|
Media
Backtalk
With Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, Feb 25, 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.
Albany, N.Y.:
In your "Media Notes" column today you quote from an article by Rich Lowry in the National Review on campaign finance reform. Mr. Lowry's article contains excerpts from an appearance on ABC's "This Week" by then Presidential Candidate George W. Bush in January, 2000, in which George Will asks questions on campaign finance reform legislation of Mr. Bush. What caught my attention in the article was not the substance of the exchange between Mr. Bush and Mr. Will but the fact that Mr. Lowry notes that Candidate Bush was given a "heads up" by Mr. Will about the question on campaign finance that he would be asking. Is it common that guests on the Sunday talk shows are told ahead of time about specific questions and topics that they will be asked about?
Howard Kurtz: No, it's extremely uncommon. Extremely. George Will later acknowledged the heads-up in his column as a way of saying that he gave Bush fair warning the subject would come up so he couldn't plead ignorance.
New York, N.Y.:
You mentioned this in your article today, but are the media doing a worse job of checking its facts? The Ken Lay/Clinton issue was very disturbing, since it is obvious that the right wing commentators seem to be less accountable for their words. I've heard Fred Barnes mention this a number of times, and not retract it.
Howard Kurtz: I wouldn't take the position that conservative commentators do this more often. There are lots of distortions, rumors and half-truths that make their way into the media bloodstream and it's hard to clean them out. Some newspaper runs a correction on page 2 days later and the TV talking heads and Web writers never see it. In some cases, such as Rush Limbaugh incorrectly describing what Peter Jennings said on 9/11, the pundit does his own correction, as Limbaugh did. We all need to do a better job of correcting the record.
Reston, Va.:
It seemed to me that much of what drove the whole Mormon angle to the Olympics was purely a media interest, rather than any public groundswell of concern. Folks I know who watched the Olympics considered Mormonism to be a non-issue as far as the Olympics were concerned and were just as perplexed as I was by numerous media reports expressing concern that the Mormon church might try to make these Olympics the Mormon games. How much do you think the Mormon angle to the Olympics was created by the press, or am I wrong and did there in fact exist a larger public concern over this issue that transcended any religious paranoia among the ranks of the press?
Howard Kurtz: Well, like every other issue on the planet, it was pumped up by the press. But as I wrote recently, it's not an unfair issue. The Mormon Church donated money and land to the Olympics and sent reporters suggested story ideas about the church. And naturally visiting reporters are going to write about the culture of Utah, where 70 percent of the residents are Mormon and the church owns one of Salt Lake's two newspapers. What was troubling was some of the simplified and sensational stuff about polygamy, etc., and an offensive satire for which a Denver Post columnist had to apologize.
Cherry Hill, N.J.:
Howard,
Why is the media still obsessed with Al Gore's appearance. I would have thought that after last year, the media would report on more substance.
Howard Kurtz: Well, the media *are* dealing with the substance that many Democrats don't want Gore to run again. But apparently journalists can't resist continued digs at the beard. Maybe it's a hangover from the campaign, where they frequently poked fun at the earth-tones wardrobe suggested by one of Gore's consultants.
Washington, D.C.:
Howard --
This may be off your beat a little, but what do you make of the charges that NBC and the North American media more generally bullied the IOC into awarding duplicate medals to the Canadian skaters? Apparently, NBC was sensitive to, or at least aware of, this charge very early, as their interviewers were asking IOC officials and more or less indpendent observors about this issue as early as the morning following the event. At first I thought NBC was trying to pump up its role in bringing the controversy to light, but then I realized they were worried that they were perceived as the source of the controiversy.
Howard Kurtz: I don't think NBC bullied the Olympic committee into awarding the medals. I think the western media generally created such a huge fuss over the judging fiasco that IOC officials caved because they wanted the whole thing to go away. This was treated as the biggest international incident since the Cuban missile crisis. And there's no doubt in my mind the media would not have gone haywire had the "victims" been Czech or Chinese instead of a cute Canadian couple -- almost-Americans, in the words of one Post columnist.
Arlington, Va.:
In regard to George Will, I note that you always say that Will is paid for his opinions, but I feel it is altogether appropriate for people who interview (as opposed to those on the discussion) to assure us that they are neutral in that part of the program. Tim Russert always noted that he had worked for someone when he had them on the program. I think that Will should have said, "As I told you I would ask" to Bush. Even the guys on Fox seem to be netural when they ask questions although we know that they are to the right of, say, Juan Williams.
Howard Kurtz: I agree it would have been better for Will to have made some acknowledgement for the ABC audience. The average viewer assumes that the guest has no idea what is going to be asked. Will's goal, I believe, was to avoid having Bush say "I'm not familiar with that, I'd have to study the issue before I can comment further."
