|
Media
Backtalk
With Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, Feb 4, 2002; 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.
Alexandria, Va.:
In a Sunday editorial, The Washington Post took strong exception to claims by the Saudi government that an "Israel lobby" or a "Jewish lobby" is responsible for press criticisms of Saudi Arabia.
In view of the kidnapping of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl on specious grounds that he is an Israeli agent, do you feel that hardline Moslems are especially hostile towards those reporters who the hardliners believe to be Jewish?
washingtonpost.com:
Talking to Saudi Arabia (Post, Feb. 3, 2001)
Howard Kurtz: I think it's awfully dangerous to generalize to a whole group of people based on the actions of a few extremists. Remember, they originally accused Pearl of being a CIA man.
Boston, Mass.:
Howard,
When the news media released reports yesterday about Daniel Pearl's body possible being found, did the news organizations speak with his family first? If my spouse was missing, I would hate to see the news as my first communcation.
Howard Kurtz: It can be hard to reach the family, but it's not hard at all to reach the Journal spokesman, who's available by email and cell phone. As I reported in today's paper, the spokesman, Steve Goldstein, says he was called by CNN, NBC, CBS and others - but not by ABC or Fox before they aired their initial the-dead-body-is-Pearl's reports. Not a shining moment for television journalism.
Woodbridge, Va.:
I was really amazed at the positive comments on the President's State of the Union address especially from he "liberal" press. Hearing words like galvanizing and JFK like sent me back to wondering if I heard the same speech. What was your take on the speech, both as a speech and on delievery? washingtonpost.com:
Bush Wows Media Again (Post, Jan. 30, 2001)
Howard Kurtz: My own view is that the speech was very good, but not great, and that Bush created problems for himself with his "axis of evil" assault on Iran, Iraq and North Korea that White House aides spent the next 48 hours trying to explain. (Was there a change in policy? If not, what did the harsh rhetoric mean?) But the press is greatly influenced by polls. Several of the insta-pundits noted that the president's approval ratings are at 85 percent. I wonder whether the commentary would have been quite so effusive if Bush was at 50 percent.
Charlottesville, Va.:
Do you think heads will roll at ABC (and any other news organization which spread their error) because of the erroneous report of the kidnapped journalist's death in Pakistan yesterday. I mean, sheesh, there has be to be some system in place to prevent such a horrible mistake, doesn't there? Back in the '70's, a Richmond TV station erroneously rushed to the air with a report of the death of a Virginia senator. Within days, the entire news department had been canned. I think similar sanctions -- though perhaps not quite as broad -- are warranted in this instance washingtonpost.com:
3 Networks Had to Amend Accounts (Post, Feb. 4, 2001)
Howard Kurtz: I don't know whether heads will roll, but I'm told ABC News President David Westin is furious. The only "system" for preventing such fiascos is the judgment of those involved in putting a "sources say" report on the air. Much of this, of course, is driven by the competitive desire to scoop the other networks, even by a few minutes. Nothing would have been lost if ABC had waited, even a couple of hours, to check with the Journal and have someone try to identify the dead body that turned out to be some other Karachi victim's. If you get beaten, so be it. It's better than being first and wrong.
Prestonsburg, Ky.:
You attacked The Washington Times reporting on the lynx hair fakery carried out by the Forest Service by castigating its ad department (which did wrong). But why hasn't The Post done any reporting on this scandal? Maybe because as US News & World Report said, stories about "the credibility of government environmental restriction agencies don't fit the template of recent (N.Y) Times and Post stories on the environment." washingtonpost.com:
An Advertising Department That's on Top of the News (Post, Feb. 4, 2001)
Howard Kurtz: How big a scandal may be debatable, but the fact is The Post can't get to every controversy in the country. We have three reporters on the West Coast and they can be stretched pretty thin. I couldn't find anything on the lynx controversy in most other national newspapers either. Maybe this will give the issue a little visibility boost.
Chantilly, Va.:
In a column about false reports of Daniel Pearl's death, you wrote: "At Fox, which also didn't call the Journal for confirmation, spokeswoman Danielle Gorash said ..."
But I can't figure out from the column why these networks were obliged to call the Wall Street Journal. I'm left with the impression that, because Pearl worked for the WSJ, all networks must first call the WSJ to confirm any reports about Pearl's death.
Am I missing something?
Howard Kurtz: Yes. You're missing the fact that no reporter saw the body in question. You're missing the fact that the Journal has people in Karachi who would have viewed the body for identification purposes (and in fact very quickly determined that it wasn't Pearl). You're missing the fact that when dealing with shadowy sources in places like Pakistan, an extra phone call can spare a reporter enormous embarrassment. After all, if Pearl had been killed, the Journal certainly would have confirmed it. Imagine being a friend or colleague of Danny Pearl and hearing on TV that he was dead. Not a good performance.
