|
Media
Backtalk
With Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 11, 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.
Washington, D.C.:
Howard,
On rare occasions, when the magnitude of a news event merits it, the New York Times or Washington Post will quickly put out a book assembled from their coverage of the story. We've seen this most recently with the election fiasco in Florida but also with, for example, the first moon landing and the 1965 Northeast blackout. I've been looking for a detailed hour-by-hour account of Sept. 11, similar to the book The Day Kennedy Was Shot, and figured either the Times or the Post would quickly produce a detailed chronology, but so far that hasn't been the case. Any idea if such a project is in the works from any of the big news organizations?
Howard Kurtz: There are lots of 9/11 books in the works, but if the Times or Post is assembling one, I'm not aware of it.
Woolford, Md.:
If Letterman chooses to stay at CBS, does that ironically leave ABC with both Koppel and Nightline as the most sound business choice for ABC to retain in the 11:35 slot, and therefore leave Koppel and an angry ABC news division in need of mollifying and perhaps with more leverage with ABC than before the Letterman-Nightline debacle?
Howard Kurtz: There's no question that feelings are raw at ABC and Nightline. But if Nightline remains on the schedule (not an absolute certainty, even if Letterman stays put), my sense is that Koppel & Co. will work harder than ever to put on a good program and prove the naysayers wrong. The irony of all this is that Nightline is consistently neck and neck with the Late Show in the ratings, sometimes beating Letterman, but draws a somewhat older audience that is less attractive to advertisers.
Annapolis, Md.:
Hate to beat the dead horse, but...
I've been rather intrigued by the fact that Virginia's budget problems have been A1 news in The Post several times over the past few months, while Maryland's almost always are the front page of Metro at best, and often stuck inside the Metro section (I don't recall that they've ever been on A1, except when an article has focused on Virginia).
There are no doubt a number of rational reasons for this, including the fact that Virginia is arguably in worse fiscal shape than Maryland (but wait until next year).
But could one reason be that Virginia's problems arise following the term of one of the most conservative governors in the nation (with a Republican legislature), and that Maryland's problems arise after decades of domination by Democrats, and four years of solid politics by one of the most liberal governors in the nation?
Howard Kurtz: With apologies to out of town readers:
I think the reason is that Virginia has a new governor (Mark Warner) who has just fought a royal battle with the legislature over allowing local jurisdictions to raise taxes, while Maryland has an outgoing governor (Parris Glendening) who's had no huge battles and is attracting more attention for having married his deputy chief of staff.
Burke, Va.:
Howard,
Is it the sheer scale of the death and destruction in New York City that reduces the Pentagon crash on Sept. 11 to an askerik in all the stories on the anniversary? Or is it that the WTC essentially happened in the media's backyard in New York City?
Howard Kurtz: You can never overlook New York's role as the media capital as a factor in news. But if 3,000 people had been killed in Washington and a couple of hundred in New York, there's no doubt that D.C. would be the primary focus of all the post-9/11 coverage. The attack on the Pentagon should never be overshadowed, but the plain fact is that it was exceeded by the sheer horror of the collapse of the twin towers.
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.:
The war coverage kind of toned down for a while until American troops once again were killed. What happened here? Did the focus blur because the headlines went away? No real good stories therefore no intense interest? And when will someone in the press give the full thorough exhaustive investigative treatment to the war in Afghanistan instead of the usual passing out of the cookie crumbs from the daily Pentagon press teas? Filtered news is like diluted coffee -- unsatisfying. Thanks much.
Howard Kurtz: I wouldn't agree with your "toned down" description. Once the Taliban were toppled, there were many very good stories about the new government in Afghanistan, civilian casualties from past U.S. bombing, violence among rival warlords -- all filed by an influx of reporters who had been unable to get into the country, or roam around much, while the war was raging. Obviously, U.S. troops back in combat -- and American casualties -- propels the story back to the top of the evening news and the top of the front page.
