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."
Howard Kurtz
(washingtonpost.com)
|
|
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.
_____________
Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
The polls are swinging back and forth - now it looks like Bush is up again in many national polls. Yet some analysis of some key "swing states" shows Kerry leading those. Do you foresee the ironic outcome of Kerry losing the popular vote yet winning the election?
Howard Kurtz: Hey, if I knew who was going to win this thing I'd take the next two weeks off. All I know is I've now read a dozen or so scare stories about how we're headed for a recount mess that will make Florida look like a Boy Scout jamboree. I'm not convinced--what are the odds of this happening twice in a row?--but I'm not making plans for Nov. 3, either.
_______________________
Baltimore, Md.:
Has anyone calculated the value of Sinclair's decision to pre-empt programming on 60 odd stations for 42 minutes prime time?
Howard Kurtz: It would cost Very Big Bucks to buy that kind of time on stations that reach 25 percent of the country. The anti-Kerry film is likely to air this week.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
Howard,
Do you see the stretch run up to Election Day being dominating by "horse race" stories on poll results? Or will substantive reporting finally show up?
Howard Kurtz: There has been a HUGE amount of substantive reporting in this campaign for those who have tried to find it. The debates, for example, prompted a lot of poll-driven and body-language reporting (scowling is bad, staying calm is good) but also many stories on the substance of the disagreements on Iraq, health care, Social Security, etc. Having said that, the coverage right now is the most poll-driven I've ever seen. Kerry was toast before the first debate, surged during the debates and is slipping behind now--at least according to these tight polls with a significant margin of error.
_______________________
Tucson, Ariz.:
Howard
You seem to quote more from newspapers and columnists that endorse Kerry? Is this true? How do you choose which media to use?
Howard Kurtz: I try to be fair and balanced, to coin a phrase. I check out lots of conservative blogs and liberal blogs. As for newspapers, Kerry has a big lead in major-paper endorsements (NYT, B. Globe, Philly Inquirer, Miami Herald) and I tend to look at the biggest papers. But don't fall into the trap of believing that newspaper endorsements affect newsroom reporting. Just look at the Wall Street Journal (which doesn't endorse but has slammed Kerry repeatedly, while the news columns in my view have basically been fair).
_______________________
Hanover, N.H.:
Mr. Kurtz,
Will the media promise, this time, not to call Florida
before the polls close in the much more conservative than
liberal Florida panhandle thereby costing the President
thousands upon thousands of votes?
Howard Kurtz: Yes. I interviewed executives from all the networks for a story last week and they all said they would not call a state until ALL the polls in that state have closed, unlike their previous, somewhat indefensible standard of making a call after a majority of the polls have closed.
_______________________
Atlanta, Ga.:
Hi Howard,
Just curious why you haven't covered John Stewart's appearance on CNN's Crossfire last week?
Stewart calmly explained why shows like Crossfire were are mere theater and refused to be their funny "monkey". It seemed to me that he gave Tucker Carson a (rhetorical) kick in the crotch. CNN.com has the transcript.
Howard Kurtz: Lisa deMoraes, the Post TV columnist, had a very nice piece on the matter on Saturday.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Howard,
Do national polls matter all that much anymore? Over the past few days I've seen various polls give completely contradictory numbers as to the state of the Presidential race nationally. And as we saw in 2000 a person can win the popular vote, but still lose if his opponent wins the correct electoral votes. Shouldn't the polls everyone watch really be the ones that come out of the battleground states?
Howard Kurtz: Yes. Absolutely. National polls can contain interesting demographic information, and it's good to keep an eye on Bush's reelect number and the right track/wrong track question. But this election is going to be decided in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and a handful of other states. So whether Kerry has millions more votes in New York and California, or Bush in Texas, is basically irrelevant.
_______________________
washingtonpost.com: Left Hooks and Right Jabs: Stewart Tangles With Carlson (Post, Oct. 16)
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Howard
Dana Millbank's otherwise excellent article on the creating of the cartoon picture of John Kerry left out the media's role in fostering the impression of Kerry as a two dimensional clownish figure. I remember day after day of unchallenged Bush sound bites on the evening news and many newspaper stories helping to create this impression. What role did the media have in creating this view of Kerry? In books, such as Bias and Misunderestimated, conservatives argued the media has a liberal bias in part because Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush performed better in their debates than the conventional wisdom going into the debate. They said the difference between predebate and postdebate perception was a measure of media bias. What does this episode do to their argument?
