Dentsville, S.C.: When do you think we'll start seeing Democratic candidates taking shots at each other in earnest? Is the inevitable infighting necessarily a bad thing for the eventual nominee? I'm of the mind that pretty much everyone in this large and growing field brings an interesting point of view to the table and airing them out is good for the party.

Howard Kurtz: It's large and growing, all right. Other than a few potshots by Howard Dean, we're not likely to see hand-to-hand combat for many months. This is mostly a season for raising profiles and raising money. I'd say it will be late fall before the candidates start ripping each other. Last time around, Bush and McCain had a mutual non-aggression pact until the campaign turned ugly in January and February of 2000.

West Des Moines, Iowa: Howard:

Any thoughts regarding the Kudlow/Cramer Show on CNBC? It runs against Donahue and seems to provide an interesting contrast. To be honest, I have lost my ability to watch Donahue -- watching him interview Dennis Miller was a good example of his torture.

Howard Kurtz: As someone who has spilled much ink on Jim Cramer, a key figure in my book The Fortune Tellers, I like the show. It's a non-hyped alternative to some of the other cable offerings. The program has had more of a business focus lately but does best when it has interesting reporters and analysts on, as opposed to boring congressmen.

Boston, Mass.: Hey, Howerd. It seems like the Bush administration is successfully demonizing the French and painting them as cowards, with scarcely a shred of coverage to show the other side of the argument: perhaps the French are being principled and intelligent, and perhaps Bush and Rumsfeld are short-sighted and arrogant. Meanwhile, Russia and China are extremely reluctant about war, but the administration doesn't attack them in public because they evidently realize they can't afford to. Plenty of nations, both on and off the UN Security Council, oppose a rush to war. Why are the French getting all the bad press for making sense?

Howard Kurtz: Whether you agree with Chirac's position or not, there's always been an element of French-bashing in the American press, based in part on a perception of snooty Parisian superiority. It doesn't take much to bring this out, and the looming war has brought it out in spades (witness the NY Post potraying the country's UN delegates as weasels). The European press is also getting in on the action, with one tabloid picturing Chirac as a worm.

Fairfax, Va.: I heard on the local sports radio station that should war with Iraq start by mid-March, CBS is considering moving its highly popular NCAA men's basketball tournament games to cable TV. Are the broadcast networks really planning to go with round-the-clock coverage reminiscent of the immediate aftermath of 9/11 if and when hostilities commence, and if so for how long? The network executives sure don't seem to consider the prelude to war all that compelling to viewers - otherwise they'd be airing in-depth documentaries on diplomacy, weapons inspections and Middle Eastern politics instead of in-depth documentaries on Michael Jackson's plastic surgeries!

Howard Kurtz: There will probably be two to four days of saturation coverage once the war starts, before the broadcast networks return to more regular schedules. As for the coverage now, keep in mind that these are primarily entertainment networks who make money on sitcoms, sports and reality shows. There's no shortage of war stories on the morning and evening newscasts and magazine shows, but it's very expensive (in terms of lost ad revenue) for a network to preempt such gripping fare as The Bachelor and Are You Hot? to cover the looming war.

Alexandria, Va.: As the Post's media critic, I'd like your opinion on Paul Waldman's opinion piece in yesterday's Outlook ("They're Off, and Running the Same Old Story"). His argument that the media now plays the role that smoke filled rooms used to play makes sense to me. Also, the fact that the start of the presidential campaign seems to get earlier and eariler every cycle is due in some part to the media and political reporters wanting to get on to the next story. (Heck, it's only 2003 and some are already handicapping the 2008 race!)

Thanks!

Howard Kurtz: I've written myself that the press abhors a vacuum and is in a constant effort to anoint a front-runner. So I thought Waldman's piece was provocative. I don't agree, though, that the media's designated top dog always wins, or at least not because of the official press nod. The status can change, and while John Kerry may seem to have the momentum now, in six months it could be Edwards or Gephardt or someone else. So I wouldn't call off the primaries just yet.

Philadelphia, Pa.: When anchors ask the question of whether Bush can be beaten, why do they always intrduce him as a "very popular" president? Doesn't that immediately marginalize the Dem candidates? Yesterday, it was Wolf Blitzer who introduced it that way.

