I'm not sure what got into Howard Kurtz Sunday morning, but the Washington Post/CNN media analyst, and "Reliable Sources" host, really laid into the press for their horrible coverage of the presidential campaign.
Maybe more surprising, Kurtz voiced his displeasure with both print and television news coverage, as well as what was being written and said about the candidates on both sides of the aisle.
So go get some popcorn, and prepare yourself for a media bashing guaranteed to put a smile on your face:
KURTZ: Barack Obama gave a major speech this week in which he proposed a $210 billion plan to create construction and environmental jobs, and also to create a national infrastructure investment bank. Hillary Clinton also talking about the economy this week at a GM plant. She talked about going after excessive oil company profits and creating a $50 billion energy fund.
No mention of this on the networks. A fleeting mention on cable. A little bit more on newspapers.
When guests Chip Reid of CBS, Steve Roberts of George Washington University, and Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times all tried to defend media's position, Kurtz was having none of it:
But Steve, isn't that just a tremendous default by the media to say, well, you know, these candidates, not a huge difference between them, so basically we're going to check out on the issues?
Great question. Here was Roberts' almost insulting answer:
No, I'm not defending it. I'm explaining it. But also, I think there's another thing to remember. If people want to know the differences, and want to know, they can go to their Web sites. This is a very different media environment now. You're not limited to learning about these plans from what's on the nightly news. You can go and get anything you want, at any length you want, with two mouse clicks.
Unbelievable. So, the media can lay down on their jobs now because if folks want to find the truth, they can get on the Internet.
Great, Steve. I'm all for that.
Maybe all you folks ought to just cash in your chips -- no offense, Chip! -- and we'll let talk radio and the blogosphere take over the role of disseminating information to the public.
All those in favor, say "Aye."
But there was more, for Kurtz was still displeased...and rightfully so:
But shouldn't I as a voter know that Barack Obama has proposed a $200 billion plan to create jobs so I can judge whether or not I want to support him, whether I don't want to support him? When people say we cover the horse race, Hillary's lead is shrinking in Ohio, what are the superdelegates going to do, this is what they mean.
Exactly. Now read the pathetic answers from the peanut gallery:
REID: And it's more than that. It's not just the difference between Barack and Hillary. You can say, oh, they're so minimal, we barely need to cover them. There are differences between Barack...
SWEET: I didn't say that we didn't need to cover them. I'm just pointing that out.
REID: Oh, I know. But there are differences between Barack and Barack.
He has shifted his positions recently. That economic speech that he gave recently is a good deal more populist and anti-trade than he has been in the past. And it is our obligation to get out there and report on it.
KURTZ: Why am I hearing and reading so little about that?
REID: Darn good question. And I think it's because we're more interested in the horse race at this point, and because there isn't that compelling need, apparently, for us to get out there.
ROBERTS: And remember, you said -- you used the word "conflict," right? Particularly television, you can't put a budget on TV. You can't put an 18-point program on the environment on TV.
Why the heck not? Shouldn't this election be about issues, and not the personalities?
Or are these folks so concerned that the candidates' positions are so vacuous and undifferentiatable that actually talking about the issues would pull the curtain back on the empty suits in the race?
Fortunately, Kurtz still wasn't finished, and raised possibly his best point:
Newspapers don't get off the hook here. The eavesdropping bill, where Congress so far has not extended the powers that President Bush wanted, Hillary and Obama did not vote on that because they weren't in town, but they both oppose an extension. John McCain supported it. This got a mention at most.
Outstanding point, Howard, especially since national security and the war on terror will certainly be an important issue this election.
Yet, as Kurtz accurately pointed out, the press seem thoroughly disinterested in the three candidates' positions on this crucial espionage bill. Kind of pathetic, wouldn't you agree?
Regardless, kudos are indeed in order.
Bravo, Howard. Although I felt you did a terrible job on your interview two weeks ago with Keith Olbermann, this was one of your finest hours.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I too was glad Kurtz brought
February 17, 2008 - 23:12 ET by bigtimerI too was glad Kurtz brought up this subject this morning, I also thought all in all Chip Reid throughout the whole segment I saw did a pretty good job compared to the others as far as honesty comes when it comes to the talking head reporters...seems to me I remember a part where he said 'it is our job to report the news, not form our opinions and report that way" or some-such, I am paraphrasing here of course, and of course he was interrupted.... anyway I enjoyed this segment this morning.
Btw....No truer words than what Reid said about them being more interested in the horse race right now...
Yep... to heck with the differences in their individual policies...if any, with all the candidates.
Not Just Right Now
February 18, 2008 - 00:02 ET by CaringwhiteguyBT-Doesn't it seem that the horse race is ALWAYS more interesting to the media than substantive issues? Just think how much they could save on polls if they just covered who, what, when and where.
Double Click
February 18, 2008 - 00:03 ET by CaringwhiteguySorry, double click, double post.
Meh, not that great....