washingtonpost.com: Bush's Cartoon of Kerry Failed to Show Up (Post, Oct. 15)
Howard Kurtz: Milbank, among others, has written a number of pieces challenging Bush's charges about Kerry. But keep in mind that the Bush camp spent something like $85 million on ads that mostly attacked Kerry. (The senator is now doing the same to Bush, although earlier the negative ads were mostly done by Kerry's liberal allies such as MoveOn.) People see those ads over and over again. Where I would fault the media is that very few news organizations both to do any fact-checking of the ads, and most networks play them again and again with little effort to assess their accuracy. Kerry used the media truth-squad pieces in the third debate to knock down Bush's charges against his health care plan, and the president responded with a semi-joke about how the media aren't credible.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Howard,
I must say I'm rather befuddled by the national media. With all the substantive issues that were discussed in the third debate, the story that got legs was whether it was appropriate for Kerry to note that Dick Cheney had a lesbian daughter. That is just ridiculous.
Howard Kurtz: That is in part due to a concerted GOP spin effort that included Dick and Lynne Cheney. But in fairness, the biggest media issue after the first debate was Bush's scowling, frowning and fidgeting. I wrote before the debates that as important as the candidates' performances are the post-debate spin campaigns (which now start, ludicrously, in the pressroom before the thing is even over). And I think that's been true after each encounter.
_______________________
Yonkers, N.Y.:
Hi Howard
Why didn't fact checking columns become standard before the debates. I think they should be a regular part of political media coverage all the time.
That alone would improve political discourse.
Thanks
Howard Kurtz: Speaking as someone who has assessed the ads in every campaign since 1992, it's time-consuming, the pieces are hard to do and you often have to go out on a limb. That is, rather than say Bush and Kerry denounced each other as threats to the Republic, you have to do your own research and say this claim is exaggerated, this one is misleading and this one is just wrong.
_______________________
Pittsburgh, Pa.:
Love your CNN show.
Now that the New York Times, to absolutely no one's surprise, has endorsed Kerry, do you have any insight when we will get The Wahsington Post's endorsement of Kerry? Do the New York TImes and Washington Post try to put some distance between their endorsements to give maximum help to Kerry?
Howard Kurtz: First, you're assuming The Post will endorse Kerry, and I don't know. Second, the two papers would never worry about the timing of what the other one is doing. Keep in mind that each editorial board has to hash out what it thinks and then write what is usually a lengthy editorial. And they hardly march in lockstep. The New York Times was largely critical of Bush on the war in Iraq, and The Washington Post was staunchly supportive.
_______________________
Cortez, Colo.:
Laura Ingraham was on your show Sunday. Two times, Mark Halpern's memo was clarified. She continued to mischaractize it. Do these people ever privately say to you that they actually do understand something like this? Is it all just show?
Howard Kurtz: No, what Laura said is what she believes. She feels strongly about these issues, as do many of my guests. I think it's fine to argue about the memo from ABC's political director but that we should accurately report what it said. Which is why I addressed it in today's column.
_______________________
Dunkirk, Md.:
Mr. Kurtz,
Regarding your column today on media outlets making judgment calls on the respective distortions committed by the Bush-Kerry campaigns, I would agree that a good reporter should report if one side is twisting the truth more than the other. However, in this case, it seems that the media outlets in question are simply trying to rationalize a pro-Kerry tilt in the closing weeks of the election.
Is Bush distoring more than Kerry? Highly doubtful. The greatest departure from reality in the campaign today is Kerry's assertion that Bush will bring back the draft. There's no evidence to support that, no statement by the President to back it up, and no inclination on the part of members of Congress to do so. Kerry knows there won't be a draft, but makes the charge repeatedly anyway. Shouldn't the media perhaps decide that Kerry's campaign needs a tougher truth inspection?
Howard Kurtz: I think that both campaigns should be subjected to very tough scrutiny by the press. The argument that, until recently, the Bush campaign was engaging in more significant distortions than the Kerry campaign was not an unreasonable one. However, now that Kerry is warning about a draft that the president says he isn't planning and Social Security cuts (as I report today) that Bush says he won't be making, it's up to journalists to train a comparable spotlight on Kerry's rhetoric.
_______________________
Boston, Mass.:
Hi Howard,
I was wondering if you could comment on Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire.
Howard Kurtz: Jon Stewart has denounced Crossfire every chance he gets. He did it once on my show, he did it at a forum during the New Hampshire primary and he did it at a breakfast with reporters at the Democratic convention. So I don't know why Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala would be surprised that Stewart would rip them on their own set. If they thought he was just going to come on and tell jokes, they were badly mistaken.
