Boston, Mass.: Howard,

Why do stories about budget cuts only happen after a major accident? As is being done with the space shuttle? Doesn't the media have a responsibility to report on what could happen when budgets are cut?

Howard Kurtz: Because journalists have short attention spans. Because most don't report on unsexy budget cuts until after a disaster has taken place. Because we're too busy chasing stories about sharks and missing women and cloning claims from people who believe in space aliens. Because even when the stories are reported they don't get picked up by television.

Bethesda, Md.: Hi Howard,

What did you think of Buzz Aldrin's comment in his New York Times op-ed that people who don't manage to conquer their fears of high-tech flying or space travel "wash out of flight school and become journalists"?

Howard Kurtz: A lot worse has been said about journalists. Though a number of reporters did apply to fly on the shuttle back when NASA was promoting such a possibility years ago.

Alexandria, Va.: Why do we do this? On Saturday, the four networks and all the news channels were in full disaster mode showing the same footage with the same talking heads saying the same things most of the day. Granted, there was new info when NASA had its conference and when President Bush spoke, but most of the day was repeating the same information over and over again. So why do we do it, and how come I couldn't turn it off on Saturday?

Howard Kurtz: What you're seeing is the raw stuff of how journalism is practiced -- lots of questions, few answers, incremental progress. There are two reasons for the repetition of the coverage. One is that TV execs believe this is such a big story that they shouldn't break away to cover anything else -- say, Iraq -- because people are in mourning and hungry for scraps of information. The other is that they've got nothing else -- with no new info and 24 hours to fill, you get a lot of the same search for debris/profiles of the astronauts/talking heads on the future of the space program.

Falls Church, Va.: After the tragedy on Saturday, I was struck by how well (in my opinion) the media in general covered the event. There were no hysterics, no rampant speculations, mostly "just the facts" and an overall somber, respectful tone by ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN. The glaring ommission was NPR -- Scott Simon was great, as always, but the ensuing coverage left much to be desired. Specifically, "Talk of the Nation's" dubious call of opening up the phone lines to listeners and witnesses of the shuttle tragedy. To have callers pipe up about the oncoming possibility of war, to try and tie in an anti-war bent on this tragedy, was beyond inappropriateness. It was unconsionable. Seven of the best and brightest were killed, and NPR was trying to get an on-air protest going on. I don't support the war either, but for crying out loud- this was a tragedy! Some people have no shame. Our tax dollars at work, yet again.

Howard Kurtz: I'm not sure I see the problem with letting callers weigh in. Radio is an interactive medium; why not take advantage of it? As with any radio program, some callers will be insightful and some decidedly not. As for the somber, non-sensational tone of the television coverage, I'm reminded (with 9/11 being the latest unfortunate example) that the media do pretty well at chronicling disasters. These are stories that don't need to be hyped or pumped up because they already contain the full range of human drama.

Washington, D.C.: Two NASA legends were on either of the 3 cable channels this weekend: Dr. Story Musgrave & Buzz Aldrin. Aldrin stated that in the early days of the 60s & 70s NASA was always doing things for the first time. Therefore public interest was always sparked about the space program. I agree. Today we take for granted the shuttle lift-offs pretty much the way we take for granted something as routine as for instance 'airmail.'

Howard Kurtz: Hard to argue with that, when there were 113 previous shuttle flights. But that sense of routine, it seems, prevented much of the media from asking difficult questions: Was the shuttle safe enough? Was its mission outdated or worth the risk to human life? Why exactly do we keep pouring money into the space station?

New York, N.Y.: Howard,

In today's Media Notes, you report on Bush's warm-up speech to conservative pundits. Is this a common occurance? Did Clinton give the liberal press a glimpse, or Bush Sr. or Reagan give the conseravtive press a preview?

Howard Kurtz: It has become routine for presidents to invite the big network anchors and talk show hosts to the White House to brief them on the State of the Union. Clinton certainly did it. But I can't remember a president calling in columnists of one political persuasion for such a briefing -- and then allowing his words to be quoted as a not-so-secret "senior administration official." What made the session even more unusual is that Bush, unlike most previous presidents, never calls supportive commentators to schmooze and take the political pulse. So maybe this was a way of rewarding Barnes, Novak, Noonan etc. with a bit of access all at once.

Forest Glen, Md.: To support the non-stop coverage this weekend, I think another reason for it was that it was a Saturday morning, and people were learning the news at various hours, so continual recaps were obviously necessary.

Although I still hate the tickers on the bottom of the screen. All they did was summarize what the person speaking JUST SAID!

