Media Backtalk
Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 02, 2004; Noon ET
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.
Cherry Hill, N.J.:
Mr. Kurtz,
Botox? With Iraq, huge budget deficits, the economy, terrorism, healthcare, etc; and some in the media want to know whether a candidate is using Botox? This is why many are turned off not only by politics but by the media's coverage.
Howard Kurtz: My brow has been furrowed in worrying about this. It really is amazingly trivial, considering there's no evidence of Botox use (except by Teresa, which raises the prospect of guilt by association). The story bounced from the Daily News to Drudge to the front page of the Washington Times to CNN and lots of other mainstream outlets.
_______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.:
Howard,
Did you catch Dean on Meet the Press? I thought he gave a so-so performance. Any thoughts?
Howard Kurtz: He seemed quite relaxed, and also seemed to have eaten several servings of humble pie since Iowa and New Hampshire. Dean seemed pretty candid in admitting that spending zillions in the first two states hadn't paid off and that he didn't really expect to win any Feb. 3 states, rather than engaging in the popular but pointless "we have great momentum and I intend to win" spin.
_______________________
Laurel, Md.:
Let me get this straight.
VIACOM won't air the moveon.org Super Bowl ad but will air a bare breast, Bud Light commercials featuring flatulence, and the latest Britney Spears slinkfest in a body stocking that is this close to obscenity?
Hoo boy. washingtonpost.com:
Incomplete! (Post, Feb. 2)
Howard Kurtz: The halftime show was a huge embarrassment. This was all over talk radio this morning and no one is defending what CBS/MTV did. What makes it particularly outrageous is that this is a huge sporting event where everyone knows that millions of kids are tuning in. Whichever brilliant executive signed off on the halftime entertainment was, well, a boob.
_______________________
Ballston, Va.:
I have been stunned by the level of denial at the BBC over Lord Hutton's findings. Apart from the limp official apologies, all we seem to hear from the BBC rank and file is a lot of hysteria about maintaining the organization's "independence" but no acknowledgement that Gilligan and his editors did anything wrong. Am I entirely off base? Were Gilligan's errors really so easily excusable? Is this verdict really the front end of a government attack on the BBC? washingtonpost.com:
Off-the-Cuff Remark Sent The BBC Reeling (Post, Jan. 30)
Howard Kurtz: The fact remains that the BBC hurled a hugely damaging charge at the country's leader--that his government had "sexed up" an intelligence dossier to push Britain into war--and that story turned out to be false. This is a huge black eye for the Beeb, which is why its two top executives resigned, and no amount of spinning can change that.
_______________________
Silver Spring, Md.:
NO SHAME?
The Post did a series on ALL the candidates a while ago, but brought out the 'fund raising issue' just a couple days ago? Where was the Post when it was doing the Kerry series? Notwithstanding the merits of the 'issue', is it the policy of the Post to bring down a 'front runner' at any cost? Who made the Post God?
Howard Kurtz: I don't think it's fair to say that The Post is trying to "bring down" the front-runner. I do think it's fair to say that The Post, along with many other media outlets, doesn't unleash its investigative guns until a candidate is seen as surging toward the nomination. The volume of negative stories dumped on Dean (beyond those generated by his own mistakes) was truly stunning and totally out of balance to the scrutiny the other candidates were getting. Nobody bothered to pore over Kerry's contribution records (except for the Boston press) in November, December and early January because he was judged, wrongly as it turned out, to be going nowhere fast. Now I believe we're in for a wave of Kerry scrutiny stories.
_______________________
Forestville, Md.:
Okay, how long will the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake hoopla give us a break from the incessant coverage of the Democratic primaries and caucuses? Maybe two days?
Howard Kurtz: I'll go with four days.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
Howard,
During yesterday's edition of "Reliable Sources," Katrina vanden Heuvel of "The Nation" brought up ABC News' revisiting Howard Dean's infamous "I Have a Scream" speech. That report seemed to put the entire episode into some manageable context.
