|
|
Howard The Coward
Posted by Will Collier · 7 February 2005
Washington Post reporter and CNN host Howard Kurtz just finished an hour-long online chat. Over the course of that hour, Kurtz poo-pooed suggestions that the press has softpedaled UNSCAM, opined on the propriety of Martha Stewart appearing on NBC, and took no less than ten (out of 19) questions about "Deep Throat," a possibly-fictional figure from a 31-year-old scandal. The name "Eason Jordan" was never mentioned. Nor the words "Davos" or "Barney Frank" or "deliberately targeting journalists." This despite the fact that high-traffic bloggers like Jim Geraghty and Hugh Hewitt prominently linked to Kurtz's chat from the time it started at noon Eastern. Anybody here believe that Kurtz didn't receive a single question about Easongate today? I sure don't--I sent half a dozen of them myself. You're a coward, Howard. Your silence, your outright stonewalling in failing to even mention a developing story about one of your bosses isn't just deafening, it's damning. We'll all remember this the next time you run a story about conflicts of interest in "journalism." We'll all remember you covering for your boss. Shame on you. You wouldn't take this from another reporter--and certainly not from any politician--in the same position. Shame on you. Comments
During Kurtz' Reliable Sources interview with Tom Friedman (Sunday, 2/6/2005) there was much discussion about whether the Bush administration has been using the right approach to reach the Arab population when compared with the massive (negative) influence of Al Jazeera. KURTZ: Welcome back to RELIABLE SOURCES. Our special guest this half hour, "New York Times" foreign affairs columnist Tom Friedman. You've interviewed two French Muslim girls in Paris who say they get all of their news from Al Jazeera. You mentioned Al Jazeera earlier. Their hero is Osama bin Laden. Is Al Jazeera just beating the heck out of the United States in the message war? FRIEDMAN: We would be much better off, Howie, in terms of the message campaign buying ads on Al Jazeera than the money we're spending on all these cockamamy radio shows and TV shows. We have not broken through. Now, part of the problem, we have to be honest about this, we do have a transmitter problem, in terms of just getting our voice out there and getting our act together to do it. But in fairness to the administration, there's also a receiver problem. The receiver is broken. People don't want to hear that under an American occupation in Iraq, Iraqis had their first free and fair election in modern times. Under an American occupation, and they all came out and voted against these Nasserite (ph) insurgents. They just don't want to hear it in a lot of places. They don't want to hear that under Israeli occupation, the Palestinians just had a free and fair election. And under the American occupation in Afghanistan, they had a free and fair election there. People -- we don't just have a transmitter problem, in fairness. We have a receiver problem. Kurtz is aware that a prominent journalist like Friedman believes that the deck is stacked against the Bush administration's attempts to persuade the Al Jazeera audience that Bush means them no harm. So would Eason Jordan's accusation that the U.S. military was targeting journalists for assassination help or hinder the underlying fairness? Could an honest journalist come away from the Friedman interview and avoid at least asking whether Jordan was playing to the anti-U.S. prejudice? Anyone? Anyone? All told it was a good interview on Friedman's part, but the kicker was Howie's closing critique of Geraldo's exclusive interview with Michael Jackson. KURTZ: With a new Iraqi assembly still to pick a president and prime minister, I'm sure that television will keep its laser-like focus and not be distracted by sideshows. And speaking of sideshows, 1,000 members of media descending on California for the Jackson trial. This question: Is Geraldo Rivera a journalist or a defense lawyer? *****snip**** KURTZ: No wonder Geraldo got the Jackson interview. He's made no attempt to be fair and balanced. I'm tempted to say he's in bed with Michael Jackson, figuratively speaking, of course. Now that's chutzpa! Posted by: capitano at February 7, 2005 12:43 PM Stephen, three words: Fish. Hey, I think I'll blog it under those. Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at February 7, 2005 12:54 PMJust like Rathergate the MSM is stonewalling. The MSM are all of one mind. This is why it is rational, and logocal to refer to "them" in the collective MSM. Give it up. This story about Eason Jordan isn't going anywhere. The MSM isn't going to cover it. The blogosphere is all a twitter, and that's all that is going to happen here. The MSM probably knows what he said, and they don't care. Dan Rather is still doing the CBS news. Understand? Posted by: AllenS at February 7, 2005 02:45 PMGive it up. This story about Eason Jordan isn't going anywhere. The MSM isn't going to cover it. They said the same thing about Trent Lott. And Memogate. Stay on it, I say. Posted by: rosignol at February 7, 2005 03:23 PMI'll stay on it, I can be stubborn. Posted by: Robin Roberts at February 7, 2005 05:22 PMThe pendulum swings. First, decades of MSM mendacity and everybody looked away or swallowed whole, depanding on POV. Then, internet press and blogs. Big ruckus in all the right places: CBS, NYT, you name it. Blood ran in the streets. Next: Silencing the blogs by ignoring them. The current phase. Finally, the landscape will take on its final orientation: MSM drops 20% readership; Internet becomes a more credible, more saturated broadsheet. Keep it up. It's the only hope. Posted by: 6Gun at February 7, 2005 05:28 PMI hope the optimists above are right. But those of us who think MSM outlets like the New York Times or CNN will be chastened by declining readership or viewership are likely to be disappointed. The global audience of those pre-disposed to the cheap anti-American bigotry and 'progressive' nostrums peddled in MSM 'news' coverage can be counted in the billions, certainly dwarfing any domestic audience these media companies could capture (or lose) within the U.S., no matter what their political slant. Thus, losing the 'red state' domestic audience is no big deal to them and -- for now anyway -- the blogosphere remains little more than a nuisance. The blogosphere may need some Bernard Goldberg-style defections -- or maybe the defection of a major media outlet itself -- in order to recognize its revolutionary potential and break through the noise of what the Eason Jordon's tell the world about America. Posted by: Cosmo at February 7, 2005 05:55 PMI don't want them 'chastened'. I want them out of business for having the arrogance and presumption to think that they get to decide what is or isn't news. It may have been true in the 20th century, but not today. Evolve or die. Posted by: rosignol at February 7, 2005 06:24 PMKurtz: If I don't write about it, it didn't happen. Posted by: bp at February 7, 2005 07:03 PM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"3 out of 4 large mammals choose VodkaPundit."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
