|
Media
Backtalk
With Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 22, 2002; Noon EDT
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," "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.
Alexandria, Va.:
In the anthology "You Are Being Lied To" the noted mathematician Noam Chomsky states:
"There is another sector of the media, the elite media, sometimes called the agenda-setting media because they are the ones with the big resources; they set the framework in which everyone else operates. The New York Times, The Washington Post and a few others. Their audience is mostly privileged people."
I have observed The Washington Post being offered for sale in run down Mom and Pop stores in poorer neighborhoods. Isn't The Washington Post actually the newspaper of record in these poor neighborhoods?
Would a reasonable person who was not an advertising salesman for The Post ever say that the Post's "audience is mostly privileged people?"
Howard Kurtz: It's just factually incorrect. The Post, in fact, has the highest penetration rate of any major newspaper in the country, close to 50 percent. While other big-city papers boosted their prices to 50 and 75 cents, The Post remained a quarter (and recently went up to 35 cents) in an effort to hold onto lower-income readers.
The criticism is more true of the New York Times, which, financially speaking. The last time I checked, the Times had a penetration rate in NY of around 10 percent -- but it's the right 10 percent, the affluent readers most valued by advertisers. (The Times also has a big national circulation.) So lumping them together is wrong.
Villanova, Pa.:
You briefly mentioned in your column today about last week's article in the Boston Globe on journalists who had donated money to political campaigns in that state. What do you think of this, can the journalists still maintain some impartiality when they are showing a clear preference for one candidate?
Howard Kurtz: I think it's absurd and I can't imagine why any newspaper editor would allow it.
Vancouver, BC, Canada:
Dear Howard,
During the 2000 campaign, I only vaguely noticed the stories about Harken. We were still in the fat, contented Clinton prosperity, so who cared about a bit of chicanery? My question is sort of an Alice
in Wonderland one, in that I'm not sure there can be a clear answer. But here goes anyway. Were the regular folk, like me, at fault for not paying more attention, or were the media at fault for not playing up the Harken story more at the time? If all of us had heeded it fully, we might not now have George Bush in what increasingly seems to be a
cardboard role as president, at least, in terms of advocating for corporate reforms. Thanks, as always.
Howard Kurtz: Yes, it's all your fault. Actually, it's true that the basic details about Harken were reported a number of times, but I don't blame people for missing the story. It certainly got only a tiny fraction of the attention lavished on such burning topics as Al Gore's mother-in-law's prescription and whether George Bush had ever used cocaine. Still, that raises a basic dilemma: How big a deal should the press make over long-ago business dealings involving a president that were already reported before he reached the White House? The media's answer so far is: lots.
Ithaca, N.Y.:
What do you think of the Center for Media and Public Affairs and how it conducts its studies and reports its results?
Howard Kurtz: I've written about the center's work many times, and quoted its president, Robert Lichter, and generally find the group to be very fair and straightforward in its research.
Washington, D.C.:
Donahue isn't bad. But coming from a
PBS/NPR/PRI kind of news world, I must
say the commercials were a bit much.
Just as things would get interesting, time
for a reminder about a new SUV to buy, or
a miracle cure in a pill that also causes
internal bleeding as a side effect. Ask
your doctor for it by name.
I know that TV and radio are primarily not
about entertainment, sports or news, but
about getting specific people to watch
specific advertisements. Still, since they
are our airwaves, wouldn't it be nice to
imagine some media for media's sake,
and not for product selling? Don't they
know that one thing about the people who
might watch Donahue is that we might
not enjoy the crash commercialism of
their ad breaks? washingtonpost.com:
Donahue Is Back, but Is That Good? (washingtonpost.com, July 22, 2002)
Howard Kurtz: Look, Donahue was a daytime talkmeister for 30 years, and those shows all had commercials. Without them, he wouldn't have been able to stay on the air. Except for PBS, that's the way television works, even if it frequently drives many of us crazy.
