Kurtz on U.S. attorneys scandal: "[A]re the media openly siding with the Democrats?"
On the March 25 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, host and Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz asked: "As the White House tries to limit testimony by Karl Rove and other subpoenaed officials in the case of the purged prosecutors, are the media openly siding with the Democrats?" Kurtz said to CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry, "[Y]ou and your colleagues have been going at [White House press secretary Tony] Snow pretty hard on this issue. It sounds like you think the Bush proposal is a terrible idea," referring to the White House's offer to allow Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, but only in private and without an oath, transcripts, or subsequent subpoenas. Kurtz later added: "I believe in very, very aggressive White House reporting, but the tone and volume of the hammering of Snow over this does make it appear to people watching at home that journalists were taking sides." He did not raise a different explanation for the media's behavior -- that the ability of reporters to cover the interviews of White House staff -- and indeed, the issue more generally -- would be sharply limited if the interviews are conducted privately and without a written record.
Kurtz's suggestion -- that reporters who are upset with the White House's refusal to allow sworn, public testimony from Rove and Miers "are taking sides" with Democrats -- is just the most recent example of his using questions to suggest that the media are sympathetic to Democrats or taking positions against Republicans or the Bush administration, as Media Matters for America documented. Three of Kurtz's four guests -- Henry, Politico senior editor John Harris, and Chicago Tribune national correspondent Jill Zuckman -- disagreed with Kurtz's suggestion that reporters were "taking sides."
From the March 25 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
KURTZ: The question now: Does it seem heartless to cover the political impact of Elizabeth Edwards' cancer?
Up in arms: As the White House tries to limit testimony by Karl Rove and other subpoenaed officials in the case of the purged prosecutors, are the media openly siding with the Democrats?
Calamity central: A missing Boy Scout, a kidnapped baby, a teenager trapped under concrete -- is this really the stuff of national news?
[...]
KURTZ: Ed Henry, you and your colleagues have been going at Snow pretty hard on this issue. It sounds like you think the Bush proposal is a terrible idea.
HENRY: Well, the bottom line for me that when you're a White House correspondent, you have a duty to ask tough questions. Earlier in the week, Tony Snow, when I asked him a question about Iraq, told me off-camera to "zip it." He later apologized for that, but I think the bottom line is White House correspondents should not zip it, whether they're covering a Republican White House, a Democratic White House. You've got John Harris on your panel, and I seem to recall when he was covering the Clinton White House, there were pretty tough questions for Bill Clinton, and I didn't necessarily hear Republicans think that John Harris and others asking tough questions of the Clinton White House were doing the bidding of Republicans.
I think you have to let the chips fall where they may, whether you're covering a Democratic or Republican White House, and tough questions come with the territory, Howie.
KURTZ: All right. Well, zip it for just one moment so I can get John Harris in. You were a White House correspondent for years. You know that when 10 reporters in a row pound the press secretary on the same issue, it can sound pretty one-sided.
HARRIS: Well, that's right, but that doesn't mean that it is one-sided. And the sort of pushback that Tony Snow was giving to -- hey, you're being partisan -- is itself part of the defense for them to get off the defensive. You have to brush it off and go to the heart of what's very legitimate questions, as Ed says. Keep asking them. The job is not to be popular; it is to try to get answers. And that can be difficult to do with this White House.
ZUCKMAN: And the press briefing is not a television show. The bottom line is what reporters write in their newspaper stories or on their websites or put on television in the evening news broadcasts.
KURTZ: But these days, the press briefing is a television show.
ZUCKMAN: Well, you know, that shouldn't stop reporters from asking questions.
KURTZ: And it's certainly a television show when Tony Snow goes and does, you know, five morning show interviews. What do you make of him telling CBS' Harry Smith, as we saw a moment ago, "You sound more like a partisan than a reporter"?
ZUCKMAN: It's a tactic. He's supposed to do that. He's trying to push back.
[...]
DONALD LAMBRO (Washington Times reporter/columnist): Of course you pick someone --
KURTZ: OK, I gotta go.
LAMBRO: -- who's going to carry your agenda. There's nothing illegal about that.
KURTZ: Of course there's politics --
LAMBRO: They're just trying to make it sound illegal.
KURTZ: Of course there's politics involved. And at the same time, the press covers lots of things that are not illegal but that are questionable. And here, this is a situation where President Bush says mistakes were made.
I'm going to disagree with you all on one point. I believe in very, very aggressive White House reporting, but the tone and volume of the hammering of Snow over this does make it appear to people watching at home that journalists were taking sides. And I think some of the "Gonzales is toast" reporting has gone a little bit too far. But we'll see.
John Harris, Ed Henry, Jill Zuckman, Don Lambro, thanks very much for joining us this morning.