Do you think that once such an incident reaches folk-lore dimensions that it is impossible to have an objective follow-up which will affect the public's original perception?
Howard Kurtz: I played the Sawyer tape because I thought it was very valuable to hear the audio in the room, which showed that Dean's high-decibel oration could barely be heard above the cheering crowd. And there's no question that television went way overboard in replaying the tape over and over and over again. But the fact that it was noisy in the room doesn't let Dean off the hook. A presidential candidate has to understand that he's playing to a television audience as well as to supporters in a hotel ballroom, and on that score, Dean really blew it with his ill-advised concession speech.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
I noticed that among the Sunday talk shows, only Meet The Press devoted its entire hour to one presidential candidate, namely, Howard Dean.
Do you regard such coverage an attempt by the Sunday Talk news media to influence the Democratic primaries this Tuesday by giving Dean a prime (and free) forum to air his platform?
Howard Kurtz: Tim Russert often devotes most or all of a program to a top newsmaker (or candidate) because sustained interrogation is his thing. I don't think anyone would say Russert gave Dean a pass. He's been trying to get Dean on since an appearance last summer when the doctor had trouble answering some questions but online donations soared because his fans felt he was being unfairly roughed up. Meet the Press, like the other Sunday shows, has had all the other major candidates on in recent weeks.
_______________________
Syracuse, N.Y.:
You claim to agree that the Botox story is trivial. Yet your CNN show yesterday showed screen shots from Drudge as well as headlines from the Washington Times. It was hard to tell if you were rolling your eyes over the story or giving it legs with all of the visuals. (And I don't seem to remember Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger in California getting any such treatment even though Arnold has denied ever having plastic surgery.) Gotta love that liberal media bias!
Howard Kurtz: What I do is raise questions about media behavior, however trivial or tawdry. So of course I'd want to ask a question about the Botox mini-flap. It's no different than raising questions about coverage of the Dean scream or Michael Jackson's baby-dangling or many other incidents that were hardly the media's finest hour.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.:
Dear Mr. Kurtz,
Do you think there is a "bandwagon" effect by the media when a candidate starts winning in primaries. Of course, it is understandable to a certain degree, but may influence voters future choices i.e. "I really wnat Dean but he doesn't have a chance now." etc.
Howard Kurtz: In a word, yes. The winner of Iowa and New Hampshire gets a ton of media exposure (and not just on TV--Newsweek did a Kerry cover last week and Time this week) and is generally portrayed as a winner. Dean, by contrast, was widely depicted as a big loser. How else to explain that Kerry, who had been in single digits in the some of the Feb. 3 states, jumped overnight to commanding leads in several of them? It's not that he dramatically changed his message or there was some new revelation. It's that he suddenly took on the aura of a winner, which made him more attractive to Democrats who want to beat Bush.
_______________________
Boston, Mass.:
Mr. Kurtz:
"[Alleged Botox use by Mr. Kerry] really is amazingly trivial, considering there's no evidence of Botox use (except by Teresa, which raises the prospect of guilt by association). The story bounced from the Daily News to Drudge to the front page of the Washington Times to CNN and lots of other mainstream outlets."
Don't you see that this is how the right wing operates its echo chamber. Say something nasty about a democrat, have a few weblogs pick it up, then to the Washington Times, then to the mainstream media.
Shame on you for repeating what you yourself label as an accusation for which there is "no evidence."
Howard Kurtz: But of course the point you're making is exactly the reason I report on how something like the Botox silliness makes its way into the mainstream press. The people who saw it mentioned on cable last week probably didn't know that it ricocheted from Drudge and the Washington Times into general circulation, and I think that helps create a better context.
_______________________
Ioannina, Greece:
How can anyone quote the Drudge Report as a primary source and still call themselves a journalist?
I thought the Clinton mess would have taught some people that it's not a good idea to go round repeating completely unfounded accusations you got off the Internet. But apparently not.
