|
Media
Backtalk
With Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, Nov. 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," "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.
Denver, Colo.:
Mr. Kurtz,
Thanks for some great coverage (you outlasted Brill's!) and books like Spin Cycle and Hot Air.
Quick question: why is it that, no matter where you live in the U.S., the moment a flake of snow hits the ground, local broadcast news outlets (TV and radio) dispatch crack reporting squads to area elementary schools and highway intersections for on the spot, 30 minute, earth-shaterring reports on what we already know -- it's snowing -- while giving the backseat to more relevant, salient and important local news? (not to mention the accompanying stock footage of cars sliding off the road and SUVs suddenly bursting into flame)
The media seem to get whipped up into a bigger frenzy over snow than any commuter or school principal I know!
Howard Kurtz: You are daring to question the television tactic known as Team Coverage. The local news goes totally bonkers over an approaching storm because a) it's a subject that affects all viewers, and b) for some unknown reason it pumps up the ratings. The results in the huge hyping of minor amounts of rain and snow, but the stations are unembarrassed and tout their storm coverage in commercials (some stations here employ as many as four weathercasters). The ultimate for me was when a big snowstorm hit the Northeast but missed Washington. MSNBC had a reporter live from National Airport, saying this is where the place would have been paralyzed but, uh, wasn't.
Washington, D.C.:
Howie, I agree with you whole-heartedly about the Reliable Source and Lloyd Grove's adamant refusal to divulge everything about his blunder with the Vanity Fair article. And I'm even more appalled about your editors siding with him. It appears to me that he and they think that if they ignore it long enough, it will just go away. I can't see how that's a grown-up, professional thing to do. Kudos to you and the ombudsman for taking them to task, but I really feel that you guys shouldn't just let it go. There's got to be more to the story. washingtonpost.com:
Not So Reliable (Washington Post, Nov. 18, 2001)
Howard Kurtz: To be fair, Lloyd Grove did apologize and made no bones about the fact that he had made a major mistake. But I think it's a mistake as well for news organizations not to provide details when they screw up -- precisely the kind of defensive reaction that reporters deride from the politicians and businessmen they cover.
Alexandria, Va.:
What percentage of NPR does the federal government fund? Is there any rationale for government funding of a news network that essentially duplicates the product put out by private concerns such as Pacifica and CNN?
Howard Kurtz: I don't know the percentage offhand - it's smaller than most people think - but this is the debate that has surrounded NPR since its inception. The subsidies make far less sense now that there are so many alternative media choices (though radio news is, by and large, a wasteland). What I've never understood is why NPR, given its loyal audience, doesn't manage to raise the money that would replace the 10 or so percent of its budget that comes from the government, thereby freeing it from the freeloader criticism.
Culver City, Calif.:
When are the "press" going to expose the conflicts of interests posed by media barons like Murdoch?
Is there some kind of unspoken agreement not to criticize each other, or to expose the commercial interests and to state that propaganda is propaganda, by whatever name it is masquerading under?
The agendas of certain members of the media is transparent, and as a true progressive, I am quite disturbed that there is a boycott or censorship of true progressive opinion in the media. Do not give me the notion that the DLC Democrats represent "liberalism" for they are simply another brand of corporate political opportunism.
Right wing fanatics are given a platform, while true left wingers are avoided like a plague, and instead we are given apologists as voices of the left, when in fact they are not even remotely close to the left. Is the media afraid of allowing the left a public voice?
Another important issue is, we need more people of color expressing views of the world, for we do have them you know. Enough already with the white boys, for we know their self-serving viewpoints. Its time to hear the worldview of Hawaiians, Samoans, Japanese, Mexicans, Africans, African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Poor whites, and others who sons and daughters populate the American military and who are doing the killing and dying and have a right to be heard, on ALL national and international issues. The press is engaging in an ethnic cleansing of opinion.