Howard Kurtz: Journalists keep score by polls. If a president is in the high 50s or above, he is said to be popular. Bush, of course, is coming off a period of extraordinary post-9/11 popularity. Naturally, reporters are going to question whether anyone in the Democratic field can knock off the incumbent. It's worth recalling, though, that few pundits thought the post-Gulf War Bush 41 could be beaten in 1992.

Harrisburg, Pa.: Howard,

Caught J. Garafolo on "Fox News Sunday" and thought she did a good job of presenting her views against the incessant interruptions of Tony Snowe; I was watching that very show in the hopes that Jeannine and Lil' Ricky would get into a debate on national TV. THAT would be worth watching!

Howard Kurtz: I spent 45 minutes on the phone with Janeane Garofalo, and interviewed her on Reliable Sources, and she is sharp. You can disagree with her antiwar views, and many people do, but she's no bubbleheaded celebrity. So it's not surprising that she did well on Fox and, two days earlier, on Crossfire.

Alexandria, Va.: Honest, I swear I'm not a Clinton partisan (I voted for the guy but did not really like or trust him) but it does seem like Washington reporters were meaner and much quicker to pounce on anything compared to President Bush. How has Bush managed to bring the White House press corps to heel?

Howard Kurtz: Whether the press was fair to Clinton or not -- and he certainly believes it was not -- the man gave his detractors plenty of red meat in the form of Lewinsky, Paula Jones, a major fundraising scandal, Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. Bush has had no comparable scandal involving his personal conduct, though there have been the usual questions about favors for campaign contributors. He also, quite obviously, benefitted from a rally-round-the-president effect after 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan.

Austin, Tex.: How many of the major networks' foreign correspondents speak the language of the place they cover? If, as I suspect, many of them have to rely on interpreters and can't even read the local press on their own, isn't this a real problem?

Howard Kurtz: Relatively few. And there are a lot fewer of them than there were 10 years ago. (Newspaper reporters are more likely to have studied the language before venturing overseas.) It's not a crippling disability, since they have local assistants and translators, but obviously a journalist who speaks Russian or Chinese or Japanese is going to have an easier time understanding the culture of those countries.

Arlington, Va.: Howard, on the New York Post's publication and retraction of an article about an anonymous Hall of Famer who resembles Sandy Koufax, do you buy the idea that even if the person was gay, there's nothing wrong with that? Even though there is nothing wrong, the people who wrote the article knew it was considered a negative.

Howard Kurtz: Yes - I buy the idea that there's nothing wrong with that. I could care less about Koufax's sexuality, particularly since he's been out of baseball and public life for so long. The NY Post item tried to have it both ways - put the salacious gossip out there with a wink but duck responsibility for it by not naming Koufax. It's nice that the paper apologized, but did so only because Koufax took on Murdoch by severing ties with the Dodgers (which the press baron also owns).

Arlington, Va.: Several print media stories on the worldwide antiwar demonstrations have featured the slogans of the marchers' signs, many/most of which have been aimed directly at Bush and members of the administration. Doesn't this play right into the right's criticisms both of the antiwar protestors' failure to criticize Saddam Hussein and of the perpetual claim of liberal media bias?

Howard Kurtz: I don't see how reporting on what protestors are saying is an example of liberal bias. If it points up their preference for beating up on Bush and giving the Iraqi dictator a pass, so be it. The danger here is that the media focus on a minority of demonstrators with harsh rhetoric or inflammatory signs, leaving the impression that they speak for the hundreds of thousands of other marchers.

Silver Spring, Md.: Bob Schieffer said Howard Dean is the one to watch because he had a sound bite Saturday at the DNC meeting ("I'm Howard Dean and I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.") Do you agree with that assessment?

Howard Kurtz: If you look at my online column this morning, you'll see that Howard Dean clearly stole the show at the DNC meeting. I've been writing about Dean for awhile, and the former governor clearly has catapulted himself from asterisk status to attention-getter with some of his blunt talk. But I also cautioned after interviewing him a few weeks back that the press has a tendency to fall in love with maverick candidates like Dean who ultimately fade in the primaries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57823-2003Feb24.html

New York, N.Y.: Howard,

Good morning. I was watching Fox News yesterday morning, and I noticed their panel consists of both Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol. Both work for the Weekly Standard, which I believe is owned by the same ownership as Fox News. Should this be disclosed?

