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.

Howard Kurtz has been The Washington 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 Game 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.: Kurtz, your position against anniversary stories is duly noted and appreciated. That said, however, don't you think most of the major media -- including your august employer -- are going way overboard in the Sept. 11 anniversary coverage? I can't bear to read another word about it, and I'll venture that most readers agree with me. Enough is enough, especially in light of the story on page A2 last week noting that "reliving" traumatic events in therapy has shown to be detrimental to recovery from said traumas. So, what is the obsession with the blanket coverage? To what demand do the media believe they're responding? Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: I've heard this from many people - including journalists - who say they're reading little of the special sections and issues and plan to ignore most of the TV coverage Wednesday. Obviously, millions of others will want to watch. But this is a classic example of the media's need to take over, package and merchandise every event. It's almost become a branding exercise; no news outlet wants to miss the opportunity to stamp its logo on the anniversary. I think there's something of a backlash brewing out there.

Alexandria, Va.: I see that Scott Ritter is in the news today, courtesy of Saddam Hussein. From what hear from your colleagues, does anyone take him seriously as a source of detached, expert analysis or is he regarded (my impression) as someone ready to set himself on fire to get attention?

Howard Kurtz: I'm not sure what my colleagues think, but I was stunned to hear that this former U.N. weapons inspector was visiting Saddam.

Villanova, Pa.: I read in Lisa De Morales' column last week that ABC's Good Morning America was tricked into promoting one of ABC's new fall shows. What do you think of this kind of behavoir, where the entertainment division pulls one over on the news division for the sake of promoting a show?

washingtonpost.com: When 'Push' Comes to Shove (Washington Post, Sept. 6, 2002)

Howard Kurtz: I'm less bothered by that than I am by the deliberate cross-promotion that all the morning shows engage in - Good Morning America covering Disney World's anniversary, for example, or CBS's Early Show interviewing the unfortunates kicked off Survivor. No one is red-faced over this stuff anymore.

Portland, Ore.: I was very impressed with the quality of the media coverage of Sept. 11 about a year ago. It seems one year later, our government has started arguing with itself again and the media is covering that. So there is a different feeling now, I guess we're secure enough to afford some dissent.

After 9-11, I don't recall anyone really questioning the President's motives. Now I see that all over the place.

How "back to normal" do you think the media is? I think stories like the kidnapped and missing girls (Oregon City, Salt Lake City, etc.) has shown some return to normalcy, but it seems to me that international coverage of events has grown to a larger slice of news coverage and has retained that size.

Howard Kurtz: There's obviously more foreign coverage, and more serious coverage of terrorism, security at home, etc., than there was before 9-11. But looking at the newsmagazines as a barometer, the summer has featured covers on Springsteen, Spider-Man, Tom Cruise, Dr. Phil, eBay, carbs-vs.-fat, etc. (Though Time and Newsweek today have Iraq on the cover.) Cable has devoted an unbelievable number of hours to child-snatchings (a couple of which have turned out to be custody disputes). And I haven't even mentioned Anna Nicole Smith. So the media have largely - but not totally - reverted to their old ways of doing business.

Arlington, Va.: Howard,

I do not need or want to be Reminded. Therefore I am limiting my TV viewing to the Weather Channel and OLN's coverage of the Vuelta a Espana.

When do you think it will be safe to venture into other channels?

Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: Not really. Even A&E, Discovery and the History Channel are joining the fray. Not sure if ESPN has an angle or not.

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: I'm still waiting for that exclusive, all-inclusive, total truth government report on who screwed up on 9/11 and why. I guess I'm looking for something like the Rand report on Vietnam, Pentagon Papers or the investigation into Pearl Harbor. Is this candid, no-holds-barred, mea cuplae governmental investigation coming out for publication soon? Did I miss it already? I mean, it's been a year already! Thanks much.

Howard Kurtz: You haven't missed it. Congress didn't even get serious about such an inquiry for the first few months after the attack, given that the country was shell-shocked. I haven't read a word about the timetable for any report. We had some leaks of information being turned over to the Hill during the summer -- resulting in an FBI investigation -- but the inquiry has been pretty much off the radar screen since then.

Washington, D.C.: Speaking of American Idol -- do you think Ms. Kelly was unable to sing on her talk show junket the morning after, or was it a ploy by Fox to not let her sing so she could be spotlighted by FOX and Fox only? After reading the article about GMA I wouldn't put it past Fox to make her feign her illness.

Howard Kurtz: I am shocked at the mere suggestion of such a possibility.

Easton, Md.: I've been waiting for someone with a public platform to say "Wag the Dog" about the administration's sudden and well publicized sabre rattling over Iraq. Am I the only one who thinks this is a crude attempt to divert attention from the current CEO scandals? After all, Saddam's been there for the past dozen years and there's been plenty of opportunity to take him out quickly and discreetly.

