|
Media
Backtalk
With Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 19, 2001; Noon
EST
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.
Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz has been The Post's
media reporter since 1990. He is also the host of CNN's "Reliable
Sources" and the author of "Media Circus," "Hot Air" and "Spin Cycle:
Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine."
Kurtz talks about the press and the stories of the day in "Media
Backtalk," Mondays; Noon EST.
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.
Rye Brook, N.Y.:
Why is the media not focusing on conflict of
interest stories of the Bush Administration?
The Secretary of the Treasury chooses to keep
his interests in Alcoa and he gets a pass.
The Vice President's wife sits on the boards
of major corporations that have business
before the Government and nobody complains.
The President's father is investing for Arab
countries with the Carlisle Group and he is
one of his son's key advisor, but the press
says nothing. I can just imagine if this was
true in the Clinton administration. The media
would write about it every day. It would be
scandalous! Why can this administration do
anything they want and get a free pass from
the media? When will you begin to highlight
these abuses?
Howard Kurtz: I'm surprised that Paul O'Neill's decision to keep a boatload of Alcoa stock was a one-day story. The Treasury secretary has such a profound impact on the economy that it will be hard for him to single out decisions that particularly affect the aluminum biz (from which he would disqualify himself). But the others aren't government officials. Former president Bush can do whatever international consulting he wants, as long as he's not lobbying his son on behalf of those clients. It would probably be better for appearances' sake, though, if Lynne Cheney was not sitting on corporate boards.
San Francisco, Calif.:
The reason that Bush gave during the campaign for his proposed tax cut was "it's your money." When people look at the collapse in stock market prices resulting in trillions of dollars in lost wealth, someone should tell them "it's your money" going down the drain in part because of a lack of confidence in Bush's economic policies. Is the Bush administration economically inept or is it trying to cause a recession early in his presidency in the hope that the economy will get better when he plans to run for re-election?
Howard Kurtz: I'm afraid I don't buy into the notion that the market is tanking because of a lack of confidence in Bush's policies. (And the idea that he's deliberately causing a recession to clear the decks for 2004 is too Machiavellian for my taste.) The market swoon (on all three newsmagazine covers, by the way) is happening because stocks had gotten way overvalued -- pushed in part by cheerleader analysts made famous by the media, as I wrote in last week's Media Notes. Also, a whole bunch of big companies have announced that they will make far less in profits than they expected. Keep in mind that the Nasdaq first crashed in April 2000, when Bill Clinton was president. Over time, Bush's policies will of course affect Wall Street--but not as much as Alan Greenspan and whether he does things like raise interest rates tomorrow.
Chicago, Ill.:
Bush is often described as a "popular"
president despite lukewarm poll
numbers. Is this another case of him
benefiting from low expectations?
Howard Kurtz: Could be a case of him looking good in comparison to the sudden unpopularity of William J. Clinton. Besides, Bush's early numbers compare favorably with those of recent presidents. All this could change tomorrow, but you'd have to say he's gotten off to a reasonably good start with the public, especially considering his less-than-landslide margin in Florida.
Dupont Circle:
How has the conservative press been treating the Bush Administration? I noticed that the Weekly Standard ran an editorial attacking his foreign policy.
Howard Kurtz: By and large, the conservative press has been strongly supporting George W. and his administration. Some quibbles here and there, but for now the likes of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Washington Times, National Review et al. seem thrilled to have one of their own in office after their eight-year national nightmare. One example: Almost no one on the right slapped Bush around for breaking his first campaign promise, on regulating carbon dioxide. Imagine the fulminations if Clinton had done that. New York Times says today that conservatives are delirious and feel like they're part of the administration.
Washington, D.C.:
Is the honeymoon over? I'm glad to finally be seeing some less gushing coverage of the new administration. Should we take this as a sign that the media's critical faculties have finally kicked back in?