Howard Kurtz: I'm not sure I follow you. There's been plenty of reporting on Murdoch and his agenda -- for example, his million-dollar-plus donation to the California Republican Party of a couple years back. Many critics have made the point that the New York Post, Fox News and other Murdoch properties often seem, to varying degrees, to carry out his conservative agenda. As for the supposed squelching of liberal voices, I don't buy it. Even leaving aside the notion that the right would say that CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, WP and others are in the hands of liberals, there are plenty of liberal columnists, TV commentators, magazines and so on (though perhaps not as liberal as you would like). The one exception is talk radio, which is dominated by conservatives for the basic reason that liberal hosts (Mario Cuomo was among those who tried) have never been able to build much of a national audience because so many on the right see these shows as an alternative to the mainstream press.
Culpeper, Va.:
On a scale of "A" to "F", what kind of a grade would you give the American news media, overall, on its coverage of the war in Afghanistan, and why?
Howard Kurtz: A "C" at best. For one thing, there were all those news stories and predictions by the talking-head set that we would be bogged down in another Vietnam -- all of which seem rather embarrassing in light of the military success of the past two weeks. Also, thanks in part to Pentagon policy, there was for much of the war little opportunity for first-hand reporting from Afghanistan itself. That has changed with the Northern Alliance victories, and the recent coverage of the liberation and the military battles probably merit a B -- in part because it's such dangerous work, as the killing of seven journalists there in the last month sadly reminds us.
Fairfax, Va.:
How much media attention do you anticipate for next week's 60th anniversary of Pearl Harbor? Since that's the last time prior to Sept. 11 this country was attacked on its own soil, there are obvious tie-ins to current events. I'd be particularly interested in comparisons between news coverage then and now.
Howard Kurtz: I'm sure there will be ample coverage, given the natural tie-in to September 11 that resonates far more than anyone could have imagined a few short months ago. But it's not likely to be on the level of Reagan's celebration of the 40th anniversary of D-Day. Afghanistan and terrorism are just sucking up too much of the media oxygen, as a look at any major newspaper or network newscast (even the morning shows, according to a study I wrote about in last week's Media Notes) makes clear. But it's probably a safe bet that few Americans will be unaware of the Dec. 7 anniversary next week.
Lubbock, Tex.:
I was pleasantly surprised to find very little coverage of the Gary Condit grand jury subpoena. Do you think the media has decided to focus on more serious matters?
Howard Kurtz: In a word, yes. Most journalists now look back on the summer of Condit coverage as some sort of temporary insanity, given how utterly out of control the media coverage was. There was, of course, an important story at the core of the frenzy - that of a congressman not coming clean about his relationship with a missing and probably dead 24-year-old woman. But it does seem rather small compared to the mass murder committed by bin Laden's cohorts and the scale of the U.S. military response now. The question is whether the media will return to Condit-like sensationalism after the bombs stop falling in Afghanistan and anthrax stops showing up in the mail.
Washington, D.C.:
Are all the issues that were major stories before the attacks totally gone or on vacation? For instance, no one seems to see Cheney anymore, let alone carry any stories on how his health is doing. Bush's ratings are soaring. (No partisan comment here.) All the economic disputes seemed to disappear. Will the papers ever get back into the nitty gritty of this country? I understand the terrorist battle is going to go on practically forever, but where is the good ole partisanship fights in this country?
Howard Kurtz: Actually, partisanship has made a pretty good comeback, and in the news coverage as well. The seemingly endless fight between the House GOP and the rest of Congress over whether to turn airport baggage screeners into federal employees got a huge amount of coverage. The battle over a stimulus bill (Dems favoring help for the jobless, Repubs pushing for corporate tax cuts) is also being widely covered as the latest episode of congressional paralysis. There have been a few stories about Cheney, though it's harder to cover a guy who's often at an undisclosed location. Also, the White House has signaled that it wants to put some focus back on the education bill and the faith-based measure in the weeks before Congress adjourns for Christmas. So while old-fashioned partisanship may not be back on the front burner, it could be bubbling up rather soon.
Monterey, Calif.:
I find myself rolling my eyes every time a reporter asks an idiotic question of Donald Rumsfeld or General Franks at a Pentagon briefing (e.g., "Is it okay to shoot at retreating Taliban?"). I am so fed up with the media's adversarial attitude toward the military and the Bush administration. It's so frustrating it makes me want to listen to Limbaugh!