Chicago, Ill.:
Howard,
What is the purpose of leaking a campaign strategy. Specifically, Karl Rove leaking that the GOP is goibng to use the war on terrorism as their main theme this fall. Is this to see what the reaction is similar to a large focus group?
Howard Kurtz: Can't figure that one out. Not much of a leak -- anyone with a pulse knows that the Republicans will make use of the war -- but saying it out loud seemed to violate some sort of unspoken etiquette. That is, it's okay to tacitly use the successful prosecution of a war to your political advantage as long as you don't say that's what you're doing. I don't see where Rove bought himself anything but some negative stories.
Washington, D.C.:
Do you find it odd that pundits that choose not to live in D.C. are dunning D.C. for possibly hosting the Tyson fight? I too find the thought of Tyson fighting in D.C. to be embarrassing and quite possibly offensive, but I'm not so sure Ollie North, who chooses not to live in D.C., really needs to weigh in on the choices made by residents and officials of a city he doesn't live in. Your thoughts?
Howard Kurtz: Well, he does his radio show in D.C. I don't think we need to impose a residency requirement on those who can comment on this incredibly dumb idea of having Tyson fight here. I say we open it up to all pontificators, without regard to race, creed or Zip code.
New York, N.Y.:
Every columnist from Chris Matthews to Maureen Dowd has fired away at the pentagon for talking about putting false news stories in the foreign press. Don't you think they are getting ahead of themselves? If the plan was actually carried out, that would be one thing. But they are getting fired up about something that hasn't even happened. Why not reserve criticism for things that have actually taken place?
Howard Kurtz: Well, you can hardly blame columnists for reacting to something that was on the front page of the New York Times. And I don't see why they have to wait to take on what they view as a truly horrible idea - especially since the disinformation, if it was carried out, would likely be done in a way that was hard to track. Indeed, the media reaction seems to have been a factor in Rumsfeld saying he may now abandon the plan for such a propaganda office.
New York, N.Y.:
In answer to another New Yorker above, you talk about the need for journalists to do a better job of correcting the record. I find a greater need for journalists to stop acting like a pack and start thinking more critically for themselves. Too often you act like vectors of the falsehood virus, passing bad information among each other like a social disease. As an example, I cite the myths, or official stories, that develop around certain candidates in elections, and which reporters and columnists pass along, uncritically, as though they were well-established fact.
Howard Kurtz: Fair point. But the fact is that we all rely on what we see in other media. Television picks up stories from the New York Times, a Web site might pick up something from CNN, a columnist might pick up something from a Web site. If I read in the Chicago Tribune that Ken Lay slept over in the Clinton White House, my assumption is that it has been checked and is probably true. I would attribute the information, just to cover myself, or better yet call Clinton's office for confirmation. But too many commentators these days are in rip-'n-read mode.
Arlington, Va.:
How do you feel about the legendary Howell Raines, who once lusted after Maureen Dowd, pressuring reporters to get hockey tickets for his son? Do you think he'll go the way of Abe Rosenthal and get swept off the poopdeck of the Gray Lady? Thanks.
Howard Kurtz: Since we were just talking about being careful in picking up other media reports, what you just asked if from a one-paragraph gossip item on the New York Post's Page Six, with no named sources and no comment from the Times. Therefore, I have no idea whether it's true. The item did say that Raines always planned to pay for the tickets.
Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.:
Mr. Kurtz,
Yesterday I was watching hockey, and happened to notice a Washington Post commercial. In it, an assistant and an editor (?) seem to be concerned that a reporter is in danger, and anxiously wait for his phone call. When the phone rings, the reporter, his voice in anguish, tells how terrible the situation is. The editor asks him whether he can make it safely out, and he says he's trying, but it is difficult since the movie he is reviewing is the worst he has ever seen.
This commercial might have been funny, but coming days after Daniel Pearl's death, I was surprised that it was not immediately pulled. I do not know how long it has been aired, but Sunday was the first time I saw it. I hope also the last.
Howard Kurtz: I've gotten a couple of e-mails on this. I haven't seen the spot but it should probably be pulled.
Syracuse, N.Y.:
Hi Howard,
I saw Rumsfeld on the Sunday morning
talk shows (funny, he was on two of them
at the same time...)
The interviewers asked about the
Defense Department plans to spread
disinformation. Rumsfeld said "you
assume that is true, I don't know if it is"
then stated he would never lie.
I fully expected a few follow-up questions:
- How do we know you are telling the truth
right now?
- Will the agency hire others to do the
disinformation for you?
We've all learned that semantics is the
name of the game in D.C., and words
carefully chosen to be not false, yet not
quite accurate either.
Question: why do these "reporters" fail to
follow up with hard questions? Why not
stick to a point and work it from all angles.
So often, they just seem to accept
whatever they are told.