Lorton, Va.:
During the Letterman-Nightline toss around, one name I've heard a few times is John Stewart. Do you think we could be seeing him on broadcast TV during the 11:35 slot? If so, will the Daily Show just become a launching point for people really hoping for late-night network TV?
Howard Kurtz: I'm a big Jon Stewart fan. Sooner or later he'll be on network TV. But I wonder how the networks would react to his edgy, anti-establishment, mock-everyone approach. I can't see him amiably chatting up celebs on the couch about their latest movie.
New York, N.Y.:
Howard, I'm puzzled by the Post's slowness to cover the Bush administration's nuclear plans that the New York Times and Los Angeles Times broke this weekend. Is the Post out of the loop on this?
Howard Kurtz: Well, I certainly can't say The Post was on top of it. The L.A. Times deserves the credit for breaking the story on Saturday. The NYT front-paged it on Sunday, crediting the LAT. Such stories can be difficult to confirm, but I don't know if The Post tried or just missed it.
Short Hills, N.J.:
The journalism issue du jour is clearly the Letterman/Koppel affair. Is it possible that many or indeed most journalists reporting on this (and we are approaching information overload here) are failing to see that this is not an ethical issue, e.g., a wonderful, straight news program done in by greedy corporations, but is a simple question of
supply and demand which ultimately will be sorted out by our private enterprise system?
Is it not apparent that there is simply much more news being supplied these days than there was when "Nightline" started out. At some point might there not even be enough news at all hours of the day and night to satisfy the insatiable demand that journalists seem to think the consuming public ought to have? When "Nightline" moves to cable I will probably even watch it once in a while, during Letterman reruns.
Howard Kurtz: Clearly not a Nightline fan. Look, television is a business, and all programs rise or fall on their numbers. But on that theory, why not replace all news shows with semi-nude mud wrestling, Tonya Harding v. Paula Jones boxing matches and other dreck? Keep in mind that the networks are given free use of the airwaves by the federal government, and licensed in the public interest. Therefore, they have some minimal responsibility to do things like cover news. Is there so much news around that Nightline has become redundant? That's a legitimate question. But if news can only get on the air by getting better ratings than Friends or E.R. or Letterman or Leno, it will lose every time.
New York, N.Y.:
Howard,
In regards to the whole "Nightline" issue. I think it shows that Americans have not learned anything from Sept. 11 when networks will fund celebrity boxing over news programs. Even the cable news has very little news. Its mostly talking heads. In this new age of sound-bites, how can the news divisions compete against the entertainment divisions?
Howard Kurtz: Ultimately, people will vote with their remote controls. But I don't agree that cable has very little news. At night it's mostly talk and opinion, but during the day there are actual correspondents going out and covering actual stories in places like, say, Washington and Afghanistan.
Philadelphia, Pa.:
How is Bush's relationship with the press different than Clinton's? It seems that Bush keeps the media pretty far away?
Howard Kurtz: Clinton had more news conferences, and he would occasionally call a few favored columnists and chew the fat. But Bush has been reasonably accessible. He takes at least a few questions from reporters most days at photo ops and appearances, even if he does fewer full-scale press confernces. Before the State of the Union the president had Brokaw, Jennings, Rather, Russert, Schieffer etc. over for an off-the-record lunch. The press, obviously, would like more access, but that issue has died down in the wake of 9-11.
Arlington, Va.:
One of my favorite part of The Post is the ombudsman's column, but I wonder how much influence he truly has. Palestinian gunmen and suicide bombers are still not identified as terrorists, and stories that should have received more attention stay buried and never seem to get a follow-up. Does the ombudsman have any influence in either the newsroom or on the editorial staff, or is he just a screen behind which the Post staffers hide? washingtonpost.com:
Ombudsman column archive
Howard Kurtz: Michael Getler is undoubtedly the most influential ombudsman in years, but in the end he's only an internal critic. He critiques the paper in internal memos and his Sunday column, but has no power to change anything -- in fact, he's a contract employee with a limited term, to preserve his independence. I don't get your point about reporters "hiding" behind the om -- he's criticized a number of them (and their editors) by name. Then again, if Getler was the most popular guy in the newsroom, he wouldn't be doing his job.
