I've written a lot lately about Howard Kurtz's conflicts of interest, which are glaring enough that they really should disqualify him from being the Washington Post's media critic. But the other part of the Kurtz story is the question of what qualifies him to be the nation's most famous media critic.

That's a topic I dealt with in a column a month ago: Kurtz just doesn't seem to understand journalism.

Here's a (granted, small) example, from yesterday, when Kurtz Tweeted: “My interview with Linda Douglass, who claims health critics are spreading 'disinformation' with old Obama clips.”

“Claims”? Well, is her “claim” correct? That's kind of important, don't you think? Reporters shouldn't be in the business of telling us what political figures claim; they should be in the business of telling us whether the claims of political figures are true. Why should somebody who doesn't understand this be paid to pass judgement on other reporters?

Oh, and during that interview with Douglass, Kurtz said “I'm still skeptical on whether using someone's actual words is disinformation.”

Really? Really? Howard Kurtz doesn't understand how you can misrepresent someone's position while using their own words? And he gets paid -- by two different news organizations -- to analyze the media. Astounding.