Bush, Now More Than Ever!" An original slogan, if ever there was one. And it all goes to ignore the fact that in the world's greatest democracy, journalists are content to sweep under the rug the simple fact that our electoral mechanisms are unable to accurately reflect the will of the people.
Howard Kurtz: 1. I don't write the headlines. 2. I hardly think this has been "swept under the rug." Is there a person on the planet, even those in Afghan caves, who doesn't know about the Florida fiasco? The eight news organizations did spend nearly a million bucks to try to shed further light on this. Obviously, their findings aren't definitive; I never thought they would be. But it's interesting to know how the candidates' legal strategies (such as Gore's four-county recount request) likely would have turned out (badly for Gore, in the case of that particular effort).
Ballston, Va.:
Any comment on the controversy over NPR's Loren Jenkins saying he represented "history," not the government and planned to "smoke out" American troop locations?
Howard Kurtz: Yes. I've seen Jenkins get kicked around by a number of columnists and Web sites, and some NPR executive put out a clarifying statement.
Falls Church, Va.:
In: Thomas Friedman
Out: Maureen Dowd
In: CNN
Out: Fox News
In: Dan Rather
Out: Connie Chung
In: Ted Koppel
Out: Barbara Walters
In: Ashleigh Banfield
Out: Maria Bartiromo
Howard Kurtz: I guess everyone's got a list these days.
How about In: Serious foreign coverage
Out: Condit-style coverage
Rockville, Md.:
Last Friday, Lloyd Grove's column published false information about three Congressman. Today, while acknowledging the wrong, he says, "Never mind how this mess-up occuurred." Why never mind? Would any Post reporter let any member of the public off so easily. It's just one more example of journalistic arrogance; everything and everybody are fair game except one's own.
Howard Kurtz: I give Lloyd Grove credit for apologizing. I agree it would have been better to provide some details of how this happened. Presumably it was a miscommunication. After all, no reporter would deliberately say members of Congress couldn't be reached for comment without trying them, if only because they would loudly complain the next day.
Washington, D.C.:
With the Taliban in retreat, this question
may be a bit Overtaken By Events, but
nonethless it's bothered me. I'm
wondering if the Taliban et al wasn't
"winning" the propaganda war because of
our reluctance to run gruesome photos of
the Trade Center and the Pentagon, out of
respect for the victims' families and our
own sensibilities. (I'm not necessarily
saying that's a bad thing -- people are
more important than propaganda, but it
should be pointed out.) We saw plenty of
pictures of bloody Afghans, but very little
of the actual bodies at the disaster sites,
which according to the accounts I've read
exist but will never see the light of day.
There was the photo of Father Judge
being carried out, and some distant (but
still horrible) shots of people jumping,
and that's been about it. In the same way
that the terrorists took advantage of our
open society, I'm wondering if they're
taking advantage of our not wanting to
make the pain any worse than it already
is.
Howard Kurtz: Interesting point. I don't think the failure of the western media to run more gruesome pictures from Sept. 11 diminished the impact of those attacks; anyone watching those towers collapse understood precisely the magnitude of what was involved. The propganda war turns more on the terrorists' argument that this was acceptable retaliation for previous U.S. bombings and support for countries like Israel. That is where we need to do a better job of making clear that whatever one thinks of American policies, we don't go after innocent civilians, unlike the bid Laden crowd.
Rockville, Md.:
Mr. Kurtz,
You said something in one of your chats the other day I thought was excellent. Don't just get the news from one source (paraphrasing). You mentioned you read and digest many different news sources and perspectives on issues. I agree totally. Sometimes I don't understand why people quote one source and then get upset with the "media" for "skewing" a story. I read both of Washington's morning papers and then decide through reading the articles what the "true" story is and it's significance (to me). Your thoughts?
Thank you
Howard Kurtz: I preach that sermon every chance I get. The "media" is a combination of many, many sources of news, information and opinion. People who prefer, say, certain Web sites to the New York Times are also tapping into the media. I find it extraordinarily useful to learn what commentators on the left and right are saying, as well as the big bad mainstream media. That helps you to form your own views and to separate the info-wheat from the chaff.
