The Credibility Of Howard Kurtz Continues To Crumble

Howard Kurtz, who hosts the CNN show Reliable Sources (I continue to question the appropriate nature of that title some of the time), makes you scratch your head some Sundays in disbelief.

Frequently, Kurtz engages in what I will call phony impartiality. As part of this phony effort, Kurtz frequently covers for the bias of Fox News by ridiculously trying to portray MSNBC as the sort of liberal equivalent.

It is a weak equivalency that fails on so many levels. The reporting of MSNBC is not biased (which is more than can be said for Fox News). Fox News is biased nearly 24/7. MSNBC has a liberal prime-time lineup, but it also provides a substantial platform in the morning to Joe Scarborough, who clearly is a conservative. Fox News offers no comparable platform to any commentator who is even close to a liberal (or, for that matter, one who is even a moderate).



This video is laughable as the two talking heads pat each other on the back with their ridiculous comments about MSNBC being this liberal network (something that is false).

The sad thing is that Kurtz is showing his own bias on a show that is supposed to be about, in theory, holding the media accountable.

Who holds Howard Kurtz accountable for his baseless comment?

Howard Kurtz Continues To Puzzle As Host Of CNN’s Reliable Sources

First and foremost, I don’t think I will ever be able to understand how someone who is supposed to be analyzing bias in the media brings on biased partisans to discuss bias.

Yet, it seems every Sunday on CNN’s Reliable Sources, host Howard Kurtz routinely brings on biased analysts to discuss bias in the media.

But, that is just my regular beef with Kurtz.

Media Matters for America has another topic about Howard Kurtz that caught my attention.

Kurtz is either too afraid to strongly and consistently call out Fox News for its pro-conservative bias or he too is a closet conservative masquerading as nonpartisan.

Here is what Media Matters posted:

Howard Kurtz suggests Fox’s “news programming” is balanced and the Washington Post’s editorial page is liberal:

Knoxville, Tenn.: Why do so many media outlets, when mentioning “Fox News”, say “which some say has conservative views”? This seems to be the equivalent of saying “The Washington Post, which some say is a newspaper…”

Why is the rest of the press corp afraid to call a spade a spade, particularly when (as in this case) it is so virulently blatant?

Howard Kurtz: Because some say a distinction must be made between Fox’s opinion shows (O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity) and its news programming. Just as you have to make a distinction between The Post’s news pages and its left-leaning editorial page.

Even if we buy what Kurtz is selling right there it still is ridiculous. He suggests we should distinguish between the news content and commentary content of Fox News (with respect to bias). But, even the commentary is all far-right commentary when you look at Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity (all far to the right of the political mainstream). Throw in Greta Van Susteren, Fox and Friends, Greg Gutfeld, etc. … and you see the pattern that becomes all too clear. Where is the balance there?

Also, as Media Matters points out, it is insulting of Kurtz to think that we’re too stupid to see the well-documented instances of Fox News bias from its news programming (cheerleading Tea Party protests, openly promoting Republican Scott Brown in his candidacy for U.S. Senate and more).

Check out the Media Matters for America article to see the full depth and breadth of how Kurtz seems to think we’re too stupid to see the bias of Fox News that runs almost 24/7 (nevermind the garbage on Fox Nation).

Media Matters for America:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001250017

CNN’s Howard Kurtz Properly Points Out Dishonesty Of Glenn Beck, Hidden Agenda

ox News far-right talk show host Glenn Beck has been trashing a man named Van Jones. Media Matters for America has a clip of CNN’s Howard Kurtz posted on its Web site. In the clip, Kurtz points out, however, that Beck is being irresponsible and abusing his platform by not admitting his own hidden agenda in his attack of Jones. Beck has been targeted for boycott by a group (ColorOfChange) that Jones once was affiliated with as co-founder. Beck has been angry about the success of the ColorOfChange boycott and has used his anger to attack Van Jonesand attack President Obama (by attacking Jones and trying to portray him as a black radical). Not to demean Jones, but he serves in a position few people would have much interest in if not for the efforts of Beck who is attempting to again use racial politics to (1) save himself, (2) attack President Obama and (3) portray himself as being attacked by black radicals to appeal to his mostly conservative audience. Beck’s efforts are probably meeting with success since he knows what appeals to his audience at Fox News and on the radio.

Drew Sharp Was Anything But With Michael Vick Column In Detroit Free Press

Detroit Free Press columnist Drew Sharp is a smart man who understands how the media game is played. As a columnist, Sharp and numerous others across this country look for ways to distinguish themselves from a crowded group of competitors hungering for the same thing: a major national platform. Over the years, Sharp has found his angle: He is angry, he takes on the challenge of writing about controversial topics and he goes against the grain with columns that are almost always negative and bashing athletes, coaches, owners and even fans.

This all brings me to Sharp’s column about Michael Vick that was published on Saturday by the Detroit Free Press. I briefly pondered a rebuttal of sorts on Saturday, but something held me back (not exactly sure what it was). But, I changed my mind when I saw CNN’s Howard Kurtz provide Sharp with a platform on the Sunday morning CNN show “Reliable Sources.” Drew went on and, in essence, parroted most of the same lines he had written about in his column about Vick (that included a small taste of the controversial situation that now involves Louisville men’s college basketball coach Rick Pitino.

Here are a couple of excerpts followed by my thoughts:

Philly threw Michael Vick a Milk Bone. Here’s hoping he chokes on it.

