Washington, D.C.: I'm not defending Peter Arnett's decision to grant an interview to Iraqi TV, but do you think that maybe, just maybe, he was fired for trying to be an independent journalist instead of just another arrow in the military's psych-ops quiver?

Howard Kurtz: Well, Arnett himself has now apologized for a serious misjudgment. I don't think he was canned for being an independent journalist at all. NBC and MSNBC were happy to trumpet his reports from Baghdad. It's only when he gives an interview to Saddam's state-controlled television station that he got the ax. This is entirely a self-inflicted wound.

Laramie, Wyo.: Mr. KJutz,

A couple days ago I caught the Canadian Broadcast Corporation news on C-SPAN, and was amazed at how different their coverage of the war was. There was much more coverage of the effect of the war on the Iraqi people, and the international implications of the war. In contrast, the U.S. news seems focused on individual incidents that affect our troops. They for instance, will discuss an Apache helicopter crash, but won't show Jacques Chirac or give much time to international concern for the war.

While it's understandable that the U.S. news would have a lot of troop coverage, since many of us know people serving over there, it seems to me that Americans aren't getting much coverage of the broader implications and impressions of the war.

What do you think? (Perhaps I am basing too much on one CBC news show?)

Howard Kurtz: This sounds similar to my report on the BBC last week -- a much more international approach to the war, and more coverage on the impact on the Iraqi people. (Keep in mind that most western news outlets no longer have a reporter in Baghdad, though The Post's Anthony Shadid has been filing terrific reports on the human toll of the war.) You'd expect U.S. media organizations to take a different approach to a war in which Americans are fighting and dying, but the difference in approach is really quite striking.

Woodbridge, Va.: Ok, why should I or anyone else care what and where Mr. Arnett speaks his mind? He is a reporter for goodness sake. Nothing more. If this was say a U.S. official making such a statement I would be want his head. I am no fan of Mr Arnett and those news organization were right in severing their ties with him -- I would have just said they should have known better from his previous record. My point is that I think he has gotten way too much press and all of the pols and commentator who now think he should be labelled a traitor are giving way too much weight to him.

washingtonpost.com: NBC Severs Ties With Arnett (Post, March 31)

Howard Kurtz: But it's BECAUSE he's a reporter that he is expected to take a reasonably neutral approach. And Arnett is especially vulnerable to this criticism because he faced similar charges for his reporting in Vietnam and in the first Gulf War. I'd think the last thing he'd want to do is give his critics ammunition by granting an interview to state-controlled Iraqi TV.

Washington, D.C.: Does it seem that some embedded reporters are lecturing us a bit about “what we (the viewers) need to see” or “what we need to understand about war”? Like most of us, they are mere spectators to war who have never fired a shot. For example, what gives Ted Koppel the right to lecture us about war? He lives in a 10,000 square foot house in Potomac, Md. and gets reserved seats at movie theaters.

washingtonpost.com: The News Veteran (Post, March 28)

Howard Kurtz: I don't see it as lecturing at all. I asked to speak to Koppel, so he was answering my questions -- not just as an embedded reporter in Iraq, but as someone who's covered war and foreign policy for 35 years. He is entitled to his opinions on war coverage, whether we agree with them or not. He's earned that. And the fact that he's a multimillionaire makes it all the more remarkable that he felt compelled at age 63 to go crawling around in the sand with the troops.

Fairfax, Va.: According to an article by Paul Farhi in last Friday's Post, local TV stations around the country have been emphasizing the patriotic angle of this war while ignoring or downplaying the antiwar protests due to feedback from news consulting firms such as Magid Associates. The message being conveyed to broadcasters is that "covering war protests may be harmful to a station's bottom line." Are consultants stepping over the line when they go beyond the usual wardrobe and hairdo tips and offer actual journalistic advice to TV news producers and anchors? Is there potential for a huge national story to be largely missed due to the mainstream media's desire to avoid controversy and stay "politically correct?"

washingtonpost.com: For Broadcast Media, Patriotism Pays (Post, March 28)

Howard Kurtz: If I was running at TV station, I certainly wouldn't want a consultant telling me what the journalistic content of my broadcast should be (as opposed to what my anchors should wear and whether the sports report should be longer). But apparently, some station owners and news directors are happy to take this sort of advice.

Carlisle, Pa.: My understanding is that we are not seeing the same pictures of human suffering in Iraq that Arabs are seeing on their newscasts.

I think we should be. Do you?

And a follow-up: if we were seeing maimed Iraqi children on TV in this country, do you think support for this war would drop precipitously?

Thank you.

Howard Kurtz: I think we are seeing some of the same pictures. I've seen them on the major networks and in the major newspapers. But it's a question of volume. Arab newscasts are saturating viewers with pictures of civilian casualties, which is exactly the story line that Saddam wants to emphasize. The American news outlets are, if not playing it down, covering it more modestly. But the pictures are widely available.