Is Kurtz openly siding with the president?
Yes, it appears that way.
No, Kurtz is a media critic and he is merely questioning the questions being asked........there is nothing partisan or "siding" with anyone in his job focusing a critical eye on reporters and the media.
Can I ask you a question Tommy?
Do you mean we can't question his questioning of the question asked?
Not unless you get my permission first.
If I ever ask for it, well, check the temp in hades
"I would have to ask the questioner. I haven't had a chance to ask the questioners the question they've been questioning. On the other hand, I firmly believe she'll be a fine secretary of labor. And I've got confidence in Linda Chavez. She is a--she'll bring an interesting perspective to the Labor Department."--Austin, Texas, Jan. 8, 2001
No, he's not questioning, he's passing judgment. Without naming names or being specific in any way, he is characterising reporting as saying "Gonzales is toast," and engaging in mindreading as to what "people watching at home" think of "the tone and volume" of the questioning of the White House Press Secretary.
No law against him asking a bunch of leading questions and judging the press by High Broderite standards, but it's hardly objective, dipassionate analysis.
His job as a media critic is to pass judgement all the time. This innocuous question he asked is no different.
And part of his "job," at least from his perspective, is to pass judgment that coincidentally seem to track WH spin... journalists are buying Dem propaganda, journalists have "declared war on the war."
Val,
You can package Kurtz anyway you want as some partisan hack spouting White House spin, but his job is to question the tactics and the way the media covers Washington and politics. Sometimes this means casting a doubtful eye on your sacred Democratic party, and other times this means just the opposite.
Despite your rumblings, Kurtz is by and large very fair in his criticism......his panel discussion on this with many viewpoints was fair.
First, I am not a Democrat, I think they are far, far too right wing.
Secondly... he's not talking about the party but the press. In this discussion, he threw slanted questions at a number of people, none of whom responded the way he wanted them to, and drew a completely contrary conclusion at the end.
As I said, I don't think it's wrong to have a point of view, but to paint him as a simply impartial observer, as you seem to be doing, doesn't seem borne out by the facts.
You're right, I meant to say those in the media, not the Democratic party.
I agree. I left the Democratic party when it became obvious they came nowhere NEAR representing my political philosophy. Far to far to the right for me.
I agree on the democrats. Though I obviously think they're way better than the REPs, I like, say, Nader a whole lot more. Of course, where I come from, there's just ONE major coservative party. All the others are progressive: Social Democrats, Green Party, Liberals, the "New Left". And those are just the represented ones. The Christian Democrats are the most popular, but they're the only real consevatives. It's nice: next election I get to chose between showing solidarity with a strong leader (Merkel, Christian Democrat) and voting for the future. I feel goood...
Manchmal denke ich, daß seiend geborener Amerikaner ein Geburtsschaden ist
Tjaa...könnte unangenehm werden.
Lets just say that this is a bad time to be asking me why I haven't applied for citizenship.
Yes, well, my grandfather escaped Italy when their government went crazy... now I'm running the other way.
in Vielfalt geeint
In der tat...
I'm just here cuz' my dad was sent here by a German company that you've never heard of. I decided to say for college, but I think I like taking on Neocons. We don't have those at home. Well, I guess we do, but they just join their fringe Nazionalist parties and are never heard of again, unless they get arrested for being racists.
The US attorney firings are not a matter where we need to present "both sides.'
This is a matter where we need to know the truth. And we all know how hard it is for this administration to tell the truth. So reporters asking tough questions is essential.
Mr. Kurtz thinks tough questions are one-sided. So it's fair to ask: Is he a right-wing hack?
Of course he's a right wing hack. Pretty much everything that comes out of Howie's mouth is Republician talking points. There is no "taking sides" going on here. The press is simply waking up to all the lies this administration is telling and has told. It's about time. If they had not rolled over and carried Bush's water for the last 5 years, we would not be in the position we are in now. Bush and his gang is destroying this once great country. I am concerned that if it goes on much longer, we may never recover.
Despite your rumblings, Kurtz is by and large very fair in his criticism...by Tommy
Tommy, you know that & I know that BUT no matter what Kurtz asked or how he asked it MMFA was gonna jump all over it. He's one of their favorite whipping boys ;-)
IF Kurtz had asked "Are the media openly siding with the White House ?", they'd be screaming 'see see Conservative bias!' But that would be ok I guess?
But for him to ask: "Are the media openly siding with the Democrats?", suggests to some I'm sure, that Kurtz is insinuating a Liberal bias by the media.
And you & I know there is no such thing as that. Ok stop laughing they'll hear us :-x
There of course is no blanket Conservative or Liberal bias by the entire MSM...there are only individual journalists that swing one way or the other. Kurtz wasn't wrong to pose this question the way he did.
