|
Media
Backtalk
With Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, Dec. 10, 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.
Atlanta, Ga.:
All three mediums of the press complained bitterly during Desert Storm about censorship, lack of access and lack of cooperation from the military. Following the debacle of Desert Storm, the press swore it would never happen again.
Not only do these same conditions exist this time around -- they are worse. Yet, not a peep of complaint from the press corps.
What gives? washingtonpost.com:
Transcript of Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie on Press Coverage, War and Access to Information (washingtonpost.com, Dec. 5)
Howard Kurtz: There have been not just peeps but very loud groans of complaint about the Pentagon's restrictions on the press during this war. I've written about this and talked about in on the air. Perhaps the strongest complaints erupted late last week when pool reporters with the Marines in southern Afghanistan were barred from visiting an area -- just 100 feet or so away -- where U.S. soldiers had been wounded (and three killed) by an errant American bomb. Pentagon spokeswoman issued a written apology to the press. On Reliable Sources yesterday, CNN's Walt Rodgers called the episode the most egregious case of news management that he had ever seen.
Washington, D.C.:
A few days ago, I saw a preview on CNN for an upcoming program that (as far as I could gather) was about the CNN reporters (Christiane Amanpour, etc.) who are covering the war in Afghanistan.
The language in the promo emphasized the fact that these reporters were "risking their lives...behind enemy lines..." etc. to bring us the stories.
All of that is true, and I have enormous respect for any journalists who put themselves in harm's way (in particular, those behind the camera –- the camera operators and audio engineers, etc. -- who get almost no recognition, unless they are injured or killed in the line of duty).
However, is it really appropriate for CNN to devote its airtime to a story about their (or any) reporters who are covering the situation? (An important disclaimer: I did not see the CNN program itself, only the promotions. So, my criticism might be moot.).
Wouldn't that half-hour be better used covering the war itself -- even if that info. is redundant?
Doesn't such programming run the risk of making the reporters the story, rather than the war?
If this is a relevant topic, wouldn't it be more appropriate (and seem less self-serving) for CNN to cover the story by featuring journalists from other news outlets? For example, one reporter whose work has been very impressive, for example, is the NBC reporter (whose exact name escapes me –- Mike Ibanni, I think?) who, it seems, has often been near bombing and gunfire.
If, on the other hand, CNN does choose to do such a program, I think it is only appropriate to add to the mix those journalists who have been camped out in other locations that might be risky or dangerous, in addition to Afghanistan or even "ground zero" -- for example, those reporters who were sent to the Brentwood postal facility when anthrax was discovered there. At the time that was happening, I was as concerned for them as for their counterparts overseas or at the World Trade Center.
Thanks for your comments.
Howard Kurtz: I don't know if the program was as you've described. But the safety of journalists is absolutely a legitimate story in light of what's happening in Afghanistan. Eight journalists have been killed there in a few short weeks. Others have written or spoken on the air about close calls they have had. Fox has replayed a tape over and over of Geraldo Rivera dodging sniper fire as he did a report. All told, this doesn't strike me as self-aggrandizing but part of the story.
Woodley Park, Washington, D.C.:
Hi Howard,
Here's something that's driving me positively crazy about the media coverage (both print and television) about the war in Afghanistan is the use of the word "fighters" to describe soldiers of the various factions. Every time I hear it used, I cringe. In military parlance, a fighter is an aircraft designed for air-to-air combat, not an individual soldier on the battlefield with an AK-47 and a bandoleer of ammunition.
Why isn't the media using the following terms, ANY of which would be am improvement: soldier, troops, guerillas, terrorists (in the case of Al Queda "fighters"), irregulars, militia, infantry, warriors. Why use the one term that can be easily twisted into a sentence that is the literary equivalent of nails being scratched across a blackboard: "American fighters based on the USS Carl Vinson attacked Taliban fighters outside of Kandahar" and the like. Will be terribly confusing for future historians!
Howard Kurtz: It's short, concise and more dramatic-sounding than "irregulars." I think the reason fighters is used is that many of these combatants are not soldiers or troops -- that is, they're not part of an organized army, but are allied with various warlords or factions in Afghanistan. It's not a term we would use in a regular war (say, against Iraq), but this war is anything but regular.