Even in calmer times...: My impression of BBC and ITN news long before the war coverage was that they were much less parochial than the US broadcasts. It seems frequently that for CBS, NBC, etc., if it isn't America, it isn't. If we're not involved it's not happening. This creates a serious disengagement for Americans. Even the American political races were more interesting on ITN.

Howard Kurtz: Before 9/11, most TV producers would tell you that Americans didn't care much about foreign news, which they used to justify cutting back bureaus and carrying very little of such news, except when there was a war or disaster or something involving the royal family. I think that's changed to a large degree in the last year and a half, though it's still true that stories in which Americans are not involved don't get as much attention. How many stories about Afghanistan have you seen on TV news lately?

Washington, D.C.: Sometimes I miss the 5 minute summary of the war before the Saturday movie. (OK. I'm old) Now I get so many points of view, each including a critique of the other points of view, that I feel an information overload. How does one sort out the sources?

Howard Kurtz: Everyone feels bombarded by information, even media critics. One way to sort it out is to read a newspaper (which are also bombarding readers but have daily summary pieces that attempt to put things in perspective). Another is to watch the network evening newscasts, which have to squeeze the highlights of the day's coverage into 22 minutes. Cable is attempting to do summaries every half hour, but it also tends to be swept away by the latest fire or explosion.

Chevy Chase, Md.: What was Peter Arnett doing for National Geographic? I thought his affiliation was a little odd for a scientific and educational organization.

Howard Kurtz: He was in Baghdad for National Geographic Explorer, a TV outfit, and picked up by NBC and MSNBC when he turned out to be one of the few western reporters still in the Iraqi capital.

Washington, D.C.: I was somewhat surprised by the vehemence of Tim Russert's tone yesterday during his interview of the Iraqi representative to the U.N. Yes, the man represents a vile regime and could have possibly been extremely difficult to deal with during the interview process, but every one of Russert's questions seemed accusatory, even from the very beginning of the interview. It looked as though Tim was putting on a display of machismo.

Howard Kurtz: I didn't see it, but Russert can be very hard on American politicians as well.

Top of the Fold?: Howard:

As the event of a longer, drawn out war looks more and likely, when do you think newspapers will start covering non-war stories on the top half of the front page? That is, how do news organizations judge the public's thirst for nonstop war coverage -- as well as the effect of nonstop coverage on the war itself?

Also, what do you think of NBC firing Peter Arnett? Sounds to me like he just said what a lot of other analysts have said: That Iraqi resistance is stronger than we anticipated. Are the networks terrified as being labeled "anti-American?"

Howard Kurtz: Excellent question. Not for several weeks, at least. But if this war does drag on for months, obviously there will come a point where it will become more of a running story and less of a 24-hour obsession. And other news -- the economy, schools, the odd sex scandal -- may make it to the front page.

St. Mary's City, Md.: Howard, what's the deal with Clear Channel radio stations and the support-our-troops rallies? Didn't we used to have an FCC that prevented this kind of thing?

Howard Kurtz: My understanding is that it's not the corporation that is sponsoring these rallies but some of its radio talk show hosts. It still raises all kinds of questions.

Burke, Va.: Had Peter Arnett stated his views on American television, I would have fully supported him. However, saying what he did on Iraqi TV was simply irresponsible. NBC can say that it was "analysis" and a "professional courtesy," but I seriously doubt that any Iraqi viewing it would have taken it in that context. And to anyone who thinks the media coverage is pro-war, just check washingtonpost.com's home page.

Howard Kurtz: I'm not buying the argument that the Post's coverage is somehow anti-war, though it's no secret that the paper's editorial page supported the war. As for Arnett, I agree he might have taken some flak had he made those comments on, say, Meet the Press, but it was the use of the Saddam-controlled forum that did him in.

Helena, Mont.: In previous wars in the Gulf, Granada and Panama, the U.S. severely limited press access to the front lines. Now, they've embedded reporters everywhere yet complain about the press coverage. Why did they change approaches in the first place and are they now sorry they did?

Howard Kurtz: They changed the approach because they thought, on balance, it would benefit them to have hundreds of reporters chronicling the exploits of our fighting men and women. And also because they wanted an independent third force to be able to knock down any false propaganda put out by Iraq. This was what Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke told me in an interview many weeks before the war began.

Arlington, Va.: You didn't watch Meet the Press this weekend?

Howard Kurtz: I rarely miss it but was getting ready to do my own show.

Lahore, Pakistan: Why is CNN's "Reliable Sources" no longer broadcast in my part of the world, South Asia? I am a great fan of yours and certainly miss the program. I do get "International Correspondents" but that is not a good substitute.

