Kurtz's response: "I don't care what Post editorials say"

[norml]

Mon, Apr 10, 2006 7:33pm EST

Kurtz's response to deeply flawed Post editorial: "I don't care what Post editorials say"

Summary: Responding to readers' comments on The Washington Post's falsehood-laden April 9 editorial on President Bush's authorization of intelligence leaks, Post media writer Howard Kurtz -- instead of reporting on the editorial's numerous falsehoods -- stated: "I don't care what Post editorials say, except as a reader."

Responding to readers' comments on The Washington Post's falsehood-laden April 9 editorial on President Bush's authorization of intelligence leaks, Post media writer Howard Kurtz -- instead of reporting on the editorial's numerous falsehoods -- stated: "I don't care what Post editorials say, except as a reader." As Media Matters for America noted, the April 9 editorial espoused numerous falsehoods that echoed media conservatives, and ignored its own paper's reporting in defending Bush's reported authorization of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose classified portions of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction.

Kurtz was responding to readers' questions during an April 10 "Live Online" discussion on washingtonpost.com. When confronted with comments from readers attacking and defending the editorial, Kurtz wrote: "I couldn't ask for a better case study in how the ideology of some readers affects their perception of what is fair or accurate." But contrary to Kurtz's assertion, the flaws in the Post's April 9 editorial had nothing to do with the "perception of what is fair and accurate," but what is actually accurate.

Rather than reporting on the numerous falsehoods in the editorial, Kurtz, who also hosts CNN's Reliable Sources and is billed by the network as "the nation's premier media critic," said the editorial "underscore the church-and-state division" between the Post's editorial and news divisions, and attacked a reader's suggestion that the editorial would reflect poorly on the paper as a whole, writing: "You obviously disagree strongly with that editorial, but I don't see how that translates into a 'lack of journalistic integrity.' The only people who have integrity are those who agree with your positions?"


snip


http://mediamatters.org/items/200604100009

[xchrom]

1. poor mr kurtz -- i see that he demands to be important

even as his paper publishes blatant falsehoods.

ah yes mr kurtz -- you're important -- in your mind.

:crazy:

[Gabi Hayes]

3. simply amazing....I read the entire, very long, washingtonpostblog

yesterday, that included responses from Wilson, deconstruction from firedoglake, thinkprogress, and even regular readers, that pointed out VERY SIMPLE factual errors, which are INDISPUTABLE, like the fact that they even got the countries of Iraq and Iran mixed up, based on a VERY OLD account, regarding WHICH country was actively seeking Uranium.

Kurtz is beyond pathetic, and deserves to be paid absolutely zero attention

here's hoping he gets the treatment that Fred Hiatt (or whomever the author of that sophomoronic piece of Rovian agitprop was). to accuse people who point out the demonstrably FALSE statements in the piece of having agenda serves only to highlight your OWN craven, venal agenda, Kurtz

you have shown yourself, once and finally, to be, like your once briefly admirable dog trainer, nothing but the worst kind of apologist for a criminally insane group of thugs

nice job, you smarmy puddle of congealing smegma

[xchrom]

5. i had something more intelligent to say in reply -- but then you said

smegma!!! ewwww!!

now i have the willies.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Kurtz is a BushCo media pimp

"The only people who have integrity are those who agree with your positions?"

The obvious response to such a ridiculous question would be that it isn't whether a person agrees with me or not, it is whether or not they are lying that determines their integrity. What a tool!

[Gabi Hayes]

4. oh yeah.....KR on this. Kurtz reveals himself to be every bit as bad

as what Matthews is, with the release of that little bit of tape showing the love affair between him and DeLay

who's the bigger whore, daddy?