Tucson, Ariz.:
All this focus on the women reporters and their appearance seems so Talibanish. The comment about Ashley Banifield and her obvious physical attributes was the worst. Why don't you write about Brian Williams and his dedication to his tan? Maybe we could have a debate on the best stud muffin at the front? In fact both men and women reporters are being killed just doing their job. The women reporters are just as serious about their craft as the men and just as much at risk.
Howard Kurtz: I also find that all the fashion chatter trivializes what these reporters are doing in Afghanistan and obscures the fact that they are risking their lives. In fairness, MSNBC drew attention to Ashleigh Banfield by noting that she had dyed her somewhat-blonde hair to avoid attracting attention in the region. It's certainly fair to criticize what they say and do, but I think we can find more important things to talk about than hairstyles, glasses and wardrobes.
Washington, D.C.:
I think that all of the major evening news anchors (Jennings, Brokaw, Rather) play an editorial role in their newscasts. Correct? I think each of them –- or, at least Jennings and Brokaw -- has some sort of "managing editor" title.
But, what does that mean? In practice, what does each of them do on an average day to prepare his broadcast? How much –- if any –- of their news copy do they write themselves? Do you think that any of the three stands out from the rest in terms of how well he performs his writing/editing duties?
Howard Kurtz: They all play a role in shaping the newscasts. Dan Rather, for example, insisted that the CBS Evening News not cover the Chandra Levy story (which NBC Nightly News was doing almost every night for a stretch) and, with one exception, the Rather program remained a Chandra-free zone. They may do a little of their own writing or polish their scripts, but the more important role is deciding which news is fit for viewer consumption and which should be relegated to the cutting-room floor. A recent study found that all three newscasts are doing far more hard news since 9/11 and much less health/lifestyle/celebrity fluff.
Cumberland, Md.:
Why has the Press and TV done so few interviews with the Northern Leaders? I have yet to see a full interview with General Dostum -- sure they would have to use a translator but I have never seen lack of linguistic skills stand in the way.
Howard Kurtz: I must be living on a different planet. I've seen Abdullah Abdullah, the alliance's foreign minister, interviewed almost every day. And Haron Amin, the Northern Alliance spokesman, has been on so many newscasts and chat shows that I did a profile of him last month.
Cumberland, Md.:
In view of the fact that in WWII -- most of the reporters who were on the Front Line enlisted in the armed forces and that their reports were heavily censored and usually didn't get published until quite a long time after the event, don't you think that the complaints and whines of the media today are more about self-indulgence than an actual desire to report the events?
Howard Kurtz: I don't. Sure, there's a bit of whining and self-indulgence in everything journalists do. But until a handful of pool reporters were allowed into the Marines' Camp Rhino, the Pentagon allowed no journalists to travel with U.S. ground forces, which was routine during WW II and even the Gulf War. The result is not that journalists are being stiffed but that the public is being denied independent reporting that would counter the official version of war developments, which history has shown leaves much to be desired. The incident last week where the Marines barred the pool reporters from interviewing injured soldiers tells you something about how at least some elements of the military want this war covered - or, more precisely, not covered.
London:
Do you really believe that the media gives fair coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Obviously the Palestinians deserve no soft coverage for their recent rash of suicide bombings. But as far as I can tell from reading the Post and other U.S. news outlets, there is a conspicuous lack of coverage of how Israel opresses the Palestinian people.
As Jackson Diehl's editorial today (a rarely even-handed analysis) points out, Israel's fight against terrorism is different than America's, because Israel intends to annex the territory of the Palestinians.
Palestinian suicide missions deserve negative coverage, but don't Israeli settlements that suck up land and resources from the Palestinians deserve the same? Where is this side of the story in the U.S. media? washingtonpost.com:
Sharon and Hamas Dream Together (Washington Post, Dec. 10, 2001)
Howard Kurtz: I beg to disagree. There have been thousands of articles over the years about Israel's controversial settlements and the frustrations of Palestinians living under Israeli rule. But Yasser Arafat & Co. have lost worldwide support - and, inevitably, media support - for continuing to seemingly condone suicide bombers blowing themselves up on buses and in shopping malls and pizzerias. Another turning point in media coverage came when Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's offer, in the final days of Clinton's term, for about 95 percent of the disputed territory.