Howard Kurtz: Many thanks. I don't think the program has ever been carried regularly on CNN International. In any event, maybe you're looking for it at the wrong time. It now airs Sunday morning at 11:30 a.m. EST (though we've been partially preempted in the last couple of weeks).

Alexandria, Va.: Why are correspondents "embedded" with coalition forces instead of being merely "with" them? What is the significance of the term "embedded?"

Howard Kurtz: It's Pentagon jargon, and not a great word in my view, since it reminds people of "in bed." But in our shock and awe, we in the media seem to have adopted it.

Gettysburg, Pa.: Last week, Americans were protesting the Iraqis showing American POWs on television, an act that was a clear violation of Geneva Conventions. However, I have seen the U.S. cable networks showing Iraqi POWs on television. What's the difference? Is it because Iraqi television is state-owned, whereas the U.S. networks are technically independent, despite embedding agreements?

Howard Kurtz: ABC, for one, blurs the faces of Iraqi prisoners. But I think the difference is that it's hard to stop pictures from prisoners being taken ON THE BATTLEFIELD - it's part of war and not, in my view, particularly humiliating to the soldiers involved. But in the Iraqi TV tape you're referring to, the American POWs were displayed in a room for the camera and interrogated by an interviewer (not to mention the gruesome gloating over the dead American bodies there as well). If the U.S. did something like that, there would be an uproar, and rightly so.

Cincinnati, Ohio: It disturbs me that NBC and some other news organizations have adopted the Defense Department-provided label "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as a kind of overarching title to anchor their war coverage. I think this both trivializes the war and conveys a built-in bias. Any thoughts?

Howard Kurtz: I think it adopts the Pentagon's spin that the Iraqis are just waiting to be liberated by U.S. forces. CNN and Fox are using it too.

Arlington, Va.: Anne Garrels on National Public Radio is doing a nice job of reporting from Baghdad. How do these reporters stay safe? Not just from bombs, but from the Iraqi government. Also, somehow I missed why the Fox News team was thrown out before the war started. What happened?

Howard Kurtz: I believe it was in retaliation for the U.S. expelling some Iraqi diplomat types. But Iraq also kicked out the CNN crew for trumped-up reasons; Nic Robertson says they don't seem to like the pictures that show their side losing. As for Garrels and the other remaining correspondents, they are courageous to stay in a city under constant bombardment and are obviously staying in buildings they don't believe would be military targets.

BBC, CBC: Isn't is also fair to say that CBC and BBC have better international coverage because they are government funded companies and therefore have significant money to pay for international coverage.

Howard Kurtz: That may be a factor, but I don't think money is the primary issue. As we've seen since the war started, ABC, CBS, NBC and the rest have plenty of money to spend on foreign coverage when they think it's worth it. Sure, they have stockholders and are concerned about profits, but think of all the money they spent on Princess Di and Chandra Levy and many other stories. It's a question of priorities.

Washington, D.C.: Why do the networks insist on doing those hookups where the stateside wife of a marine talks live with her husband on the air? The conversations are, without exception, uncomfortable and maudlin. Its the modern equivalent of a local news channel asking the spouse of a murder victim "how do you feel?"

Howard Kurtz: I'm sure people like seeing the human side of war, but I confess that these segments seem contrived to me and make me uncomfortable.

Colchester, Vt.: There don't appear to be a lot of journalistic sources in Baghdad. Why should NBC lessen the number by one by firing Arnett in the middle of the war? This seems to be a loss for the news consumer since NBC will not be able to replace Arnett.

Howard Kurtz: In a nutshell, because NBC officials concluded that Arnett had destroyed his credibility with that Iraqi TV interview.

Chicago, Ill.: In most stories on American networks about the Iraqi civilians dying, the reporters point out that there is no way to know if the carnage was caused by U.S. or Iraqi munitions.

Do foreign networks, especially Al Jazeera, display the same benefit of the doubt or do they automatically condemn the bombings as coming from American forces?

Howard Kurtz: I'm not able to see al-Jazeera or speak Arabic, but I don't think Arab networks are, shall we say, giving the U.S. the benefit of the doubt over these errant missiles. At the same time, I think it's important for news organizations here to aggressively pursue the question of whether these are U.S. weapons that, mistakenly or not, are causing civilian deaths.
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:
Post Magazine: Obesity in America, 1 p.m. ET
Travel Talk, 2 p.m. ET
Fast Forward: Rob Pegoraro, 2 p.m. ET
Biological Weapons: Dr. Ken Alibek, 2 p.m. ET
Astrologer Charlene Lichtenstein, 6 p.m. ET

Keep up with the best Live Online has to offer and special breaking news discussions. Sign up for the NEW Live Online e-mail newsletter.

   |      |