So-called Washington Post 'media critic' Howard Kurtz once again demonstrated his disregard for factual reporting and intellectual honesty as he belittled and bypassed a poignant and reasonable question during his WashingtonPost.com "Critiquing The Press" chat session on Monday. Mr. Kurtz's apologies for and cheerleading of skewed erroneous reporting for and from the right have been documented already and this recent exchange is but a new and disturbing example of what passes for 'media criticism' at on of the nation's largest and most respected papers.
Monday's question and answer:
Boston: In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman writes of the GOP's "Little Lies" strategy. That is, the idea of using little lies about an opponent to try to create a negative impression of said opponent. We all remember the countless fake Clinton scandals from pricey haircuts to missing keyboard Ws. The press reported on each with glee, and then a few weeks/months/years later had to acknowledge there was no "there" there. Today we see the same nonsense with Pelosi. These attacks had no effect on Clinton's public approval, and from last week's polls the same can be said for Pelosi, but the reporting of this nonsense does seem to have a negative impact on one key group: the press. So why do your colleagues (especially the chatty-show ones) let themselves be used like this?
Howard Kurtz: You seem to think that these "little" scandals are aimed only at Democrats. Sometimes the controversies are silly and overblown (the missing Ws, which was true); sometimes they're silly and inaccurate (the idea that air traffic was delayed while Clinton got a haircut on Air Force One). It seems to me the substantive debate over a House speaker going to Syria against the administration's wishes is a discussion worth having (though not the idiotic argument about whether she should have worn a head scarf). But it's also incumbent on us to point out that Dennis Hastert once did the same thing during the Clinton administration. And remember the famous Daily News cover of crybaby Newt being miffed because he had to get off Air Force One through a rear exit? That was arguably a silly story, but it resonated because it seemed telling about Gingrich. So to me it's a question of the volume and tone when reporting these little controversies.
Mr. Kurtz's response is plagued by inaccuracies and dismissals as well as a clear disregard for the role of truth in journalism.
Mr. Kurtz begins by suggesting that the reader is wrong and that his or her complaints are based on a partisan perspective when he says "You seem to think that these "little" scandals are aimed only at Democrats." The reader is inquiring about the use of 'little lies' to target prominent Democrats and offers several examples, including the current attacks on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Mr. Kurtz fails to offer any comparable attacks on prominent Republicans; the best he can come up with is former Speaker Newt Gingrich complaining that he had to use a rear exit on Air Force One. Mr. Gingrich did petulantly complain vocally to the media which resulted in the coverage of his tantrum. He then subsequently cited this perceived slight as a reason for shutting down the government during his budget struggle with President Clinton. Mr. Gingrich also expressed regret for his public complaints in his 1998 book, Lessons Learned the Hard Way. This hardly rises to the same level as the fraudulent and trumped up accusations often brought against Mr. Clinton.
The two cases which Mr. Kurtz cites involving Mr. Clinton were the completely fabricated tale of his delaying air traffic to receive a haircut on the run way and the alleged vandalism of the west wing as Mr. Clinton left office. While the haircut lie continues to circulate among right wing pundits it has been thoroughly debunked and there is no excuse for repeating it at this point. While Mr. Kurtz is correct in reporting that there were some missing w's from west wing keyboards and that the outgoing Clinton staff did leave 'pranks' for the incoming Bush staffers it should be noted that the Bush Administration and their allies spent more then $200,000 dollars investigating the alleged vandalism that cost a questionably tallied amount of roughly $9,000, an excellent use of the taxpayer's money.
Mr. Kurtz goes on to say "It seems to me the substantive debate over a House speaker going to Syria against the administration's wishes is a discussion worth having." The problem with this statement is that it flasely indicates that a 'substantive debate' is ongoing. Unfortunately for Mr. Kurtz and the right wing talking points and reporting that he is defending this is not true. Ms. Pelosi is being falsely accused of misrepresenting an Israeli message to Syria and singled out for attack despite the fact that her trip to Syria was a bipartisan one and that there was also a separate, entirely Republican delegation in Syria at the same time.
Mr. Kurtz's reference to former Speaker Dennis Hastert's trip to Colombia during the Clinton Presidency seems to be included in an attempt to indicate that the situation is more balanced because a Republican Speaker once made a similar trip. Mr. Hastert's trip serves to underline the hypocrisy inherent in the Republican complaints about Ms. Pelosi's visit to Syria and as such drastically undercuts any premise of a 'substantive debate' on the issue. It should also be noted that Mr. Hastert's trip was very different than Ms. Pelosi's. According to all available sources who were there, Ms. Pelosi did not contradict current US policy towards Syria or directly encourage the undermining of the Bush Administration. Mr. Hastert traveled to Colombia and repeatedly encouraged the government there to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.” Despite his specific attempts to usurp foreign policy powers that are designed to be shared by the Executive and Legislative branches of the government, Mr. Hastert was not subjected to excited and baseless attacks as Ms. Pelosi has been.
Mr. Kurtz finishes his answer by saying "to me it's a question of the volume and tone when reporting these little controversies." This sentence cuts straight to the hart of the issue; Mr. Kurtz, the 'media critic', believes that "volume and tone" are important in reporting, but does not believe in the importance of the truth.
If Mr. Kurtz is the 'media critic' then he should be critical of the media, especially when they abdicate their responsibility to zealously pursue the truth for the benefit of their audience. Mr. Kurtz's job should not be to defend shoddy journalism and the apathetic repetition of right wing talking points as news, nor to belittle and dismiss legitimate criticisms leveled against the media.
The truth is out there, sadly Mr. Kurtz and the media that he is busily apologizing for and defending are not interested in seeking it out.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment