Kurtz on U.S. attorneys scandal: "Are the media openly siding with the Democrats?" (Media Matters)

[marmar]

I'm not familiar with Howard Kurtz. Is he another BushCo whore? - OP's interrogative comment


Kurtz on U.S. attorneys scandal: "Are the media openly siding with the Democrats?"

On the March 25 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, host and Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz asked: "As the White House tries to limit testimony by Karl Rove and other subpoenaed officials in the case of the purged prosecutors, are the media openly siding with the Democrats?" Kurtz said to CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry, "ou and your colleagues have been going at Snow pretty hard on this issue. It sounds like you think the Bush proposal is a terrible idea," referring to the White House's offer to allow Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, but only in private and without an oath, transcripts, or subsequent subpoenas. Kurtz later added: "I believe in very, very aggressive White House reporting, but the tone and volume of the hammering of Snow over this does make it appear to people watching at home that journalists were taking sides." He did not raise a different explanation for the media's behavior -- that the ability of reporters to cover the interviews of White House staff -- and indeed, the issue more generally -- would be sharply limited if the interviews are conducted privately and without a written record.

Kurtz's suggestion -- that reporters who are upset with the White House's refusal to allow sworn, public testimony from Rove and Miers "are taking sides" with Democrats -- is just the most recent example of his using questions to suggest that the media are sympathetic to Democrats or taking positions against Republicans or the Bush administration, as Media Matters for America documented. Three of Kurtz's four guests -- Henry, Politico senior editor John Harris, and Chicago Tribune national correspondent Jill Zuckman -- disagreed with Kurtz's suggestion that reporters were "taking sides."

From the March 25 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:

KURTZ: The question now: Does it seem heartless to cover the political impact of Elizabeth Edwards' cancer?

Up in arms: As the White House tries to limit testimony by Karl Rove and other subpoenaed officials in the case of the purged prosecutors, are the media openly siding with the Democrats?

Calamity central: A missing Boy Scout, a kidnapped baby, a teenager trapped under concrete -- is this really the stuff of national news?.....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://mediamatters.org/items/200703260004

[gratuitous]

1. It is well known

That facts and truth often have a liberal, Democrat {sic} bias, and are to be avoided at all costs when those facts are against the Republicans. It's up to every good journalist, reporter and talking chucklehead to make sure that those dirty fucking facts aren't given excessive play, and that the Republican counterpoints get both the first and the last word.

Thank God Howard Kurtz is on the job, making sure that those biased facts don't taint his beloved GOP.

[Malikshah]

2. No Howie...they're siding with Justice over Just-us.

Typical Kurtzian bloviating

[Robbien]

9. Good answer

:thumbsup:

If the media were to take a leftie slant on this story, Kurtz would be hiding under the covers.

[icnorth]

16. Sorry, the "siding with Justice" factor has the mass of a whisp of cigarette smoke.

In real life the msm is still 45 degrees right of centre. They're being dragged kicking and screaming to this position by the court of public opinion, not by moral convictions of ethics and justice.

[Malikshah]

18. We're not fooled. MSNBC is beginnging to slide in the evening, but the rest of the

day it's all parrot all the time.

It all comes down to ratings and what will sell.

The MSM by and large is expendable and forgettable.

[truebrit71]

3. Howie is a well-known right-wing presstitute media whore...

It is perfectly okay to immediately discount anything that escapes his putrid lips as complete and total bullshit...

[blm]

7. He's married to a GOP strategist.

.

[Supersedeas]

13. A tight leash

[global1]

4. The MSM Are Not Siding With The Dems - They Are Finally Doing What.....

they should have been doing the past 6 years - they are questioning.

[Old and In the Way]

8. They are forced to cover this because the real investigative reporters are all over it

on the internet. Sucks to be a Beltway pundit who's used to living large on the Republican dime.

[Rex]

5. Well there is a first time for everything!

:drumroll:

[blogslut]

6. Poor Howie

What's it like to realize you're becoming obsolete?

[PCIntern]

10. As Winston Churchill would have said,

"Howard, when I go to sleep drunk, I awaken sober, but you are still a lying weaselly fucktard."

[NNN0LHI]

11. 6 years of our media sucking Bush and his minions ass and Howie never noticed that

Thats probably because Howie had his nose stuck so far up their asses he didn't notice the others.

Don

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. Howard Kurtz' biggest stands were defending Judy Miller and he LED the effort to fire Dan Rather

Worse, he portrays himself as an unimpeachable expert on media matters,

a professional ombudsman/media critic.

Nuff said.

[Gabi Hayes]

15. amen....and do you think he'll write a book about the Rapeublican Spin Cycle, similar

to the one he wrote during the Clinton Inquisition, among whom he was one of the most rabid participants?

do you think he EVER asked the question: are the media going to hard on Clinton?

they just had a huge hard ON for him

[Justice Is Comin]

14. If there was an open desk

at FALSE NEWS, he'd be over there.

[EST]

17. Kurtz is an idiot-a partisan one- and he is obviously partisan in

a specific direction.
  We also know a great deal about the characteristics of their particular pathology. The one we see the most of is projection and they use it at such a loud volume that it convinces the gullible.
The white house correspondents were not and are not aggressive in their questioning-I know what aggressive looks like and that ain't it.

Snow kept blowing them off with non sequitors and they knew it. The only place where they could look like they were taking sides, even a little, might be that they feel more empowered with the democratic oversight taking shape and were more persistent, almost like real reporters.

The wingnut pathology includes a very strong element of paranoia. They are frightened of everything and everybody and their predilection for preemptive, insane attack forces them to accuse us of the very things they are guilty of.
 Preemptive defense-hmmm-it would be too much to expect for them to take a rational look at their own behavior.

If one wants an example of aggressive, one needs look no further than assistant press secretary Perino. Now, there's one aggressive cat.