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.:
Headline: Northern Alliance marches into Kabul. Now, I could have sworn that I saw the media carry a message from G.W. to the Northern Alliance, "Don't enter Kabul." This may have been in his address to the UN (United Nutballs). And I recall him saying that the Northern Alliance was onboard with this decision. My question: does the Northern Alliance watch the western media or did G.W., Connie, Colin, and the boys fail to stress this demand loudly enough? It sounded like a demand to me, maybe it was just a friendly suggestion. Thanks much.
Howard Kurtz: The administration has said many, many times that it did not want the Northern Alliance to take Kabul, out of fear that the rebels would set up an unsustainable government that does not represent the various ethnic groups in Afghanistan. But what happened is that Taliban forces simply turned tail and fled the capital, making it irresistable for the Northern Alliance soldiers to march right in. The military action, in other words, outpaced the political action. Whether the president's fears are realized or the alliance agrees to turn Kabul over to an international police force, as it has been saying, remains to be seen.
Ashland, Mo.:
The virtual voting booth feature on the Florida recount indicates that President Bush wins under every scenario if three judges must agree on a vote. Vice-president Gore wins under every scenario if only two judges must agree on a vote. Doesn't this discrepancy deserve greater media examination? Doesn't it show that all results are unduly subjective and there can be no definitive, objective analysis of the result? Doesn't this call into question all of the results?
Howard Kurtz: I guess. But that's the fundamental weakness of the whole enterprise: it's all based on scenarios. If this, that and the other thing happened, Bush (or Gore)would have won. But elections are held in the real world. At least the effort helped clarify what was on those disputed ballots. But I never thought it would end the debate, and it clearly hasn't.
wiredog:
So, today the Northern Alliance has taken Kabul, apparently after Taliban forces ran away. And, on NPR and online magazines, I read that (paraphrasing here) "It was well known that the Afghans would run away once they began to lose." If it was so well known, why didn't anyone say it? Looks like a lot of CYA in the punditry. Not that that's all that unusual.
Howard Kurtz: It wasn't well known at all! In fact, a whole lotta pundits were saying way back when -- that is, a couple of days ago -- that the Taliban were tough mountain fighters, this looked like a Vietnam-style quagmire, could drag on for a long time, and so on. But these people ran faster than marathon sprinters when the alliance finally made its move.
Bristow, Va.:
Some media outlets (not the Post) touted how Gore would have won if all the overvotes were counted. But aren't they missing the obvious rebuttal to that "news" -- how can an election monitor read minds and guess that the "windfall" of Gore overvotes were actually meant for Gore, and not Buchanan or another candidate? How could that be legal? And if a voter picked Gore twice, isn't that just a case of too bad, you goofed?
Howard Kurtz: Essentially, yes. I have no doubt that most of the "overvoters" intended to vote for Al Gore. But if there's also a marking for another candidate (say, Buchanan), how do election officials fairly decide that it should be a Gore vote? Some of these ballots were obviously confusing, but the voters have a responsibility to fill them out properly if they want their vote to count. Maybe if it was done by computer and you mistakenly tried to vote for two candidates, you'd get one of those Microsoft "you have committed an illegal operation" messages and be forced to correct your mistake.
Alexandria, Va.:
Gee, a former President of the United States gives a speech at the area's most distinguished university implying that we are facing terrorism today because of sins our great grandfathers committed over a hundred years ago, and the area's most distinguished paper claims it doesn't have room to cover it.
According to The Post's Ombudsman, "[t]he intensive coverage these past two months of the war against terrorism, both in Afghanistan and on the home front, has pushed a number of other important stories off the front page."
Oh come on. Are we to believe that when a former president says something shocking, it's not newsworthy? Or is it just that at long last, nothing Bill Clinton says or does can shock us any more?
Howard Kurtz: It was a mistake by The Post, no question about it. Having watched the tape a couple of times, though, it was hard to figure out just what Clinton was trying to say. But it still should have been reported, and prominently.