Pittsburgh, Pa.:
What role can the media play in the next elections as far as voter turnout? I was disappointed to read that California only had a 35 percent turnout last week.
Howard Kurtz: The media can cover the hell out of elections (the California primary, with the big Riordan upset, certainly got plenty of coverage) and try to drum up interest in politics. But ultimately it's up to people to decide whether they want to go to the polls. Some folks are turned off by the superficial and horse-race nature of much political coverage, but I hardly think that's the main problem when two-thirds of voters decide to stay home.
Woolford, Md.:
Howard, thanks for your response to earlier question re: "Nightline." To put it another way, was the outpouring of support for Koppel and "Nightline" unexpected by ABC and will it translate to more leverage for those supporting serious 'hard news' coverage within these networks now controlled by entertainment companies? Will moves against "Nightline" now be more difficult for ABC?
Howard Kurtz: ABC obviously expected some backlash for moving against Nightline, but I think Disney and ABC executives totally underestimated the severity of the response. Some made it worse by going out of their way to trash Koppel and Nightline as irrelevant and worse, making it appear they had little appreciation for news. On the other hand, you can hardly blame the network -- which, like the other, is part of a larger conglomerate -- for wanting to make something like an extra $100 million in the 11:30 time slot. Whether they'll still try to put Nightline to sleep if they fail to land Letterman remains to be seen.
Reston, Va.:
In his Outlook piece last weekend, George Will goes after the New York Times and The Post for the alleged appearance of corruption in their support of campaign finance reform. The assertion is that both papers have regularly held up the appearance of corruption as a standard for public ethics, but that both papers have violated their own standards in their support of campaign finance reform. I have personally always felt that The Post's endorsement of campaign finance reform was quite dubious since the paper itself has a personal interest in seeing the legislation passed, since it would strengthen the hand that the press can play in terms of shaping public opinion by partially muzzling competing voices. But Will suggests that both papers had a significant financial interest in how Shays-Meehan was shaped in terms of broadcast airtime donated to candidates. Do you think this is true, and if so, didn't The Post have an obligation to disclose its own financial interests in the many editorials it wrote which applauded campaign finance reform allegedly on the merits? washingtonpost.com:
A Matter of Appearances (Post, March 10, 2002)
Howard Kurtz: At least The Post allowed Will to accuse it of corruption by running his column! The First Amendment argument -- that if you restrict the right of special interest groups to run ads or donate soft money, it will inflate the media's power -- has certainly been covered in the news pages. But I agree that the Post Co., NYT Co., Tribune Co. and others that own television stations should remind readers that they do have at least a small financial stake in this debate.
Arlington, Va.:
Actually John Stewart does interview celebs on the couch on "The Daily Show." They're usually short interviews but sometimes wacky and other times very insightful. He seems to really do his homework. But I agree that the networks might be a little shy of his approach and attacks on the media. Although Bill Maher made the switch from Comedy Central to ABC. But I think the show got less funny when that happened.
Howard Kurtz: Good point. I know Stewart interviews celebs, but he doesn't suck up quite as badly as some others on TV.
Baltimore, Md.:
Do you think the Post and Sun have underplayed the "Glendenning marries aide" story? I didn't think so as it was happening, but I look at the saga now and it goes: "Governor has affair with employee 25 years his junior, appoints her to $100,000 job, divorces wife, gets girlfriend pregnant and marries her."
This seems like a blockbuster that the local media have been almost a little too tasteful with. I mean, imagine the frenzy if this story had involved Pataki.
