|
Media
Backtalk
With Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, Dec. 3, 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.
Grand Junction, Colo.:
I read that Dan Rather has become the first of the major network evening-news anchors to head to the battle zone in Afghanistan. Inasmuch as Geraldo left a major cable network and is now a reporter for Fox News and already in Afghanistan, I assume that there is a distinction being highlighted here -- major network vs. cable network. If this is the distinction, do you think that to the those of us out here that watch for credible news from and about Afghanistan, it makes a whit of difference whether it is cable or major network that the reporter is with? It seems to me that Geraldo's track record and being there now and with Fox News is more notable that this about Dan Rather, but there was no mention of Geraldo whatsoever. Why? Thanks!
Howard Kurtz: The reference here is to my interview with Dan Rather from Kabul in a story published Saturday. The distinction is not broadcast vs. cable (though broadcast reaches a zillion times more viewers). It's that Rather is a network anchor, while Rivera, who just joined Fox, has gone to Afghanistan as a reporter. The equivalent person for Fox would be Tony Snow or Brit Hume. So Rather is actually anchoring the evening news from Afghanistan, rather than just filing reports. Tom Brokaw is angling to get in; Peter Jennings has decided to stay home.
Fairfax, Va.:
Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes program recently debated whether a Time Magazine "Person of the Year" designation for bin Laden would insult the memory of the Sept. 11 victims. In what other direction could Time reasonably go with this -- President Bush; the NYC rescue workers; terrorists in general; perhaps someone outside the war story such as a cloning researcher?
Howard Kurtz: It's got to be 9/11-related. Bush is unlikely because he was Person of the Year in 2000. Rescuers in general, or terrorists in general, are a possibility. Under Time's previous logic -- the person who's had the greatest impact on the world, for good or bad -- it would be bin Laden. After all, Time also put Hitler and Stalin on the cover. But to name Osama in this environment would spark an unbelievable backlash, and I question whether Time wants to go there.
washingtonpost.com:
Dan Rather, CBS's Man in Afghanistan (Washington Post, Dec. 1, 2001)
Arlington, Va:
Just wondered what you made of Bernard Goldberg, the CBSer who went ballistic on the Tiffany network. Turncoat or truthteller? washingtonpost.com:
Goldberg on CBS: Nothing Good to Report (Washington Post, Dec. 3, 2001)
Howard Kurtz: As Bernie Goldberg sees it, he is speaking his mind about journalistic issues that are important to him, even though they involve his longtime colleagues. As lots of people at CBS see it, he is a traitor, turncoat and "snake in the grass," to use correspondent Eric Engberg's phrase. The question for readers is whether Goldberg's personal attacks on the CBS gang (likening Dan Rather to a Mafia don, for example) undermine the substantive points he is trying to make. Either way, I think this book will make a big splash.
Rockville, Md.:
What credentials does David Limbaugh have for being a pundit other than that he is a certain radio hosts brother?
Howard Kurtz: I'm sure his last name doesn't hurt, but just like anyone else he's got to marshal ideas and submit pieces and get someone to publish them. You either have the talent to do that or you don't, regardless of who your brother is.
Montreal, Canada:
Do you feel that the media gives itself more importance than it really has? Also do you think the media sometimes tries to create news in their speculations?
Howard Kurtz: What a shocking suggestion! Whip up news by engaging in speculation? I'd say that's not true all the time -- maybe just 23 out of every 24 hours.
Centreville, Va.:
Thanks for the profile of Mr. Goldberg today. But don't you find the reactions of CBS people a little ridiculous? For example, what's with Bob Schieffer claiming Goldberg wanted to report on CBS rather than for CBS. He wrote one editorial, then continued filing stories week after week for the network (after they put him in the woodshed).
Do you honestly believe he never complained internally about bias, like Eric Engberg suggests? Do you think someone like Eric Engberg would ever listen anyway?
Howard Kurtz: Well, the CBS people are reacting to his decision to publish a book that beats up on them. Goldberg says he did complain internally, but it's also true he didn't say anything to Eric Engberg before warning him that he was about to publish a Wall Street Journal column attacking his work. It's probably impossible in a situation like this for those who worked closely with Goldberg not to see him as betraying them. But that also makes it easier for them to dismiss the substance of his criticism.
Laure, Md.:
What is the significance of Goldberg's book being published by a small ideological publishing house? Did the majors likely all turn it down, and why? Was it funded by some megabucks conservative to push an agenda?
Howard Kurtz: I don't know if the majors turned it down or not. But it's hardly surprising that the right, which has fumed for so long about the "liberal" networks, would embrace this book.
wiredog:
Howie,
After reading your response to Montreal I'm beginning to get the idea that you may be just a tad cynical.
