Kurtz's response to deeply flawed Post editorial: "I don't care what Post editorials say"
SUMMARY: Responding to readers' comments on The Washington Post's falsehood-laden April 9 editorial on President Bush's authorization of intelligence leaks, Post media writer Howard Kurtz -- instead of reporting on the editorial's numerous falsehoods -- stated: "I don't care what Post editorials say, except as a reader."
Responding to readers' comments on The Washington Post's falsehood-laden April 9 editorial on President Bush's authorization of intelligence leaks, Post media writer Howard Kurtz -- instead of reporting on the editorial's numerous falsehoods -- stated: "I don't care what Post editorials say, except as a reader." As Media Matters for America noted, the April 9 editorial espoused numerous falsehoods that echoed media conservatives, and ignored its own paper's reporting in defending Bush's reported authorization of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose classified portions of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction.
Kurtz was responding to readers' questions during an April 10 "Live Online" discussion on washingtonpost.com. When confronted with comments from readers attacking and defending the editorial, Kurtz wrote: "I couldn't ask for a better case study in how the ideology of some readers affects their perception of what is fair or accurate." But contrary to Kurtz's assertion, the flaws in the Post's April 9 editorial had nothing to do with the "perception of what is fair and accurate," but what is actually accurate.
Rather than reporting on the numerous falsehoods in the editorial, Kurtz, who also hosts CNN's Reliable Sources and is billed by the network as "the nation's premier media critic," said the editorial "underscore[s] the church-and-state division" between the Post's editorial and news divisions, and attacked a reader's suggestion that the editorial would reflect poorly on the paper as a whole, writing: "You obviously disagree strongly with that editorial, but I don't see how that translates into a 'lack of journalistic integrity.' The only people who have integrity are those who agree with your positions?"
From Kurtz's April 10 online discussion:
Fairfax, Va.: You are probably getting a lot of questions about the weird editorial from April 9 in which The Washington Post defended the leaking of (and thoroughly debunked) classified information. What I would like to know is what do journalists in the newsroom do when an editorial is so off-base? Do they just shrug their shoulders and carry on? What is their responsibility to the public? Also, should the editorial board be so disconnected from the news portion of the paper? I think this episode is another in a long line of incidences that highlights the lack of journalistic integrity there is out there today. It tarnishes everyone in the media whether fair or not.
Howard Kurtz: I don't care what Post editorials say, except as a reader. They do opinion, we do news. I agree with some editorials and disagree with others. You obviously disagree strongly with that editorial, but I don't see how that translates into a "lack of journalistic integrity." The only people who have integrity are those who agree with your positions?
Washington, D.C.: Yes, we all know; the news and editorial divisions of The Post are separate. But yesterday's "A Good Leak" editorial, written in blatant disregard of undisputed facts reported in The Post and elsewhere, can't help but damage the whole paper's reputation. What is behind this madness?
Howard Kurtz: Again, I'll let Fred Hiatt and company defend themselves on controversial editorials. But it does underscore the church-and-state division around here, since I don't think anyone would suggest that The Post's news coverage has treated this as a "good leak."
[...]
Columbia, Md.: I would take an opposite view from the others who ask the question. Doesn't it make the reporters look foolish when the editorial page is so dead on with their analysis while the reporters are basically carrying the water of those who are against President Bush?
Howard Kurtz: Okay, so now we have the opposite comment from a couple of earlier ones. The Bush critics say the reporters are right on and the editorial writers have no integrity, are mangling the facts, etc. As a Bush supporter, you believe the editorial was brave and bold and the reporters are a bunch of Bush-haters, or at least allies of Bush-haters. I couldn't ask for a better case study in how the ideology of some readers affects their perception of what is fair or accurate.
Similarly, Post staff writer Dan Balz declined to comment on the disconnect between the April 9 editorial and the Post's news coverage of the CIA leak scandal, claiming instead that "[t]he difference between the front page story on Sunday and the editorial underscores the separation of powers here at the Post."
From Balz's April 10 "Post Politics Hour" online discussion on washingtonpost.com:
Rockville, Md.: It would seem that even the Washington Post is confused about the facts in the Libby Leak investigation. Witness the factual discrepancies between yesterday's editorial and front page story. The editorial gave the impression that the leak investigation is not newsworthy, even as the paper was running a page one story on it. What is you opinion on this story? Is it a bombshell or a dud?
Dan Balz: Good morning on another busy Monday here and around the country. We've gotten lots of questions on this issue this morning, so let me start out by addressing this one.
The difference between the front page story on Sunday and the editorial underscores the separation of powers here at the Post. The editorial page is independent from the news staff of the paper, or perhaps I should say the news side is independent from the editorial pages. We do our reporting and the editorial staff does its reporting and interpretation of events. The contrast was striking in this case, but the explanation is fundamental to the way newspapers in this country try to organize themselves.
It seems Howard's real job is "Post defender." It's fine with me if that is what he wants to do, but let's label his work honestly. A "critic" should be critical sometimes.