Howard Kurtz: I think, for once, the play has been about right. The Post and the Baltimore Sun jumped on the story when it first came out, and The Post had a long Style section piece last week about the new first lady of Maryland, who refuses to talk to reporters. There's only so much you can do when the principals aren't talking, and I certainly don't think the story needs to be sensationalized.
New York, N.Y.:
Is Post reporter David A. Vise in trouble at the office for buying 20,000 copies of his book "The Bureau and the Mole" and returning 17,000, which looks an awful lot like he was trying to make his sales look more impressive than they actually are? Is this a common practice among "best-selling" authors? washingtonpost.com:
A Case of Strange Book-Keeping (Post, March 7, 2002)
Howard Kurtz: It's an extremely uncommon practice, which is why it's news. What David Vise did with his book while he was on leave has, at least technically, nothing to do with his job at The Post. But according to this morning's New York Times, Post editor Len Downie said on a local radio show that he plans to look into the matter.
New York, N.Y.:
I take it, Howard, that your definition of "reasonably accessible" is "willing to answer one or two questions at a photo op." Is your definition of "reasonably nutritious" "having the nutritional value of one or two crumbs?"
Howard Kurtz: But access isn't determined solely by how much face time reporters get with the president, who obviously has a country (and in this case a war) to run. The scorecard also includes the degree to which the press can get answers from White House officials, Cabinet members and staff. The record on that score is somewhat mixed, as it usually is. But this White House is determined to keep more records secret than in previous administrations. Just ask the GAO.
Washington, D.C.:
On the other side of the coin, I actually felt that George Will's Outlook piece on the Post and Times alleged "corruption" was highly inappropriate. It hints at his desire to censor the free press in favor of moneybag-bearing lobbyists. I'd rather the newspapers and other media outlets allow voters to shape their opinions based on the facts, issues and history rather than allow our corrupt campaign finance system to continue as is. Just the other side of the coin, Reston!
Howard Kurtz: I didn't see any "censorship" in Will's argument. But all this comes down to the question of whether campaign contributions are "speech." Those who make the First Amendment argument say it's unconstitutional to prevent any group, from the NRA to the Sierra Club, from airing an ad at election time (even if, inevitably, monied interests drown out the voices of those who don't have PACs). On the other hand, the Supreme Court has upheld at least some limits on campaign contributions, even if they are speech.
Arlington, Va.:
My point was that readers who find something wrong with the Post often write the ombudsman or the editor. The ombudsman may, and often does, agree that the Post was wrong or could have done better -- but the coverage never changes. No one goes back to do follow-ups on stories that did not recieve enough attention. No one in charge makes the decision that suicide bombers -- whatever their motivation -- will be described terrorists. I don't see the influence you describe; I see reporters and editors who shrug their shoulders and go one doing things the same (sometimes wrong) way.
Howard Kurtz: For one thing, the ombusdman's criticisms do have an impact on the coverage. Criticism of the use of unnamed sources may make staffers more wary of the practice. And I've seen instances where the Post has given more prominent coverage to stories that the om says are underplayed. But do you honestly think it's better at newspapers (the NYT is a prominent example) that refuse to hire ombudsmen, leaving readers with no one to complain to except hard-to-reach editors? The New York Times recently fired a contributor to the Sunday magazine who admitted having created a composite character in a story about impoverished kids in Africa. Number of news stories on this in the Times: Zero. If there was an ombudsman, I'm sure he would have felt compelled to write something about the incident.
Let me guess:
I am guessing that Glendinng is a Republican since all that juicy stuff wasn't reported for three months like Gary Condit.
Howard Kurtz: Parris Glendening is a Democrat and headed the Democratic Governors' Association.
Washington, D.C.:
Howard,
Much respect and all, but America has
lost its collective lid. Celebrating a six
month anniversary? What are we, a
teenager's first love? Anniversaries are
yearly events, no?
Will we celebrate the all-important eighth
month anniversary with this much gusto?
How about the year and a half
anniversary?