Why does the "mainstream" media seem so determined to discredit Bush and the military?
Howard Kurtz: There have been a few dumb questions, but for the most part the questions asked at these Pentagon briefings (and I've watched far too many of them) are pretty sophisticated, in part because most are asked by defense veterans such as David Martin, Jim Miklaszewski, John McWethy, Jamie McIntyre and so on. The adversarial relationship is not a bad thing -- given the incredibly limited information the Pentagon is putting out, it's the media's job to press for more details. But there probably hasn't been a time since WW II that the press has been as in sync with the government and the military as since Sept. 11. Reporters may demand answers about casualties and tactics, but virtually no one is questioning the basic mission of the military, a far cry from Vietnam or even the Gulf War.
Washington, D.C.:
Hello Howard. What do you think about William Safire's column today in which he contends that too many journalists in the U.S. media are silent on Henry VI's (I mean, Geroge W. Bush's) Star Chamber (I mean, the secret military tribunals). Do you concur with Safire that not enough writers/commentators are taking notice of this issue?
Thanks.
Howard Kurtz: Not on the coverage question, no. I've read stories challenging the Justice Department's tactics, especially on military tribunals, every day since they were proposed or implemented. The New York Times itself had a major front-page piece on the subject yesterday. What's true is that other than a few liberal columnists (and the conservative Safire), not as many opinion-mongers have jumped up and down about Ashcroft's approach as you would have expected in any other era in American history. But the issue is so important that I'd like to see more.
Baltimore, Md.:
I feel cynical just asking this question but what do you think of the travel industry using two of Bush's speeches in their commercial? If I remember correctly the Clinton White House was upset when the movie "Contact" used snippets of his speeches (albeit those snippets were out of context). The travel ads just have the feel of campaign adds and so look like a payback for the $15 billion -- and I'm a quasi-Bush supporter. I can only imagine what the "he stole the election" crowd thinks.
Howard Kurtz: I was pretty surprised when I saw those ads. In the past, when anyone has tried to invoke the White House or use the president's likeness in a commercial, the administration quickly demands that they cease and desist. This one seems sanctioned because it dovetails with the administration's message that people ought to travel, spend money and return to their "normal" lives. Public service ads are fine, but it makes me uncomfortable that private companies are using the president to peddle their products.
Bowie, Md.:
Re: "Condit-like sensationalism"
While I agree with the sentiment, what alternatives exist to adjust the size of the electronic media "news whole?" During the current most-important news story of (most of) our lives, the available air time seems to fit reasonably well. But doesn't that imply that before 9/11 there was just too much air time to go around, or else that too much of what would be worth covering simply wouldn't interest enough viewers anyway?
Howard Kurtz: The 24-hour nature of the news cycle these days means the media have to pump up minor stories when there's no major one around. Thus we get O.J., Princess Di, the nanny trial, Elian and on and on. Cable networks need eyeballs, and they don't get them by covering "routine" news (or plain old government news, which news executives think is dull. Look at how many reporters cover, say, the Energy Department or Agriculture Department or HUD compared to those doing standups on the North Lawn of the White House.) We finally have a story now whose importance matches the journalistic resources available, but that won't last forefver.
Washington, D.C.:
Mr. Kurtz, in TV news, are people ever paid to give interviews? If so, what do you think of this?
Howard Kurtz: Except for the so-called tabloid shows, all the networks have policies against paying people for interviews, which is as it should be. However, as I've written more than once, there are ways around this: Paying sought-after guests for family photos, paying consulting fees, spending lots of dough to put them up in first-class New York hotels. But direct pay-for-play is still considered verboten.
Mt. Rainier, Md.:
The attack on America has had one beneficial effect; a number of Americans became aware that there is a whole world out there, not something they would necessarily have known from reading the papers and watching TV. And the newspapers have (momentarily) greatly expanded their coverage of a limited amount of the world. I've already heard that foreign staff is expensive and that the Post does the best foreign coverage of any U.S. paper -- which only makes it sadder how poor that "best" is. If I didn't visit African Web sites I'd never know that Zimbabwe is going up in flames with Mugabe howling anathemas in the coals, I'd never know that the religious battles in Nigeria are getting more violent and that the Nigerian government still has serious problems with corruption, or that the Zambian would-be dictator is playing out his last cards. Shall we play catch-up all over again when the fat hits the fire in these places?