Howard Kurtz: I'd say the honeymoon is largely over. Every new administration (with the notable exception of Clinton's) gets fairly gushing coverage at the outset, as new people are being chosen and no one's had a chance to make any mistakes. The opposition tends to stay quiet as well. Now that Bush, like any president, is being forced to make policy choices -- on cutting some spending to make room for his tax cut, on faith-based funding, on carbon dioxide, on foreign affairs -- he's running into more criticism. I guess you could say the press is awakening from its slumber, but these things tend to run in fairly predictable cycles.
Arlington, Va.:
The Fox network wants Tony Snow to stop writing for a conservative web site. I recall that you said you believed that Snow was pretty fair on Fox. It does open the question of whether news people should be dispensing opinions any place because it could impact on their perceived impartiality.
Howard Kurtz: Tony Snow doesn't make any bones about being a conservative columnist. Anyone who reads him understands that (and he did, after all, work for Bush's dad). But for him to be blatant about it does cause a public relations problem for Fox, since he's the Sunday anchor. So he's trying to be less in-your-face about his conservatism.
Fairfax, Va.:
What do you think about the controversy surrounding Premiere's nasty profile of Arnold Schwarzenegger and the subsequent distribution of the article to reporters by Gov. Gray Davis' consultant? (Schwarzenegger was being mentioned as a GOP opponent for Davis in 2002).
Howard Kurtz: I mentioned this in my online column today. I haven't read the original Premiere piece, so it's hard for me to judge those allegations, other than to observe that they rely heavily on anonymous sources. I don't have any problem with Gray Davis's strategist sending negative clips to reporters (this is done all the time, often by email) about a prospective challenger to his boss (though I'm, shall we say, highly skeptical about a Terminator run for office.) It's public record stuff, not internal documents. What seemed petty and heavy-handed were the little remarks that the consultant, Garry South, wrote on the clips.
Alexandria, Va.:
I thought the closing anecdote in today's Post profile of Karen Hughes is very instructive. It has her apologizing to a reporter for giving it back as strong as they give it to her boss. Isn't the rule thus: reporters can dish it out, but they are the more sensitive bunch of babies on the planet?
Howard Kurtz: Sure. Take my word for it. Journalists aren't just thin-skinned, they're no-skinned. I don't think Hughes HAD to apologize for making what seemed to me to be a harmless joke, but she decided to do so anyway. Any press person who's dealt with Karen knows that she's no shrinking violet.
Sterling, Va.:
Is it OK to declare "Take5" dead before it starts? Why does CNN continue to make shows with a bunch of liberals talking about how smart they are ("Unconventional Wisdom"), when their most popular shows provide a balance ("Crossfire", "The Spin Room")?
Howard Kurtz: A bunch of liberals? The new program -- which debuted Saturday night -- has three working reporters who might be termed on the liberal side, and two self-identified conservatives: Robert George of the New York Post and Chris Caldwell of National Review. I thought it was pretty good.
Reston, 20190:
It seems to me that it's been a few days since Bill has been on page one. Perhaps we are finally moving on?
Howard Kurtz: Probably fair to say the Clinton story has peaked. But there will be a few more twists and turns before it's over. Meanwhile, the New York Post has a front-page screamer today on how Hillary's office space costs more than any other senator's ("She blows $514G in taxpayer bucks on nation's priciest Senate office.") Let's face it: the Clintons will always be with us.
Boston, Mass.:
I agree, and find it strange, that the press seems to be going light on the new
administration. Would you trust these guys and gals to go to a meeting with your
boss in your place and actually represent your interests at the meeting?
I find it even stranger that the Democrats keep "sending the White House a
message" by agreeing to everything that's come across the table. That'll teach 'em,
eh? (Just watch them teach 'em a lesson this week with campaign finance
reform.. yeah right)
When I voted, I voted for someone to go to bat for my views. I don't want civility and
bipartisanship. Civil and bipartisan = bland, bell curve decisions eminating
from a single party disguised as two.
So, when can we expect some of the Cheney-Bush evils to be pressed hard?
Howard Kurtz: The Cheney-Bush evils? You wouldn't happen to have a strong point of view on this, would you?
Look, these guys have been in office for two months. It's perfectly understandable that both the press and the Democrats would want to give them a little breathing room, rather than seem churlish so soon after an election. The press has hardly gone easy on Bush on the carbon dioxide flip-flop or the impact of the tax cut. The more that his issues hit the political fan, the more controversy there will be for the media to cover.
