Into the Punditry Vacuum, Fresh Wind
_____More From Kurtz_____
One reason the media soared in public esteem after Sept. 11 was its heavy reliance on just-the-facts reporting rather than seat-of-the-pants speculation.
Finally, many readers and viewers seemed to be saying, journalists are telling us what they know rather than what they think, believe, surmise and theorize.
But that was then. A new study says that the media's outpouring of analysis, opinion and speculation in the war on terrorism now exceeds the level during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a low-water mark for journalistic prestige.
But not all media outlets are created equal: Newspapers have remained the most factual and balanced, says the Project for Excellence in Journalism. By November, the newspapers studied were devoting 14 percent of their war and terrorism stories to analysis, opinion and speculation, compared with 54 percent of the coverage on television.
"This is the Pentagon clampdown coming home to roost," says Tom Rosenstiel, the project's director. "If the media is largely denied access, it fills that vacuum with punditry. It's more easily spun and in turn spins the public. . . . Everyone suffers if people don't trust the press."
Equally striking, in this era of flag-bedecked networks, is that newspapers were twice as likely as television to carry criticism of the Bush administration.
The Washington-based project, funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, studied war-related news coverage in four newspapers (the New York Times, Washington Post, Cleveland Plain Dealer and Fresno Bee), two magazines, a variety of newscasts and three talk shows in mid-September, mid-November and mid-December. Comments by journalists and those they interviewed were categorized as based on fact or opinion and interpretation -- the same standard the group used in its Lewinsky study.
In mid-September, the report says, only a quarter of the coverage was analysis, opinion and speculation, but by December the level had reached nearly four in 10 statements. As the story moved from the home front to Afghanistan, the temptation to speculate (on Osama bin Laden's whereabouts, for example) grew greater. Newsweek's coverage was deemed twice as opinionated as Time's.
In December, 56 percent of the comments on CBS's "Early Show" were opinion and speculation, compared with 35 percent on ABC's "Good Morning America." "Nightline" was singled out as the most factual program and for devoting more than half its segments to foreign voices.
Overall, the media coverage has been "demonstrably pro-administration," the group says, with half of all reports containing only viewpoints that favor American policies and 13 percent mostly pro-United States. By December, though, as the United States was wrapping up its military victory, 42 percent of stories presented a mixture of pro-U.S. and dissenting views.
Television reports were entirely pro-administration nearly two-thirds of the time, while 80 percent of the views on morning TV were totally pro-Bush. On the evening news, CBS was the most likely to air stories that contained no dissent (64 percent of the time) and ABC was the least likely (45 percent).
Is Fox News the most pro-American network? On CNN's "NewsNight with Aaron Brown," 77 percent of the war-related assessments were entirely supportive of the administration, compared with 56 percent on Fox's "Special Report with Brit Hume." (Another 22 percent of segments on the Hume program were mostly supportive.) The "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" also carried segments that offered only pro-administration sentiments 77 percent of the time. "So much for the supposed liberal slant of PBS," the report says.
Enron's Pundit Payroll
More journalists who got Enron cash are struggling to explain themselves.
Lawrence Kudlow, a National Review contributing editor and co-host of CNBC's "America Now," disclosed last week that he'd gotten $50,000 from Enron -- two $15,000 speaking fees and a $20,000 subscription to his New York economic research firm.
Kudlow, who has been denouncing Enron, says he has "nothing to hide" and has been "tougher" on the bankrupt company because he feels "betrayed. . . . I felt compelled to speak up because I had been involved there."
Kudlow says he should have disclosed the payments in a National Review piece on Enron the previous week. "If I had to do it over again, I would have put it in there. I acknowledge that," he says.
Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, was paid $100,000 for serving on an Enron advisory board over two years. In November, the Standard disclosed his service in a largely positive article about Enron by contributing editor Irwin Stelzer, who served on the same advisory board, which was assembled by former CEO Kenneth Lay.
"What Enron and Lay deserve to be remembered for is leading the fight for competition. . . . Enron fought to allow customers and suppliers to strike whatever bargains they found mutually advantageous. . . . Enron did challenge and defeat the establishment," Stelzer wrote.
Kristol says he does "a fair amount" of speaking to corporate groups and doesn't normally disclose it, but decided it would be "prudent" in this case. What did Enron get? "I don't know -- why do a lot of trade associations and companies feel it's appropriate to pay me and a million other people to give speeches?" He says he may let his deputy handle future Enron articles "just to be super-clean about it."
Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, who got $25,000 to $50,000 for helping Lay with a speech and annual report, says, "Whether I had worked with Ken Lay or not," the company's behavior "would have made me angry and I would have thought about it for a while and then done a column. The only thing I think my Enron experience gave me was a sense of the corporate culture, which I tried to paint. . . .
"I brought it up myself, deliberately, knowing I might expose myself to woe -- because I had strong opinions and couldn't dodge them."
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who got $50,000 from the Enron advisory board, blames the flap on "conservative newspapers and columnists. . . . Reading those attacks, you would think I was a major-league white-collar criminal. . . . Part of a broader effort by conservatives to sling Enron muck toward their left," he writes.
Fox Fudge?
Hillary Rodham Clinton's office started getting calls after Fox News anchor Linda Vester said the senator "is saying that she believes that taxpayers should compensate families of illegal immigrants who died on that day of that terror attack." Columnist Michelle Malkin told Vester "it's no surprise that someone like Hillary Clinton doesn't appreciate the distinction between legal and illegal."
Clinton spokesman Jim Kennedy demanded a correction, to no avail: Illegal immigrants, he notes, are already entitled to 9-11 compensation under a law signed by President Bush. The former first lady is proposing that if they claim the money, they should not be referred to immigration authorities for possible deportation.
Fox Executive Producer Dennis Murray says the segment "could have been clearer," and the network says it invited the senator to appear before the segment aired (which Kennedy disputes) and afterward (Clinton declined). "I don't think senators should have to be the ones who run corrections on stories that mischaracterize their work," Kennedy says.
Footnote: Fox's Brit Hume took the high road this month by apologizing for picking up an item (from a hunting Web site) saying animal-rights activists had given 400 Ohio deer the bright orange vests that hunters use to alert one another not to shoot. "It was a hoax and we fell for it. Sorry about that," he said. Columbus Dispatch writer Michael Hawthorne neglected to mention the apology -- he says he was unaware of it -- when needling Fox over the mishap.
Howard Kurtz hosts CNN's weekly media program.
washingtonpost.com |