Arlington, Va.:
Howard, I haven't seen her yet, but seems very odd that Greta Van Sustren would do a complete makeover when she switched to Fox from CNN. I gather that she felt that she wanted to become just another pretty face in the Fox lineup.
Howard Kurtz: Greta debuts tonight in her new role as a fox.
Bethesda, Md.:
Now that Al Gore has officially entered the national debate as we heard from his remarks recently in New Hampshire, do you think that this is a sign that he is testing the waters for a 2004 presidential run? Do you think we're going to be seeing more and more of him as we approach the upcoming re-election season? When do you think he'll really clue us in that he is seriously planning to really run in 2004? I'm anxiously awaiting to start helping out with his campaign!
Howard Kurtz: The ex-veep is obviously testing the waters for 2004. He's also trying to mend fences in his home state, which, if he hadn't lost it, would have made him president without 36 days of hanging Floridian chads. I don't think Gore has made up his mind about running again. I do think he wants to keep his options open at a time when some of his former aides and strategists are finding other horses to ride.
New York, N.Y.:
Nice job of ABC news to report that the WSJ reporter was dead without verifying the facts. After the embarrassment of falsely calling Florida a Gore victory, I thought the media would have learned their lesson about putting out stories without confirmation. Is it so difficult for the press to wait and verify? Or are the bragging rights about being the first with the big scoop so seductive that it becomes a calculated risk?
Howard Kurtz: I think you've put it very well. ABC says it relied on two sources - one of them the Karachi police chief - who had been very reliable in the past. But you're talking here about declaring someone dead and the highest standard ought to apply. The fact is, if ABC News had waited another half-hour and checked with the Journal, its "scoop" would have evaporated and the network would have been spared enormous embarrassment.
Culpeper, Va.:
I read your article, "Slice and Dice Time." Are you suggesting that the Democrats support programs that would not withstand close scrutiny, and that Republicans want to cut taxes below the cost of running the Federal Government? Golly, this sounds awfully CENTRIST to me. How did you ever get such an article past your editors?
Howard Kurtz: Believe it or not, I write whatever I want and I don't have to clear it with the Graham family.
Alexandria, Va.:
Your piece on The Washington Times' ad-selling tactics reminded me of the famous scene in "Casablanca" where the police chief is "shocked" to find out about the goings-on in Rick's Cafe. I used to work at a trade association representing an industry that was routinely derided in the media. Roll Call, among others, would regularly try to sell us display-ad space on the basis that buying such space would be a good way to get "our side of the story" in the media. I just can't believe you -- or the special-interest group activist you quoted -- would be surprised by this. It happens all the time, and I wouldn't be "shocked" if some Post salespeople had engaged in this behavior as well.
Howard Kurtz: There's a difference between media ad salesmen approaching companies or trade associations that happen to be in the news, and ringing up folks who are the target of a barrage of stories and editorials initiated by the news organization. The Washington Times makes that distinction in saying this lynx business was clearly a mistake that shouldn't have happened. I agree.
Burke, Va.:
Granted, he's certainly shown that he's capable, but to what extent does the press continue to judge the President with very low expectations? (ie. if he doesn't drool on himself and pronounces everything correctly it was a good speech) The Axis of Evil comments will no doubt exacerbate relations with some of our allies, and his budget numbers don't begin to add up. Yet it was several days before anyone "called" him on this.
Howard Kurtz: That's been true for most of Bush's career, but the media buzz before the State of the Union was that for the first time there were high expectations for one of his speeches, especially given the stirring nature and strong reaction to his post-9/11 address to Congress.
Bethesda, Md.:
Howie: So why has the Post been burying the story of the Wall Street Journal reporters kidnapping and developments on page A18 and the like? Is there a message here? By contrast, this has been the lead story in the electronic media for about a week.
Howard Kurtz: We may be underplaying it a little. But there's been precious little hard news in recent days. Television tends to play up such stories (see John Walker) because it loves to focus on individual personalities around which melodramas can be built. And it is, of course, and life and death story.
Reston, Va.:
Mr. Kurtz: Please pass a note on to the folks at CNN -- please, please, please bring back good, old reliable Headline News. I used to set my watch by that format. I loved how boring, predictable and USEFUL, INFORMATIVE, RELIABLE, the channel was. If I want CNN, I'll watch CNN. I don't need CNN Redux badly. The one outlet that just did news with no fluff -- unlike EVERY SINGLE LOCAL NEWSCAST IN AMERICA -- was the one I turned to at the top of each hour for regular updates. I'd compare DC's all-news radio station -- WTOP -- to it almost, except for TOP's dumb commerical slots. The day of reliable, real NEWS delivery is dead I think. Maybe Connie can take a crack at it. Thanks.