Howard Kurtz: With all due respect, the question "how do we know you're telling the truth right now?" is likely to elicit a rather predictable answer. And Rumsfeld could be right - the original NYT story said only that disinformation was a possibility for the Pentagon office, not that it had happened. What did elicit a newsworthy response was a question by Tim Russert that Rumsfeld answered by saying he might have to shut down the office.
San Francisco, Calif.:
What is the future of MSNBC?
Howard Kurtz: Beats me. MSNBC, which is running third in the cable news wars, is still trying to figure out what it is. It launched five years ago with a high-tech show and with young commentators known as "the friends" sitting around Secaucus and mouthing off about everything. Then it went with heavily political shows - Keith Olbermann, John Hockenberry, Ollie North & Paul Begala. Then it went to a lot of taped programming - Matt Lauer's headliners and legends, and an hour of sensational crime stories. After 9/11 it moved back to more live programming and has just hired Alan Keyes. In short, MSNBC is still trying to figure out its identity.
Boston, Mass.:
Fox News has Fred Barnes as one of its panelists every night. Is it proper for them to disclose that the publication he works for is also owned by NewsCorp? I see the CNBC reporters always mention that GE is their parent company.
Howard Kurtz: It would be a good idea for those who don't know that both are part of the Murdoch empire.
Greenwich, Conn.:
Why is the press dumbed down to give infotainbment to the lowest common denominator in Madison Avenue's marketing world?
Howard Kurtz: Maybe because the mass audience demands dumbed-down information rather than tuning into Jim Lehrer and Brian Lamb.
New York, N.Y.:
Howard, if I've learned anything about journalism from my experience as a reader, writer and editor it's to not believe everything you read in the papers. I think most people assume that newspapers, because of the very dispensible nature of the beast, aren't in the game to serve truth. I hate to be a cynic about it, but you've got to admit that journalists make mistakes. They don't tell the whole story. They pass on bad information gleaned from other people's mistakes and sins of ommission. You of all people should know to be critical of what you read in the papers.
Howard Kurtz: Yes, absolutely, journalists make mistakes. That's why newspapers run corrections every day. It just seems to me that if a paper like the Chicago Trib runs something very specific - Ken Lay had a sleepover party with Bill Clinton - that the reporter probably made a phone call to check out whether that was true. But you're right that we all need to be careful about this. The harder situation is when a newspaper runs a story based on unnamed sources that is difficult or impossible for other media organizations to check.
Washington, D.C.:
As I understand it, President Bush (and many Republicans) may actually benefit from Shays-Meehan because it raises the hard money limit to $2,000 (meaning the President's "Pioneers" need only work half as hard to raise the same amount of money). Why, then, the fuss from the generally Republican friendly conservative media? Do they really believe in the free speech clause of the First Amendment that strongly (perhaps odd given that many of these same people are not so protective of the establishment clause)?
Howard Kurtz: Well, it's certainly possible that they oppose the bill on principle. There's a serious First Amendment argument here about limiting contributions that might be described as "speech." Another issue is the bill's ban on outside groups running ads that name a particular candidate 60 days before the election. This may be unconstitutional, as critics say, and would give the media more influence at the expense of groups ranging from the National Rifle Association to the AARP. On the party front, though, I think the lack of soft money will mean that the Democratic candidate will be off the air for several months after winning the 2004 nomination, while Bush will be on television constantly by virtue of being an incumbent.
Re: Syracuse:
You seem to be saying that reporters
shouldn't ask questions if they know what
the answer might be. Wrong! It is
important to ask, for the public record, so
that we can hear the denial.
If Rumsfeld said "I am not lying right now"
that is different than him saying "C'mon,
now, that question is ridiculous", or "how
could you even think that?" as he often
says. Non-denial denials are qualitatively
different than outright denials, I think.
I'd like to hear the answers to questions
we think we know the answers to.
Howard Kurtz: That's not what I'm saying at all. These Sunday shows are looking to make news - to produce a headline that will be picked up by the morning papers. "Rumsfeld Reiterates He Is Telling the Truth" is not likely to fall in that category.
Washington, D.C.:
Wouldn't forcing journalists to follow an "equal or greater prominence" corrections standard do wonders for these problems? If you screw up a front page lead, then the correction goes front page itself?
Howard Kurtz: I think that's a terrific idea, particularly for front-page stories. The New York Times and Boston Globe have done this in high-profile cases. But good luck trying to enforce it.
Fairfax, Va.:
What does it say about the editorial priorities of outlets such as Time, Newsweek and NBC News that they hyped the Canada/Russia figure skating controversy to such a degree? In the post Sept. 11 world, shouldn't the media have come to the realization that there are certain issues slightly more urgent than whether or not figure skating judging is fair?