Howard Kurtz: September 11 was a real kick in the pants to lots of news organization (particularly the networks) that had dismantled much of their foreign coverage or stopped running most of it on the conventional wisdom that most Americans simply didn't care about the rest of the world (unless there were good disaster pictures or American lives were somehow involved). The only newspapers that maintain a large network of foreign bureaus (20-plus) are the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. But even in the best of times, those correspondents can't cover all countries around the globe in exhaustive detail. So we tend to go where the hot spots are or where something interesting is taking place. Africa (except for some terrific reporting about the AIDS crisis there) is generally not high on the list.
Washington, D.C.:
Hello Mr. Kurtz,
I thought Brill's Content was an interesting and innovative new voice on the media, and am sorry that it wasn't a sustainable publication -- although there are clearly those who thought that it and its publisher were too self-important.
Do you know of any other publications that have a similar mission (other than your column and CNN show, of course)?
Howard Kurtz: Sure. Columbia Journalism Review (which has a very good 40th anniversary issue out now) and American Journalism Review. These have a fraction of the circulation that Brill's did (they're in the 30,000 range) and are decidely less flashy, but year in and year out they do a solid job of examining all kinds of media issues. They are hurt, in my view, by their long lead time (particularly CJR, which is bimonthly), but they still have some very good writing. Beyond that, lots of magazines and Web sites, from National Review to the Nation to andrewsullivan.com, including plenty of biting media criticism, even though that's hardly their primary mission.
Public broadcasting:
I have to take issue with your comment that NPR should raise even more funds from the public than they do now. I think the effect of this type of "public" funding is really that the wealthy people and corporations, who already have access to the media through owning newspapers, radio stations, advertising, etc., get even more influence through all that corporate "sponsorship" of public broadcasting programming. Haven't you noticed how every year the "paid for by" announcements get longer and longer, and seem identical to paid advertising in commercial outlets? This means the people who have little or no voice now would have even less voice if funding were 100 percent private. It would become like commercial radio broadcasting is now: controlled by a few large profit-making organizations, who make programming decisions with no regard to the public interest or local needs.
Howard Kurtz: Well, that's a reasonable tradeoff in my view. I don't mind listening to a few more "brought to you by" announcements in one of the few mediums that still has no commercials. Also, lots of ordinary listeners contribute to NPR (and to PBS at pledge time). Finally, I don't see any evidence that big corporations kicking in cash to a place like NPR has a direct impact on its coverage. If that were the case, NPR wouldn't have the liberal reputation that it does, since that's hardly the agenda of Corporate America.
Cherry Hill, N.J.:
Howard,
Do you think that there should be some sort of disclaimer if a news journalist worked for a president. How can one expect Tony Snow or Brit Hume to be impartial? Or is that asking too much of them? Also, why is Anne Coulter still appearing on CNN?
Howard Kurtz: I think it would be a good idea if Tony Snow, who worked in the first Bush White House (not to mention the recently married George Stephanopoulos, who worked in the Clinton White House) reminded people of their past lives a bit more often. (This would take longer for David Gergen, who's worked in FOUR administrations!) Brit Hume, by the way, has never worked in politics and spent his career at ABC News before joining Fox News. As for Ann Coulter, she has no tie to CNN other than being an occasional guest. The reason she's on is the same reason that many other guests flourish in the Crossfire culture - she's provocative and can be relied upon to argue passionately with guests of the opposite persuasion.
Washington, D.C.:
Do you think the U.S. media as a whole (especially television) has done a disservice to the Washington, D.C. area by providing constant or sensationalistic coverage of the anthrax scares? I've gotten calls from relatives across the country asking how many of us in D.C. are wearing gas masks and getting decontamination showers, because that's the impression they're getting from television and local papers.