Washington, D.C.:
Yesterday on Meet The Press, Tim Russett interviewed Dick Cheney. I was surprised that he never asked a question about Enron. In fact, I have not heard the press quizing the administration about Enron at all. What's going on?
Howard Kurtz: If not for the war, the spectacular collapse of Enron would be a far bigger story. Bush would be asked about his longtime friendship and financial support from Enron's CEO, Cheney would be asked about Enron's role in his energy task force, and Ari Fleischer would be asked how former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot could become RNC chairman when he's been an Enron lobbyist. Instead, the media are consumed by Kunduz and Kandahar and Tora Bora.
Washington, D.C.:
Everyone seems to refer to (and bemoan) the 24-hour news cycle as a new phenomenon -- as something that is unique to the coverage of recent news events ever since the Gulf War (including O.J. trial, Clinton impeachement, the Florida recount and, of course, the current crisis.).
But, didn't the 24 hour newscycle exist earlier, especially during the depression and WWII?
For example, in the 1940s, most cities had evening newspapers in addition to morning papers. This meant that people in positions of authority had two major print deadlines to meet (or avoid), which tended to require more substantive and deliberate responses.
In addition, there were multiple wire services with reporters breaking news all day and night (does UPI really operate today?).
Plus, radios were left on all the time, unlike today when people just have them on in the car or while jogging, and stations often broke into regular programming for updates.
Wasn't it the case that during the '60s, '70s and '80s, there was a lull in round-the-clock reporting? For example -- Television replaced radio as the dominant medium; broadcast TV only had their half-hour newscasts; radio stations that did survive were geared to younger audiences that didn't want news breaking into their music; and most cities saw at least one major daily paper fold (usually, the evening paper).
All of this is to ask -- isn't the 24 hour news-cycle the more "traditional" format?
Howard Kurtz: Not really. With the exception of radio, there were two news cycles, morning and evening. Morning papers are put to bed at night; afternoon papers (I used to work for one) only include news that's made by noon or 1 p.m. Even as recently as 1979, television news consisted of the morning shows and the evening newscasts. Most people didn't know the day's news until Cronkite or Chancellor came on at 6:30. Now, with cable and the Net, everything is speeded up, everyone is forced to report all the time, react all the time, spin all the time. And it's only since 1996 that there have been three all-news cable networks.
Silver Spring, Md.:
I don't understand how the Bush administration can hold back this new video tape of Bin Laden bragging about his handy work. The very fact that the tape's existence is now common knowledge means that the source of this tape is also compromised, that being said why not air the damn thing so the world can see and hear the evidence first hand? If the concern is hidden messages, could not at least an edited transcript be released? I have heard it said that copies of that tape should be given to Blockbuster for free so all can see what we are dealing with, I agree. Come on, the cat is out of the bag already.
Howard Kurtz: You got me. Whoever leaked the story to The Washington Post obviously wanted it out. Dick Cheney didn't have any problem talking about it with Tim Russert. The contents buttress the administration's case that of course bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 planning. So I'm having trouble figuring out why the White House wants to keep it off the air. Maybe they just don't like looking at the guy's face.
Centreville, Va.:
Why are the Post and the New York Times presenting the weird practices at the Civil Rights Commission as somehow the President's fault? Mary Frances Berry says she'll need federal marshals to get her to seat Bush's appointment, and the media report "The White House set up a confrontation today..." Isn't that exactly backwards?
Howard Kurtz: Seems to me the emphasis of the story has been the opposite -- on the curious and confrontational behavior of Mary Frances Berry, the commission's chairman, in trying to block the seating of a presidential appointee.
