As you may remember, last week I asked Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, who has repeatedly praised his paper for debunking the “death panel” lie despite the numerous times the paper printed the lie without debunking it, whether he thinks it is sufficient to occasionally debunk falsehoods, or whether they should do so every time they print those falsehoods.

It was a pretty straightforward question, but Kurtz claimed he needed a “specific instance” in order to answer, adding “I don't recall a time when The Post gave any credence to the death-panels claim.” Well there have, in fact, been several times when the Post printed the claim without making clear its falsity, so I submitted a follow-up question to Kurtz' Q&A today, in which I provided a “specific instance”: a February 28 article in which the Post mentioned the “Death panels ” claim without indicating its falsity. I also asked how Kurtz could be unaware of the numerous similar Post articles, given that he had praised the Post's handling of the death panels like, which would seem to indicate that he hasn't actually read the Post coverage he praises.

Well, despite the fact that Kurtz directly asked for a “specific instance,” he didn't see fit to respond to my question providing one. He did, however, respond to another reader's question by writing “You know, I can't respond to claims about factual inaccuracies unless you provide examples.” I don't think he really wants those examples, though.

Just so it's completely clear what has happened here: Howard Kurtz does not answer every question submitted to his Q&As, obviously. That means that last week, he chose to respond to my question rather than some others that had been submitted. Only he didn't really respond to it; he simply defended the Post's coverage and demanded a (completely unnecessary) “specific instance” before answering. And when I provided such a “specific instance” today, he ignored the question.

And yet Kurtz laughably claims he's as “aggressive” toward the Post as he would be if he wasn't employed there. Yeah, right.