Bethesda, Md.:
Mr. Kurtz, I think everyone in your story about the president's speech and the enlarged market data was understating the situation. I worked on a trading desk on Wall Street from 1997 to 1999, and in my experience, traders stopped trading to listen to President Clinton. Sometimes he wasn't talking about the markets ("I did not have sexual relations" happened during a morning on a regular trading day) but when he was, like in the case of the Russian debt default in 1998, you better BELIEVE the traders were listening and reacting instantaneously. Why wouldn't the markets react to a speech that has measurable impact on the way stocks should be valued?
Ari Fleischer only betrays his bookish formation by saying that it doesn't work that way, and the TV executives who fell over each other dissociating themselves from the editorial decisions for which they are ultimately responsible just look like toadies to the Ministry of Information. (Even Lou Dobbs wasn't being totally honest in his quote to you.) The market, we used to say, is always right, and the market going down 4 percent is always news. There is no question in my mind that TV made the right decisions.
Howard Kurtz: Sure, professional traders pay attention to what a president is saying. But unless he's making specific proposals (or declaring war or resigning), I'd argue that the impact on the market is not as great - and certainly not as immediate - as those supersized TV stock tickers seemed to suggest. And there are millions of individual investors whose decisions help drive the market, and who are less likely to be buying or selling stocks based on presidential rhetoric.
College Park, Md.:
Good column today Howard. You always give us so much to discuss here, but of all the issues you brought up the one I'm most curious about is of course the Roasted Nuts header.
We see misleading, unintentionally offensive, cruel and just plain awful headlines all the time. But this is the only one that's ever just left my jaw hanging open on the metro.
I'm just a student, but how many copy editors, lay-out editors, executive editors etc. gave this one the pass? Even at (I assume) a relatively small newspaper, no self-respecting editor (let alone a few) should let this by.
Don't tell me you're not at least a little interested to see what else this paper has put out.
Howard Kurtz: It was a jaw dropper, no question about it. At least the copy editor in question wrote a public apology. But I also wonder how other editors could have let that get in the paper without, well, going nuts. It wasn't exactly a minor breach of taste. (For those of you who missed the column, "Roasted Nuts" was the headline in the Trentonian on a fire at a local New Jersey psychiatric hospital.
Fairfax, Va.:
In your opinion, was Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly right on target or out of line when he ripped rival cable host Larry King for excessive coverage of the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case? From the July 12 show transcript on FOXNews.com: "... Larry King has seized upon this story and broadcast hours of endless speculation on his CNN program. Once again last night, a panel sat around with little new information and filled the airwaves with what-ifs for 60 minutes... The media should not be exploiting the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. This is different than O.J. Simpson, John Kennedy, Jr. or even Miss Levy. That's the adult world. Elizabeth Smart is a child." Are the producers of Larry King Live guilty of going even more overboard than the other cable talk shows in favoring sensationalism over substance? Should children be off limits when it comes to media frenzies of the Chandra Levy variety?
Howard Kurtz: I think all of the media went overboard in exploiting this tragedy. But the thing that struck me as odd about O'Reilly's criticism of Larry King is that moments later, on the same show, he did a segment on Elizabeth Smart.
Cherry Hill, N.J.:
Howard,
A quick question about polls. How can a President get 70 percent approval ratings, when over half the respondents feel the country is on the wrong track, almost 70 percent feel he is too tight with big business, and over half oppose many of his policies?
Howard Kurtz: Very good question. It reminds me of when Clinton had high approval ratings even as majorities felt he was lying about Lewinsky and did not approve of his personal conduct. I think the approval rating has become very specific to job performance -- is this guy managing the affairs of state in a way that I support? People make that practical judgment even though they have doubts about a president's personal conduct, ties to big business and so on. Another explanation, of course, is that people express contradictory views in polls. It's not uncommon for them to want smaller government and then express approval of spending on Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, etc.