Howard Kurtz: Well, they're identified as Fox News contributors, which means that whether they worked for the Standard or not, viewers would know that they're on Rupert Murdoch's payroll. And plenty of Fox viewers probably know that Murdoch owns the magazine as well.

Washington, D.C.: When a reporter or photographer is at the scene of an event at which a fire or other emergency situation develops that threatens many lives, what do you see as the responsibility of the reporter in terms of continuing to record the event versus doing all he can to help save lives? Obviously, I was not at the Rhode Island fire, and can't speak to the actions of any of the people who were there, but I admit that this question is prompted by video showing people stacked in the doorway, struggling to get out, as smoke billowed behind them.

Howard Kurtz: This is the classic question faced by war correspondents: are you there as a neutral observer or should you put down your notebook or camera and try to help people who need it? It's a decision that every journalists has to make for himself. If I were in such a situation, I'd find it hard to keep taking pictures if people were in danger of dying and I was in a position to help them. To me, being a journalist doesn't mean giving up being a human being.

Northfield, Minn.: Whoa! Regarding your answer just now to Alexandria and the Clinton press coverage -- isn't that exactly the point? You mentioned "Whitewater" "Travelgate" and "fundraising," all exhaustively covered and investigated, with no charges of any kind against the Clintons. Certainly Enron connections to Bush and Cheney raise as many questions as Democratic fund-raising and Whitewater, don't they? The earlier question raised a valid point that I have yet to see comprehensively addressed.

Howard Kurtz: I'm afraid I disagree. Yes, Whitewater resulted in no charges against the Clintons (though other folks, like Arkansas's governor, were convicted) and the coverage was, in my view, overblown. But the administration did a lot of sleazy things in its '96 fundraising, including courting donors with White House coffees and Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers, and taking money from people who turned out to be crooks and were later convicted. And, of course, Clinton did mislead the country on the Lewinsky matter. Enron is a legitimate story, but there is no evidence that the Bush White House lifted a finger to save Kenny Boy's company from bankruptcy (though its policies have certainly favored the oil industry). So it's important to make distinctions about these things.

Re: NewsCorp v. Koufax: I found it interesting that Keith Olbermann weighed in on the Koufax flap. Points for honesty for him saying that he was one of Murdoch's minions, but K.O. isn't exactly Mr. Sensitivity either. He left ESPN on less-than-good terms to take a lucrative position at NBC Sports/CNBC -- which he then promptly scuttled by grousing on-air about the Lewinsky coverage that his network (and all others) were focused on. When asked if his co-workers threw a going-away party for him, a crew member said "Yes. After he left."

Howard Kurtz: Perhaps he doesn't win any awards for congeniality. But that doesn't invalidate his criticism of the Murdoch empire for floating the Koufax rumor.

New York, N.Y.: Keith Olbermann, Man of Principle. Never thought I'd be saying that. It is rather impressive that he's returning his advance and severing ties. Can you think of any other instances where someone was so offended by the hand that fed them that they bit it?

Howard Kurtz: I can recall a case several years ago when Jonathan Broder quit Salon to protest its decision to publish information on a long-ago affair involving Henry Hyde (explicitly triggered by all the Lewinsky coverage). But such cases are very rare.

Bush's Credibility Gap: Howard:

I think there is a great bit of substance to the Dem's recent "Bush credibility-gap" strategy. And I'm glad to see that the free ride Bush has enjoyed might be coming to an end.

I was wondering whether the Post has any plans to compare what Bush says against what his administration actually proposes. For a court-appointed president who does not really have any kind of mandate from the U.S. public, don't you think the media has an extra-special "watchodg" role to play in this administration?

Howard Kurtz: I think the media have a watchdog role to play in every administration. And you're starting to see more tough reporting on this one. A few weeks ago, to take one example, The Post's Dana Milbank did a front-page story on how some of the president's statements didn't quite hold up, or stretched the truth.

