During the November 18 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, while discussing the November 15 Democratic presidential debate, George Washington University professor of media and public affairs Steve Roberts said, "[W]hat I don't like is the notion, this is more in the previous debate than in this one, where the Clintonian reaction is, 'The media is out to get us' ... accusing [NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim] Russert of asking a 'gotcha' question. ... I mean, please. I mean, she ain't seen nothin' yet if she thinks ... the media's tough on her now." Host and Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz did not challenge Roberts' dismissal of the criticism surrounding Russert's questions to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) at the October 30 debate, even though at least two of the questions Russert posed to Clinton included falsehoods. Kurtz has previously failed to note that Russert's questions contained falsehoods.

As Media Matters for America documented, during the October 30 debate, Russert falsely claimed that a 2002 letter written by former President Bill Clinton to the National Archives “specifically ask[ed] that any communication between [then-first lady Hillary Clinton] and the president not be made available to the public until 2012” before asking Sen. Clinton, “Would you lift that ban?” In fact, President Clinton's letter did not impose a “ban” on the release of such communications or ask that they “not be made available,” but rather listed them as documents to be “considered for withholding” [emphasis added]. In a November 2 statement, William J. Clinton Records representative Bruce Lindsey said that rather than prohibiting the release of communications between Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton had merely designated such communications as part of a “subset” of presidential records “that should be reviewed prior to release.”

Further, as Media Matters also documented, during the October 30 debate, Russert misrepresented prior exchanges Sen. Clinton had with moderator Judy Woodruff at a September 20 forum in Iowa and with Russert himself at a September 26 debate in New Hampshire. He also accused Clinton of having “one public position and one private position” on the issue of raising the cap on income on which Social Security taxes must be paid.

As Media Matters has noted, in his November 12 Washington Post column, Kurtz wrote: “Tim Russert is accustomed to putting politicians on the spot. But after he repeatedly pressed Hillary Clinton during a presidential debate two weeks ago, the NBC Washington bureau chief was ripped by liberal bloggers who called him everything from a bully to a sexist. Clinton responded during the debate by accusing him of playing 'gotcha,' and her husband slammed Russert as well.” The week before, Kurtz had similarly written that “liberal bloggers” were “sniping at Tim Russert over his debate questions to Hillary” and said on the November 4 edition of Reliable Sources: “Let's talk about the questioning. I mean, Tim Russert is really getting hit by some of these liberal bloggers. The statistic came out 14 out of the 26 questions that he posed to any candidate went to Hillary Clinton. Is that a bit unbalanced?” In none of these instances did Kurtz note Russert's faulty questions.

From the November 18 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:

KURTZ: All right, speaking of questions -- excuse me, Chris -- let's look at what was asked at the CNN debate by some of the network's anchors, and we'll talk about that on the other side.

[begin video clip]

CAMPBELL BROWN (CNN anchor): Your opponents are saying that that's really part of a larger pattern with you, that you often avoid taking firm positions on controversial issues.

[...]

BLITZER: You've suggested she's triangulating -- whatever that means -- on some of the key issues. She's running a textbook Washington campaign, you've suggested that.

[...]

BROWN: Some have suggested that you, that your campaign, that your husband, are exploiting gender as a political issue during this campaign. What's really going on here?

CLINTON: Well, I'm not exploiting anything at all.

[end video clip]

KURTZ: Some have suggested that they're just trying to start a fight. What do you think?

CHRIS CILLIZZA (washingtonpost.com staff writer): I was going to criticize “some have suggested” and then when I was watching it, I thought, “Ooh! I've done that before myself.” Look, I mean, I think what reporters are trying to do, and I think what Campbell Brown and what Wolf Blitzer and everybody else who hosts these -- moderates these debates is trying to do is trying to make the news -- you know, what's in the news -- get them to read and react to it very quickly.

You know, they went right at a few of the things. The first question was sort of about Hillary's position on driver's license and illegal immigration but not really. She was able to not really answer that. I mean, unfortunately, as much as people -- I'm going to defend the media for a minute here.

KURTZ: All right.

CILLIZZA: As much as people say, “We need to focus more on substance. We need” -- everything that I see people want to know -- when I see someone, they find out I'm a political reporter, they say, “Who's going to win?” They don't say, “Hey, whose position do you like best on Social Security?”

ROBERTS: I thought that Campbell Brown's questions on gender were right on. The fact is she is playing the gender card. Everybody knows it. She's running as a woman, she's trying to maximize the votes of women. It's the only way she can actually win is to maximize the votes of women. I think it's a smart strategy. I thought Campbell's questions were fine. And what I don't like is the notion, this is more in the previous debate than in this one, where the Clintonian reaction is, “The media is out to get us,” you know, say -- accusing Russert of asking a “gotcha” question. This is --

KURTZ: You're talking about the substance of driver's license for illegal immigrants.

ROBERTS: I mean, please. I mean, she ain't seen nothin' yet if she thinks this is the media's tough on her now.

KAREN TUMULTY (Time national political correspondent) But the stupidest question of the night was the diamonds or pearls -- the very last question of the debate. It comes, allegedly, from the audience. A young woman in the audience gets up and asks Senator Clinton, after we've discussed whether she's playing the gender card, she gets this question, “What do you prefer: diamonds of pearls?”