Los Angeles, Calif.:
Restating and reposing a question I asked of you last week that is of interest and curiousity to me and, I suspect, to others:
The AP reported last week today that FNC's (Fox New Channel) Geraldo Rivera had a "close call" when a sniper's bullet came close to him as he was covering the conflict on-scene. A dangerous situation, to be sure, and one does not make light of it.
The AP wire dispatch went on to note that Rivera carries a gun and has stated that he would "try to kill" (direct quote from AP) Osama bin Laden if he comes upon him.
Obviously a very straight, God forbid (!) -no-publicity-for-him, dedicated journalist, Rivera's proclamation started me to wonder: Would he, a non-military person covering an undeclared war, be in violation of U.S. law or international treaties/understandings and would he be subject to criminal or other sanstions or action by U.S. courts or tribunals in other fora if he were to come upon bin Laden and actually were to shoot him?
And more to the real world of journalism, would is your comment on the ethics of such a public, oft-stated/reported, on-air proclamation, along with Rivera's stated and full bias and expressed opinions, typically reserved for opinion writers and not so-called straight journalists?
Howard Kurtz: Geraldo Rivera is in a category all his own (he gets panned in a Wall Street Journal column I excerpted in Media Notes today). He talks openly of going to Afghanistan to seek "revenge" for 9/11. His reports talk about the "good guys" and the "bad guys." People can make up their own minds as to whether he's a journalist, commentator or globe-trotting entertainer. As for the guns, I imagine he's as entitled as any American citizen to carry a (properly licensed) gun for self-defense. I think Rivera would be all too happy to deal with the legal consequences if he could shoot bin Laden. And Fox would probably triple his salary.
Washington:
With all due respect to him -- is there any precedent for a military figure trading on his media savvy and stardom the way Gen. Norman Shwarzcopf has?
I know that he does a good amount of charity work -- raising awareness of prostate cancer, helping kids, etc. But, I am confident that this helps him (indirectly) make a good living making speeches and motivational appearances, etc.
What do you (and others -- esp. those in uniform) make of the fact that a gentleman who became a media star because of his solemn military duties is now a guest on Leno? I know that former Secys of State Kissenger and Albright have appeared in such settings, but usually (I think) to discuss issues of the day, not to promote a children's book.
Howard Kurtz: As far as I'm concerned, Schwarzkopf can do whatever he wants. Who in today's society doesn't cash in on their moment of fame? Former presidents and first ladies write books for millions of dollars. Former White House staffers (like George Stephanopoulos) write best-selling books and launch television careers. Jack Welch gets $7 million for a book when he leaves GE. Athletes get zillion-dollar endorsements. If there's a market for what Schwarzkopf has to say, why shouldn't he be compensated? He served his country pretty well.
Washington, D.C.:
I have read that John Roberts is the likely replacement for Dan Rather when (or if) the current CBS newscaster retires (from my point of view, there is no need. I think he's still an excellent anchor AND reporter).
Peter Jennings occupies that role at ABC. Both gentlemen are Canadian by birth.
In addition, I have heard that among the possible heirs-apparent at NBC is Ashleigh Banfield. Again, another native Canadian.
I hope that my comments do not seem xenohphobic in nature. I just think it's an interesting coincidence.
Also, it leads me to two substantive questions -- first, does it mean that Americans are willing to have foreign-born individuals read our news, but just so long as they aren't "too foreign"? second, are there any U.S.-born journalists who are high profile reporters or anchors overseas?
Howard Kurtz: Jennings and Roberts make for an interesting coincidence. But Ashleigh Banfield has a long way to go before she becomes the anchor of NBC Nightly News. The man widely considered Brokaw's successor is Brian Williams, who last time I checked was an American. Anyway, I don't believe you should need the right birth certificate for one of these jobs.
Annapolis, Md.:
There are two terms used by the media that I find impossible to associate with something tangible -- Afgan warlord and tribal chief.
What makes a person a warlord? When does one become a warlord? Can a warlord also be a tribal chief? Are all warlords evil doers? Are all warlords Islamic? Do they communicate with each other?
Howard Kurtz: I've wondered about that myself. Maybe you have to get a degree in military strategy from Warlord Graduate School.