...."does make it appear to people watching at home that journalists were taking sides..." that's not a question. that's an assertion.
I believe in very, very aggressive White House reporting, but the tone and volume of the hammering of Snow over this does make it appear to people watching at home that journalists were taking sides.
Figured I'd post the entire quote.
It seems more like an observation by Kurtz, not an assertion.
He's a media critic. And his job is to observe with a critical eye is it not? Then ask questions...
jeter, that does not change what i posted one iota. it's an assertion.
found this on the fair [fairness and accuracy in reporting] site, 11-22-02. senator tom daschle complained that he had been getting death threats because limbaugh had been calling him "el diablo", the devil, said daschle was aligning "with iran, north korea, and hussein". [limbaugh also said at the time that daschle wanted another 9-11 so the democrats could benefit politically.] according to fair, in his 11-21-02 column kurtz claimed: "sure he aggressively pokes fun at democrats and lionizes republicans, but it's mainly about policy". kurtz ended his column by accusing daschle of "demonizing limbaugh".
Off topic.......but for Daschle to suggest that Limbaugh's comedic routines are somehow responsible for any death threats he received is ridiculous. Good for Kurtz for not catering to Daschle's empty whinings about Limbaugh.
Back on topic... if you find anything to support your assertion that this guy is "even-handed," let us know...
Let me start with this particular thread, quite even handed. No need to look any further since this is the topic.
Show me where the even-handedness is:
Val, At the risk of being redundant - I see this as a perfectly acceptable line of questioning from a media critic on a current event, you, on the other hand, see it differently. We disagree.
I disagree that it's even-handed, which should be roughly quantifiable and provable/disprovable as fact, not as opinion.
Val, As an example, when Kurtz observed that after 10 pounding questions for Snow from reporters may be one-sided - that is absolutely his opinion, not a fact. You can agree or disagree but quantifiable it is not.
I said nothing about whether it was or was not his opinion.
I disagree with your assertion that Kurtz is even-handed, and I assert that "even-handedness" can, in rough terms, be quantified.
tommy, i'm glad you see as "comedic" limbaugh saying the democrats and daschle were hoping for another 9-11 so they could benefit politically. what a knee slapper.
The point is I don't take much of what Limbaugh says any more seriously than I do a comedian.
unfortunately his minions do not feel the same. the "tommy thinks this so everyone else does" theory doesn't work. can you say ditto?
Then the obvious question is; why does Kurtz care if Daschle was demonizing him at all? If Kurtz thinks Rush's opinions aren't worth anything then he shouldn't care, and if he thinks they are then he's clearly partisan.
Tom:
The guy is only representing the conservative view here, as in "why are you guys pressing this issue so much"
Even-handed would be asking "why did no one mention the fact that a few weeks ago one of this administrations number go sent to JAIL for lying. After all, this is about them apparently not wanting anyone to find out the truth again..."
Instead, he says they're overly agressive... You call that even-handed? That just lost you a lot of respect from THIS quarter.
Think what you want, the guy is only doing his job as a critic. Just because he takes a critical look at the those questioning the "evil" White House, you all cry foul.
No harm, no foul... just no "even-handedness."
I got into an argument with a fellow student about right wing media today. I mentioned the FOX memos with orders from Bush. A teacher pointed out that FOX does have the right to take orders from W... But the point is that this makes tham a bad source of news. Fair and Bungle.
NO even handed would be to state the obvious first. The presidents proposal is seen pretty much as ludicrous, however...THAT would be even handed pretending that 10 questions on a legitimate question about a ridiculous attempt by Bush to keep the omerta alive is out of line is NOT even handed.
KURTZ: are the media openly siding with the Democrats?
OMG is that verboten to even ask??? I suppose you're ok with anyone asking if the media is siding with the Republicans. Geez.
KURTZ: Ed Henry, you and your colleagues have been going at Snow pretty hard on this issue. It sounds like you think the Bush proposal is a terrible idea.
An observation and an question. Wow somebody call the cops!
KURTZ: You know that when 10 reporters in a row pound the press secretary on the same issue, it can sound pretty one-sided.
Another observation. Imagine that. And yup 10 reporters in a row could sound like a pile-on. And...one-sided.
KURTZ: the tone and volume of the hammering of Snow over this does make it appear to people watching at home that journalists were taking sides. And I think some of the "Gonzales is toast" reporting has gone a little bit too far.
More of that observing going on...and an opinion.
Is this somehow not allowed unless it's ALWAYS favorable to the Left? Is that YOUR definition of "even-handedness "? Seems like it.