Howard Kurtz: That's become the new style in cable -- caption highlights for viewers who are barely paying attention, or not capable of figuring out what the person just said.
Even if it had been a weekday, we'd have seen the same nonstop coverage, because television always assumes that people are tuning in and out, joining the programming late, and so on, which is one reason for all the recaps.

Washington, D.C.: I am amazed at how quickly the networks can get 'experts' up on the air. Do they just have a list of people on speed dial? Are they on commission or something?

Howard Kurtz: The bookers all have magic Rolodexes - war experts, terrorism experts, legal experts and, now, space experts. A couple are consultants on the payroll - and we'll probably see some added this week -- but most are simply well-informed people who can explain things on television and likely have done it before during some previous disaster. What was equally telling was the way correspondents with experience covering the space program - say, NBC's Robert Bazell and CNN's Miles O'Brien -- were sharper, at least at the outset, than the generalists.

Rockville, Md.: I was listening to Imus this morning and his tirade about the shuttle disaster. He was speaking, if you can call it that, to Jay Barbree and Bob Bazell about the fact that some scientist two days before the accident warned NASA that something bad could happen because of the damaged tiles. Imus seemed intent on exposing some cover up. As far as I know, he has no expertise in anything except inciting people. To his credit, Barbree told Imus to slow down and not be so intent on looking for something that had not yet been proven. Why do they let people like him on the air and please don't tell me that people like me listen. He really seemed intent on taking a national tragedy and blaming it on someone.

Howard Kurtz: Imus would be the first to agree he's no space expert. His role is to be provocative. But sometimes the average-guy questions he asks lead to more revealing responses, at least from politicians, than in garden-variety interviews.

Magnolia, Ark.: When Pres. Bush seemed to gloat about the killing of al Qaeda operatives during the State of the Union, it reminded me of the moment he mocked Karla Faye Tucker's request for a reprieve to her death sentence. I don't think that's how a Christian deals with death, however righteously dealt. What has been the response around the country to those remarks? I would expect even liberals would summon some sense that those were not honorable words, and were the most troubling part of his pseech.

Howard Kurtz: The truth is it hasn't gotten that much attention. A couple of media types have commented that the wording was kind of crass and cowboy-like, but I don't think anyone's working up a great deal of sympathy for unfairly maligned al-Qaeda terrorists.

Arlington, Va.: I was very impressed with Dan Rather who, after discovering a hoaxer who hung up calling Dan an idiot, acknowledged that he was an idiot while apologizing for being fooled. And then he moved on.

Howard Kurtz: That's the right way to handle it. But what kind of clown thinks it's fun to pose as a fake eyewitness after a shuttle explosion has killed seven people? That's the real idiot.

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Kurtz, Is it just me or is the media over dramatizing its coverage of Columbia. I'm certainly sad for the families of these astronauts, but I don't get the sense that the "nation is grieving" as so many news anchors put it yesterday. The space mission is fraught with enormous risks so I wish the media would not act like the world has ended when one of these risks proves deadly. This seems like a unfortunate hangover effect of Sept. 11 coverage. Then it seemed appropriate, now it seems like a way to keep viewers.

Howard Kurtz: I guess it depends on where you sit. It seems to me that there are many millions of people who are grieving over this and fascinated by the science and drama involved, while others simply look at it as the equivalent of a plane-crash story. If the coverage gets high ratings, that's another way of saying there's a big audience for this. At least the tragedy raises important questions about the future of space travel, human risk, government safety efforts, etc. I'm reminded that the coverage was nearly as intense over the plane-crash death of JFK Jr. which, while very sad, raised none of these larger questions except why the media go so bonkers over celebrities.

Washington, D.C.: I suspect this won't be a popular perspective, and I mean no disrespect to the amazingly accomplished and brave astronauts and their families, but I thought the coverage was overblown on Saturday. There was no new information, mostly just chatter. It was respectful chatter, appropriately, but while the event was a horrible tragedy I just didn't see it as big enough news to warrant 8-12 hours of coverage on every network. We have CNN for that. I mean the fact is, if you send people to outer space 113 times, things are going to go wrong. It's like military accidents: with all those weapons and machinery around, accidents happen and when they do sometimes people die. I fear I'm sounding terribly cold hearted, but I thought the coverage was overblown.

Howard Kurtz: Well, I can't argue with the fact that it's overblown and there's little new information. There probably ought to be more attention given to other stories, even if only for 10 or 15 minutes every hour. But there's a simple option for those who think this is excessive: turn it off.