Howard Kurtz: In fairness to Drudge, he linked to a radio interview in which Kerry was asked about Botox. So it was "out there." In writing about flimsy allegations like this (even if it were true, who really cares?), the key thing is to make sure it's presented as lacking evidence, as opposed to "Some even charge that--"
_______________________
Silver Spring, Md.:
I may be wrong on this, but the only people who actually "saw" Miss Jackson's bountiful bosoms were the people in attendance at the game. Everyone else got a split second, the camera cut away and then their imagination took over. The only people who should have called CBS to complain were the people who forked over the big bucks to go to Houston to see the game. Those of us who braved sub zero weather to adjust our satellite dish didn't really see anything. Unless we're juvenile enough to rewind a video tape to the exact second that the fabric was pulled away.
Howard Kurtz: Apparently a split second was enough, judging by the angry calls to CBS and to radio talk shows this morning.
_______________________
Annandale, Va.:
Mr. Kurtz,
I know it is a week late to ask this question about the state of the union coverage, but...
On NBC, in the seat that Mr. Brokaw or Mr. Russert would be interviewing an analyst or political historian (and there are hundreds to choose from) they chose to interview presidential CANDIDATE John Kerry (who did not even attend the speech).
Viewers who wanted to hear analysis, pro and con of the speech were forced to change the channel. John Kerry got to campaign nationally for free (with a huge, politically in tune audience) and the other four candidates got zero exposure.
In your opinion, was this a good/fair (to the other candidates and GWB) decision on the part of NBC to give John Kerry such a large stump to campaign from, right after the State of the Union Address?
Howard Kurtz: Sure. NBC was far from alone; Kerry (and Dean and others) made the rounds of the networks after the State of the Union. If the president is given an hour of free air time to deliver his message to the country, what's wrong with giving five minutes to serious candidates who are campaigning for his job?
_______________________
Redmond, Wash.:
In reading news reports of the South Carolina primary, and specifically the African American vote, I find it curious that reporters seem surprised that black voters are divided amongst several candidates. No such sentiment is expressed in regard to white voters dividing their votes as well. The endorsement of Kerry by Congressman Clyburn similarly seems overstated in news reports, as if he can somehow deliver the black vote to Kerry. I doubt voters, regardless of their race, pay attention to high profile endorsements. Why do reporters imply that the voting behavior of black voters is different from white voters?
Howard Kurtz: Good point. I think it's fair to analyze the voting preferences of any bloc - blacks, Hispanics, college-educated, antiwar, soccer moms, etc. Al Sharpton, for instance, is doing better in South Carolina than in other states. But there is sometimes a tendency in journalism to oversimplify what this or that "group" wants, when African-Americans, like everyone else, are concerned about jobs, health care, education, etc. As for endorsements, you'd think we would have learned from the non-impact of Dean's Gore, Bradley and Harkin endorsements that journalists care more about such things than actual voters. But no...
_______________________
Englishtown, N.J.:
Leadership based on principles and voting based on issues are essential for survival of democracy.
In 2004 democratic primaries most of the candidates are basing their compaign on what is popular and the primary voters are voting based on "electability". As soon as voters are deciding based on "electability" they are giving the control over to the pundits who decides who is electable.
Based on this trend, I am afraid the death of democracy in USA is coming soon. Why the press is not discussing this trend and possible death of democracy?
Howard Kurtz: I don't get your point about "giving control to the pundits." After all, the pundits, and the rest of journalism, told us Howard Dean had a commanding lead and that John Kerry barely had a pulse. Then the people of Iowa and New Hampshire gave Kerry major victories and Dean significant defeats. People vote for complicated reasons, including a sense of trust and comfort with candidates and their stands on specific issues, but of course voters in the out-of-power party want someone who can beat the incumbent. And they're often better at judging that than reporters are.
_______________________
Monterey, Calif.:
I'd like to get your perspective on whether the media are ready to discriminate between "poor intelligence" on the one hand and "how the administration distorted and misused whatever intelligence they received, good or bad, to sell their war" on the other.