Jeter, the assertion that this pundit is even-handed and an equal-opportunity critic of both left and right has no basis that I'm aware of. If either you or tommy could provide any evidence to the contrary, I'd find it helpful.
Even if you had never read a word of Kurtz's writing or heard a syllable of his punditing, looking at the above exchange in a total vaccum you would be hard-pressed to find even a scintilla of balance.
I said nothing at all about whether this is or should be "verboten," just that it's not even-handed and not, in any conventional definition of the term, analysis. It's argumentation, assertion, opinion. No more and no less.
Val,
I don't read Kurtz's Washington post column nor do I watch CNN's Reliable Sources so all I have to go by is what MMFA occasionally posts here regarding his alleged bias. So I can't comment on how even-handed he is or isn't on a regular basis.
As far as Kurtz's remarks here, I don't see any bias. I think he made an observation about the media and how it could be viewed by an audience, then asked questions.
jeter are we looking at the same thing? he asked his questions first, and then made his "accurate" assertion. i realize it helps your case to put it the other way, since you made a point of doing it, but that's not the way it happened.
you're right jeter. more appropriate questions might be "is the president in good spirits today?". "how's barney?", "is the first lady taking any trips soon?"
mefirst,
I have watched bits of the recent drilling of Snow by the media. I use the word drilling because it's been my observation that that's what seems to have occurred. I don't particularly like Tony Snow, I think he occasionally comes off as a slimeball --just another observation ;-)
One can look at this two different ways. One, the media has finally found the balls to ask tough questions, or two the media is over the top in it's "hammering" of Snow over this particular issue.
IF you want to call Kurtz's remarks an "assertion" rather than an "observation" that's cool. I'm not going to argue back & forth over a WORD. Or an opinion over which word is the correct one.
However, the way I read this, Kurtz is reporting his observation of the situation [and I think it's an fair & accurate one] and asking questions.
ok, jeter. so then you do think the media is siding with the democrats here?
No, not necessarily. Though it could certainly appear that way to some people, which is what I think Kurtz is getting at here.
I'd rather believe the media has finally found the balls to demand some answers from one of the most secretive & corrupt administrations in history.
But could some bias be in play here too? Sure.
actually no. you said his "observation" was a "fair and accurate" one. and he did not say "some" of the people watching at home, he clearly was saying that pretty much anyone watching would get that opinion.
ok, jeter. so then you do think the media is siding with the democrats here?
mefirst, you asked ME if I personally agreed with it. I gave you my answer.
Kurtz's observation was fair & accurate in that it could appear to anyone BUT a biased close-minded partisan Liberal that the media could be taking sides.
gee that clears it up. kurtz's observation was "fair and accurate" and only a partisan closed minded liberal would disagree.
could appear
could be
Four important words you ignored.
And yes it could appear to anyone BUT a biased close-minded partisan Liberal that the media could be taking sides.
The fact that you can't acknowledge that much pretty much proves my point.
but the "point" is that he said it did appear that way to the people watching at home that they were taking sides. you called that a "fair and accurate" statement. but how does he know what people at home thought? i do not see it as a "fair and accurate" statement at all. you're trying the "i didn't say what i said" argument again. you want to say what he said was "accurate", but then say that's not what i'm really claiming.
J,
You are correct, it's a critical observation - which is his job, a perfectly acceptable questioning of the media's role and their function regarding this particular issue. He is not asserting anything, he is commenting to illicit thought and discussion.
word games. it's all the same thing. you both have moved from the question aspect "are the reporters siding with the democrats", to "is this an observation or an assertion". he's no longer asking a question. call it what you want. he's the one making a judgement, not asking a question.
I'd be real interested to see the poll numbers of "the people at home" which gives Kurtz the impression that they think the journalists are taking sides.
Or could it be that HE gets the impression that "the people at home" are getting that impression? And either way, as I said in another comment, he's changing the subject from a discussion about the way the press is handling it to a discussion about how "the people at home" are analyzing the reporting.
Unless Kurtz has Special Pundit ESP, he has no way of knowing what "the people at home" think about how the press treats poor Tony. In other words, it was an assertion, not an observation... a mere opinion all dressed up in a pseudo-analytical construction.
I believe in very, very aggressive White House reporting, but the tone and volume of the hammering of Snow over this does make it appear to people watching at home that journalists were taking sides.
There's two assertions in that one paragraph.
Assertion - a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason.
I disagree that he is as evenhanded as you say. I think he has a bias, and I think the evidence bears it out.
Val,
This isn't evidence. This is cherry picking threads from this website that only covers "conservative" misinformation.....you could do that with anyone if it fits your agenda. Kurtz's job is to be critical of the media, and the bias that you claim is just not there when you look at the totality of his reporting. Of course he will be critical of the media when it covers the left as well as the right........mostly he raises questions and they are given their fair analysis on his program, and his columns.