Howard Kurtz: Lots of commentators have talked about the TIMING of the current Iraq obsession and whether, intentionally or otherwise, it might shift the campaign debate from the economy, Social Security, etc. But I don't think many people believe the administration would take the huge risk of committing American troops to topple Saddam just for some kind of short-term political benefit. This is pretty risky stuff we're talking about.

Arlington, Va.: In view of both Sunday's ombudsman colum and your on-line comments, I'm curious as to what it will take to get the Post to print a retraction or correction admitting that the headline in the story concerning the court's rebuke of the justice department was, at best, misleading. Does the editor consider rebukes by the ombudsman and the printing of severla letters as a sufficinet admission that an error in judgement ocurred?

washingtonpost.com: Serena, the Court and the Summit (Washington Post, Sept. 8, 2002)

Howard Kurtz: I agree that the headline unfairly suggested that Justice Department abuses were taking place during John Ashcroft's tenure when it was actually events during the Clinton administration. I don't know why the paper hasn't run a clarification. But at least we have an independent ombudsman to reguarly whack the Post, unlike most other newspapers (including the NYT, LAT, USA and WSJ) that see no need for such an in-house critic.

Dupont, Washington, D.C.: This week I am: changing my clock radio from NPR to WPFW, eschewing all newspapers for a couple of new novels, and not turning on the TV except for rented videos.

I know what happened. I cried for days. Now give them all some peace, huh?

Howard Kurtz: Sounds like the Just Turn It Off movement is gaining some steam. I wonder how much company you'll have.

Washington, D.C.: With regards to Cuomo's dropping out of the governor's race last week, it seemed like the Clinton's were pretty fair-weather friends in his attempt to get the nomination and at times almost actively campaigned against him. Why wasn't more written on that aspect of his campaign? And I realize, Cuomo made many mistakes, but heck his former boss wasn't even there for him until he hung it up.

Howard Kurtz: My reading of it was that Bill Clinton helped arrange a graceful exit for Andrew but was in no way pushing him out. The Clintons were officially neutral in the primary. Though Hillary doesn't seem to have much of a relationship with Cuomo, I think the ex-prez was rooting for him. But it made no sense for him to campaign for Cuomo in an intra-party fight when the nominee could well have ended up being Carl McCall.

Harrisonburg, Va.: How does "Hardball" rate? I like Chris Matthews & he is very intelligent, but I can't watch it too long, it is so aggravating when he has such good guests but keeps interupting them and won't let them give their opinon.

If I may make a second comment, one of the best new talk shows that no ones gets to see is Buchanan & Press in the afternoons. They are both intelligent, have opposite views, but do not "scream" at each other. However, MSNBC interrups the program constantly for news breaks which really are "news." It is too bad.

Howard Kurtz: All the cable networks are interrupting their shows these days for these faux "breaking news" bulletins. Hardball has a strong following among the junkie set, especially since it was expanded to an hour. But you're hardly the first to suggest that Chris sometimes cuts off his guests at high volume.

Herndon, Va.: Seeing as how MSNBC is trying to make Ashley Banfield a star, are they succeeding? I watched her show for a while because she was going to hotspots like Syria that other mainstream journalists weren't headed to. Then I realized she was doing either interviews which made her look like a lightweight or filing lots of human interest stories. I've stopped watching her since she's come back here to cover the domestic stuff.

Howard Kurtz: Well, since we're talking about Ashleigh Banfield, she's obviously become a bigger name than most of the home-grown talent on MSNBC. I give her credit for getting off her duff and taking her show to all these places around the world. Most talk show hosts rarely leave the studio.

Centreville, Va.: What did the media do on December 7, 1942 or November 22, 1964 (the 1st anniversary of other significant dates)? Of course, for the former there was a war on.

Howard Kurtz: I was not around on 12-7-42 but my sense is that the ongoing war was a much bigger story than the Pearl Harbor anniversary. Plus, there was no TV to run it into the ground.

Fairfax, Va.: Howard,
I find the lack of attention to Iran in all this somewhat puzzling. If the rationale for attacking Iraq is that it is part of the war on terrorism, why isn't Iran a target? They have publicly, defiantly, supported, funded and are harboring terrorists. And I found Raspberry's comments this morning on the Iraq "insanity" extremely cogent. What makes our fearless leaders think that if Hussein HAS all these weapons, he won't deploy them as his last act? On Israel, on us, on whoever. Talk about destabilizing. I agree with Mr. Raspberry. This is insane.

washingtonpost.com: Our Insane Focus on Iraq (Washington Post, Sept. 9, 2002)

Howard Kurtz: Well, Iran is on Bush's axis of evil list. My sense is that the administration has been reaching out to moderate elements in Iran and hoping the country will turn away from support of terrorism. But even two decades after the hostage crisis, no one's saying these are a bunch of choir boys.

