2/10/09 Howard the Kurtz

Good times. Howie Kurtz is one of the more fun chatters. Here is his chat today.
I fired off a few questions prechat:
Prescott, AZ:
Did it ever occur to you that asking Katie Couric a question about her new hairdo right after you had been discussing the role of sexism in the criticism directed towards her wasn't exactly in the best taste?
How many times have you questioned a male journalist about their new hairstyle?

Prescott, AZ:
When are you going to revisit your theory that the reason Republicans dominated appearances on Sunday talk shows was because they held the Presidency and both chambers of Congress? According to your thesis, Republicans should be way behind in recent appearances.

I got the idea to ask about Couric from Thinkprogress.
Back in r 2006, MediaMatters did a study of the Republican to Democrat ratio on the Sunday talk programs back to 1997, and it was heavily slanted toward Republicans. When someone brought it up to him, he (ignoring the fact that the data included many Clinton years) asserted that since Republicans controlled all the levers of government, it was only logical that they would be overrepresented on the talk shows.
I ask him about his theory rather often, but he doesn't really want to chat about it.
I sent this question right as the chat started:

Ana Marie Cox claimed on her Twitter feed that some "journalists" were grumbling about Obama taking a question from the Huffington Post. Boo hoo.How come they never grumbled when Bush was taking questions from Jeff Gannon/Guckert, who is a male prostitute turned online journalist (and, contrary to your article this morning, was the first blogger to ask the President a question at one of these things)?

The Villagers are clueless and very protective about their domain. Remember when Gannon was walking into the White House? The traditional media ignored it, and pretended it wasn't happening.
One has to wonder how much they grumble when Obama goes to these townhalls and the little people get to communicate with him and cut their static out?

Howie is defending the stupid question the Washington Post journo asked Obama about Alex Rodriguez. Someone commented that it was okay because Bush answered questions about Barry Bonds. I have to snark that:

Bush and Bonds:
If I recall, baseball questions were the only ones that Bush could answer in complete sentences.
No response, of course.

A number of people are pointing out that the Republican whining about the Stimulus is over 2% of a giant bill, and the press is amplifying their quibbles:

The one or two percent stimulus: Howard, Like your show on CNN. I have been puzzled by the news media when they often do not correct clearly misleading items presented by guests on shows. Like the percent of pork in the stimulus bill. Is it considered rude for a particular host or reporter to discount these items, or just allow he narrative to take shape, even if incorrect or frivolous. This seems to happen very often and almost always applies to the political reporting

Howard Kurtz: I certainly think anchors and other journalists should put things in perspective by pointing out the relative level of spending for controversial items in the bill. But that doesn't mean they should be discounted. After all, with a package this size, 1 percent amounts to more than $8 billion, which, even by Washington standards, ain't chicken feed.

This is the second or third question of this type Kurtz has answered, and he at first said that Democrats "courted trouble" by thinking money to hire nurses for STD prevention was "stimulus" Silly Democrats:

$8 billion in chicken feed:
Don't you think that journalists should put this stuff into perspective by comparing it to how much money we are blowing in Iraq?
Like let's say a Republican complains about $50 million for Headstart. Since the War is reported to cost $340 million per day, the reporter could report that said Republican thinks that pre-K education isn't worth 1/7th of a day in Iraq, and the Republican has voted yes for every single war appropriation.
I think it would put this thing in perspective real fast.

Kurtz keeps defending the stupid A-Rod question, and he put it into perspective by saying that Obama had already answered a bunch of boring old economic questions and he was way too windy doing it (and made the poor Wall Street Journal guy sad because they didn't get to his question) so it was time to change things up.

Howard Kurtz: I did not notice that, and as I've said, I didn't find it inane at all. This wasn't some "how 'bout them Yankees" question; it concerned the use of illegal substances by the biggest and richest star in baseball. And it came at a point when the president had already been asked a slew of economic questions.

I comment:

More questions…give and take:
You already complained that Obama answered four whole questions on the economy and thus it was time to move on to sports celebrity gossip and trivia.
What would have came next, Natalie Holloway?
Given the choice between a few long substantive answers on something really important, or a contest between reporters to see who can get the most inane, I suspect most people in this country are with Obama on this one.

Kurtz starts hyping his own high quality of journalamisms:

Hell's Kitchen, NYC: Per your column a few days ago: That the members of the pundit class have secure gigs while actual reporters have their paychecks on the line is a pretty big hint as to why the print media is in trouble. But I warn you: Watch your back. There is no shortage of grumpy guys with opinions about the media. Good, well-written reporting is hard to come by, though. When push comes to shove, isn't that where the investment should go?

What's It Worth To Ya? (Post, Feb. 6)

Howard Kurtz: This is why I concentrate on good, solid reporting as opposed to bloviating.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. HA. I have to ask about his other recent "reporting":

“good solid reporting”
You reported that Tucker Carlson had been "banished" from MSNBC and he showed up on Morning Joe a few days afterward. I don't think "good solid reporting" means what you think it does.

He takes the bait:

Howard Kurtz: How about some good, solid reporting by questioners? Here's what I actually reported in September after the Democratic convention, as opposed to what you imagined I reported:

"Tucker Carlson, the Weekly Standard alumnus whose show was canceled in March, went to Denver expecting to be on 'Hardball' every night. But only the morning show hosted by former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough would use him."

Uh, Howard, that would be true, if you weren't claiming a month ago (1/13/09) that Carlson was "banished":

Factual ideology: It is really easy to look up some of Republican Joe Scarborough's recent gaffe's (e.g. his fact-free rants about Al Franken "stealing" an election, or his fascination that Obama and Blagojevich have some sort of close relationship). I don't MSNBC's embrace of ideology is going as smooth as you think.

Howard Kurtz: "Morning Joe" (a show I like) is the only MSNBC program hosted by a conservative, albeit one who spent plenty of time criticizing his Republican Party over the last two years. Tucker Carlson has been banished. The evening programming is handled by Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, who just got finished exploring running for the Senate from Pennsylvania as a Democrat.

He answered my question with 2 minutes or so left in the chat, but I still sent a response:

good solid reporting 2:
From your chat on 1/5/2009:
Factual ideology: It is really easy to look up some of Republican Joe Scarborough's recent gaffe's (e.g. his fact-free rants about Al Franken "stealing" an election, or his fascination that Obama and Blagojevich have some sort of close relationship). I don't MSNBC's embrace of ideology is going as smooth as you think.

Howard Kurtz: "Morning Joe" (a show I like) is the only MSNBC program hosted by a conservative, albeit one who spent plenty of time criticizing his Republican Party over the last two years. Tucker Carlson has been banished. The evening programming is handled by Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, who just got finished exploring running for the Senate from Pennsylvania as a Democrat.

I wish I would have also brought up his recent "reporting" on Chris Matthews being a liberal. You know, Chris Matthews. The guy who admitted on his show that he voted for wingnut and scandal-ridden new RNC chair Michael Steele.