Washington, D.C.: Howard -- Your colleague Tom Shales sharply criticized CBS for ending its nonstop coverage at 4:00 to show a golf tournament -- suggesting that the network were putting dollars ahead of public service. My view is that they had been on the air for nearly 7 hours - and basically hadn't had anything new to report in about 5 hours. So I thought it was perfectly reasonable. What's your take?

Howard Kurtz: I'd agree. It wasn't like, say, a war, where the action was still unfolding. And in the cable age, there were at least three news networks staying on the air with the story while the broadcast guys switched back to sports and entertainment. It's in part a financial decision, of course, but it's hard for me to criticize CBS after seven hours of coverage.

Tickers/Captions: Of course tickers and captions are good. A lot of times people watch TV without the ability to hear (restaurant, barbershop, storefront window). This allows viewers to listen or read. The only negative is that it shortens the height of the TV image.

Howard Kurtz: Good point. Also at health clubs. But it can feel a little spoon-fed if you ARE listening to the sound.

Vienna, Va.: Do any networks, cable stations or newspapers have dedicated NASA correspondents that are not assigned to cover other beats?

Howard Kurtz: The major organizations all have correspondents who specialize in NASA and have covered many space flights over the years (Kathy Sawyer at The Post, for example). But since there's a lot of down time between missions, these correspondents tend to cover other science stories as well.
This just in: The cable networks have switched to Ari Fleischer taking questions about, among other things, Iraq -- the first non-shuttle coverage I've seen since Saturday morning.

Arlington, Mass.: Howard --
An informal survey of friends in my age group, all of whom were in elementary school during the Challenger tragedy, showed that while there is great sympathy for the loss of lives, this doesn't rise up to the level of "where were you when [XYZ] happened" of the Challenger or 9/11. Seems however, that the media is aggressively promoting the hyper-importance of the event to a nation already numbed by 3,000 dead in a terrorist attack. Any comment?

Howard Kurtz: There may well be a generational aspect to this, with the tragedy having greater meaning not just to those who recall Challenger but who lived through the Cold War drama of the moon missions of the 1960s. Those who came of age when shuttle flights were as common as the Delta shuttle don't recall a time when men like John Glenn were considered heroes for risking their lives by going up in a space capsule.

Rockville, Md.: To get off the shuttle topic, what was the rationale for the long article in the Style section over the weekend on the Liberty ship attack. There was no new news and no anniversary to tie it to. It seemed just a gratuitious rehashing of an old and well covered story.

washingtonpost.com: The Attack On Liberty (Post, Feb. 1, 2003)

Howard Kurtz: I guess the fact that the debate continues on Web sites and other modern-day forums.

Dupont, Washington, D.C.: I'm very interested by the Columbia coverage because on first seeing the news Saturday morning, I was positively transported back to my desk in high school. It was an odd juxtaposition, because I remember how big a national tragedy Challenger seemed to me while Columbia seems like a drop in the bucket.

It's really quite a terrible thing, I think -- September 11 did a lot to quantify tragedy, for me at least, and I don't really like it. It should be a tragedy when even one person dies -- but compared to 3,000, or even the X number from anticipated future attacks, seven seems minor.

I wonder how long those attacks will continue to force macabre dealmaking on the American rationale.

Howard Kurtz: I think the significance of the Challenger story is not the seven casualties -- after all, more people die on the highways on a typical weekend -- but the fundamental questions it raises about human risk and the future of space travel, not to mention the spectacular nature of an explosion 39 miles high that rains debris on the earth.

Fairfax, Va.: Prior to this catastrophe, were any media outlets doing serious investigative work on the possible impact of NASA budget cuts on shuttle flight safety? I find it somewhat disconcerting that the same TV and cable networks currently so fascinated with these astronauts' life stories showed little or no interest in the mission over its first two weeks, so that had a routine landing occurred very few Americans would now be aware that an Israeli ex-soldier and Indian-born scientist were on board. Do you think there will now be consistent media attention to future U.S. space efforts and due recognition of those who enlist for these missions, or will coverage tail off dramatically as was the case following the second or third post-Challenger shuttle launch?

Howard Kurtz: The investigation will get a lot of attention but that will eventually fade. As for past media efforts, all I can say is that I didn't turn up much during a Nexis search of media reports over the last year. I'm sure there were a couple of exceptions, but by and large the press was no longer putting much investigative energy into NASA.

Bethesda, Md.: How far in advance is the Post's Sunday section (Style, et al) made up in advance. I think in the case of breaking national news it is a disadvantage in as much as the Post had to scramble to put out a special section on Sunday which, in my opinion, was well done. Will any thought be given to changing the delivery of sections that report on dynamic news (Style) as compered to static (Travel, The Arts, etc.) news?