Howard Kurtz: I'll take a chance and put you down as a critic.
Nokesville, Va.:
Re: your comparison of Wall Street Journal editorials on the Cheney task force controversy today. In trying to prove media hypocrisy on the conservative side, aren't you ignoring the hypocrisy on the liberal side? As Brent Bozell points out in his column, the big difference between the two task-force stories (Cheney's and Hillary's health care force) is the media -- including print -- rarely gave a fig about Hillary's, and is now heavy breathing after Cheney's.
Howard Kurtz: I must beg to differ. The secrecy of the Hillary task force was a long running controversy in '93 and '94 and the subject of countless news stories, debates and commentaries in the media. Not just the secrecy, of course, but the hue and cry over an unelected person presiding over the remaking of one-seventh of the economy, etc.
Philadelphia, Pa.:
Howard,
I watched the State of the Union adress last week and thought Mr. Bush did a pretty good job, although as I expected he came out with very few specifics. When I read the papers and saw the news the next day, I thought that I must have seen the wrong speech. Since the State if the Union has become more of a campaign speech than a report on the condition of the country, has a speech been panned? Also, why is everyone gushing over a speech that bascially promises everything to everyone? Before they gush over a speech, shouldn't someone ask how is he going to accomplish this?
Howard Kurtz: The speech didn't promise everything to everyone; in fact, despite media predictions to the contrary, most of it was about the war and terrorism. Several of Clinton's State of the Union addresses were panned by the pundits as being too long, too unfocused, a laundry list, and so on. Then polls would come out showing the public loved it, and the journalists would quietly back off. The situation is different, I believe, with a wartime president, when any media criticism (and there wasn't much this time) is likely to be soft-pedalled.
Knoxville Tenn.:
Now that the courts have ordered the White House to preserve all communications between Bush, Cheney, Ken Lay and Enron, will the press think to ask about Bush's papers as Texas govenor now being hidden at daddy's library? It seems our "liberal press" seems to ignore when this administration hides away papers which are usually available to the public (also these papers where squirreled away before Sept. 11 so it is not a security matter). Apparently Bush does not want the names of CEO's at the meetings in the White House and dates of contributions to the RNC to be compared revealing a possible "Quid Pro Quo."
Howard Kurtz: I don't know whether reporters will pursue that angle, since Bush isn't alleged to have done anything improper, Enron-wise, as governor. But it's not true that the press ignores administration secrecy. Journalists have certainly made an issue of the Cheney task force's refusal to divulge information and about the Pentagon's reluctance to provide better access to the troops and release important information. So the press is hardly rolling over on this issue.
New York, N.Y.:
Howard, Woodward and Balz's report on the administration's response to 9-11 was generally very flattering, essentially taking at face value the administration's word for what happened on 9-11 and 9-12, which happen to be the murkiest and, in my opinion, the ones that leave Bush most vulnerable to criticism for his actions. It's clear that the reporters were not writing history. That will have to be left for another day, when the Bushies release their grip from the papers they so jealously guard. But what is it that Woodward and Balz were doing, if not propagandizing for the government?
Howard Kurtz: Calling it propaganda strikes me as awfully unfair. This was a richly detailed account based on interviews with the key principals, and it certainly included some incidents of discord, confusion and petty rivalries. By and large, the president, vice president and their top aides provided an upbeat picture of those 10 days; no shock there. But it also happens to match the reality that the war effort went very well. (And Woodward and Balz also had access to notes of numerous meetings.) There's some value in having the country's leaders reflect on what they did and why they did it. The series may well have been too long for many readers, but it was an ambitious effort.
Washington, D.C.:
Now that Al Gore is back in the mix, should we expect that stories about him will deal seriously with his ideas and political prospects, or are we once aga indestined for continuous coverage of what he's wearing and what it all means?
Howard Kurtz: If he starts talking seriously about ideas and policies and looks like he's gearing up to run, many news organizations will deal with that seriously. But right now we're still at the stage of wondering whether he has the fortitude and support within the party to make another run. Plus the endless debate about the beard.
Chicago, Ill.:
Howie,
If Bush is viewed by the press with low expectations, why is that? It seemed reporters looked closely at everything Clinton said but with Bush it doesn't seem to get the same scrutiny. Is it because the press is responding to outside influences? Do reporters pay as much attention to left wing influences as right wingers got in the last eight years?