Los Angeles, Calif.: Howard, just wondering if you could put a number on how much the congressional session in New York, with more than 300 people making the trek from Washington, cost us taxpayers. You know, the one everyone said was just "symbolic." How many people could you feed for a year off of what they spent on travel, security, etc.?

Howard Kurtz: Let's see. A round-trip shuttle ticket is 400 bucks. Then you add in the staff, hotels, room service...Obviously this cost some money. But under the circumstances, I haven't seen anyone question it (until now). Keep in mind that Congress wastes all kinds of money on a typical day without leaving town.

Houston, Tex.: I know you have made your opinion clear many times that you think the media is going overboard on the anniversary. If you were in charge, how would you cover the anniversary? (I'm guessing not with six hours of the Today Show)

Howard Kurtz: At lower volume. I'd cover some of the ceremonies and talk to some of the survivors and have a couple of experts talk about What It All Means, but I'd also cover other news rather than create this bubble in which nothing else seems to be going on in the world.

Centreville, Va.: What does the media want more: ratings or respect? It seems that the two are mutally exclusive. My example is this summer. The cable channels hyped minor stories into sensationalism and lo and behold there is a poll out saying the media lost the respect it gained last fall.

Howard Kurtz: I don't agree that they're mutually exclusive. There's such a thing as putting on quality programming that people will actually watch (just ask Ted Koppel or Jim Lehrer). But if forced to choose, most news executives would rather have ratings (and keep their jobs) than self-esteem.

Washington, D.C.: A question about Fox News. They claim, ad nauseaum, to be "Fair and Balanced." Yet recently, they covered a Gallup poll that said President Bush's approval ratings were down. Brit Hume introduced this piece by asking, "Can these poll numbers be trusted?" Would he be saying the same thing if Bush's poll numbers went up? I really doubt it.

Howard Kurtz: Brit was regarded by the Clinton White House as one of the fairest reporters on the beat when he was at ABC, so I hope the answer is yes. And it's hardly unprecedented for TV commentators to question how a poll is worded and that sort of thing.

New York, N.Y.: Whenever these "wag the dog" theories come up, I'm always left wondering why no jouralist ever points out that a case could just as easily be made whenever the action in question takes place -- if before an election, it's only to influence the election; if after an election, it was only to avoid the certain judgement of the voters; if at some other time, it's only to distract attention from (whatever the other party is pushing as its issue of the day).

Howard Kurtz: I think this sort of thing turns on trust. If people believe a president is basically credible, they will tend to believe that he is trying to do the right thing, at least on questions of war and peace. If people are suspicious of the president, they will come up with all sorts of other motivations he might have. My point was that an invasion of Iraq is not like firing off a couple of cruise missiles (at no risk to American lives) to make a political point.

Springfield, Va.: Chalk me up to the many people who do NOT want to see anymore coverage or rehashing of the 9/11 event. My daughter saved the newspapers from last year -- ones in which pictures were published that will NEVER be published again (for good reason). If I want history, I can refer to those. I will never forget what happened, as long as I live but I don't feel I need to see or hear about it over and over again either.

Howard Kurtz: Duly noted. I must say I've been hearing from a lot more people like you than from people who are craving endless amounts of anniversary coverage this week.

Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.: Do you think that any media will ever give any space to people who are actually trying to place 9-11 in its historical context, not by stating that the US deserved it, but rather trying trying to investigate why American foreign policy makes so many people to despise the U.S. government?

Howard Kurtz: I've read a number of stories and columns on that very point. It's a subject more often explored in print than on the tube.

Virginia: I'm including this quote from an MSNBC article. It looks like Mr. Bush made the stuff up. How widely do you think this will be reported?

PRESIDENT MISSTATES ‘FACTS’
In his meeting with Blair, Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq’s impending rearmament. However, in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.

Howard Kurtz: That seems a fair way to report it. It may have been a misstatement by Bush, or the U.S. interpretation may be very different than the U.N. conclusion.

New York & Congress: I've read that the congressional trip to New York was "endowed" by a $1-million grant by some foundation or another, costing us taxpayers significantly less.

But I still agree with Los Angeles -- is there NOTHING else that could have been spent on than a symbolic trip so pointless that some representatives (who I now respect a lot more) stayed behind? I mean, wouldn't even taking some unemployed NY or DC waiters or cabbies out to lunch be a better option?