I have just come to the conclusion that our mainstream press Journalists just do not have the strenth or the forsight to practice thier Profession and certainly thier definition and understanding of integrity is differant from what you or myself would understand it to be. So in saying all of that I just take it as a pleasant surprise whenever they get important Political issues right and moveon whenever they do not. Don't expect anything of substance from these guys when it comes to Important Political issues that is embarrassing. Peace!
business majors were soulless, I see now that Satan’s true soldiers are journalists.
to their own opinion, but not entitled to their own facts. The great divide between the so-called liberal, and the unabashedly pro-bush right-wing media monolith has created two sets of facts. Which do you choose to believe? Mr. Kurtz is of the opinion that readers' ideologies affect their perceptions, but when you objectively analyze issue after issue, story after story, you can easily see the patterns of deception on the right. Remember, editorials are opinions by definition. The drivel being spouted day after day by the RIGHT-WING MEDIA is a disservice to our country. To paraphrase Jack Webb, "Just the facts, maam."
the editorial grossly misrepresented the facts. opinion has nothing to do with the fact that the editorial said there was no vendetta against wilson, and fitzgerald said in the filing that there was a concerted action to do just that.
"I don't like facts. Facts change. But my opinion never changes."
Can you imagine this argument being used in something besides politics?
"Two plus two is five."
"No, it's four."
"That's just your perceptions based on your education that leads you to this conclusion. Other people, based on their educations, see it differently. So who's right?!"
I'd love to see more factual news in both print&tv news. Please less dissinfoermtion maggots. Kurtz&his brethern promoters Should beimmediatly rebuted,harsly by all media. J.C.M.
"The editorial page is independent from the news staff of the paper..."
This is the classic STRAW MAN. The issue has nothing to do with either Reporters vs. Columnists, or "OPINIONS".
The issue is whether the FACTS reported by the reporters are considered to be FACTS to the Post's opinion-formers.
Let's put it this way: If the Post's Editorial writers don't think the Post's reporters' FACTS are accurate, worthwhile, and relevant ... Why, oh WHY, Howie, should the rest of us believe what the Post ever prints?
It's not about OPINION, Howie. Either defend the Post's reporting against distortions and inaccuracies promoted in Editorial, or let the rest of us know the Post's reporting isn't worth spit, and that your FACTS are all just a matter of opinion.
Keep in mind, if a newspaper's FACTS are neither here nor there, it's a total waste of effort bothering to publish. Get it?
Kurtz's statements can be turned right back around on him.
It appears that "media critic" Howard Kurtz only criticizes media stories when he disagrees with them ideologically.
Don't let this story go MMFA. When Dan Rather simply used a document which wasn't proven authentic, he was crucified and driven off of television. Don't let the right-wing continue to get away with outright lies in their portrayal of the news.
"You obviously disagree strongly with that editorial, but I don't see how that translates into a "lack of journalistic integrity." The only people who have integrity are those who agree with your positions?"
This absurd statement obviously doesn't address the issue which is the many falsehoods of the editorial. Ideology or "positions" don't matter FACTS matter and this person like the rest of us thought that they were what was important.
It seems SPIN and GOP TALKING POINTS are what is really important to Kurtz and the editorial page of the Post. Yes it is just opinion but if an opinion doesn't have to be based on facts then I could write an editorial and say Howard Kurtz likes to wear dresses at home and be called Margie. Other times he likes to wear a crown and goes by the name of Elizabeth. When he is in a more regal mood.
Hey it's just an OPINION. What's the problem Howard?
Basically Kurtz is saying that the post can do whatever they want and say whatever they want and be perfectly justified in doing so, so long as some readers agree.
IN other words, if BUsh came out and said 2+2=5, it would be perfectly justifiable for the Bush water-carriers at the Post to write an editorial backing Buhs's claim as fact and denouncing anyone who says otherwise. It is justified becuase the Clueless %30 who continue to support Bush would believe 2+2=5.
To Kurtz, this would be perfectly acceptable because neither him or the Post should be held responsible for how people want to interpret what they read. And because some readers believe facts, while others only want lies...the Post shouldn't worry so much about whether it is publishing facts or lies.
After all, the Post must maintain the illusion of balance and that means if they have to balance facts with lies then so be it. Wouldn't want to offend any of the %30 fringe who will believe 2+2=5 if Bush says so. To hell with the remiaining %60 that are against Bush and his policies. To hell with the facts. ALl that counts is the spin and that crazy belief you can balance facts by printing lies.
Opinions must be based in REALITY to make any sense. In other words, an OPINION, to be valid, must be based on a valid PREMISE.
Let's take an example.
I could have the OPINION that President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he committed PERJURY.
This would be reasonable.
However, the burden then falls on me to PROVE, or to POINT to where it is proven, that such PERJURY took place. That my PREMISE is accurate and sound.
If the FACTS show that Citizen Clinton misled in a Civil Case since dismissed for lack of merit, and he was found in contempt of CIVIL Court for his misleading statements ... does this support my PREMISE?
No, it does NOT. No perjury there. Perjury is a FELONY, and to claim perjury, all the elements of the crime must be proven in a court of law. This was simply NOT done.
So, I might expect that my OPINION that Clinton should be impeached and removed would FAIL, because I formed my OPINION based on a false PREMISE.
In fact, this is what happened, in the Clinton impeachment, and now with the Post's EDITORIAL. Opinions offered which are based on "facts not in evidence", and IGNORE the facts which are IN evidence ... are worthless, flawed opinions.
Kurtz obviously believes it OK to LIE about the Facts in order to publish an Opinion. This enlightens us about NOTHING except Kurtz's lack of journalistic ethics.