Howard Kurtz: Media Consolidation Is 'Clearly Troubling'
The Washington Post's media reporter and host of CNN's "Reliable Sources" says he finds the Internet to be a "healthy antidote" to the consolidating media giants.

I Want Media, 04/16/02

Journalist Howard Kurtz reports on the media in print, on television and online. He's the media reporter for The Washington Post and writes the paper's "Media Notes" column. He answers the public's questions on journalism and the news in a regular Washington Post online forum, "Media Backtalk." Kurtz also hosts the weekly CNN show "Reliable Sources," which is now marking its 10th anniversary of "turning a critical lens on the media." Kurtz spoke with I Want Media about how "Reliable Sources" has evolved during its first decade, why he's not "the most popular guy" at either CNN or The Washington Post, disturbing trends he sees in journalism, and why Matt Drudge's site is "fun."

I Want Media: "Reliable Sources" is now in its 10th year. What's its mission?

Howard Kurtz: What I'm trying to do on "Reliable Sources" is bring on the journalists who make the news and subject them to the same kinds of questions they inflict on everyone else. Last week, for example, I pressed Mike Wallace on his decision to cut back his "60 Minutes" workload. When Dick Cheney called The New York Times's Adam Clymer an a*hole, mine was the only show he did -- even turning down Letterman, believe it or not. After the networks utterly blew the 2000 election, I grilled Dan Rather and Sam Donaldson on how they could have screwed up so badly. We also provide a platform for media criticism from the left and right, and occasionally outer space. And we try to have fun doing it. Jon Stewart once came on and made fun of the program.

IWM: Has "Reliable Sources" changed much in the past decade?

Kurtz: The show is vastly different than in 1992. Rather than use a rotating panel of journalists, we get those who are either in the news themselves or have a special expertise on the story of the week -- military and foreign correspondents during the war in Afghanistan, Mideast experts now. We air e-mail and talk more about the Internet. We're also live Saturday at 6:30 p.m. ET and, sometimes, in our replay slot on Sunday 9:30 a.m. ET.

IWM: News-sharing agreements at local newspapers and television stations are popping up in many markets. In some cases, newspaper reporters are now required to appear on TV. You've been doing this for a while. Do you have advice for print journalists who must adjust to working in front of a TV camera?

Kurtz: Keep it simple. Complex sentences with subordinate clauses don't work well on TV.

IWM: Ever felt any pressure to get a Greta Van Susteren-style makeover?

Kurtz: Alas, it wouldn't do much good.

IWM: Which is more challenging for you -- hosting "Reliable Sources" or writing for The Washington Post?

Kurtz: Writing a long, complex Washington Post piece with lots of research is definitely harder.

IWM: Which gig gives you the most feedback? And does the feedback differ between "Reliable Sources" and the Post?

Kurtz: The feedback is not that different -- especially now that washingtonpost.com, where I write a daily column, can be read around the world. But I get far more feedback from "Reliable Sources," simply because of the power of television. And it's more personal -- people feel like they know you.

IWM: Do you consider yourself more of a print journalist or a TV journalist? Is there a difference?

Kurtz: I'm still primarily a print journalist. The challenge of TV, which I'm becoming more comfortable with, is communicating information in a brief period of time, and exploiting the power of pictures.

IWM: You report on the media while working for two large media companies, AOL Time Warner (CNN's parent) and the Washington Post Co. Has that ever presented any difficulties for you?

Kurtz: My philosophy is simple -- you have zero credibility unless you take on the news organizations you work for. I've written more critical pieces about The Washington Post, on subjects from plagiarism to racial tension to conflicts of interest, than any journalist on the planet. When CNN had its "Tailwind" fiasco, we asked then-president Rick Kaplan on the air if he would resign. Last year I broke a story about CNN getting duped by a supposed CIA agent and Lou Dobbs interviewing a top Ford honcho after agreeing to make a $30,000 speech to Ford executives. All this doesn't make me the most popular guy around.

IWM: What's in your media diet? What are your must-reads (or must-watches) every day?

Kurtz: I am not a normal person. I read The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Times, Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, New York Post and Daily News, New Yorker, Salon, Slate, National Review Online, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News, New Republic, Weekly Standard, Jim Romenesko, Andrew Sullivan, Josh Marshall, InstaPundit ... I also watch a heckuva lot of TV news.

IWM: How is your approach different from other media reporters?

Kurtz: It's hard to compare because there aren't that many of us. But I see myself as a shoe-leather reporter and analyst, not a pontificator.

IWM: To some observers, the recent Letterman-"Nightline" flap suggested that broadcast network news is on the decline. Would you agree?

Kurtz: It's beyond dispute that broadcast news has declined as a cultural force, with cable becoming more important. But Rather-Jennings-Brokaw & Co. are still the biggest boys around, and they still have an impact, as we saw in the aftermath of 9/11.

IWM: The FCC is expected to relax certain media-ownership rules, which could bring a flood of media consolidation. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Kurtz: I'm not in favor of excess government regulation, but the trend toward more and more outlets owned by fewer mega-conglomerates is clearly troubling, in part because these giant companies don't much care about news. But the Internet is a healthy antidote.

IWM: What's your opinion of Matt Drudge? Do you frequent his site?

Kurtz: Sure. I've written more about Drudge, positive and negative, than anyone around. His site is fun if you take it for what it is.

IWM: According to the book "The News About the News," by The Washington Post's Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G. Kaiser, Drudge is responsible for a sizable amount of traffic to the Washington Post's Web site. Is that surprising?

Kurtz: Not surprising to me. Drudge pulls huge numbers online, and part of the attraction is his links, which often steer people to Washington Post stories.

IWM: Do you ever learn anything -- or pick up story ideas -- from your "Media Backtalk" online chats on the Washington Post's site?

Kurtz: These chats are great. I get a real sense of what folks out there are thinking. It does give me ideas, and I've mentioned the feedback in a print column or two. Of course some people just want to beat up on you, but that's O.K., too.

IWM: Are you seeing any disturbing trends in journalism?

Kurtz: The media's attention span is shorter than ever. Cable's need for a Big Story means we bounce from Osama to Yasser, from Di to JFK to Condit, and much else gets overshadowed in the process.

IWM: Will you be doing "Reliable Sources" 10 years from now?

Kurtz: If the ratings hold up, I'm there. If not I'll start a Weblog.



PREVIOUS MEDIA PEOPLE INTERVIEWS