Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

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 his headline Post article today, Lee Hockstader writes: "Western criticism of Israeli aggression has generated sympathy for the Palestinian cause." ("Israel Plans Big Assault If Truce Talks Fail," Post, March 25.

Do you think that this sort of pejorative characterization of Israel belongs in a news article, as opposed to an editorial?

Howard Kurtz: That doesn't strike me as a particularly editorial statement. It's either true or not. Israel has drawn a lot of criticism around the world for its recent actions. As I noted the week before last, self-proclaimed Zionist Geraldo Rivera accused Israel of practicing terrorism. But my print edition has a different headline on the Hockstader piece: "Israel Plans Big Assault if Truce Talks Fail/ Army and Government Back Aggressive Action."

Washington, D.C.:
Hello Howard,

I know how you probably hate this topic, but with the success of FoxNews as the #1 cable network, Rush as the #1 talk host, could you possibly consider that they are #1 precisely because they are conservative outlets for news/analysis and that Americans are flocking to them because they've had enough of soft leftward bias in the mainstream media? If you think they are just successful creations for a conservative market and if you think the overall media is mainstream how do you address the lack of a liberal cable network or liberal talk radio hosts?
Thanks a lot. I think Media Notes is one of the freshest features in the Post.

Howard Kurtz: Thanks. I don't think there's any question that Rush and Fox have found an audience in part because many conservatives feel alienated by the mainstream media. I don't think they appeal only to conservatives, but Limbaugh in particular is constantly hammering the press for a left-leaning bias. Hard-core liberals may not feel the need for a "separate" network, and libs have failed to come up with compelling personalities in talk radio who could build an audience even a fraction of Limbaugh's. Maybe Carville will carry the banner when he starts (albeit it only part-time) at Crossfire.

Kansas City, Mo.: Howie,

Considering the flap over the Post having an ex-American Spectator writer review "The Hunting of the President," how did the Post repeat that by having another ex-American Spectator writer review David Brock's book. I read the limited explanation but there was no mention of how Bawer was picked in the first place.

Does this have something to do with the Post's coverage? Last year the Columbia Journalism Review's asked "How do editors explain to already distrustful readers why favorable reviews of The Hunting of the President could be found only in papers not cited by the authors in their "most damning indictment" of the press?" Any comments?

Howard Kurtz: I wrote critically of the assigning of the first review to an ex-Spectator person. While Book World's offense is a little less egregious in this case - Bawer left the Spectator before Brock got there and, more importantly, didn't reveal the connection to the editors -- it was still a bad move. They clearly need to press reviewers more aggressively about whether they've got any ties to the author or the major institutions described in the book being assigned. But there is no Post agenda here; weeks before the review, I wrote a lengthy piece on David Brock and his book that most people seem to regard as fair (though some conservatives say I wasn't hard enough on Brock).

Alexandria, Va.: Quite a few people have been saying that "Hardball" has gone downhill in the past few months: Chris Matthews' ego has totally gone out of control, he doesn't let his guests get a word in edgewise, he doesn't understand foreign policy (which now dominates the news). Do you agree with this criticism?

Howard Kurtz: Chris is a knowledgeable and provocative guy, but I've always felt he talked too much on the show. He seemed to be reining it in for awhile. As for his ego, it was fully on display in his recent verbal assault on Ted Koppel and Jim Lehrer, the subject of last week's column. At least he had the good sense to apologize for going over the top.

Reston, Va.: Mr. Kurtz

Love your columns and chats! Very insightful.

I wonder what your take on the Oscar coverage is? Do you agree with the columnist who said that all the fuss/focus on the first black leading actor and actress pair just shows how far we have yet to go, or do you think that is is just a reflection of the "news" aspect to the story -- America's first three black leading oscar winners all in one night?

I personally was thrilled, and was pleased to see all the coverage -- though normally I wish the Oscar nonsense would get off the front pages.

Thank you.

Howard Kurtz: "Firsts" are always considered news. I had no problem with all the focus on Halle Berry and Denzel Washington, particularly after learning that no black actress had won top honors in the long history of the Oscars. When I was growing up, there were no blacks in lead roles on TV shows; Bill Cosby's debut on "I Spy" was considered a big deal. So while I found the usual hype over who-was-wearing-what a bit much, the racial angle, in this instance at least, really can't be ignored.

Bethesda, Md: In the 'More Headlines' section of your on-line front page, the first two items are 'Bush: Democrats play 'Petty Politics'' and 'Lott Keeps Senate Tied in Knots'. Now, I'd say there's a point being made there (which I agree with), but someone with different views could complain about editorializing, right?