Come on, folks, this is sappy patriotic fluff
being offered up by the White House and
eaten up by media hoping to sell ad
space to companies with too much flag
clip art on their hands.
Let's work on something important, like
looking more closely at the rights we've
given up, or the way our soldiers are
being dropped like sitting ducks into
hostile areas.
Howard Kurtz: I'm not a fan of anniversary stories, as I said in my column this morning, but I think that's a little disrespectful toward all of those whose wounds have not healed in the six months since that horrible day. If they want to commemorate even a half-anniversary, I'm not going to criticize it.
Washington, D.C.:
Re: Nightline
Hey Howard, did you listen to NPR's "On The Media" yesterday evening? They did an interesting segment on the Nightline affair. Apparently, the households tuned into Nightline has three times as much TOTAL disposable income than those tuned into Letterman; plus the former is much larger in sheer numbers than the latter. So WHY do the suits not pay attention to this? Why does the quality of our news depend solely and completely on the fact that the 18-34 demographic group is believed to be (not proved, just believed) more fickle with its brand affiliation? There is something very troubling about this. Your thoughts?
Howard Kurtz: The 18-to-49 group rules America! It's as simple as that. I've never understood why over-50s, who have plenty of disposable income, aren't more attractive to advertisers. Apparently the explanation is that they are more settled in terms of the brands and purchases they like, and more easily reached, while younger folks are more fickle consumers and harder for companies to reach. So that any show that reaches large numbers of the desirable demographic is immediately worth more. Whether this is true doesn't really matter, since advertisers obviously believe it to be true.
Arlington, Va.:
I saw George Stephanopoulos reporting from abroad on ABC news last night. Has he been elevated from talking head to serious reporter? I think I also read he was a potential replacement for Ted Koppel? What gives?
Howard Kurtz: Stephanopoulos has been mentioned as a likely replacement for Sam and Cokie on This Week, not for Koppel. But yes, ABC thinks he's a star and has been trying to give him more prestigious assignments rather than have him be an analyst sitting in a studio. A couple of weeks ago he interviewed Paul Begala and Alex Castellanos for a segment on politics, which I thought was odd since Stephanopoulos worked with Begala on the Clinton team.
Boston, Mass.:
Howard,
Vice President Cheney is going on a tour of the Middle East. I read yesterday that his itinerary was being kept secret. I can't remember ever seeing a president or vice president's itinerary kept secret. Is this normal?
Howard Kurtz: No, absolutely not. But these are dangerous times.
NBC in the a.m.:
What is your take on the breathtaking fall of the "Today" show as a news program since Jeff Zucker's departure? It used to be pretty good, at least in the first half hour, but now it's nothing up updates on the dog-mauling and child murder trials, interspersed with pathos-drenched interviews of family members of dead or wounded servicemen. This morning, when they finally got to the "news" after 18 minutes of Sept. 11 coverage, they did only three stories: planes hit targets in Afghanistan, Crowe and Berry win SAG awards, and gold medalist Sarah Hughes gets a hometown parade. Can this horrible trend turn around?
Howard Kurtz: "Breathtaking fall" is a bit much, since the program is still No. 1, which is why Katie Couric is making $65 million and I'm not. Today and the other morning shows have always done a mixture of serious and silly stuff, Afghanistan and Martha Stewart. The fluff content made up as much as a third of these programs last June, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, but they got far more serious after 9/11. Now things are getting closer to normal. Couric was quoted recently as saying that Today's ratings may have dippped (in relation to No. 2 Good Morning America) because they stuck with the war too long. I guess they're making adjustments.
Washington, D.C.:
I prefer watching international news over American news shows. I watch France 2 and the English-German news on MHZ. I find the American news shows too pretentious and annoying. If I want American centered news, I read a newspaper or the Internet. What do you think of the international news shows?
Howard Kurtz: I like the BBC. I'm afraid I'm too language-challenged for the others.
Thanks for the chat, folks.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