_______________________
Lexington Park, Md.:
Why should newspapers endorse anyone now? With the recent problems with journalists such as Blair and the constant bombardment that the press swings left, why even take the risk?
Howard Kurtz: What risk? Lots of newspapers endorse Republicans and lots of newspapers endorse Democrats. Editorial pages are totally separate from the newsroom--they're SUPPOSED to have opinions. If an editorial page is going to hold forth on the issues 365 days a year, wouldn't it be a copout to say, well, we don't have an opinion on who should be president for the next four years?
_______________________
Boston, Mass.:
Zogby and several other reputable polling agencies has the race tied. Gallup gives Bush a lead. I know CNN pays Gallup, but when they lead off a segment saying "Bush takes a lead in the polls..." it is not being "fair and balanced." Do you think viewers understand that CNN is paying for these polls and that every poll uses a different methodology? And that Gallup was FAR off in the final 2000 polls? I don't. I think average viewers think this must mean Bush is leading and this alone could affect whether or not people vote. It's irresponsible journalism.
Howard Kurtz: In fairness, CNN routinely reports the results of other polls. And every news outfit, including The Washington Post, touts its own polls. NBC touts the poll it does with the Wall Street Journal. CBS touts the poll it does with the New York Times. ABC touts the one it does with The Post. Fox trumpets its Opinion Dynamics poll. I happen to think all of them fall into the trap of relying too heavily on polls in general (remember the surveys that had Howard Dean 40 points up in Iowa) and on their own in particular. But most readers and viewers are smart enough to get that.
_______________________
Teaneck, N.J.:
Howard,
What is it with the Edwards' lately? John's mind-boggling assertion that the lame will rise up and walk if John Kerry is elected, followed by Elizabeth's stunningly insensitive claim that Lynn Chaney must be ashamed of her daughter, the proof being her objection to Kerry's deabate remarks.
I thought this was supposed to be a well-tuned politically-savvy couple? By the way, were you surprised at the relative lack of press comment concerning the Vice-Presidential candidate's comments, that seem so ripe for Saturday Night Live parody?
Howard Kurtz: I was surprised that Edwards's "people like Christopher Reeve will walk again if John Kerry is elected" line didn't touch off more of an uproar. (Charles Krauthammer, who suffered a spinal cord injury decades ago, had a devastating column about this in The Post on Friday.) That seemed to me to be a bigger deal than some of the other debate-related flaps.
_______________________
Lexington Park, Md.:
The risk I'm referring to is of turning off half your readership. If a Republican is reading a paper like the New York Times, and thinks that the stories seem to be biased more toward Kerry, then the New York Times endorses Kerry, they are going to lose a reader. It's hard for many people understand the separation between editorial boards and the news gathering section.
I can see local papers endorsing people, but the bigger national papers shouldn't, just for the fact that they want to make sure that everyone is treated fairly, and that their readers think that everyone is treated fairly also. Maybe if, for instance, the Post took the editorials out of the main news section and gave them their own section.
Howard Kurtz: But again, you're missing the church-and-state separation. Reporters don't care who their paper endorses and often write stories that contradict the editorial page. (At The Post, Len Downie runs the newsroom and Fred Hiatt the editorial page. At the Times, it's Bill Keller and Gail Collins.) Plus, if someone was going to be turned off by a paper's editorial stance, wouldn't they reach that conclusion with the week-after-week stances the newspaper takes, and not just at endorsement time?
_______________________
Woodbine, Md.:
I was fascinated with Evan Thomas' statement on your show that the media wants Kerry to win and will report in order to help Kerry in whatever way possible. I think most people would agree that the media has gone out of its way to try and help Kerry and it culminated with Dan Rather's smear job using the fake documents.
Have the head honchos at the news networks and newspapers given up on trying to force their reporters to be more objective, allowing them to inject their opinions, most of the time liberal, into their reports? How many points in the polls do you think the media gives to Kerry with their reporting?
Howard Kurtz: Evan Thomas did say he believes most reporters want Kerry to win. He qualified it, however, when it came to the question of whether they're tilting their reporting in order to help Kerry. There have been plenty of periods during this campaign when the tactics-obsessed press has ripped Kerry as a poor candidate.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
So the New York Times endorses John Kerry and all the TV news broadcsts this endorsement as if it was actually news. CNN doesn't report everyday that the sun comes up or that the Pope is Catholic. Why are they reporting that The New York Times endorsed a Demcorat for President?