Howard Kurtz: Sheer coincidence, I'm sure. We ain't that organized.

Northwest Washington, D.C.: Why is the heavy Jewish presence in the media never examined by said media beyond excoriations of antisemites like Nixon when they talk about Jewish media “control?” The Jews do maintain a heavy presence in our major media, and this minority group having such a presence and influence relative to their numbers should be discussed. I think the Post should explore this topic as thoroughly as it dissects other issues, notwithstanding the discomfort it would cause many members of your paper. Would you agree with me on this, Mr. Kurtz?

Howard Kurtz: Let me check with the gang at the synoagogue.

Arlington, Va.: I am not a "movie" person and find Hollywood tiresome so I generally skip the Oscar coverage, but this morning's Style section notes that the event was marked by "Gray Sobriety" and "Maturity." Is adult behavior a bad thing? Will editors everywhere be happier when celebs start acting like juveniles again?

Howard Kurtz: I think the point was to suggest that things are more subdued in the post-9/11 era. But also, it's hard to find a theme when covering the Oscar parties from the outskirts. You can't just write that everything was the same as last year. We're talking hardship assignment here.

Sterling, Va.: Mr. Kurtz,

In today's media notes, you mention that the Republicans received over 24 million from various sources including energy concerns. Yet you fail to point out that the Democrats just received over 12 million from two individuals. Does this mean that Democratic donations are somehow more "clean" than Republican donations. That Democrats are not tainted by the money they recive, yet Republicans are guilty no matter what. Its attitudes like this that make conservatives hate the major media outlets like Washington Post and New York Times.

Howard Kurtz: I didn't say that; it was in an excerpt from a Time magazine piece. I don't recall offhand if Time dealt with the Dems as well, but that's why we provide links, so those who are interested can get the full story. Tomorrow's column will include an item hitting Democratic fundraising, by the way. We're equal-opportunity harassers here.

Washington, D.C.: What is your take on the flap at PBS regarding Louis Rukeyser and his Wall Street Week program? Is this another Ted Koppel incident, or what? Seems to me that MPT/PBS is "killing the goose that laid the golden egg."

Howard Kurtz: It's not fair to compare the sacking of Rukeyser to the Koppel fiasco, because PBS is replacing Wall Street Week with another (supposedly hipper, I guess) financial show as opposed to a comedy/variety show. But there are similarities in that Rukeyser, like Nightline, drew a very loyal and sizable audience, but one that was definitely on the older side of the scale. What makes PBS's move harder to understand is that unlike Disney/ABC, it doesn't have to worry about catering to advertisers who want to peddle beer to 18-to-34-year-olds, since PBS doesn't sell ads.

Chicago, Ill.: Howie,

The Post and the New York Times had rather defensive editorials trying to justify the 10-year Whitewater investigations and their reporting.

My question is why didn't the media mention or question the fact it took four investigations (Fiske, Pillsbury, Senate, Ray) to clear the Clintons? Were the Clinton's were right; no matter how forthcoming they could be there would always be more questions?

The story the Post and Times seem to have missed is that this was a coordinated attack and many in the media were willing participants.

Howard Kurtz: Seems to me that, editorials aside, both papers (and the rest of the media) have made clear that these investigations went on way too long. The Post and Times editorial pages, in fact, were among Ken Starr's sharpest critics. The media also seemed to acknowledge the time-capsule investigations of these reports by giving both the Monica and Whitewater reports relatively modest play.

Response to Northwest Washington, D.C.: Howard -- your response to Northwest D.C., though amusing, was a bit on the glib side. But my question is -- how about examining the fact that the major news media are controlled by white men? That bothers me. It affects the stories and issues that are covered. For example, it divides up news into "real news" and "women's issues." I say healthcare and education are not "women's issues" they are American issues. I wish the (truly) male-dominated media would stop marginalizing and insulting women in this way.

Howard Kurtz: I have written numerous times that white men dominate the major news organizations at the executive level. (It's far less true at middle levels and reporter ranks, not to mention anchors like Connie and Paula and Greta and Ashleigh). There are some signs of change: the editors of USA Today, the Chicago Tribune and the Portland Oregonian, among others, are women. The Washington bureau chiefs of ABC, CBS, CNN and Fox News are women. But there's a long way to go. I do think, however, that most news outlets realized more than a decade ago that so-called "soft news" was no longer aimed at women and that everyone is interested in those subjects.