Washington, D.C.:
Howard -- A local question: as we hear more about the possibily of a baseball team in D.C. (please not in Northern Virginia!) has the Post made any decisions (or have you noticed) a reduction in the ABSURD amount of inches given to the Baltimore baseball team (I belive they're called the "Orioles"?)
I'm pretty sure that the Baltimore Sun is wasting anywhere near as many inches on the Caps or Wizards.
Howard Kurtz: The fact is, a significant number of Washington-area residents go to Orioles games. And about a third of the paper's circulation is in Maryland. And right now, when it comes to baseball, the Orioles are the only game in town, or at least within a 45-minute drive.
Cherry Hill, N.J.:
Polls. How are the various different polling institutions different. The last Presidential approval ratings were anywhere from 60-75 percent. That seems to be a big variance.
Howard Kurtz: Most that I've seen have been 65 to 75 percent, a range that's not terribly unusual. Different samples, the question asked on different days and a 3-4 percent margin of error helps explain the variation.
Shockoe Slip, Va.:
The New Republic online has a weekly feature on the Sunday talk shows, as does FoxNews.com with "Punditwatch," one of their weblogs. What do you think of these efforts to cover the news shows?
Howard Kurtz: I think it's great. Sometimes the Sunday spin needs some serious decoding. Why did this guest duck the question, recite the same talking points, etc.? Seems like fair game to me.
Fairfax, Va.:
What do you think of Andrew Sullivan's long-running critique of the New York Times' Howell Raines? Fair or unfair?
Howard Kurtz: It's obviously inspired by his own experience at being bounced from the Times after several years as a contributor. And these are the opinions of a conservative beating up on what he sees as a liberal newspaper. But that's what Andrew does, dish opinions, and readers can make up their own minds as to whether he's developed a Howell obsession.
Donahue:
Good column today.
I tried to watch the premiere of Donahue. I TRIED. And I lasted 5 minutes. I wanted desperately to support a liberal voice in that format of TV media, but damn, he annoyed the heck out of me. Asking loaded questions, interrupting his guests constantly. I guess it all goes with the territory on a show like that. I was disappointed though.
Howard Kurtz: I thought his next couple of shows were better than the debut. But Donahue loves to interrupt, challenge and hector his guests. He's done it to me a couple of times. That's part of his shtick. He doesn't come from the Jim Lehrer school of polite interviewing.
Houston, Tex.:
What do you think of morning news shows bringing on their own network stars for interviews that basically act as commercials for their shows? For example the Today Show had on Phil Donahue and Natasha Henstridge for no other reason than they had shows on NBC or NBC owned stations.
Howard Kurtz: I don't mind that as much as news shows being used as vehicles to pump the network's entertainment shows, such as all the exclusive "Survivor" interviews on CBS's "Early Show," not to mention the touting of Super Bowl coverage by whichever network has the rights that year. Local news does this too.
Philadelphia, Pa.:
How is the New York Sun doing, both editorially and on the financial side? Will it ever be a serious threat to the New York Times? And isn't the Times incredibly stale?
Howard Kurtz: I read recently that the Sun hasn't attracted that much advertising; unfortunately it isn't available online. It's always tried to position itself as a "second read" to the Times or other New York papers. But a paper that at best is hoping for a circulation of around 50,000 is never going to be a serious threat to a nationally circulated paper that sells more than 1 million copies a day.
Brandermill, Va.:
Was ABC's "This Week" filmed on Sunday? In my area it was pre-empted by the British Open, so I don't know if it appeared anywhere. Why wouldn't ABC affiliates run it later, or offer it to another outlet?
Howard Kurtz: The same thing happens to Meet the Press during Wimbledon and other sports events. It probably ran at 8 am or some other odd hour when you wouldn't be looking for it.