Howard Kurtz: Well, in their defense, it was a story that everyone was talking about (the Olympics got huge ratings this year). It involved international intrigue and allegations of vote-fixing that seemed to threaten the credibility of figure skating itself. The story was hyped, but it was a legitimate story. And maybe news organizations liked the idea of a little sports escapism after so many months of bad news.
Washington, D.C.:
Howard
Do you think the media are over-playing Daniel Pearl because he's one of their own? Similar to the anthrax stories that targeted media personalities, ensuring that they would get a lot of play. I think it is an unbelievably horrific story, and deserves front-page treatment. I'm not sure if it should have the "legs" that it appears to have.
Howard Kurtz: There's no question that the Pearl murder got bigger play than would have been the case if some unknown American businessman had been kidnapped. Journalists are human (you may be surprised to hear) and obviously identified with the tragedy that befell this lovely guy who happened to be a reporter. But in a larger sense, Pearl was undoubtedly targeted precisely because he was a journalist, just as the anthrax attackers sent the first letters to Rather, Jennings, Brokaw and the Florida tabloids. The kidnappers knew this would bring saturation media coverage. Finally, Pearl was risking his life (as many foreign correspondents routinely do) to gather information for the public. That's in part why Bush and Musharaf took the matter so seriously - the sense that journalism itself was under attack.
Baltimore, Md.:
Why are the mainstream media refusing to cover Bush's ongoing gaffes, which are widely reported by the foreign press? In one recent Guardian account, Bush referred to Pakistanis as "Pakis." Last week in Tokyo, Bush said "devaluation" instead of "deflation," sending the Yen to an all-time low against the dollar. Why are you guys covering for this moron?
Howard Kurtz: You wouldn't have a strong point of view on this, would you? The "devaluation" mistake was certainly widely reported. But who cares about his mispronouncing names at this point?
Washington, D.C.:
I have a general question on a follow up to an earlier post. Just as the Presidential debates make the candidates go through mock exercises for tough questions, doesn't the Sunday talk show circuit do the same for the cabinet members? I'm getting tired of Russert asking a direct yes or no question, and the person coming back with "Well, you must consider" or "let me put it this way." Sort of reminds me of the Reagan "teflon" days. Or maybe I'm just getting tired of the Sunday talk shows. Do they, in fact, get drilled?
Howard Kurtz: I think the shows ask reasonably tough questions. But the game is that the guests come fully prepared to duck most of those questions. No interviewer, no matter how aggressive, can force someone to answer a question he or she is determined to duck. What the best interviewers do is to ask the question two or three or four times until it is acutely obvious that the guest is refusing to answer.
Alexandria, Va.:
Concerning the skating medal controversy, when you say the media wouldn't have gone haywire if the couple had been Czech or Chinese, I hope you mean that it's the jingoism or racism of the media, and not their audience, that directed the reporting. I don't know anyone who wouldn't have been just as interested and concerned, no matter who the victims. I wonder if anyone at the networks (or the Post, for that matter) has really considered that the fault is theirs, not ours. Remember, we just swallow what they feed us.
Howard Kurtz: I'm not suggesting racism here. I'm saying that photogenic, English-speaking athletes make better guests for Larry King (which is where Jamie Sale and David Pelletier quickly ended up). I'm saying there was more sympathy, among journalists and among American and Canadian audiences, for Sale and Pelletier than there would have been for the Russians had the situation been reversed. A Cold War reflex, if you like.
Sunday Shows Make Headlines:
Wow, news shows are to make
headlines? I thought they were for asking
questions and getting at the truth.
I think you point out the problem in
defending yourself re: Syracuse -- these
aren't news shows. They are platforms for
getting government information, spin, out
to the U.S. They know that by saying
something on a "news" show, others will
pick it up and it will be spread effectively
throughout the "news" system.
Seems a bit totalitaian to me, but hey,
that's the new America.
Howard Kurtz: Totalitarian? I don't think so. Officials come on and journalists press them for answers. What would you prefer - live lie-detector tests? Truth serum? Browbeating under a bright light?
Philadelphia, Pa.:
How do you think the new rules regarding FCC limits will affect the media. Will we eventually have one or two media outlets? Would that create more media bias?
Howard Kurtz: There's no question that a court ruling directing the FCC to lift restrictions on how many local stations the networks can own will lead to greater consolidation and corporate control than in the past. And that rauses all sorts of troubling prospects for folks who care about news.
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: Cheating at Silver Spring International? at 1 p.m. EST
Wilbon
and Kornheiser: The Chat House at 1:30 p.m. EST
Travel
Talk at 2 p.m. EST
New
iMac: Pegoraro Video Live Online! at 2 p.m. EST
Entertainer
Sandra Bernhard at 4 p.m. EST
Astrologer
Charlene Lichtenstein at 6 p.m. EST
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 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