At least I had something backing up my assertion. What have you got?
Val, You have a point, but I just don't label any journalist biased based on a couple instances, either way. And especially in this case where none exists.
I'm not talking about a couple instances, I'm talking about a pattern. It's fine if you disagree with me, but I'd like for you at least try to persuade me with something other than assertion...
"[T]he bias that you claim is just not there when you look at the totality of his reporting."
I think from this statement we're to infer that Tommy has conducted his own comprehensive study of Kurtz's entire body of work.
That's creeeeeepy. He must be obsessed with him.
“Kurtz is by and large very fair in his criticism”
Kurtz was criticizing what exactly? The finer points of WH press decorum? Reporters lack of Vulcan mind link with viewers at home, as he has? The white house not having to hear (never mind answer) tough questions because reporters are not worthy?
I do not see any critical analysis at all, he was taking the White House side and the press not taking the WH side according to Kurtz, was taking the Democratic side. That is fair? If the press is not on the Republican side they must be on the Democratic side?
Another Kurtz journalistic hall of shame moment.Don't know how that last line miniaturized. It says:
Another Kurtz journalistic hall of shame moment.
If Kurtz had asked, "Are the media openly siding with the White House?" They'd [Media Matters] be screaming, "see, conserative bias!"
This makes absolutely no sense at all...
Why would Media Matters sceam about Kurtz suggesting right-wing media bias?
[Kurtz is] one of their favorite whipping boys
The quickest solution to that problem would be for him to stop misinforming.
Duh.
So Tommy, why do you care either way about Kurtz? If the media is now supporting the democrats, that's just the market speaking and is proof that the free market system is better than the fairness doctrine. =0
I don't believe I said the media supports the Democrats. The rest of your post makes no sense to me.
You misread what I posted. I didn't say you said that, I just said why do you care if Kurtz is claiming that it is happening (maybe it wasn't as clear as I thought it was)? I've had many discussions with you in the past about the fairness doctrine, unless I missed something you are still in preference of the free market claim of letting the market drive how the news is presented. No?
Considering the free market is saturated beyond comprehension with the internet and umpteen cable news channels, there are scads and scads of places to get your news and information, if you so choose to seek it out.
Not gonna play, eh? ;)
But seriously, if conservatives believe the free market is sufficient for news reporting, why do we even have a Kurtz? Having someone dictating slant and tone seems counterproductive to the claim originally laid out by the conservatives. Why defend this guy if, by what I can tell, he shouldn't be there in the 1st place? Am I missing something here?
I have no idea what your point is? Are you saying the Kurtz is somehow useless because there is a free market out there to decide what is and what is not fair reporting and he is of no relevance? One has nothing to do with the other, if that is indeed your point. Kurtz is commenting on the media from a critical eye as he views the reporting of politics and political events.......there is no inherent contradiction or reason to believe that his role is of no value. If people read his columns and watch his show, then he does provide a service.
And the free market dictates that, if his column becomes irrelevant of his show falters in the ratings, he will too.
I thought my point was clear, but let's try once more. YOU are against the fairness doctrine even though it's main purpose was to ensure both sides were given fair treatment in the press. Kurtz is providing a "service" that basically does the same thing (assuming he is being fair and balanced, though from what I see he is clearly slanted in favor of republicans). You are defending this guy regardless of that fact. You seem to have created a conundrum for yourself on this issue.
Kurtz is not an arm of the federal government moderating the media. That is the difference.
Also, he is commenting, not mandating anything.
Hope you're right, tommy, but from the transcript above, I find it hard to believe he isn't trying to mandate something. Maybe now is the time to say it depends what your definition of "is" is. ;)
I don't believe that Kurtz feels that he has the legal authority to mandate anything, anymore than any other columnist out there.....the thousands of them.
yes, and dumbaya (illegally) has the job of being pResident, that does not mean he is any good at it. Just like all the USA's who retained their jobs and the 8 replacements are there ONLY because they will shut-up and do as they are told by partisan hacks, Kurtz will only attack dems or progressives with the logical fallacy of 'some say'.
Careful Tommy.
By that same token, as media critics, it is within MediaMatters' purview to pass judgment on the media's shortcomings.
By your own logic, that means that your constant, insipid criticism of MediaMatters' reporting is wholly without merit.
At the very least, MediaMatters doesn't use the patented "Fox News Statement-with-a-question-mark," which this item instantly reminded me of.
e.g. "Democrats enabling terror?"
"Cindy Sheehan anti-semitic?"