February 18, 2008 - 09:58 ET by dronetekYet again the media notices a bias, but its bias against the media sweetheart Barak Obama! Give me a break, Bush and the Republicans have put up with much worse over the last 8 years. When are we going to get some recognition of that? NEVER!
Kurtz is dead on. This
February 18, 2008 - 07:35 ET by motherbeltKurtz is dead on. This "they can go to their websites" is just B, as in B; S, as in S. It's their job to do a little more than report the latest poll numbers and who's currently ahead in the "horse race."
The media are positively ignoring the fact that Barack Obama has recently begun to moderate (read: back off) his plan for a immediate withdrawal from Iraq:
On "60 Minutes" Steve Kroft asked him if he would start pulling troops out of Iraq right away, even if there was still some sectarian violence. Obama's answer: No. He would always reserve the right, as Commander-in-Chief, to assess the situation.
That hasn't been on the 6 o'clock news anywhere that I know of.
Also, Her Royal Clintoness recently unveiled a plan to regulate the oil industry, the credit card industry, the insurance industry, the drug companies, Wall Street, and Student Loans!
And all they can talk about is who's currently edging ahead, and the argument over super delegates????
Sheesh!
Talk about dereliction of duty!!
(Edited at 0635: replaced words "date certain for" with "immediate."
Exactly, motherbelt. And why
February 18, 2008 - 19:40 ET by zfExactly, motherbelt. And why is high but justly-earned profits always "excessive" but the government is never derided for having excessive amounts of money to spend (and far too often blow) especially when that money is taken whether you like it or not through taxes?
Look Mommy it's February and a Howie Kurtz rerun
February 18, 2008 - 02:27 ET by Lame CherryHoward Kurtz purpose in life is to play an even handed voice for those all knowing unbiased folks just like him........all the while under his thin veneer he is a dripping liberal playing a part given to him to make the masses cheer that "gee whizzerkers someone in media sees what I see".
I was wondering which script this was which Howard dusted off with a few touches so he could rail once again AT BOTH SIDES AND BOTH CANDIDATES equally.
Strange how FOX was praised by Hillary.......but yet Kurtz does his job of manipulation in smearing honest people.........and yet both sides pant, "YEAH YEAH HOWIE YOU GOT IT MAN.....You see what that O'Reilly and Limbaugh are spewing.......You see that Olberman and Matthews are ranting about".
Excellent job Howard. The cartel of Tavistock manipulative media will be keeping you around as one of their voices of conning the masses to keep the lid from blowing off.
I would think though after these decades the cartel could cut your salary in half as all you are doing is recycling scripts just like those old teachers going through the motions of 40 years of churning out students.
Now Kurtz has covered it and the media now can deny coverage of any further issue. Kurtz knows this and knows Schumer has sounded the bell for the start of the destruction of Obama just about as his dreams come true in March.
Nasty little Minnesotan homosexual is saying all sorts of gay things about Barak now and doing coke in a limo and Barak doing him.
Odd Howard how Minnesota had that little gay incident about Larry Craig too........just coincidence the cop set it up and coincidence the cop called the MSM too.
Odd too that Patrick Fitzgerald is waiting to Scooter Libby, Senator Obama.
Not so odd though is it Howard. You know the script and made your appearance on stage today at the right moment. You even made Newsbusters Howard. What da ya think about that.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Issue-blind
February 18, 2008 - 03:09 ET by KC MulvilleThey cover what they see, and all they see is the horserace. I used to think that they knew all the policy differences but opted for more "engaging" television, but that was back during the era when I assumed they knew what they were talking about. I have long since realized that news reporters are not nearly as intelligent as they think they are. They really don't understand the issues, and therefore they wouldn't know where to start in analyzing real policy differences.
Political reporters don't investigate what the public feels. Instead, they report what other reporters are feeling. They report the conventional wisdom among their fellow reporters. Their whole report could come from the hotel bar. It's the textbook example of group-think. They fulfill their own prophecies.
I will join you, therefore, in praising Howard Kurtz for trying to break out of that mental lockup.
Even more cynical
February 18, 2008 - 08:49 ET by pilsenerEven worse than not understanding the issues - TV news doesn't even think the issues matter because it doesn't fit their format. It's entertainment in 30 second "reports", and 1 minute guest commentary, and 2 minute anchor chatter.
If an issue cannot be reduced to a 10 second description, or better yet key-word phrases, then it simply won't be discussed. If it won't be discussed, then it is OK to ignore. Changing the format is not an option, because it's part of an advertising revenue model.
But the arrogant defense of that non-news model by its practitioners is truly annoying. I like Reliable Sources because Kurtz aks the right questions, and reporters are not nearly as practiced at spinning as politicians.
Hat tip to Motherbelt...
February 18, 2008 - 04:49 ET by Parker1227...whose relay of Obama's major change in Iraq policy on "60 Minutes" makes the point of this article perfectly.
Obama gained almost total loyalty from the "out now" far-Left by repeating ad nauseum on the campaign trail that he would (paraphrase) end this unjustified war immediately by pulling out our troops starting on day one.