Hartford, Conn.: You haven't been watching much PBS lately if you don't think they "sell" ads. Ads that appear on CBS routinely appear on PBS. PBS may "charge" differently, but the result is the same.

Howard Kurtz: Obviously they sell corporate sponsorships, but you don't see people frolicking on the beach to promote Miller Lite.

Washington, D.C.: I'd like to second the comment from the person who noted the article about the somber tones at the Oscars. I haven't watched the Oscars in 25 years, too much fluff for my taste. But I'd say that so much of the media is now dominated by the HOLY GRAIL chase for the 20's - 30's age group that any program that DOESN'T feature cleavage and decadence (which is so sought after as entertainment value by that age group) gets panned. I suggest a new law requiring EVERYONE working in the media to be over 40 years old. What's your take?

Howard Kurtz: I think a few zillion people in their 20s and 30s might take vigorous exception to that idea. And how would the 40-plus types keep track of all the navel-bearing Britney Spears characters in movies and music?

Washington, D.C.: Last week, in a Post Live Online chat, car columnist Warren Brown wrote the following about bias in the media:

"We are taught in journalism school that our mission as journalists is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. But no one ever explained what gives us the right to do that. No one ever suggested that the comfortable are not inherently evil because they are comfortable, or that the afflicted are not inherently virtuous because they are afflicted. So, the tendency in the general media is to view anyone who makes a profit as comfortable. That tendency is coupled with the erronious notion that profit and truth are mutually exclusive commodities. So, when an auto company says that something like a CAFE rule is unfair, we tend to scoff. We prefer, instead, to believe the Sen. Kerrys, Joan Claybrooks and Clarence Ditlows, because they have declared themselves on the side of the angels. We don't question them nearly as closely as we question General Motors.
There's also this: We tend to believe that any nonprofit group is telling the truth because the group is, well, nonprofit. We overlook the fact that nonprofit groups hustle for monbey just like any other organization. The difference is that they don't report a net gain from income. They have not dirtied themselves with profit. They supposedly have nothing to gain by saying what they say, or doing what they do.
It's time that we in the media take away that carte blanche believability from nonprofit organizations and start treating them the way we treat everybody else."

Your thoughts?

washingtonpost.com: "Reel Wheels" March 20, 2002 transcript

Howard Kurtz: I don't agree with the first part. During the 90s the media lionized Jack Welch, Bill Gates, Sumner Redstone, Jeff Bezos, Meg Whitman, Steve Case, other dot-com zillionaires, high-flying day traders and others whose lives are dedicated to the pursuit of big bucks. In fact, you were made to feel like an idiot if you weren't playing the stock market. Enron also got great press before the fall.
I do think Warren makes a great point in saying that too many reporters regard non-profits or "public interest" groups as do-gooders without an agenda, rather than applying the skepticism they generally bring toward corporations and industry groups, and that's a mistake.

Vienna, Va.: While I am not a marketer and am not commenting on the decision to drop it, I watched the Lou Rukeyser show occasionally and found it about as exciting as sitting in a dentist's office. Completely cut-and-dried -- SAME routine EVERY week, same format, puns and jokes interjected, three regular guests, one special guest, Lou interviews special guest, each panelist asks one question. I could follow it in my sleep (which often followed). Always stocks -- almost never bonds. Different conclusions reached every week by the panelists. How is an investor really supposed to make an intelligent decision?
Needless to say I was not very impressed with it.

Howard Kurtz: I do think the format seemed frozen in time and that the program needed to be modernized (though Rukeyser saw himself as providing a thoughtful oasis in contrast to the frantic nature of the cable biz shows). Whether the host had to be jettisoned after 32 years in order to accomplish that is another question.

View from the Holy Grail: Hi there. As a wicked, immoral 32 year-old I'd like to respond to the crusty old fogey who refuses to watch the Oscars because of the inflatable, decadent people therein. I have news for you: most consumers of pornography are men in their 40s. So I think you're barking up the wrong tree. As for the Oscars, yes, the Oscars is a shallow parade of shallow people in a shallow business. That's the point. It's shallow. It's also entertaining, so lighten up.

Howard Kurtz: Don't know where you got that figure, but I agree that the Oscars doesn't pretend to be anything but a self-important awards ceremony for the movie biz. And it's only once a year. And anyone who didn't care about A Beautiful Mind (great movie, by the way) or Moulin Rouge could have watched the NCAA playoffs instead.