The administration spin is that Bush is "reluctantly" agreeing to an investigation of why he received "poor intelligence" only.
This is a red herring intended to overshadow and obscure the other, and quite darker, half of the picture.
There's an eentsy, weentsy possibility that this will be the biggest scandal in American history. Is the media -- and/or the American public -- willing to see the full story yet?
Thank you, in advance, for your thoughtful reply.
Howard Kurtz: Well, that's the heart of the debate. Intelligence gathering is often murky under the best of circumstances. Did U.S. spy agencies deliver bad info to the administration on WMDs, or did the Bush team, anxious to lead the country into war, ignore or downplay the doubts about whether Saddam really had these weapons? I don't know the answer to that. I do think these questions got far more aggressive attention from the press after the war than before, even with the caveat that it was hard to compile enough evidence to verify or disprove what Bush, Rummy, Cheney et al. were saying.
_______________________
San Jose, Calif.:
Hi Howard,
First of all, I appreciate your approach towards the media coverage of the current presidential election.
My question is: "Former General Clark has been very competitive in several races, such as Arizona, Ohio, Tennessee, and New Mexico. However, all CNN and other TV stations talk about is Dean's potential comeback, and Kerry's victories in New Hampshire, and Iowa?"
Note: Today, FOX spent more time talking about Kerry's Botox, than on covering the candidates positions on several important topics, such as Health Care, Jobs, Iraq, etc...
Howard Kurtz: This is not a defense, but the press has trouble covering eight candidates. So the coverage tends to gravitate toward the perceived front-runner and the perceived strongest challenger (even though such judgments, as we've seen in this race, are often wrong). Wes Clark did get a huge amount of press after his late entry into the race, and two weeks before New Hampshire he was drawing upbeat coverage as a man who might finish second there. But when Clark made some mistakes and wound up a distant third, that took the spotlight off him a bit, though the major news organizations are still writing Clark stories regularly.
_______________________
Conway, Ark.:
So let me get this straight: you're saying the Botox talk is trivial because "there's no evidence of Botox use. " Um, why exactly would it be germane if there were evidence of Botox use?
Howard Kurtz: Personally, I could care less. But I can see where some folks would argue that it was a revealing bit of information about Kerry. Most Americans, I am sure, would rather hear about what he's going to do on taxes, health care, foreign policy etc.
_______________________
San Diego, Calif.:
Being a politco-newbie, please tell me about ABC's The Note. Talk about media bias, the note's take on Dean's Meet the Press appearance was, "contradictory, petulant, non-responsive, small, and unpresidential."
Whassup?
Howard Kurtz: The Note, which is an insider's inside tip sheet, often reflects what the "Gang of 500" thinks about this or that (not that every single member is surveyed, of course). So apparently the Gang didn't think much of Dean's performance on Russert, though I disagree. Of course, the Gang also told us as late as mid-January that Dean had a commanding lead and it didn't look like anyone could stop him.
_______________________
College Park, Md.:
Hello Howie,
Do you believe the CBS denials that station execs didn't know in advance about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"? I'm skeptical because as soon as the incident occurred, the camera cut away with split-second timing. That wasn't the case when the unexpected streaker appeared.
The matter of CBS's honesty shouldn't be waved away. One expects politicians, when interviewed, to bend the truth. But the interviewers -- the media -- shouldn't play the same game. Look what happened at the BBC.
Howard Kurtz: I don't know if CBS knew we'd be seeing more of Janet Jackson than some people wanted, but CBS & its sibling MTV had to know about the bumping and grinding, and raucous rap lyrics (I want to take your clothes off, etc.) because they have to approve the halftime entertainment and there were rehearsals. To allow that in a sporting event aimed in part at kids was simply a colossal misjudgment.
_______________________
Detroit, Mich.:
Would you know if the issue of tort reform was raised in any of the Democratic presidential debates? I am curious how Edwards and Dean dealt with this issue (and with each other's reply), given that I have read that Edwards became wealthy as a lawyer suing physicians and given that Dean (as well as his wife) is a physician.