Vienna, Va.:
You're "skeptical" of a Schwarzenegger run for office? Just remember that California once elected a B-movie actor as governor -- what's his name again? The one that Bob Barr wants a Metro station named after.
Howard Kurtz: I didn't mean I doubted that Arnold Schwarzenegger could get elected. I meant I doubted he would run. His spokeswoman denied he was running a couple of weeks ago -- hasta la vista to that idea -- then mysteriously backed off the denial. Look, I'd love to cover an Ah-nuld campaign, I'm just not holding my breath.
New York, N.Y.:
I read your fabulous piece on the people who ran the Gore "spin machine." Do you know what Mark Fabiani and Chris Lehane are doing these days?
Howard Kurtz: Many thanks! Fabiani has returned home to California and again advising corporations on dealing with crises. Lehane, the last time I checked, was "weighing his options" -- in other words, still unemployed at the moment.
McLean, Va.:
How will the media consortium conducting the recount of all the Florida ballots prevent someone like Matt Drudge from breaking the reporting embargo. It just seems like there are too many news groups involved, too many reporters writing stories and too many people actually counting the ballots to guarantee nothing won't leak out. Look at what happened on the Human Genome story where the London paper broke the embargo.
Howard Kurtz: For starters, they could keep their mouths shut. There are actually two groups -- the Miami Herald/USA Today alliance and a larger conspiracy involving the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN et al. Of course, leaks aside, the devil will be in the details. In other words, it's not so much whether the TimesPostCNN declare that Gore really "won" -- that and three bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks -- as how they arrive at their conclusions. Get ready for another spin through the land of undervotes and overvotes.
Washington, D.C.:
Why is the press fawning so much over campaign finance reform? Have they taken the time to look into what's in the McCain-Feingold bill and how difficult the bill would make campaigning in America? Also why is the press so ideologically pro-free speech when it comes to their interests, and yet they ignore the constitutional problems with trying to limit spending to disseminate your political views in the "reform" context?
Howard Kurtz: Many journalists feel some kind of reform is needed because they're written so many stories over the years about how money has corrupted politics (including some of the Clinton scandals). Most pols also agree the system needs to be reformed, but institutional self-interest is so great that they just can't agree on how to do it. I don't think the media have ignored the free-speech questions involved. You could argue that the current $1,000 limit on individual contributions (not raised since the 1970s) restricts a form of "speech." You could also argue that the ability of a wealthy company, union or person to give a party $10 million in soft money drowns out the speech of those who are limited to just a thousand bucks. One thing's for sure: if any bill passes it will wind up in court.
Arnold, Md.:
Regarding your first question, from Rye Brook: Is it the news media's job to beat up on Sec. O'Neill for keeping his Alcoa stock, or on former Pres. Bush for his overseas lobbying? All these stories were in the press. Either the public gets worked up or it doesn't. Maybe it should. But if Americans DON'T get infuriated over such reports, is it the news media's job to tell them to get with the program?
Howard Kurtz: Sure, but let's face it: the media play an important role in whipping up public outrage. When journalists harp on an issue day after day, when commentators shout about it night after night (say the Marc Rich pardon, as a random example), there's a chain reaction: People talk about it, pollsters poll about it, and so on. I don't think our role is to "beat up" on people, but I do think we should use our megaphone to highlight legitimate issues.
Boston, Mass.:
Lately I have noticed that CNN has swung to the right. Could this be heat from FOX (i.e. O'Reilly) or the new conglomerate making nice (i.e. Bush as Time's Man of the Year) while FCC is in the hands of Republicans. Or am I just dreaming?
Howard Kurtz: Not sure what the evidence is for swinging to the right. CNN has added a couple of conservative commentators, such as Tucker Carlson, but that's probably long overdue. There's no question CNN is conscious of Fox's progress -- witness today's heated exchange between Roger Ailes and AOLTIMEWARNERCNN's Jamie Kellner in today's print media column, in the Style section -- but I don't think there's a lurch to the conservative side. As for the Time honor, Time's editor has said that whoever won the election would have gotten the cover. So Gore was 537 hanging chads away from being Man of the Year.