Manassas, Va.:
The pundits are now all rushing to the conclusion that the Dow's slide may lead to a rout of Republicans in this fall's elections. David Brooks said Dick Gephardt's prediction of a 30-40 seat Democratic gain is not implausible. Doesn't this kind of speculation begin seeping into news coverage, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Howard Kurtz: Most prognosticators that I've seen haven't been so bold. They've said, at most, that the Democrats' chances seem to have improved in recent weeks as the stock market has tanked. Anyone who would embrace the idea of a 40-seat gain in July, with all that can happen between now and November (including the market heading back up, another terrorist attack, etc.) is really crawling out on a limb. Forty seats is a political earthquake, and right now there are just tremors.
St. Mary's City, Md.:
What sort of yardstick is in use when CNN or the Post is accused of slanting "liberal," or when Fox News is accused of slanting "conservative?" I'm not really sure what these terms really mean anymore. Have they become code words for Democrat and Republican?
According to one Libertarian Web site, liberals believe in unregulated personal behavior but regulated economic behavior (i.e., business). Conservatives apparently want to regulate personal behavior but not economic behavior. Does this make sense to you in terms of whether news outlets are slanted?
Howard Kurtz: The terms mean different things to different people, depending on who's hurling them. In the case of The Post, it usually means a liberal mindset in framing news stories (although some readers now say the paper is too soft on Bush) and a liberal editorial page (although it frequently criticized Clinton and is not as left-wing as some people seem to believe). In the case of Fox, it usually revolves around the preponderance of conservatives on the air (Hannity, O'Reilly, Snow, Hume, Gingrich) and to some extent the ownership by Rupert Murdoch.
Laurel, Md.:
Please inform the Orioles-coverage critic that D.C. and Baltimore are about the same distance apart as Seattle and Tacoma, San Francisco and San Jose or the the southern tip of Staten Island and The Bronx.
I subscribe to the Post, but live 20 minutes from Camden Yards.
Howard Kurtz: Done. Although in New York that distance has a big impact on whether you're a Yankees or Mets fan.
Arlington, Va.:
What little I saw of Donahue's Ann Coulter interview was pretty funny. He had her totally off balance and whining about him not being fair. A total "pot calling the kettle black" moment.
Howard Kurtz: On the other hand, Donahue kept interrupting her to the point where it was hard for her to answer the questions.
Boston, Mass.:
Why does it seem like there has been lots of coverage on possible Republican philandering with big business, but only relatively little on the Democratic side? After all both parties are equally guilty of catering to business interests.
Howard Kurtz: Many of the pieces I've seen talk about the vulnerability on the Democratic side. But there are these factors: 1) More big business contributions go to Republicans, even though some Dems are no pikers in this competition. 2) The GOP has a longstanding image as the party of big business (even though the Dems often give industry what it wants as well). 3) The Republicans control the White House, meaning there are lots of stories about Harken and Halliburton (and Bush is, after all, our first MBA president, and has several ex-CEOs in top positions, including Cheney, Rumsfeld and O'Neill).
Alexandria,Va:
It can't be long before the President leaves for vacation? Do you think the length of his vacation and his activities will be more of a story this year given the state of the economy and the story about the briefing on a possible attack he received while at the ranch last August?
Howard Kurtz: It will be a total non-story because of the post-9/11 era. More people will understand that a president is always on duty, even when he's at his ranch, and more people will feel this president deserves a vacation after a tough year.
Washington, D.C.:
For papers like the The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The L.A. Times -- which are essentially, "National Local Papers" -- how much pride or effort do these papers put into local news? I notice that some days the Metro section here is pretty thin. I've also noticed that The Washington Times has scooped The Post quite a few times this year on local stories. Does The Post just not care that much about the local reader looking for local news or is it all about the next big national story?
Howard Kurtz: No on both counts. The metro staff at The Post is the largest at the paper, and the one that's expanding the most (with new suburban bureaus). Metro is very important to The Post because, unlike the NYT, WSJ and USA Today, it's a hometown paper that isn't available in the other 48 states. The Washington Times is feisty and sometimes beats the bigger paper, but that's life. Within the paper, of course, many local reporters hope to move up to national or international jobs.