Arlington, Va.:
From both these online discussions and your reporting, it appears you read, and listen to, a wide variety of media in your role as “media critic.” Would you give us a basic idea of who you read and whether it is online, or actually the newspaper/magazine?
Second, I tried to read the famous, or infamous, Al Jazeera (www.aljazeera.net). Is there an English translation of their site? (was wondering whether there were any pictures of folks dancing in the streets because of the American Airlines crash…).
Finally, there has been lots of coverage of the civilian casualties issue and whether it will (or should) significantly impact the conduct of the war. I read an article this morning in the London Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001390012-2001393704,00.html) that documents some of the atrocities of the Taliban. Shouldn’t we see as much or more coverage of this aspect of the war?
Howard Kurtz: Hey, one to a customer.
Sure, I'd like to read more on Taliban atrocities. Isn't it fascinating how women in the liberated cities are tearing off their burquas and setting up previously-abandoned schools?
I also had the brilliant idea of reading the Al-Jazeera site, only to discover there's no English translation, though I'm told one is planned down the road.
I mostly read the papers and Web sites you see in Media Notes online, but when I get to the office I look at the paper versions of the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Times, L.A. Times, New York Post and Daily News. I also read Time, Newsweek, U.S. News, the Standard, the New Republic, National Review, Vanity Fair, Talk, New York and a bunch of others. And I watch a lot of TV. Occasionally I also have food brought into the bunker.
Alexandria, Va.:
It seems like the grab for "goodies" in the "economic stimulus package" now going through Congress shows power politics, and political payoffs, at their worst. It seems to me corporate America getting a return on their investment in politicians, and the idea of "economic stimulus" is just an excuse to raid the treasury. And it seems to be happening under the cover of the war, so that there is relatively little media coverage and, thus, little reaction from the public. Your reaction?
Howard Kurtz: The Post has run several stories on this, but it's clearly getting overshadowed by world events. Yes, it appears that the congressional response to this great crisis is to a) bicker over an airline security bill and b) bicker over a stimulus package while larding it with old-fashioned pork for the folks back home. In short, business as usual.
Hollywood, Fla.:
In a war like the current one, I would guess (and hope) that the Pentagon/CIA/powers that be are deep into misinformation dissemination. Would you agree, and what can the media do (or should do) if that's the case?
Howard Kurtz: It may shock you to learn that I am not in favor of the government lying to journalists as part of some disinformation campaign. I think the resulting backlash and loss of credibility for the government is not worth it. For the record, Don Rumsfeld says the Pentagon, at least, will not engage in lying.
Taliban flight:
Don't forget, just because these guys don't fight doesn't make them cowards. They can easily melt into the background and continue carrying out their evil in a less visible, but no less devastating, campaign.
What I'm worried about is the women in Kabul and other cities. Wasn't the Alliance one of the groups whose members raped women in conquered cities? I hope the public eye isn't going to pass over the women of Afghanistan just bcause they don't have to wear burqas anymore.
Howard Kurtz: The eyes of the world will be upon the Northern Alliance, and if there are human rights abuses and revenge killings, their international support will quickly crumble. My sense is that they're probably smart enough to realize this.
Alexandria, Va.:
Where is Gary Condit? Why haven't we heard from him lately? I need Condit now!
Howard Kurtz: The first recorded case of Condit withdrawal! This is rarer than anthrax. The last I heard, he was gearing up to run for reelection, on the apparent theory that the people of his district have amnesia.
Alexandria, Va.:
Re: Lloyd Grove and the congressmen - you say, "[p]resumably it was a miscommunication" and then go on to give him cover ("After all, no reporter would deliberately...")? I, for one, would like to see a little more media critic from you and a lot less media apologist and media excuse maker. I agree with Rockville -- there's not a chance in this world any member of the public would get that kind of kid glove treatment from a Post reporter. And if you need a question, what's the likelihood you would ever write, "After all, no politician would deliberately..." or "no federal worker would deliberately..." or "no businessman would deliberately...?"