Howard Kurtz: I think the anthrax coverage overall was unintentionally scaring people, not just with regard to D.C. There was a point when you had the impression that anthrax was everywhere, despite the fact that there have been a grand total of five deaths. This was in no small measure due to the fact that Brokaw, Rather and other media people were among the main targets. I do think the press has finally calmed down a bit, and the reporting of the mysterious anthrax death of the 94-year-old Connecticut woman was much more restrained. The ABC and CBS evening news didn't lead with it, although NBC Nightly News did.
Indianapolis, Ind.:
I am wondering what happened to Geraldo Rivera on Fox in Afghanistan -- I have seen only two reports by him.
Howard Kurtz: Guess he's busy hunting for Osama.
New York, N.Y.:
What is your opinion of the Washington Times? Is it a "good" newspaper, or is it irrevocably tainted by the hands of the Rev. Moon, who owns it? I ask, because it seems to have an inordinate influence on the rest of the media, for example, when it publishes a blatantly biased article about President Clinton's address at Georgetown University, which the Times spun as a "blame America first" speech and the rest of the media run with it on talk shows and their own op-ed pieces. How does such overt propaganda get such undeserved respect in the media at large?
Howard Kurtz: I think the Washington Times is a good newspaper with good reporters that comes up with some good scoops. It describes itself as a conservative newspaper, and you can see that sometimes in its story selection and story emphasis. Its political coverage was particularly partisan during last year's election, when pro-Bush and anti-Gore stories were repeatedly played on the front page, while any news that might have boosted Gore was played down. But whatever its flaws, it does have an impact on media coverage, not just because it's published in the capital but because it's often not bound by political correctness. When it hypes or distorts something, the media should point that out too (as they should for journalistic offenders of any stripe).
Los Angeles, Calif.:
The other day I witnessed a television reporter for a prominent cable/non cable network ask an Afghan shopkeeper "Are you angry about the continued American bombing?" Is this considered good journalist ethics? By "this" I mean asking very leading questions, rather than open-ended?
P.S. I look forward to your commentary, which I read online. Thanks.
Howard Kurtz: Seems like an okay question to me. The more neutral wording to the shopkeeper would have been, "What do you think, sir, about the bombing that is devastating your homeland? Is it a) justified, b) not justified, or c) I don't know?" But it's perfectly natural to try to find out what typical Afghans think about the war, the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and so on.
Washington, D.C.:
Foreign news sources seem to do much better with their coverage from Afghanistan than the domestic ones, although they do not get any more information from the Pentagon. Take, for example, BBC, which we can all see in this area, is so much better that even ABC uses not only their footage but also their reports on its World News. Most US media seemed to be writing umpteenth stories about anthrax, with no new information whatsoever, rather than paying attention to what was going on in Afghanistan.
Do you think this is going to change, are US media (including the Post) going to actually start increasing the numbers of foreign correspondents permanently stationed abroad, or is the coverage going back to its dismal state soon?
Howard Kurtz: The BBC and some other foreign outlets have done a terrific job in covering this war. Their correspondents have also taken plenty of risks, which is why it's no coincidence that the four journalists ambushed and killed last week were from such countries as Italy, Spain and Australia. The Post has more than a half-dozen reporters and photographers in Afghanistan now, but I don't think we're likely to see major additions to its already sizable foreign staff, just as a matter of economics. But don't confuse quantity with quality. One terrific war correspondent -- Paul Watson of the LA Times, to take one example, has been filing great stuff -- can have more of an impact than simply parachuting more bodies into a war zone.
Arlington, Va.:
Howard, regarding Headline News -- It now has the busy Bloombergian screen with a lot of factoids that move too slowly for people used to the visuals on computers. But is Headline News really just a victim of too many news stations out there competing with it, so much so that its niche of brief recaps of the news has just eroded?
Howard Kurtz: I don't know. I still find it useful for a quick update while regular CNN is airing long briefings or talk shows. Apparently you're unmoved by Headline's recent hiring of former actress Andrea Thomas of NYPD Blue fame!
Thanks for the chat, folks.
| |
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