Howard Kurtz: Just a little humor. But anyone who watches cable, for example, knows that the media are addicted to speculation. Sometimes it's done more responsibly than others.
Washington, D.C.:
What do you think of the term "militants" that the media uses to describe the Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists? It seems to put these deliberate murderers of civilian women and children on equal moral ground as the Israeli military, and I think the Palestinian butchers should be labelled for what they are.
Howard Kurtz: I'd prefer "terrorists" myself. We certainly don't refer to al-Qaeda militants, for good reason.
Northern Virginia:
Ok, today ABC News has the "exclusive" scoop: "IT"/Ginger is a gyroscopically-stabilized electrically powered upright scooter. What a shock, right?
Not quite: Drudge reported as much a good 6-8 months ago, complete with drawings. Where'd he get the drawings, you ask? From the US Patent application by Kamen that laid out the entire design (as patent applications are apt to do).
So this begs the question: what was ABC News' incentive for the hype? Why pretend that no one knows what "IT" is when in fact "IT" was well known for some time? I've seen one report that Disney helped provide some of the $100 million required for funding "IT." Do we have a case of disingenuous news reporting here? Hype by a not disinterested media outlet?
Thoughts?
Howard Kurtz: Lots of media outlets reported that it was some kind of scooter. Time magazine actually had the exclusive last night, I believe. But media hype aside, it's still worth reporting the details of what this contraption is. The original leaking of the super-secret "it" was, however, a classic episode of media manipulation.
Orange, Va.:
I'm confused about all the attention given to a rehash of Bernard Goldberg's allegations against CBS news -- claims of "liberal bias" which your story today eventually gets around to revealing first surfaced in 1996. Sure there's now a book revisiting those claims, but compared to the contempt with which you seemed to greet much of the recent coverage of the Florida election fiasco once the recount was done, I can't figure out why Goldberg's much more ancient allegations -- which sound mostly like a former employee moaning and groaning -- get so much more uncritical play. Doesn't he just need to get on with his life?
Howard Kurtz: There's a big difference between an 800-word op-ed piece and a book in which he provides considerably more detail and gets into media treatment of racial and feminist issues. Whether he's moaning and groaning will ultimately be up to people who read the book. By the way, I didn't have "contempt" for the Florida recount; I thought it was a worthy effort. I simply reporting that much of the public greeted it with a yawn.
Woodbridge, Va.:
I am a little tired of hearing about the liberal bias in the media. Where are the voices of those who work for conservative outlets complaining about their conservative bias. Am I missing something? On a related subject did you catch Bill Press on the factor? He did not acquit himself real well. Would you consider going on his show (the Factor that is)?
Howard Kurtz: I have been on Bill O'Reilly's show several times. I guess the imbalance, as you see it, is that there are far fewer conservative media outlets (talk radio is often a prominent exception) than mainstream outlets viewed by conservatives as tilting to the right.
Washington, D.C.:
I agree, Howard. Goldberg's book will make
"a big splash" amongst the far right-wing
crowd that Regnery Publishing caters to.
For you to act as a shill for another Regnery book promotion demonstrates
once again how you play-up your Conservative
network sources. When are YOU going to own
up to your right-of-center bias?
Howard Kurtz: I'm still in coverup mode. The fact is, when a prominent former CBS correspondent writes a book assailing his former network for liberal bias, calls people all sorts of names and generates a furious reaction at the highest levels of the network, that is news. It has nothing to do with my opinions. And both sides are quite well represented in my column this morning.
Front Royal, Va.:
Mr. Kurtz:
It's the old axiom of the best defense is a good offense. For 53 years Israel's most important victory in defeating the Arabs has been its public relations supremacy and savvy via our media. Your article today is true to form of a Pro-Israel viewpoint blaming the media that's dominated by Jewish americans in relation to ZERO Arab Americans. Within minutes of any tragedy within Israel Netanyah, Shoval, Gold and others are on all networks putting out Israel's message yet when 5 Palestinian children are killed by Israeli planted explosives on their way to school neither you nor the networks show any pictures or human stories. My question is this: Do you think the American public's opinion and thoughts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is totally dependent on media news and thus don't get the entire picture? We can talk about tragic deaths on both sides but why has Israel successfully avoided the main issue it's military occupation with our money and weapons for 34 years? It's the media, stupid. Thank you.
Howard Kurtz: I'm sorry, but the media are merely reflecting reality here. Israel does not send suicide bombers into shopping malls and pizza places and onto buses to kill innocent civilians. That is terrorism of a stripe no less frightening than the leveling of the World Trade Center. The Israeli military does retaliate against such attacks, and civilians are sometimes killed in these counterattacks, which are duly reported by the media.
Scranton, Pa.:
there is a belief amomg many that American media are controlled by the corporations, thus compromising the integrity of perspective. This appears particularly dangerous with respect to foreign affairs. The United Nations is dismissed regularly, as well as international treaties that provide for long term solutions to the mast dangerous of global problems.