Colorado Springs, Colo.:
In spite of all the 21st century tools available, it seems to me that Afghanistan has been a very traditional war and that we've covered it in a very traditional way. For example, if the government won't let reporters go along with the troops, US reporters are shut out of coverage while other nations (Australia, Britain, Pakistan) provide online eyewitness reports.
Why have news organizations tied their reporters down so tightly to the government's wishes? Doesn't that constitute participating in de facto managed news?
Howard Kurtz: Not in my view. A whole lot of reporters have risked their lives -- and eight have been killed -- by going into Afghanistan on their own. Some have traveled with Northern Alliance troops and some haven't. Beyond that, the Pentagon obviously has a great deal of influence over what information is released, but journalists aren't passively going along. And if past wars are indication, much of the information being shielded from us today will eventually come out.
wiredog:
Schwarzkopf isn't the first officer to use his military fame to make lots of money. US Grant wrote his biography for that reason over 100 years ago.
Howard Kurtz: Good historical point. Guess he wasn't able to go on Larry King, though.
Potomac, Md.:
How does the media strike a balance between fear-mongering and keeping the public informed of danger? For instance, today's article on the unclear line of succession if basically every branch of the federal government were knocked out in a terrorist blow. Or, last week's article about a 'dirty bomb'.
I see the goal of serving the public by bringing up these issues for consideration, but I also see an exceedingly effective way to scare the bejesus out of a readership that really can't do much to control either of these possible outcomes.
How are these conflicting motivations balanced in making editorial decisions?
Howard Kurtz: Excellent question. I think the media has tipped a little too much toward scaring people. That was certainly true during the height of the anthrax frenzy. All these articles about how the local electric plant/bridge/stadium isn't well defended can be justified as a public service, I guess, but the cumulative effect is to boost the anxiety level. Then you have editors deciding how much prominence to give the latest Tom Ridge warning about unspecified terrorist attacks in the unspecified future. These are hard decisions, but I think the media have erred too much on the side of hype.
Somewhere, USA:
At the time of submitting this question, Mullah Omar is still on the run, and I'm assuming he will still be a fugitive at the time of the chat:
Let's say he's captured, TV news crews and journalists throng around him. He's made emphatically clear as Taliban leader that photographing a person breaks his "religious" (for want of a better term) rules. Should his wishes be respected, or is he fair game for the lens? Would the image-taking be carried out because of news value, or because a wanted man's strange religious ideas don't count? (Hardly anybody knows what he looks like except for a fuzzy snapshot that's thought to be the only photo of him.)
Thanks, Howard, really, really look forward to all your articles and chats.
Howard Kurtz: Good question. I'd say that's the least of his problems at the moment.
Arlington, Va.:
Howard, the New York Times seems to have a very polite style book that allows Osama to be referred to as Mr. bin Laden. It strikes me as over-indulgence to do this to people who are considered murderers and terorists. What's next -- Mr. Ripper?
Howard Kurtz: I find the whole thing rather outdated, and sometimes absurd in terms of Mr. Hitler, Mr. Manson, Mr. McVeigh and so on. The Times has all kinds of convoluted rules about this. You don't need the honorific if you're dead and something of a historical figure. Atheletes are not called Mr. except in stories where they're engaging in non-sports behavior (such as Mr. O.J., ah, Mr. Simpson). Seems like a vestige of an earlier century.
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada:
Why can't you have a U.S. television panel discussion without at least half the panel being from the right wing? Is every second American a reader of the National Review, the New York Post or the Weekly Standard? I recently watched a CNN interview with a former CBS news employee discussing whether TV news has a liberal bias. Believe me, the U.S right has nothing to worry about.
Howard Kurtz: Since most journalists are to the left of the general population, I think it's healthy that more conservatives are being included on chat shows. I did the interview with former CBS-er Bernard Goldberg on Saturday, in fact. Whether or not you believe that CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, NYT, WP, LAT lean to the left, people with conservative views clearly ought to have access to the airwaves. Viewers are smart enough to make up their own minds about where commentators are coming from.
Thanks for the chat, folks.
| |
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