Howard Kurtz: I'm not giving him cover. What he did, whatever the explanation, was wrong. He needed to apologize, and he did. All I'm saying is that it was probably a mistake because the chance of getting caught is close to 100 percent.
Arlington, Va.:
When will the so-called journalists stop the speculating and just report the facts as they know them to us? Yesterday's plane crash obviously raised lots of concerns, but all of the rampant speculating about bombs and terrorism was a disservice to everyone. People in the news business ought to stick to telling us the known facts instead of ramping up fears once again. I am really getting sick of it.
I happened to be in Toronto yesterday when the crash happened, and they aren't any better up there. I was in a shop that had news radio on and the announcer there was terribly melodramatic. When a caller took him to task for being too sensationalistic he got very defensive and upset. People in the media need to calm themselves down instead os stoking fear.
Howard Kurtz: I actually thought the television coverage of the crash was fairly restrained, in the sense that most of the anchors and reporters stressed again and again that whatever our suspicions, there was no evidence that terrorists were involved. In fact, as the day wore on, a rough consensus emerged that mechnical failure was the more likely explanation (especially after we learned that the pilot had dumped fuel as a safety precaution). Howard Rosenberg, the L.A. Times TV critic, offers a similar assessment this morning. Which isn't to say there weren't some mistakes and misreported facts. It's live television.
Somewhere, USA:
You don't write the headlines? Why not? That statement explains a lot, considering the piles of misleading headlines I've read in the past (not just yours). Why doesn't the person who writes the story title it? It's left up to, what, an assistant somewhere who tries to "capture" the gist of the story and invariably misses?
Howard Kurtz: The answer has to do with the mechanics of how a newspaper is published (I do, by the way, recommend headlines for my online columns). You can't write the headline until the layout has been done, which tells you how much space there is for the head. This is usually done by the copy desk after 8 p.m., after the reporters have gone home. Also, headline writing is an art. I'm not bad at it, but people who have been doing it for years are much better (except for the inevitable clunkers). I wasn't that crazy about the Bush headline, but coming up with six or eight words that captures story under deadline pressure is not as easy as it looks.
Somewhere, USA:
Many articles I read today on Wasingtonpost.com and MSNBC both said that Kabul is a half-destroyed city and that the Taliban's real capital is Kandahar which is over a hundred miles south of Kabul.
Is everyone making a big deal of Kabul because it used to be a big city and that the Taliban just made a strategic retreat?
Howard Kurtz: Kabul is the capital, decimated or not, and it's a tremendous psychological and military blow to the Taliban to have to give it up. Kandahar is more of a stronghold, though, and with the Taliban controlling the southern portion of the country that may be a tougher nut to crack.
New York, N.Y.:
Is it over for the recounts? This report is almost a carbon copy of a report that came out several months ago and said each candidate wins under varying circumstances. I can't imagine another organization opening up the ballots to come up with the same conclusions. Is the media satisfied with these results?
Howard Kurtz: It's over for me. And I don't see news organizations spending any more dough on this.
Sparta, N.J.:
Why isn't the media showing more skepticism about the AA crash? They seem to be repeating the White House spin that it was probably engine failure when it easily could have been a bomb. It seems unlikely that an engine failure caused the tail section to separate from the plane, but a bomb could have easily caused that.
Howard Kurtz: Mainly because we don't have any evidence to the contrar. But it's definitely the question on people's minds and I hardly think journalists have ruled out the idea of foul play.
Washington, D.C.:
If Bush had won anyway, counting only certain counties, then why isn’t the press writing stories about how the Republican’s tactic was to defy democracy? And sure no one knew which way it would go, but isn’t there a story in how they look silly by dragging the country through the court process which they initiated?
Howard Kurtz: That, like everything else about the Florida fiasco, is in the eye of the beholder. One good thing about this marathon investigation is that the news organizations are releasing their ballot-by-ballot findings so historians and others can make their own interpretations. We can only report what the ballots showed and how they would likely have been counted under various scenarios. Whether the candidates were acting wisely is a judgment that political analysts and anyone else who cares about this will have to make.
Thanks for the chat, folks.
| |
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