Howard Kurtz: It was raised by Peter Jennings at last week's debate, and Edwards described a proposal for trial lawyers to be held accountable for frivolous suits. I don't recall if it came up at other debates. John Edwards certainly became a multimillionaire with lawsuits often aimed at medical malpractice, but I believe these were filed against institutions and not individual doctors.
_______________________
Greenbelt, Md.:
Interesting that the story about Kerry leading the Senate in special interest money broke on the Saturday before the Super Bowl. Saturdays are when people break news they don't want anyone to remember, and especially when it will be overshadowed by another event.
I hate to say it, but there seems to be some fire to the smoke about the media favoring Kerry. Will there be days of followup and replays of the story like Dean's scream? washingtonpost.com:
Kerry Leads in Lobby Money (Post, Jan. 31)
Howard Kurtz: I have to disagree on all counts. The story broke on Saturday because it was competitive (both the WP and NYT did front-page pieces, and presumably were afraid of getting beat if they held their stories for Sunday, a better showcase day). The stories should have been done months ago, in my view, but they were reported over the three days after New Hampshire made Kerry the undisputed front-runner (and he increasingly began to attack "special interests" in his stump rhetoric). As for the media favoring Kerry, how could that be when he received mostly terrible reviews as a floundering candidate right up until the time of his eleventh-hour surge in Iowa?
_______________________
Dunkirk, Md.:
"If the president is given an hour of free air time to deliver his message to the country, what's wrong with giving five minutes to serious candidates who are campaigning for his job?"
In my opinion, Mr. Kurtz, the problem is that the Democrats already get their official response time. Why should the opposition get a double-shot, with their already-scheduled Daschle-Pelosi rebuttal and the Kerry cheap shots thrown in as well?
Howard Kurtz: Because it's a presidential election year. Republicans should get the same platform when a Democratic president is running for reelection. And the combined air time of Daschle/Pelosi and Kerry/Dean still was dwarfed by the Bush speech. Also, it was the president's decision to schedule the SOTU the night after the Iowa caucuses, when the Democratic campaign was still very much the hot story.
_______________________
Roseland, N.J.:
Let's assume Edwards wins South Carolina, Clark wins Oklahoma, and Kerry wins everything else. What's Wednesdays' headline: "Kerry Wins Lion's Share of Delegates"? Or "Clark and Edwards Win; Kerry Faces Four-Person Race With No End in Sight"?
Howard Kurtz: That is absolutely the question of the hour. Tomorrow night, more than any other time in the campaign so far, is when the media interpretation of results may be as important as the raw vote totals.
_______________________
Roseland, N.J.:
Re the press favoring Kerry -- I know the Boston papers have been very hard on him over the years, and Mickey Kaus from Slate absolutely despises him, going so far as to hold a contest for the best Kerry withdrawal speech. Aren't there some dedicated Kerry-haters in the press?
Howard Kurtz: I quoted Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix in my column today as saying many reporters don't like Kerry. But this obviously isn't universal, and the Boston Globe did endorse Kerry before New Hampshire. I think it's fair to say the senator hasn't gone out of his way to court the press, but then, neither has Howard Dean.
_______________________
Dryden, N.Y.:
Enough on the Super Bowl! Why does the Bush AWOL story appear to be taking wings now as opposed to four years ago when it was first reported? Some thoughts would be very much appreciated.
Howard Kurtz: I never quite understood why the story didn't get more traction in 2000. I guess in part it was because the press couldn't definitely prove or disprove it one way or the other, so it went down as more of a he said/he said flap. Also, Al Gore chose not to make an issue of it. Now you have major candidates, or at least their supporters, making an issue of whether Bush failed to report for duty for a long period or not, and that makes it easy for the press to cover.
Thanks for the chat, folks.
_______________________
Automatically Update Page
Get New Responses
Submit Question
| 