Washington, D.C.:
Howard,
I somehow missed the Gore spin machine where are they now? piece. When did it run?
Howard Kurtz: That piece ran on Dec. 17, 2000. If you send me an email I'll ship it to you.
Wayne, Pa.:
Is it impossible to go back to a time when the press was more respectful of the Office of President and the workings of the White House? Does the "after Watergate" argument still hold water, or is it now "after Monica/Pardongate etc." Could the media be critical and patriotically respectful in this day and age?
Howard Kurtz: The bottom line is no, and that's because the culture has changed. It's not simply the Watergate story or the Monica story. People generally, and journalists in particular, are far less trusting of politicians than they were a generation ago. The press is far more aggressive in trying to hold the government accountable. While there are plenty of excesses -- the Fourth Estate is often too cynical and too prosecutorial -- I'm not sure I'd want to return to the days when most of the press passively accepted the Johnson administration's assurances that we were "winning" the Vietnam War.
Follow up to Washington, D.C.:
But isn't it the rising cost of campaigns itself (particularly TV time) that is driving the need to fundraise? On a dollar per voter basis, campaigns are not much more expensive than they were at our founding. And of all the things we spend money on, is it really true that we spend too much on politics? I'm not so sure. I mean, we spend more on pizza as a nation than on campaigns.
Howard Kurtz: The cost of TV time absolutely is the biggest single factor in the soaring cost of modern campaigns. And there have been proposals to force television stations and networks to provide candidates with free air time, or at least sell them ads at a greatly reduced cost. Needless to say, the broadcasters don't think much of these proposals, and they are a powerful lobby.
Bethesda, Md.:
I heard that the White House is doing a full court press on the Senate for the tax bill. How successful has that been or has Bush already warn out his welcome in the Senate?
Howard Kurtz: We won't know for awhile. The Senate won't vote until at least May. But with a 50-50 Senate, the terrain is obviously trickier than in the House.
Overland Park, Kan.:
Howard, with all of the recent attention given to Dick Cheney's health, why do you think no one has gone back and revisited Denton Cooley's prognosis last July assuring Cheney's health only so far as the duration of the campaign? After all, it was this assessment that cleared the way for Cheney's nomination.
Howard Kurtz: The problem is that no doctor, however smart, can predict the future for a heart patient. Even now, no one knows whether Cheney will have another "precautionary incident" (as the White House terms it) next week, next month or before 2004. Experts cite percentages on the possibility of a relapse for a 60-year-old man who's had four heart attacks, but every patient is different. What's fascinating is the intensive coverage of Cheney's medical situation -- a tribute, obviously, to his role in what the press describes as the Most Influential Vice President in History.
Chatsworth, Calif.:
Has Ted Turner ever personally congratulated or derided one of your reports/comments/programs?
Howard Kurtz: No.
Ellicott City, Md.:
You are so modest regarding the press's impact! I'm just troubled that the press doesn't bother to get it right. E.g., in yesterday's Post, the new Bankruptcy laws were described as "Bush legislation." There's no mention that the law passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and that it pre-dated the current administration. Similarly, the Post's repeated references to Bush's reinstitution of the abortion gag rule never mentions that Clinton issued his Executive Order allowing overseas abortion counseling at the same time as the Right to Life March was taking place. I know you try your best, Howard, but you alone can't change the leopard's spots.
Howard Kurtz: I'm not sure I see the problem in describing the bankruptcy bill as Bush legislation when it was publicly backed by the White House. And virutally every story, in the Post and elsewhere, when Bush issued the abortion order mentioned that he was reversing Clinton's policy.
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to Howard Kurtz, and to
everyone who joined us.
Stay tuned on Live Online:
Special!
Anthony Michael Hall at 2 p.m. EST
Travel
Talk at 2 p.m. EST
Carolyn
Hax at 3 p.m. EST
NCAA:
Georgetown at 3 p.m. EST
Astrologer
at 7 p.m. EST
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