Boston, Mass.: Howard,

Why does the media want Hillary Clinton to run for president so badly?

Howard Kurtz: Because political reporters think it would be a fabulous story -- former first lady trying to avenge the vast right-wing conspiracy and move back into her old home. Bonus points for getting to resurrect all the old scandal charges. And perhaps a bit of boredom with the current '04 field.

Springfield, Va.: Howard,

Do you think the American media has made the distinction between "anti-war" and "anti-American?" There is a huge difference between these two ideologies, especially in the European countries. However, I see the war protestors being marginalized as "anti-American." What do you think?

Howard Kurtz: Most of the media has made this very important distinction. Some commentators have been awfully quick to suggest that those protesting the war are giving aid and comfort to Saddam. I don't think much of the media are adequately covering the antiwar movement (except for the celebrities who keep getting on TV), but I don't think these folks are being marginalized. In fact, I'd also like to see more reporting on the very questionable views and backgrounds of some of the march organizers.

Washington, D.C.: Do you think the views from overseas are more anti-american or anti-Bush? From the front page article in today's post, foreigners seem to dislike everything about him. When was the last time a President invoked such harsh feelings abroad?

Howard Kurtz: Offhand, I can't think of one. Maybe LBJ as the Vietnam War turned into a quagmire. A BBC correspondent said on my show this weekend that much of the anti-American vitriol in the European press was directed at Bush personally. He's often caricatured as a gun-toting cowboy. To some folks abroad, Bush seems to be a bigger villain than Saddam.

Alexandria, Va.: Has President Bush set a new record for infrequent press conferences? It seems like this once vital forum for presidential communication is now nearly extinct. How big a deal is this in your view?

Howard Kurtz: A pretty big deal. Bush has held an amazingly small number of full-dress press conferences, and that's a shame. However, I can't make the argument that he's been inaccessible to the press. He often takes a few questions from the White House press corps, either at Oval Office photo ops or at appearances with foreign leaders or at the Crawford ranch. These are no substitute for a formal, half-hour news conference, and it's surprising that journalists haven't made more of a stink about this.

Council Bluffs, Iowa: Between George W. Bush, John Edwards, and now Carol Mosely-Braun, we've seen in recent years a good number of candidates with relatively little national political experience (although Mosely-Braun had a distinguished career in grueling Illinois state politics). What's driving this, apart from the "why not me?" syndrome you've written about? Do voters really have that much disdain for political experience? Gephardt's attempt to emphasize his experience notwithstanding, he does seem as stale as yesterday's breakfast.

Howard Kurtz: Everyone wants to be the next Jimmy Carter, an obscure former governor who somehow managed to win the White House. And in today's anti-political age, too much experience (think Dick Gephardt) gets you branded an out-of-touch Washington insider. People like Steve Forbes and Gary Bauer never ran for anything before running for president. Voters certainly have the right to ask whether a candidate knows the ropes and what that candidate has accomplished. Time was when someone losing a Senate seat after a single term (as Moseley-Braun did) would not be considered a plausible presidential candidate. But such contenders can always hope for lightning to strike.

Mt. Rainier, Md.: I'm not sure that the 'questionable' backgrounds of some of the protest organizers are much to the point - and there's little question about some of them anyway. They obviously are drawing crowds that are well beyond their own little constituencies, so the protests are not about the wobblies, they are about war with Iraq.

Howard Kurtz: I agree that the protests are ultimately about the majority of people who turn out (and they're not just "focus groups," as Bush dismissively said). But if groups like ANSWER, whose leaders hold some reprehensible views, are organizing the rallies, that's also a legitmate subject for reporting.

Washington, D.C.: A general question: Have you had instances where you feel you'd like to report a story one way, but have decided for whatever reasons that it would be best to say things more gently? How often do you find yourself thinking "gee, I should tone this down a bit?"

Is it a daily occurance, or something that rarely comes up? Just curious.

Howard Kurtz: I'm not widely known for saying things too gently. You try not to beat up on people unfairly, but diplomacy and journalism are too very different professions.
Thanks for the chat, folks.

   |      |