So now, with the Leftists emotionally committed (committable?) and in the bag, Obama can just turn on a dime and retract his pledge out of political convenience? And no one cares enough to report it?
It seems obvious that Obama is now waffling on Iraq as a matter of damage control against Hillary (and a future McCain) trapping him into the historically deadly McGovern box.
And this political weaseling is ignored (or buried) by the MSM?
In the words of the great one, "How typical."
Thanks Mother!
Thanks, Parker!
February 18, 2008 - 09:06 ET by motherbeltThanks, Parker!
And there's another thing that I brought up a few days ago and forgot about, that the MSM are not covering:
Obama recently (weeks, not years, ago!) sponsored the "Global Poverty Act" in the Senate, which would require the US to spend 0.7 % of our GDP on foreign aid. That means $845 billion, over ten years, in addition to what we now spend.
A law that requires a certain amount for foreign aid!!
Yea, but who's ahead on delegates?????
I have to give Kurtz credit
February 18, 2008 - 05:54 ET by YarblesI have to give Kurtz credit for at least asking the questions, even if it was only to have his entire panel shoot them down. For example this exchange:
--------------
KURTZ: [McCain endorses Romney...] And so Romney and McCain is the story of about half a cycle. Then everybody goes back to talking about Hillary and Obama.
Is this imbalance fair, the greater media focus on the Democratic race?
SWEET: It's not fair, but there's more of -- there's -- since there's
less clarity on the Democratic side, Howie, it does make sense that
you're going to spend time trying to explore what's going on, on the
Democratic side, than Huckabee's uphill battle to try and catch up. It
seems all but mathematically impossible right now.
------------
Of course, Sweet's response might explain the last week, but it doesn't explain the last year of imbalanced coverage.
That right there exposes
February 18, 2008 - 10:16 ET by dscottThat right there exposes the omission game being played by the MSM. Just like the AGWers who claim everything else is equal, therefore we should ignore all the details and focus only on what to do about the assertion. It's all circular reasoning. They assert Obama and Clinton are virtually the same on the issues, therefore let's only look at what we find interesting or exciting. What are their stands on the issues? No Dem really knows other than the talking points. How sly to claim people should go to the internet, when in fact most average voters get their only "impressions" from the TV or newspaper headline with zero details.
This reminds me of a classic line out of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (2005):
Vogon VOICE
This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council. As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require building of a hyperspatial express route through your system, and regrettably your planet is one of those scheduled for destruction. The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes. Thank you.
The hum vanishes. Panic erupts. The PA comes back on.
PROSTETNIC VOGON JELTZ (v/o) Oh, there’s no point acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years. You’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint, and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now.
....
PROSTENTIC VOGON JELTZ (v/o) What do you mean, you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? For heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four bloody light years away. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own problem. Energize the demolition beams.
....
PROSTETNIC VOGON JELTZ (v/o) I don’t know. Apathetic bloody planet, I’ve no sympathy at all.
The screen becomes blindingly white.
http://forums.comingsoon.net/showthread.php?t=25134
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
We don’t need no stinkin’ facts!”
February 18, 2008 - 11:59 ET by needle“Bravo, Howard. Although I felt you did a terrible job on your interview two weeks ago with Keith Olbermann, this was one of your finest hours.”
You may be right, Noel, about this being one of Kurtz's finest hours; however, I would say only that Kurtz finally did his job. It is extremely sad that one should feel the slightest bit of gratitude for somebody, who has a job as soft as Kurtz’s in the first place, doing something worthwhile only once every year or so. We all know that the MSM has sunk to the point where all they are concerned about is preserving their faux professionalism. Genuine professionalism is a thing of the very distant past. And the reason for this is that Howard Kurtz and all others in any vaguely related role have completely shirked their responsibilities for decades now.
When Steve Roberts says, nay admits, “[i]f people want to know the differences [between the candidates], and want to know [sic], they can go to their Web sites” he might as well say: “Facts? We [in the MSM] don’t need [to provide] no stinkin’ facts!” And then these Media types – Helen Thomas springs to mind, YUCK! – express outrage that blogs should have the audacity to try to perform the role that they think properly belongs to the Media!
Well, at least this makes it official: The media’s role is not news, it’s propaganda. Now all we have to do is figure out is what the propaganda is for and against.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Steve Roberts?
February 18, 2008 - 13:02 ET by Del DolemonteCokie's husband. 'Nuff said.
Hhhhmmmm!
February 18, 2008 - 18:55 ET by Wildcatter1980HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!?!
You are news reporters.
You're SUPPOSED to get out there.
You're SUPPOSED to report on where the candidates stand on the key issues!
You're SUPPOSED to compare and contrast the candidates!
You're SUPPOSED to anticipate potential unintended consequences of those positions and proposals!
You're SUPPOSED to challenge them with pointed questions on their positions and proposals!
Just my $0.02