Didn't you get the memo? Tommy is playing 'concern troll', he is sooooo concerned about everyone else he just wants to 'help' us not think about the little man behiond the curtain(s). I do wonder how much tax-payers are funding him for though.
..there is nothing partisan or "siding" with anyone in his job focusing a critical eye on reporters and the media.
...err, unless you disagree after the four "experts" you invited to comment on the topic failed to give you any insight or sway your preconceptions about how it's more important that the balance you're striving for be the public perception of the situation rather than the actual reporting.
Just so there's no misinterpretation from the righties here, Kurtz thinks the intent here is for the press to manipulate the public to have a balanced view of the USA firings, not for the public to develop their own opinions based on fair reporting. That's basically what his closing comment said in a nutshell.
I guess Kurtz didn't see the Norah O'Donnell bit on MSNBC. I suppose the public isn't supposed to ask questions about the imperial presidency hijacking the other branches of government and turning them into tools to persecute and bring in line those who oppose him.
This prosecutor issue is just a "kerfluffle", right Tommy?
Kurtz is not questioning the questions, Tommy. He did not ask if the questions went too far. He didn't even equivocate nor suggest that it was only a possibility. Instead, Kurtz's statement was a flat assertion, i.e., the some reporting has gone too far.
...my point being that if you want to defend Kurtz, at least do so on the basis of what his comment is, an assertion, rather than what it is not, a mere question. The "it's just a question" defense is easy, but incorrect.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Howard Kurtz is Reliabley Republican, Reliabley Wrong, and Reliabley Un-Reliable on Reliable Sources!
WHAT THE?!?! Where's the happy thoughts portion of your post... I need reliabilty and consistency in my life, Dan- please do not deviate from the past scheduling, thank you...
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
I beg your pardon like a Republican talking about purgery convictions, and crimes against democracy!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I like to watch Howie early on Sunday...
Shouting at the TV really wakes me up and so I drink less coffee.
Our cats aren't crazy about it though.
the interesting parts here are that henry said that tony snow told him off camera to "zip it" about iraq. [do i believe him? yes i do.] and snow telling harry smith: "you sound more like a partisan than a reporter". sounds like snow hasn't given up the old fox talking points. but where this completely goes beyond kurtz merely posing the question is this: "i'm going to disagree with you all on one point. i believe in very, very aggressive white house reporting, but the tone and volume of the hammering of snow over this does make it appear to people watching at home that journalists were taking sides. and i think some of the 'gonzales is toast' reporting has gone a little bit too far." exactly how does he know what people at home were thinking? if anything, the general questioning of bush press secretaries has been anything but "aggressive". where were the questions when the head of white house security testified on the same day as valerie plame that bush never asked for an investigation of who leaked her identity, as he promised he would. given kurtz's history with these types of "questions", it easy to see the partisanship is on his side.
Rove is now discussing with WH Staff, how to deal with the issue of dismissing the more annoying reporters. since they serve "at the pleasure", should all be dismissed? Or resignations requested from all, but only some accepted? Or should only those specifically targeted for dismissal, be required to provide resignations?
And what of Gannon, et. al.? Is that story, along with Hookergate, likely to be resurrected in the ensuing coverage of those dismissals?
Since when is siding with the TRUTH a Democratic or Republican value? The USAs, who all had positive job evaluations, were fired for amounts to political reasons. And that "pleasure of the president" canard doesn't cut it if any ONE of these firings can reasonably be linked to obstruction of justice. Carol Lam's firing is the one for which Gonzalez and perhaps others will burn.
Randy
Well, the Dems reluctantly accepted the truth as default-theirs, when the Repugnant's packed courts ruled the attempted "fair use" defense of lying by Clinton violated the Repugnant copyright.
I think, rather, that reporters (like most people) simply don't like being lied to. I think it's Snow's rather transparent attempts at spin that have roused the WH press corps from their stenographical slumbers, rather than any crusading desire for finding the truth or revolutionary Democratic zeal.
They just feel like they are getting played, and rather artlessly at that.
Tommy,
While I don't always agree with what you say, I hold my skeptism mostly to myself.
With that said, I was reading a thread that you had posted on from this past weekend and read what you said and I want to offer an appology to you for my wrong presumptions I had about you.
Yes, there is no denying that you are conservative but you certainly don't come across as neo-conservative, well perhaps at times, but hey I'm a dedicated progressive, so there ya go as this is America after all and we all have our differences.
In the end, we are all Americans!
From now on Tommy I will respond to you in a different light, in that I know that you are no fan of the Bush White House and will happily debate you at various times with the knowledge that you are not a brainless twit like some in here can be
Like anythig else in America, we can agree to disagree and still get along...... that is why my wife and I are working toward year number 17 this April 28.