Rockville, Md.: What is your take on the comment in the Ombudsman column Sunday suggesting that Israel is covered more critially since it is held to a higher standard. "Traditionally, the Israeli government has been held... to a higher standard... and so when countries that are democracies... then engage in actions that would appear to be in violation of that self-image and those commitments, that's also news."

Howard Kurtz: I believe it was a Post editor quoted as saying that, and he's right. Israel is held to a higher standard because, as a democracy, it holds itself to a higher standard. That is, it renounces the indiscriminate killing of civilians. So when it engages in military action that results in numerous civilian deaths, the criticism is harsher than would be the case toward militant or terrorist groups that have no compunction about massacring civilians to score political points.

Boston, Mass.: Howard, how dare you take a vacation! I had to conduct my own daily news/media watch roundup for a whole week.

Every time you do an online chat, lots of people who are smarter than I am ask all the questions I'd generally ask if I was smart enough to articulate them.

So I want to ask you about a whole area of the media I never see in your column or in your chats - sports media.

To me, sports media -- newspaper beat writers, the columnists, ESPN, all the hysterical sports talk radio call-in shows -- provides an incredible experimental model for studying how people's perceptions and opinions can be manipulated and exploited.

Do you have any sports writers or talk shows you regularly keep tabs on?

Howard Kurtz: I don't see the sports media as manipulating and exploiting people. I see them as capitalizing on one of America's obsessions and, in radio's case, providing an outlet for fans to argue about something that is fun, if ultimately unimportant, and that millions of people feel passionately about. Sports taps into people's natural tendency to root for the home team, for the underdog or the best athletes (which is why my paper now has a reporter who does nothing but cover Michael Jordan).
I've always liked Keith Olbermann. I like the new ESPN show with Post columnists Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon because they spend a lot of time yelling at each other.

Clarksville, Tenn.: Seems to me like the DAvid Brock book is gettig the most attention online; though he has done some interviews on TV. I'm about have 2/3rd's of the way into his book (it's a juicy read) and he's really demostrated that the media is neither liberal or conservative but primarily pro-sensationalism.

His book did a pretty good job of giving reporters the black eye -- at least to the degree that too many reporters were simply reporting what was reported by others without really investigating or considering the source for themselves. I'd be interested in knowing if you've read the book (or if you plan to read it) and if the book is creating any buzz from where you are since your in the news business. Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: The Brock book has created plenty of buzz and I've both read and written about it, as I noted earlier. I've written about various Brock controversies for a decade and am mentioned in the book in connection with his 1994 decision to come out of the closet. Many conservative publications are more or less ignoring the book because they're mad at Brock for defecting to the left and don't want to give him any publicity, even negative publicity, which can also help sell books.

Harrisburg, Pa.: When I first heard MSNBC was launching a show called "Alan Keyes Makes Sense," I thought: How interesting, MSNBC is branching out into science fiction. Do you have any opinions and comments on Alan Keyes?

Howard Kurtz: Keyes was always kind of interesting as a presidential candidate because he's a great orator who had absolutely no chance of winning. I'm not sure he quite works as a TV talk-show host, and his ratings so far have been pretty low.

The PBS flap: Louis wasn't jettisoned to make room for the new format. He was jettisoned because he complained bitterly on the air about his distaste for the new format -- in other words, he took his side of a contract dispute directly to the viewers. Big difference.

Howard Kurtz: He was jettisoned, in my view, when PBS told him it was revamping the show and axing him as the host, offering him a commentator's role instead. AFTER that, Rukeyser used Friday's appearance to castigate PBS and seek support for a new program, after which the network understandably kicked him off the air before his contract expires in June.

Washington, D.C.: Hey Howard. I hope I can sneak this one in before the show wraps up.

Re: so-called anti-Israeli bias. I will admit that I am very sympathetic to the innocent Palestinians who are abused by the IDF, who have their homes, families and livelihoods destroyed. But I must say I do not think the Post has shown no anti-Israeli bias recently, nor has it shown an anti-Palestinian bias. I think the Post's recent coverage of the problems in that part of the world has been balanced and compassionate without coddling either "side." (I wish people wouldn't divide things up into "sides.")
Thank you.

Howard Kurtz: I'll defer to your good judgment. It's a very difficult (and dangerous) part of the world to cover, for all kinds of obvious reasons, and too many of those who hurl "bias" charges around are partisans of one side or the other. It's hard to say at this point that the media have played down the killing by either side.
Thanks for the chat, folks.

| |



	<img SRC="washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/redesign/adv_discusssion.htm" width=125 height=110 border=0>