Howard Kurtz: I didn't know about the foundation. But it was a gesture of support for New York, which I can tell you from having visited lately, is still badly bruised by the attacks. Not a day goes by that people there don't talk about it, that local media don't cover the effect on the fire department, the rebuilding of Ground Zero, and on and on. So 9/11 is viewed very differently in New York than it is in most of the country, even Washington.

Washington, D.C.: I'd like to disagree with everyone who's complaining about the excessive 9-11 anniversary coverage. From what I saw this weekend, people have put forth a good effort in their presentations of events that have already been well covered. I generally agree that everyone's gone overboard with it, but the quality of the effort is commendable (so far).

Howard Kurtz: Ah, a voice from the other side. Obviously, the journalists involved are trying to provide nuanced and sensitive coverage of the most traumatic day in American history since Pearl Harbor. But it's the cumulative effect -- the blowing out of network schedules, the round-the-clock blather that actually started last week, the special editions and special sections -- that make many people feel the Fourth Estate is going overboard. Which is sort of our specialty these days.

Alexandria, Va.: ESPN does have an angle on 9/11 -- some documentaries about the effects on the sports world, and coverage of the NY Yankees home game (vs. the Orioles) which will begin later than usual due to the pregame ceremonies. I'm wondering what Kornheiser and Wilbon will be doing that day.

Howard Kurtz: I knew it! Thanks for the update.

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Kurtz, a compliment and a question. I love your column and read it regularly. I think you are the finest media critic in the biz, and your job certainly can't be an easy one. Now the question: How relevant do you think speaking fees and honoraria of reporters and columnists are compared to those for politicians? I ask because this past Friday, Reliable Source columnist Lloyd Grove discussed in his web chat Post columnist Bob Levey's speaking fees, which run up to $5,000 per appearance. Do you think this is relevant? Or is it like airing out dirty laundry best kept in the Post newsroom confines? Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: It depends on where the money is coming from. I don't have any problem with journalists talking to colleges and nonprofit groups. But there was an unfortunate trend in the mid-'90s of big-name media types speaking to corporations and lobbying groups that they also have to cover. I and others wrote about this a great deal, and some news outlets banned the practice (which was already against the rules at The Post and many other newspapers).

Washington, D.C.: I for one am glad that Congress made that special trip to NYC. Those people have had an awful year. The only one I heard complaining at all was Robert Bryd, and I assume its because Congress was not convening in West Virginia. Imagine if we lost the White House or the Capitol Building, and a year later people were telling us to move on. We need to show support for the residents there anyway we can, and that is what our Congressmen did.

Howard Kurtz: Nicely put.

Washington, D.C.: So what's the real story behind the US News Secret Service article? Is the Secret Service backing off of their protection of the Bush children, putting them at risk? And isn't it rather petulant of the White House to cancel an interview over the flap?

Howard Kurtz: If Laura Bush feels that her kids have been jeopardized by the level of detail in the U.S. News story, it's hardly shocking that she wouldn't be in the mood for an interview. This is, understandably, a sensitive subject for the First Family. Keep in mind that the Clintons once put out a statement blasting People magazine for doing a post-Monica cover story on Chelsea (even though the piece was largely favorable).

Alexandria, Va.: I thought CBS Sunday Morning did a good job on its anniversary show yesterday -- they didn't dwell on any particular aspect too much, and looked at it from the perspective of music and art as well. I don't think I can be bothered watching anything else.

What's your take on the Sunday talk shows yesterday, with some cosmetic changes at Face the Nation and the last show for Sam & Cokie?

Howard Kurtz: I'm sorry that Sam and Cokie can't continue to be part of the show once Stephanopoulos takes over. Donaldson, for one, has been on the program since the day it was launched under David Brinkley in 1981. But time marches on, and it will be interesting to see not just how George does but how ABC tries to update the show to better compete with Meet the Russert.

Bethesda, Md.: I agree that the 9-11 anniversary coverage has gone overboard but I was never naive enough to expect otherwise.
But the overuse of tragedy-related lingo is impossible to bear and difficult to justify in too many instances. Example: "... Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi... two American heroes..." yesterday in CBS, at the end of the match.

Howard Kurtz: Double fault?

Iraq: Well, of course this is risky stuff. Which is why everyone is wondering why, a dozen years after the Gulf War and a dozen months after the attacks on the U.S., this is suddenly so imperative. And with the Bush Administration so unwilling to give an explanation -- or even a unified voice -- on why it has to be Right Now, I do wonder about shady political motives. I certainly wouldn't put it past them.

Howard Kurtz: Repeat after me: Weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction.
The good news is that a full-throated debate is finally under way.
Thanks for the chat, folks.

| |



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