Howard Kurtz: Sunday Style goes to bed on Friday night, but that is slated to change soon. I don't think we'll see any change in the pre-printed sections such as arts and travel, if only because it's impossible to print all of a huge Sunday paper the night before.

Frederick, Md.: What was the point of reporting -- as CNN did without context in a "crawl at the bottom of the screen -- that a few Iraqis viewed the shuttle explosion as "retribution from God?"

To me that's nothing more than a news network trying to make hay out of a tragedy. Did it really tell us anything insightful about the Iraqis? Or about ourselves? Did it provide any perspective at all on what happened?

Your thoughts?

Howard Kurtz: I'm afraid I disagree. The hostile reaction of some Iraqis and Palestinians was reported in a number of newspapers, and it says a great deal about the level of hatred that people in these countries have no sympathy for the astronauts and their families, simply because they come from America and Israel.

Re: All-Day Rehashing: Another point to be made about the all-day rehashing despite no new news, is that not everybody tuned it at 9 am, and had heard it all by 10: Those who tuned in later could reasonably expect that they would be getting what -- for them -- was news. Turn it off when you think you've heard all you need to hear!

Howard Kurtz: That's one of the points I've been trying to make. If you're sitting at home watching, it can get exasperating after a couple of hours. But people go out, work, see a movie, take their kids to soccer practice, then come home and flip on the TV to get the latest news. In that context cable is more like a public utility.

Hartford, Conn.: I've noticed that Donahue is spending more and more time on his program devoted to examining far-right policies. Daily his show is about topics like "angry white men who want all foreigners to leave" or "the religious who feel that anyone who doesn't accept Christ is going to hell." If that's his view of republicans, no wonder he marginalizes them as extremists. Do you suspect he has an agenda to paint the right wing this way?

Howard Kurtz: Donahue makes no bones about being very liberal, and part of what he does is try to goad the other side (not unlike what conservative hosts do to the lefties). "Angry white men" was a weeklong theme on the show.

Arlington, Va.: How do you think the timing of the Columbia disaster will impact the overall success of the President's FY 2004 budget proposal?

Howard Kurtz: It will have no impact on Bush's budget proposal (except perhaps for the NASA portion) but will all but obliterate coverage of the budget that's being released today, which ordinarily would be one of the media's top two stories.

Washington, D.C.: The media should be more skeptical of these self-serving government advisory panels like the NASA aerospace safety advisory panel. A committee on safety will always say do more on safety and increase the safety budget. A committee on snack food will say buy more snack food. Did they anticipate the specific cause of Columbia’s failure? I doubt it.

Howard Kurtz: That's a fair point, but such commissions can also point out weaknesses and problems that otherwise would be papered over. The Gary Hart-Warren Rudman panel on America's vulnerability to terrorism, widely ignored at the time, was such a case study, and got lots of attention after 9/11 -- just as is happening now with the warnings prior to Challenger.

Houston, Tex.: I've noticed that many of the network reporters spent the weekend asking NASA reps tough questions about safety. My question is where were all these reporters before this tradgedy occured? Space shuttle safety is not a new issue, and it seems very sad that it takes such an awful tradgedy to make the media care about it.

Howard Kurtz: That's the question I asked in my column this morning. The chairman of NASA's advisory board told a House subcommittee last April that "I have never been as concerned for space shuttle safety as I am right now...The current approach is planting the seeds for future danger." The only reports I could find on that testimony were carried by the Orlando Sentinel, AP and Gannett. The truth is that the shuttle flights had become a back-burner story, and the media coverage reflected that.

Silver Spring, Md.: This morning I saw TV broadcasting antennae in front of the Air & Space Museum. Big event at the museum? Some link between the museum and the Columbia? I suspect they are there just to provide video wallpaper for reports about the shuttle tragedy. Heck, why not broadcast from an airport -- they have things that go up into the air. But the stations feel that they must cover any and every angle there is -- and several that aren't really there -- when such an event occurs. Not much real info but they feel they have to say SOMETHING, and keep saying it, or they are shirking their duties. I wish that they would cover the background of foreign affairs stories this extensively.

Howard Kurtz: "Man on the street" interviews have been a television staple since the dawn of the medium. If the big story is the Super Bowl, reporters go to sports bars. So it's hardly surprising that the Air & Space Museum would become a popular backdrop.