Thank you
Capt,
Thanks for the feedback - and you're right, I am not a fan of Bush or his administration, for many reasons. Differences of opinion is why I read and post here, for the most part the posters are challenging and smart.
Look forward to any exchanges we engage in......
What about the reporter and news media role in keeping an objective view on things with regards to analysis - Not just coughing up partisan talking points (Dem or Repub)?
That would be nice for a change.
WAAAAHHHHHHHH! Da big bad reporters are being mean to da Pwezident again! WAAAAAHHHHHHH!
It sounds like you think the Bush proposal is a terrible idea," >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I bet if asked it would also seem like they thing water is wet
Tommy offers a useful point, but it's really only useful for the administration and its supporters.
What I mean is that Kurtz's assertion, were he scrupulously fair as a jounralist or commentator, would be worth examining. But he's not. And if he were, I don't think he'd make the assertion (or ask the "question") that the media is "siding with Democrats". He would ask, why will the White House not allow its staffers to testify in public and under oath, if they're going to testify?
That doesn't seem to be a question that would be of interest only to Democrats. it seems like it would be a question of interest to anyone who wants to see their government held to account for its actions and decisions. I would think that would be a fairly inclusive group. But these days, it seems Republicans have decided that "that's not them".
Kurtz is a "media critic". How about criticizing the MSM role in ignoring this serious abuse of power at the DOJ, which seems to come directly from the WH. TPM, a blogger, pursued this story for weeks before the press picked up on it. In fact TPM was mocked repeatedly for pursuing this story by members of the MSM. The fact is the DOJ was used to achieve partisan goals. AGs were fired for not pursuing bogus charges against dems or for doggedly pursuing republican corruption. The Carol Lam firing should be a giant red flag for journalists and citizens alike. A senator calls an AG at home and asks about filing of bogus criminal charges against a dem in a tight race and Kurtz is talking about the media siding with the dems. What a sorry state our MSM is in. As Greenwald notes today this is similar to the MSM turning the criminal activity of spying on Americans into the meme of "dems cant pursue this bc they can be labeled as soft on terror". The talking heads, politicians, and our entire press corps are too cozy with one another. Its all one big game to them, sans consequences. Nothing to see here we will provide the conventional wisdom for you. Go back to being afraid now let the big boys decide how you should think about this.
Amazing!
The media are finally doing their job, and Kurtz wonders if the media is "openly siding with the Democrats."
Makes me wonder how "reliable" a source Mr. Kurtz is?
Meh. I don't think they are "doing their job" any more than usual... it's just that the Administration finally gored their oxen by just lying to their faces without trying too hard to cover it up.
The Downing Street Memo came and went, the Libby conviction is already ancient history, and who cares about those dumb ol' National Security Letters, anyway?
It only hurts when it's your boy in office.
Poor wittle idiot son...his buddies are gwetting qwestions about their criminality, ineptness and disregard for the truth, the law and the Constitution of the United States. I guess Howie & Co. will drop all pretense about law-and-order when they get jail time too...oh, I forgot the idiot son has pardon power...maybe Power Rangers too...Let's get it over with and impeach the entire criminal conspiracy occupying the WH now!
It's well-known that facts have a liberal bias.
Whooo - hoooo!
Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment
Goodling will refuse to answer Senate questions on fired U.S. attorneys
Pleading the Fifth? Well gosh, that seems a little contrary to Bush's claim that all he really wants if for us to get all the facts. Could it be that Bush doesn't really want us to get all the facts?
And, likely, that Goodling smells an iteration of Scooter's fate, in her future - if she testifies. It seems quite likely that someone is gonna fall even aside from Abu Gonzo, and she appears to feel it would be better if it were someone other than her.
George Bush doubleplusgood duckspeaker. Old thinkers unbellyfeel Bushspeak.
Napoleon is always right, man...
The year is 1996, and I'm wondering: Aren't they pressing the WH a little hard about this whole bl*wjob story???
Not Even-Handed Howie. He wrote a book about it...
Ahh!
He got nothing but good reviews...
On the other hand, the most common tag was 'fantasy', and 'historical fiction' did get six hits. The Clinton spinmeisters, my posterior. That came right from planet number 7 (according to the old system)...
The day just keeps getting BETTER!
Abu Gonzo is implicated in yet another scandal, one that I recall briefly surfacing 2 years ago, but which has suddenly gained traction from the focus on US Attys - who stayed, who went. The sources are more numerous than the single linked, but most display sufficient caution to preserve access to WH briefings.
Looks as though Foley is Repugnant-Central, again.