New Orleans, La.:
Mitch Daniels is testifying right now and the stock is plunging. If you listen to him now there is no wonder why. Amazing.
Howard Kurtz: Well, the market was also plunging before he started speaking.
Alexandria, Va.:
The Saturday Post mentioned that Virginia Democratic lieutenant governor has called for an investigation of Alexandria Congressman James Moran.
I appreciate The Post breaking the story of Moran's receiving loans from lobbyists whose legislation he supports. Does this story have "legs?"
Will there need to be a steady drip-drip-drip of information about Moran's ties with lobbyists in order for these stories to result in these stories affecting Moran's political survival?
Howard Kurtz: I don't know. Probably not, if there's no investigation. But we're heading into election season, and I'd be surprised if Moran's acceptance of controversial loans wasn't an issue.
New York, N.Y.:
Howard,
You've touched on Bush's poll numbers, Andrew Sullivan, and the New York Sun in this chat. Tying these all together, did you read Sullivan's article in the Sun regarding the New York Times poll last week? Specifically, what did you think of Sullivan's contrast between how the Times played their Bush poll numbers (significant threat to Bush, burying the fact that he is still at 70 percent) and how the Post playing similar poll numbers (Bush, at 70+ percent, has been largely unaffected by the corporate scandals so far)?
Howard Kurtz: I did think the New York Times went too far in playing down the fact that this is still a very popular president. Here's an excerpt from Sullivan's piece:
Check out the Washongton Post's coverage of almost excalty the same polling results a day before. Here's the Post's headline: "Bush's Ratings Weathering Business Scandals." Now compare the lead paragraphs. Here's the Post's:
"The recent barrage of congressional and media criticism directed at President Bush for his handling of the widening corporate financial scandal has failed to damage his popularity, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll. The survey found that Bush's job approval rating stands at 72 percent, virtually unchanged from a month ago. An equally large proportion of people still view the president as honest and trustworthy, despite recent news accounts that he benefited as a business executive from some of the same practices he now publicly criticizes."
And here's the Times':
"Americans worry that President Bush and his administration are too heavily influenced by big business, fear that Mr. Bush is hiding something about his own corporate past and judge the economy to be in its worst shape since 1994, the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll shows. The survey suggests that the unfolding revelations about corporate misconduct and inflated earnings hold considerable peril for the White House and Mr. Bush's party in this Congressional election year."
And here's the link.
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20020719
Charlottesville, Va.:
In the case of Fox News, I imagine its conservative image is also shaped at least somewhat by the background of its chief, Roger Ailes, who in the past worked exclusively for Republican candidates as a campaign consultant. Would I be cynical to wonder if such background had something to do with his decision to kowtow to the White House on the Bush/stock market coverage?
Howard Kurtz: Well, but he didn't kowtow: Ailes brought up what he saw as an unfair link between Bush's speech and plunging stock prices at a staff meeting well before I called him. It's true that Ailes worked for Bush Sr., among other Republicans, but it's also true that he's been in the television business for a decade now. If former Democrats Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulos can be accepted as Sunday anchors, then Ailes ought to be held to the same standard and judged by his current work.
Washington, D.C.:
Given what the market has done recently, why are the boosters of the bubble still taken seriously today? Shouldn't authoring a book with the title "Dow 36,000" pretty much prevent one from being taken seriously ever again?
Howard Kurtz: Jim Glassman, the Post columnist who co-authored the book, didn't say that Dow 36,000 was coming next week. Do I think he was overoptimstic? Yes. But by that standard, all the experts, analysts and media prognosticators who served as cheerleaders for the '90s bull market and could not conceive that the Nasdaq at 5000 could ever drop below 1500 should also be banished from the public square.
New Orleans, La.:
If Bush can't "talk up" the market, how can the Democrats "talk down" the market as some Republicans have suggested?
Howard Kurtz: The market is doing a pretty good job of talking itself down, and the ability of either party to move stock prices is exaggerated, in my humble opinion.
Thanks for the chat, folks.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