RE: NPR and Anti War calls: This clickster seems to have a problem with NPR in general, and now he (this MUST be a guy) wants to connect it with the right wing, Anti war/Anti American label. When callers phone in, you get what you get, and I'm sure Scott Simon was fair and objective, as he always is. If you want only right wing opinions, watch Fox News. By the way, NPR gets a fraction of it's operating costs from public dollars -- a small price to pay for decent news, info and entertainment; otherwise we'd have no alternative to the junk that commercial stations ply junk like Don and Mike or Howard Stern. Blecch!

Howard Kurtz: Duly noted. I'd think the Challenger disaster is one story that doesn't fall into the usual conservative/liberal debate framework. Who would be in favor of unsafe shuttle flights?

Washington, D.C.: I agree that we needed to informed -- and that is the job of the media. However, I turned on the devastating news at 9:30 a.m. -- and for at least two hours all that was showing was the blue sky with Columbia falling apart -- that was horrid. There were lives there. Where was the respect for their families? I understand flashing the site periodically for new viewers -- but it was steady. I'm glad I didn't have family there.

Howard Kurtz: There's no way to avoid showing the pictures of what happened. My problem is when they were replayed over and over until they became like video wallpaper. The same thing happened on 9/11 -- and after complaints from people like me, the networks finally stopped showing the WTC footage endlessly and gratuitously.

San Francisco, Calif.: This weekend caused my opinion of the people in broadcast news to fall sharply. I watched very little television because for about 24 hours, every time that I turned on the TV I was disappointed to see that programs were still being preempted for news reports of the space tragedy. It would not be so bad if they had new information to report, but almost everything I heard was the continuous repetition of what was reported earlier. What is your evaluation of television's repetitive coverage of this weekend's disaster in space?

Howard Kurtz: They were, in my view, caught in a bind -- an important story with huge public interest and almost no new information to report. The result is what you saw: repetition.

Virginia: Howard -- Excellent chat, as always. More comment than question, I guess, but I am saddened that I (and, I fear, we as a nation) have grown so calloused and fatigued by unspeakable tragedy that the Columbia breakup, while sad, is not devastating like Challenger was. Wall-to-wall coverage of hellishness from JonBenet to Chandra to 9/11 has simply burned out our compassion. Thanks.

Howard Kurtz: I hope that's not true. But I suppose if the media trumpet everything as a HUGE NATIONAL TRAGEDY, you use up the vocabulary for when something really does warrant that description.

Baton Rouge, La.: It's been interesting to see how the international press (even beyond Israel and India) have covered the tragedy. Sympathy, of course, and also some discordant notes. But overall, there seemed to be real respect, admiration, and fascination with the astronauts and by extension with a nation that sends men and women to explore space. Given general attitudes toward the US lately, it was rather comforting to see.
International publicity may not by itself justify the manned space program (although it was basically the original motivation). Even so, it's a pretty substantial benefit. Also, the fact that people elsewhere see it this way provides confirmation that it is a valuable -- even noble -- undertaking.

Howard Kurtz: Nice observation. But actually, the original motivation behind JFK's big space push was beating the Russians and their Sputnik program to the moon.

Alexandria, Va.: I found interesting your note about Christopher Knight of the LA Times using an art review as a platform to press his political views about Bush. I'm a fan of his as an art critic (in D.C., you really have to look outside the area to find solid art criticism), but his excuse seemed remarkably disingenuous. Do papers have any firm rules about reviewers and critics inserting the kind of gratuitous political statements that he did, or was his case just so egregious that the editor felt it couldn't pass?

Howard Kurtz: There are no hard and fast rules, but obviously someone reviewing a movie, TV show or art exhibit should not use that occasion as a soapbox for their views about politics -- at least not in a newspaper. Some opinion is fine -- they are critics, after all -- but at some point the reader wonders what this has to do with art.

Washington, D.C.: I'd be interested in your thoughts on the Wall Street Journal's editorial today about the opinion piece by the European leaders supporting Bush. Thank you.

Howard Kurtz: The Journal is feeling a tad defensive about having solicited the op-ed piece by the eight European leaders, and then covering it as front-page news. I didn't have any great problem with it. For the eight leaders to sign such a piece at this point in the Iraq showdown is news, as long as the paper's role in orchestrating it was fully disclosed, which it was.
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:
Behind the Screen: Desson Howe, 12:30 p.m. ET
Post Magazine: 'Performance of Their Lives', 1 p.m. ET
Sports: The Chat House, 1:30 p.m. ET
Travel Talk, 2 p.m. ET
Politics: The Budget & Performance, 2 p.m. ET
Rob Pegoraro: ISP Directory, 2 p.m. ET
Weather Warriors: NBC4's Bob Ryan, 2 p.m. ET
Weather Warriors: WUSA9's Topper Shutt, 3 p.m. ET

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

   |      |