Tommy,
I've noticed that you have been trying to convince others that Kurtz is being even handed. I disagree with you Tommy. Let's look at comment by Kurtz and analyze it. The following is Kurtz's comment:
but the tone and volume of the hammering of Snow over this does make it appear to people watching at home that journalists were taking sides
Tommy,
How in the world would Kurtz know what the people at home would think?
Why doesn't it occur to Kurtz that the people at home might see it as Tony trying to dodge, run, or spin the answers to these tough questions?
Why would Kurtz interpret the questionings as siding with Democrats? Is it because you feel that no one should approach der Fuherer's press secretary with such tough questioning?
Why can't this firing be seen by the people as a possible abuse of office, using the peoples dime and the peoples government for personal purposes by top Bush aides to help a private organization?
Tough questions Tommy? You bet tough questions. Just as any company would ask an employee tough questions if that employee is suspected of using companies dime, time and resources for personal use.
This isn't siding with Democrats Tommy. It's getting to the bottom and we want to know.
"Why doesn't it occur to Kurtz that the people at home might see it as Tony trying to dodge, run, or spin the answers to these tough questions?"
If someone asks Snow hard questions, they're taking sides. But if they don't ask tough questions, then there's no scandal because obviously nobody cares that much about it. It's the planted axiom of the liberal media at work, either way it's a talking point for them. One way it's reinforcement they're liberal for hounding Snow, the other way it proves there's no scandal because even the liberal media don't pursue it.
But someone as even-handed as Kurtz wouldn't possibly help in setting up such a framework. That's just too silly to believe.
Give it up, Harlequin. You're observation is the elephant in the room, and it's being ignored. Despite the fact that it's the very basis of this whole discussion. Most of the comment threads are hung up on whether or not Kurtz, as a "media critic", is biased. Nobody seems to understand that it doesn't matter.
If the subject changes from one that's dangerous to the white house (is snow being straightforward with the press?) to one that's pretty benign (does the press come across as antagonistic toward Snow?), it can only serve the white house. It reframes the situation to one of perceived bias in the media deflecting the focus from whether or not the the white house is being evasive.
Kurtz changed the subject, bottom line. And, in true partisan form, he managed to do it the very last thing, so that it has the best chance, of everything that was said, to stick in the viewers minds.
He IS changing the subject! Thanks for clearing this up for everyone posting on this thread. I think this settles it. Excellent observation!
Having read this entire thread, I understand how many posters believe that Kurtz sided with the right wingers here. However, I tend to disagree. If Kurtz had phrased his assertion a little differently, such as "some in our audience might believe that WH reporters are siding with the democrats" instead of implying that the ENTIRE audience feels that way, would he then have been accused by MMFA of taking the repub side in this segment? How about the accusations by some posters that Kurtz is ( Oh the horror of it ) a republican shill for the right wing? I think Kurtz is an excellent writer and, for the most part, fair. I also believe that MOST journalists ( not commentators and op-ed writers ) try to be fair. Still, studies have shown that roughly 75% of journalists are democrats. With that fact in mind, I still believe that their professionalism largely inhibits them from slanting the news to their own political beliefs. There are undoubtedly plenty of journalists, both right and left, that further their partisan agenda in their reporting. It's been that way, is that way, and will continue to be that way in the future. They're only human, and in some cases, clearly, are partisan human reporters. But I still don't believe Kutrz is one of them. He stated opinion and made a supposition, and only erred in speaking for his entire audience. The question he posed about piling on was legitimate. We can all sit here and disect his words, but his assertion holds water.
I think it would have come off worse if Kurtz tried to frame the questions with the "some people say" opening.
Either way the question is neither fair or relevant. This type of questioning creates doubt and uncertainty in the minds of reporters and it is a disservice to the public.
We can't have reporters going into a press briefing worrying whether their questions sound like they're "siding" with one side or the other. They're job should be to investigate the facts. And if the facts don't support the administration's spin, then reporters need to get that point across to their viewers/readers.
I would have respected Kurtz more if he asked "Are the facts siding with the Democrats?"
Well, the bottom line for me that when you're a White House correspondent, you have a duty to ask tough questions.
Hey, Howie.....try to concentrate on the statement above & see if it applies to this administration....
...have you been covering too many Anna Nicole press conferences or isn't this just basic Journalism 101, you idiot!!
Kurtz is a total partisan hack, of course. He's sided with the conservatives for years. His wife is a Republican political consultant. I cannot believe the lapdoggery of this man. After 6 years of almost unerring support of the most partisan administration in my memory, and complete passivity from the press corps -- remember that pre-Iraq press conference? Anybody ever figure out what drug they put the reporters on? -- NOW he objects because the press corps is finally coming to life.
There are very good reasons why so many are reporting that Gonzales is not long for the post, and "partisanship" has very little to do with it.
Are Kurtz's stupid questions hurting his credibility?