How can we change the media to accurately address the real problems of the world?
Howard Kurtz: I'm afraid I take issue with your premise. Newsrooms are not "controlled" by corporate bosses, except in the financial sense. No representative of the Graham family tells me or any other reporter here what to write, and the same is true at the NYT, LAT, WSJ, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. Whatever mistakes we make, we make on our own.
Somewhere, USA:
What is the difference between a reporter and a correspondent?
Howard Kurtz: Nothing, really. "Correspondent" usually indicates a reporter who's based in another city or country beyond the employer's home base.
Washington, D.C.:
I'm curious about your reaction to the New York Times story on Fox News this morning. Do you consider them to be traditional journalists in the Washington Post, CNN, etc. model or more opinion-based a la the New York Post and Bob Novak?
Howard Kurtz: I've only had a chance to glance at it. I consider Fox's reporting to be pretty straight overall, though it does have a tendency to play up certain issues important to conservatives. But what gives Fox its pugnacious identity is its talk shows, featuring the likes of Hannity, O'Reilly, Newt, Snow, etc., and those clearly tilt to the conservative side. Which is fine -- it's opinion, after all -- and has been a very successful formula for Roger Ailes.
Boston, Mass.:
Howard, I was watching the news on Saturday night and yesterday about the bombing in Israel. My question is simple: I noticed that the TV media did not call the suicide bombers terrorists. They referred to them as militants, or bombers, but not terrorists. I look at the act committed on Saturday night as something similar to the WTC bombing, where innocent civilians are targeted. Why are the WTC bombers terrorists, and these people not? It is also my understanding that the U.S. considers Hamas and the Islamic Jihad to be terrorist organizations.
Thank you.
Howard Kurtz: I agree. I'm not sure why anyone would shy away from the T-word after watching the brutality of the latest attacks.
Glenmont, Md.:
Hello Howard,
The Washington Post's metro columnists Courtland Milloy, Marc Fisher and Donna Britt are all identifiably liberals. Previous columnists Steve Twomey and Dorothy Gilliam are also liberal. Why doesn't The Washington Post have a conservative local columnist?
Howard Kurtz: That's a good question, though the locals are often writing on non-ideological topics and doing columns that are more reporting than opinion. There's certainly no shortage of conservative voices on the op-ed page -- George Will, Bob Novak, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Kelly, etc.
Washington, D.C.:
With online and cable news growing, is there still a place for political magazines like The New Republic? Can new owners return it to the position it held a decade or more ago?
Howard Kurtz: I think the New Republic, Weekly Standard and National Review are still reasonably influential. But since they all have circulations below 100,000, it's a special kind of influence. The magazines have an impact on elite opinion that sometimes changes the nature of public debate, at least at the margins. A well-written piece might be kicked around on TV and radio talk shows and the Net, thus having a sort of trickle-down effect on millions of folks who don't read the magazine.
Alexandria, Va.:
Journalists once known for their outspoken anti-Israel sympathies, such as Peter Jennings and Robert Novak, seem to have quieted down recently.
What impact, if any, do Islamic suicide attacks such as the one on Sept. 11 or the one last Saturday in Israel have on how American reporters view the Middle East?
Howard Kurtz: I'm not sure there's any quieting down, but I know of no journalists (or other Americans, for that matter) who favor suicide bombings in shopping malls. There is some debate, of course, over whether Israeli retaliation feeds the cycle of violence, whether the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, whether Arafat is capable of delivering peace or cracking down on his extremists. I also think that many westerners had become inured to Palestinian terrorism but that September 11 has sensitized us to the kind of pain these attacks inflict on innocent people and their families.
Washington, D.C.:
You went on the Factor? I love that show. The format is tops: Bill asks a question, then answers it, too. And with the split screen, you can see the reaction of the audience. I mean guest, of course.
Howard Kurtz: I got a few words in, as I recall.
Madison, Wis.:
You cite the New Republic, Weekly Standard and National Review as reasonably influential. Some reason you don't mention left-of-center magazines like the Nation or the American Prospect? Just an oversight? (Which might say something in itself.) Or do you think they're not as influential as the magazines of the right?
Howard Kurtz: I did a column on the American Prospect (along with the conservative World magazine) a couple of months back. I also did a more recent column on Reason magazine. But the three I named are the ones I think are most influential in the opinion world right now.