Howard Kurtz: I don't think it's ideological or has anything to do with outside influences. Bush was initially underrated because he was deemed a rookie governor who'd never held office before age 40 and wouldn't be a serious presidential candidate without Dad's name. Then he was underrated as a foreign policy neophyte who couldn't even name the leader of Pakistan. Then he was underrated as a tongue-tied speaker who would be demolished by Gore in the debates. Then he was underrated as a popular-vote loser who had no mandate and would be crippled by the Florida bitterness. It took a long time for many journalists to recognize that this guy was a lot shrewder than they thought.
Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.:
Today, Al Kamen chastises DoD for releasing the photgraph of detainees/POWs arriving in Cuba, letting us understand that we would have all been better off has this photo not been made public. I found this very odd. Is the Post really trying to rally so hard behind the government that possible infractions of the Geneva Convention should be hidden?
Also, since the media have been complaining about the lack of access in the war in Afghanistan, Kamen seems to suggest that he is happy with limited access and Pentagon censorship.
Do you have any thoughts on his piece today? washingtonpost.com:
I'll Have Mr. OSD(PA) Get Back to You (Post, Feb. 4, 2001)
Howard Kurtz: Kamen isn't saying the photo shouldn't have been released. He's saying the Pentagon's decision to do so (with no explanation of the conditions, by the way) created a public relations debacle for the administration.
New York, N.Y.:
Re: The 10 Days. There might be value in reflecting on what the administration did, if it could be believed that they were telling the truth. Why should we believe they were telling the truth? This is the most secretive, truth-manipulating administration since Nixon!
Howard Kurtz: I'll have to put that down in the category of opinion. If there are any specific inaccuracies in the series, as opposed to griping-by-people-who-don't-like-Bush, I'd be happy to hear about them.
Reton, Va.:
I think today was the first day that terrorism/war news didn't make the fromt page of the Post.
Am I the only one who finds Headline News unwatchable, what with the news being in that tiny box surrounded by weather, the crawl, and other stuff?
Howard Kurtz: I think there was one other day - this over a period of five months - when no war/terror story was on the front page. You can credit Super Bowl Sunday, maybe.
As for Headline News, there's at least one other person who shares your view, earlier in this chat.
Bedford, Tex.:
What did you think of Lisa Myers' interview with Linda Lay?
Howard Kurtz: I thought it was fine to put the tearful wife on, but I felt that NBC should have challenged more of her statements. For instance, the declaration that the couple is broke. The Wall Street Journal later reported that they own 18 properties in Texas and Colorado and $10 million in non-Enron stock. Guess it depends on the definition of the word broke.
Somewhere, USA:
In your reply to Culpeper, Va., you stated
that you can "write whatever you want and
don't need approval from the Graham family."
That's an awfully ludicrous, thin-skinned
reaction, don't you believe?
You should have a "Style" editor that
is accountable for your columns -- both print
and Web site, no?
Howard Kurtz: I was being a tad facetious. Of course I have editors, but my columns are edited for style, grammar, clarity and taste, not the content of my views. I thought I detected a whiff of "don't the editors tell you what to say?" in the earlier posting -- a view that doesn't reflect the messy realities of how newsrooms work.
Falls Church, Va.:
I am also tired of on 9/11 stuff. What about the Eron influence on the Bush adminstration? & the GAO suit.
I don't feel the coverage has been balanced.
Howard Kurtz: There hasn't been enough coverage of Enron and the administration? I must be living on a different planet.
re: Gore's Fences:
Now that I think about it, "mending fences" is a dumb phrase for Gore to have used when he conceded in Dec. 2000. Mending fences literally means repairing barriers between he and his fellow Tennesseans. Wouldn't he want to tear down those barriers? Must be an engligh-language anomoly.
Howard Kurtz: Gore may not be the world's best phrasemaker, but I think mending fences is the commonly accepted usage for a situation where your home state turns on you in a presidential election.
Re: Headline news:
Yep, it's TERRIBLE. I can't even watch a story I'm interested in for more than 30 seconds, with the weather, news crawl, sports scores, and (my personal favorite) the little five-six word synopsis OF THE STORY YOU'RE BEING DISTRACTED FROM VIEWING!
I'll stick with The Post, thankyouverymuch.
Howard Kurtz: And here NYPD's Andrea Thompson was supposed to fix all their problems.
New York, N.Y.:
Howard,
How do you keep your cool when you see news agencies and reporters doing the wrong things, such as the over-saturation of the Condit thing last year, or the mis-reporting of Mr. Pearl.
Howard Kurtz: I get mad sometimes, just like everyone else. Or embarrassed, as a card-carrying journalist. But I have the advantage of being able to write about these things and try to shed some light on them.
Thanks for the chat, folks.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