Howard Kurtz: Because it's probably the most influential paper in the country. But the stories I've seen have also mentioned that the Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Has the question of the Bush Bulge been satisfactorily answered. I'm referring to the large rectangular device seen beneath his suitcoat in the first debate, leading to charges that Bush is receiving coaching via an earpiece. I don't recall seeing anything about this in the Post.
Howard Kurtz: Yes, The Post wrote a story about it a couple of days after it was reported by Salon (I mention this near the end of today's online column). The Post story said there was no evidence for the notion that Bush was wired, only a lot of buzz, and that's pretty much where it remains.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
Howard,
Why hasn't the media "demanded" an answer from the WH as to whether Bush was wearing a wire at the debates? The "alien" answer they keep giving is not a denial....
Howard Kurtz: "Demanded"? Have you noticed that the president has not taken questions from reporters in quite awhile? Campaign spokesman have certainly denied it, though.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
What's your take on the Stewart/Carlson battle on Crossfire?
Reading The Post's coverage, this struck me as an odd way to remove the expletive:
"You know what's interesting though?" Stewart shot back. "You're as big a [male pride] on your show as you are on any show."
Looking back through some previous stories, it seems that [male pride] is The Post's standard for this. What's the story behind that?
Howard Kurtz: Really? It's been used before? I thought it was just Lisa de Moraes having fun.
I'm told that CNN has removed the D-word from its transcript.
_______________________
Indianapolis, Ind.:
Would you consider having Jon Stewart on you show?
Howard Kurtz: I would. I've had him on twice and he was terrific. Dished out more withering criticism of the media than many of my non-fake-journalist guests.
_______________________
Wayzata, Minn.:
When will CNN wake up and expand your weekend show back to 60 minutes?
Howard Kurtz: It never was 60 minutes, although on occasion we've been given a full hour during heavy media-news weeks. I'll pass your suggestion on.
_______________________
St. Louis, Mo:
Am I wrong to think that the airing of "Stolen Honor" by Sinclair will cause John Kerry's momentum after the debates to disappear entirely?
Even if there are many supposed untruths, the documentary will go unchallenged and it seems to me that this airing will unduly influence the presidential election.
Bush is guaranteed to win.
Howard Kurtz: I won't say there are untruths because I haven't seen it. The film consists of 17 POWs who argue that Kerry betrayed the country -- and extended their captivity -- by charging that there were U.S. atrocities in Vietnam during his 1971 Senate testimony. That's their point of view. I'm sure it will have an effect on some wavering voters, especially if there is no Kerry campaign rebuttal afterward.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
Good one today on reporting and truth. I am of the opinion that the false even-handedness of simply reporting what one party said, then reporting the response without going into the relative merits of the statements does us a great injustice. While I feel that the consumer is ultimately responsible for doing their own research as to who is lying, it certainly would be helpful if more reporters were to do this as well.
Why do you think that so many reporters adopt this phony equanimity?
washingtonpost.com: Truth and Consequences (Post, Oct. 18)
Howard Kurtz: It's much harder to crawl out on a limb and say, I have studied what the two campaigns have said on issue X and here is my factual analysis of where the truth lies. You take a lot of heat when you do that, as opposed to "President Bush and Senator Kerry traded charges today on whether the senator is soft on terrorism..." It also happens to be good journalism to try to untangle the competing claims and counterclaims.
_______________________
Washington, DC:
Mr. Kurtz,
What are your comments about the fundamental point that Jon Stewart is trying to make? I do not want to belabor this, but I think his point is a valid one and it's being overshadowed by the back-and-forth insults that were exchanged. I believe that we are in political trouble (the great divide will not begin to close) unless there is a shift in the media, and a true sense of ownership.
Thoughts?
Howard Kurtz: I've never been a huge fan of shout shows that reduce issues to black and white, but Crossfire (like its many imitators) is what it is: A debate program in which opposing partisans come on and argue. Stewart's point is that all of the media, not just Crossfire, have a responsibility to tell us where the "truth" lies and not just let the spinners sound off. I agree, to a point. The "truth" is not so easy to declare, and there are conflicting versions of the truth (that's what campaigns are about.) So playing referee is harder than Stewart realizes. SOOO much easier to be a fake journalist!
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Hello. It sounds like we have an upswing of new voter registrations across the country and the poll percentages bouncing all over the place. Has any source in the media taken a look at these two factors together and what they could mean on November 2? It seems that the polls are not that reliable with all the new voters in the mix, let alone when most result in a statictical dead heat. What is your take?
Howard Kurtz: If there's a recount, I'm going to hide under my bed for the next month.
Thanks for the chat, folks.
_______________________