This only reaffirms why I ceased being a sports fan a long time ago. It wasn’t worth the duplicity. There should always be a more honorable aim than winning at any cost. Vick’s getting a second NFL life is but another example of our society’s morality of convenience.

If that makes me a “hater,” so be it. At least I know I’m not a hypocrite.

I’m hoping that those who staunchly preached a second chance for Vick will exhibit the same compassion when the next 29-year-old black man leaves federal prison following an almost two-year sentence but can’t run a 40-yard dash in 4.4 time, chuck a football 70 yards or sell a $100 jersey.

Yes, Drew … you are a “hater” as you put it, but that is besides the point.

In general, our society is in favor of second chances for a good number of people who run afoul of the law. I would imagine every day people are released from prisons and get second chances. I highly doubt people like Drew Sharp know or care about many of these people and I doubt even more Drew Sharp would take an opportunity to write about the average person who comes out of prison and is given a second chance. If Michael Vick or some other person emerged from prison and went to work at a fast food restaurant or as a custodian, I doubt Drew Sharp would care, talk about the morality of convenience or winning at all costs. But, the fact that Vick is expected to again achieve fame and financial riches bothers people like Drew Sharp and many others who want to continue to gleefully pile on and further demonize Vick who has paid his price (his debt to society if you will) for his role in heinous crimes against animals.

Reliable Sources Confrontation Was Pretty Lame

I can imagine Howard Kurtz, host of CNN’s Reliable Sources, was pretty excited about the prospect of an on-air confrontation (primarily between Washington Post writer Dana Milbank and Huffington Post blogger Nico Pitney … with the highly-conservative TownHall commentator Amanda Carpenter present to eagerly assist Milbank with a double team Pitney). Sunday was the day that Reliable Sources turned into a cable news television version of MTV’s The Real World. It did not work well for television as it just sounded like two guys who didn’t like each other arguing about something that is little more than a nontroversy. Back to Nico Pitney. Personally, I commend this man for his work to build sources in Iran and his work to try and understand the conflict in Iran from those who were on the ground in a country in such historic turmoil following a disputed presidential election. Instead of us applauding Pitney for his work to build sources, grind out information and present it to people, he gets bashed by a right winger who probably can’t stand Huffington Post (Amanda Carpenter) and a mainstream media, big newspaper snob (Dana Milbank) who probably (perhaps out of some sort of jealousy) enjoyed taking such a shot at Pitney and (as probably an added bonus) President Obama’s White House to try and portray both in the most negative light possible.

Yeah, I wonder if Kurtz knew what Carpenter, Milbank and Pitney were going to discuss when they came onto the program?

Is it reliable when you know two people are going to double team one person on a show that is supposed to be about (among other things) fairness, balance, objectivity and accountability in the media?

OK, Milbank and and Pitney had a lively exchange (the video is below) that became rather heated (more so than you would expect for Reliable Sources).

After the confrontation heated up, Milbank left Pitney with this thoughtful nugget from inside his head (according to Pitney):

The only thing that surprised me was when Dana turned to me after our initial sparring and called me a “dick” in a whispered tone (the specific phrase was, I believe, “You’re such a dick”). Howie Kurtz wrote on Twitter that he didn’t hear it, which is understandable — he was doing the lead-in for the next part of the segment on the ABC White House special. But it happened (I urge Howie to watch the video of the panel during the ABC intro) and it was frankly pretty odd.

I find the entire issue odd and stinking of partisanship and snobbishness. Pitney asked a better question and probably did more research than some of the snobs who are trying to throw him under the bus. You know, I suspect many people who watched that segment, and got a feel for Milbank, would hardly be surprised to hear him say something along those lines.

I’ll end with some impressions of the Sunday-morning confrontation:

Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nico-pitney/debating-the-iran-questio_b_222001.html

Crooks and Liars (this entry, among other things, debunks a claim of alleged favoritism for Pitney in terms of his positioning in the room):
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/reliable-sources-dana-milbank-gets-h-0

Hullabaloo:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/pitney-vs-milbank-by-digby-just-to-put.html

To Not Condemn The Assassination Of Dr. George Tiller Says A Lot About Bill O’Reilly

Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz, who also serves as host of CNN’s Reliable Sources, had this comment in a column he wrote for the Post regarding media reactions to the brutal assassination of Dr. George Tiller:

O’Reilly is entitled to defend himself, and he in no way condoned what happened. But the man was murdered in church.I was surprised that, along with his reminder that Tiller had been called a baby killer, O’Reilly didn’t issue a ringing denunciation of the shooting and anyone who thought it was justified. The occasion, in my view, called for it; he chose a different approach.

It’s difficult to tell if Kurtz is legitimately surprised by O’Reilly’s reactions (I don’t know how he could be) or if he is trying to remain somewhat neutral in his analysis (to play it safe). How Bill O’Reilly could not come out on his Fox News television program and strongly (in the strongest terms possible) condemn the assassination of Dr. Tiller is beyond comprehension.

So, where is Bill O’Reilly’s conscience and his respect for humanity?

Where is his moral courage to stand up to the far-right bigots (some who go beyond mere bigotry to destructive action) who are not bothered by the murder of a human being?

Not only did he not condemn the murder and all who think it was justified, he even repeated the line that refers to Tiller as a baby killer.

That is disgusting stuff from a man who seems to have no conscience.

It’s amazing how horrified anti-abortion people are by abortion, yet how matter-of-fact some are about the cold-blooded assassination of Dr. John Tiller, a human being.

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060200889_2.html?hpid=topnews