Dunkirk, Md.:
Is it my imagination or has the Washington Post tilted towards the arab side since Mrs. Graham's death. Lee Hockstader has a long history of pro-Palistinian reporting. However, it seems that since her death, virtually all reporting on the mid-east leans in that direction. Much of it appears as false objectivity. Examples include: equating limited civilian deaths resulting as collateral damage when the Israelis assissinate known terrorists (something we are now attempting to do); refusing to call the terrorists terrorists; referring to Saudi Arabia as our staunchest ally in the region (Only Israel has consistently been such.); failing to point out that when terrorists kill Israelis, people in the Arab countries celebrate. Even moderates make excuses. Muslim orgainizations in the US stay silent or make excuses. When the Israelis inadvertantly kill non-combatants, there are often calls for investigation within the Knesset. There are active Israeli peace and dove movements.
It seems that if I, a non-Jew with no direct, personal interest in the mid-east, see such a pattern, then there probably is one. Please give me your opinion.
By the way, I find you and William Raspberry
to consistently be the most objective writers in the Washington Post. Even when I disagree, I find that I am informed by your writing. Thanks.
Howard Kurtz: It's your imagination.
No one in the Graham family ever gives journalistic orders around here.
Hockstader has a very tough piece on Arafat on this morning's front page.
Columbia, Md.:
Your answer about the local columnists was pretty lame. Why DOESN'T the Post have any conservative -- or moderate for that matter -- local columnists. I've read several columns by these people where, while they might be allegedly writing a straight news story, horribly color the reporting with innate bias.
Howard Kurtz: Well, they are columnists, after all. But I'd certainly welcome a clearly conservative columnist on the Metro pages.
Nashville, Tenn.:
In your personal opinion, which is the bigger threat to effective news coverage by the media: government encroachment on First Amendment rights or shareowner demands for high media profitability?
Thanks.
Howard Kurtz: Probably the latter. Government encroachment on First Amendment rights has, fortunately, been minimal. But the growing pressure on media companies to boost their stock price by delivering short-term profits far beyond that expected in most other industries is really hurting the news business. I'm talking here about layoffs, cutbacks, closing of bureaus, reduced news space, smaller travel budgets and so on.
Chanhassen, Minn.:
Howard - During the presidential election last year, I saw a venom in many newspapers writings that I couldn't believe had been written by responsible journalists. Never in our country have we been more divided in our politics and yet, the events of Sept. 11 seem to have created a facade over this partisan bickering; at least in the public's eyes. How long will we have to wait before the facade is gone and we have to listen to shrill voices again? And why can't the broadcast media tune out the fringe elements more like the print media does? The issues that affect the U.S. aren't so clearly defined in black and white (good guy vs. bad guy) terms that Paul Wellstone or Jesse Helms would like us to think. In the days of Bob Michel, you could count on a sincere level of dignity being displayed by elected officials, realizing that the art of compromise was the goal; not beating the opposite party with lies and innuendo. My question is this. Have the events of Sept. 11 provided the media with any kind of heigtened awareness about not catering to the partisan politics and sniping of the past year? I know the media likes to say they don't make the news, they only report it. However, you do decide which news to report and I want to know if we can expect less coverage of the fringes and more coverage of the stories of compromise that actually end up in meaningful legistlation that makes America great.
Howard Kurtz: When you say "not catering to partisan politics," I see it differently. If Democrats and Republicans are attacking each other, or fighting over an education bill or stimulus bill or airport security bill, it's our job to report it, not impose some loftier vision of how democracy ought to work. And if most politicians are united, as they were in the aftermath of Sept. 11, we need to reflect that as well. It's certainly true that the media love conflict -- finger-pointing rhetoric on the House floor is more likely to produce sound bites than a calm and reasoned debate -- but we don't force politicians to engage in ideological warfare. The increasingly long election season also fosters the atmosphere of heightened partisanship, as does the gradual disappearance of moderates in both parties.
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.:
What's the situation with Katie Couric and Today show. I read that they offered her $13,000,000. Is she that vital to NBC?
Howard Kurtz: I don't know the exact figure -- Katie didn't confide that in me -- but she's hugely important to NBC News. "Today" is the news division's biggest moneymaker, and Couric is the key to its six-year run as the No. 1 morning show, even if its ratings have dipped a bit in recent weeks. She is probably worth whatever NBC ends up paying her if she decides to stay.
East Meadow, N.Y.:
What impact, if any, do you expect Bernard Goldberg's upcoming book "Bias" to have on the news media as a whole?
Howard Kurtz: It depends on whether journalists react defensively or take a serious look at Goldberg's argument.
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: Gene Weingarten at 1 p.m. EST
Sports:
The Chat House at 1:30 p.m. EST
Redskins:
Linebacker LaVar Arrington at 2 p.m. EST
Entertainment:
Rapper Coolio/a> at 2 p.m. EST
Classical
Music Forum at 2 p.m. EST
Travel
Talk at 2 p.m. EST
Middle
East: Israel Strikes Gaza at 2 p.m. EST
Advice:
Carolyn Hax at 3 p.m. EST
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 | 
