An Interview With Howard Kurtz, Author of Reality Show: Inside the Last Great Television News Wars

I know many who regularly flog Howard Kurtz but while I have my quibbles with some of his pieces he writes as The Washington Post's media reporter I generally am interested and like what he writes. While the quality of his writing, specifically his choices of subjects and sources, has been much debated by bloggers, the quantity, the productivity, he produces has not. Indeed, if you judge a writer by his productivity than he's a great writer – he writes several stories a week as well as hosting Reliable Sources on CNN. Maybe that's why I like him more than some – I'm also known for a being bit prolific.
During the 17 years he has been the Washington Post media reporter he has also somehow found time to write several books, most recently this one. His book has received mostly positive book reviews. Marvin Kalb, a respected media critic in his own right, reviewed the book for the Washington Post and found it mostly good, though wanting in a few areas. (I'll raise a few of Kalb's criticisms with the book during the second part of the interview with Kurtz.)
Mr. Kurtz, thanks for agreeing to this interview. This first part of the interview will be about the book and you in general and the second part, after I finish the book, will be about more specifics in the book. Incidentally I was a newspaper reporter for 10 years before making a career change and I still do some media criticism so I can relate to one problem you inevitably encounter namely being both a media critic yet being part of the media itself. What did you hope to achieve with this book? Judging by reviews, flack from bloggers and reviewers (positive and negative) do you think you accomplished your goals with this book?
My goal was simple: to take readers behind the scenes so they could watch how network newscasts are put together and how the anchors make decisions. By doing that, I felt, readers would get to know them as people, to understand the pressures under which they operate, and to grasp the strengths and weaknesses of these broadcasts as they struggle to survive. I did not know when I started that Katie Couric would become the CBS anchor or that Charlie Gibson would succeed Bob Woodruff and Elizabeth Vargas. A real-time narrative is a roll of the dice, and as an author you have to exploit whatever unexpected events come your way.
What is your response to those questioning why you frame this book around the media starting to speak against the war as opposed to the media playing an important role in gaining popular support for the war?
That was not my goal at the outset. But Iraq was, without question, the overriding story in America during the two years covered by the narrative, strongly influencing the midterm elections and the presidential campaign as well. As I watched the anchors cope with how to cover the long-running war, and their own feelings about the war, and the way they responded to administration pressure about the war and even attended secret meetings with President Bush on the war, that emerged as a main element in the narrative. It also provided a clue to a running question in "Reality Show": Do these newscasts still matter? I believe they do, and the Iraq war was a classic example of how they used their sizable megaphone to move public opinion.
I saw you recently on The Daily Show and was curious: How do you think you did? Jon Stewart, in the interview and in the graphics shown preceding the interview, asked some tough but valid questions about the media.
I had a great time on The Daily Show. Jon Stewart is not only one of the funniest guys around, he's one of the sharpest media critics I've ever encountered. I knew this from off-air conversations and from the time that he was a guest on my show. He really cares about this stuff. What was interesting, when I went on, was that he passed up several opportunities to be funny. Jon was far more interested in having a good debate about what he sees as the media's shortcomings.
You seem to often be the target of criticism from bloggers. Why do you think that is? Is part of it that you're both part of the same media you're covering?
Much of the criticism comes from conservative bloggers who think I'm too liberal and liberal bloggers who think I'm too conservative. But I love bloggers and am glad they're able to add their voices to the mix. I get valuable information and insights from bloggers. And if it's a rough neighborhood, so be it.
You cover Dan Rather and his mistakes over the George Bush story. Did his lawsuit over that issue come out in between the book's completion and release date? What's your take on it? Your book seems to suggest Rather was at fault in that he pushed for broadcasting the story while others were telling him to wait and slow down, which would suggest his lawsuit will go no where.
The lawsuit was filed shortly after I finished the book, but having covered the National Guard debacle at the time and done more research for the book, I was not surprised by the depth of his continuing resentment toward CBS. I have consideration admiration for Dan Rather, but there's no question that he rushed to air with a badly flawed story based on documents that could not be authenticated, and paid a very high price for that. It was sad to see his CBS career end that way.
Why do you call this book the Last Great Television War?
By the time the next television news war rolls around in a decade or so, I doubt there will be the kind of interest there is in this one. It has the feel of one last great battle in the struggle for survival as more and more news migrates to the Net.

Howard Kurtz is the media reporter for The Washington Post. In Reality Show he looks at how network news has changed in recent years, partially due to the Internet, as well as exploring other related issues.
How did you find time to write Reality Show: Inside the Last Great Television News War since your output is already phenomenal, between your Washington Post articles, hosting CNN's Reliable Sources and other writings?
Sleep was an early casualty. So was any semblance of a social life. But now that the book is done, my schedule is back to being merely crazy rather than insane.
How did the logistics of this book work? You write like you've followed Brian Williams, for example, to New Orleans as he does a broadcast. Did you go with him or did you have he and the other anchors walk you through thinking process?
I was in New Orleans at the time. I was often in meetings, newsrooms and control rooms. At other times I pieced together what had happened through intensive reporting.
How did you get such access in the first place?
I told each of the networks that if they would let me spend time there and talk to the key people, I would produce a substantive narrative that would attempt to capture the essence of what they do.
Some critics, including Marvin Kalb in your own newspaper, questioned why you did not have more specific sourcing for your book, opting instead for what I call the Bob Woodward style where there are footnotes but not nearly enough to tell who told you what. Did you consider doing more direct sourcing? Do you think this is a fair criticism?
It's a fair question. But I was quite diligent about this approach. If I wasn't there, someone in the conversation had to have been there, and to have provided a verbatim account. If that person wasn't sure of the exact words that were used, I paraphrased. And in many cases I double-, triple- and quadruple-checked with others who were there.
Since the first half of our interview there was an odd flap about anchor Brian Williams hosting Saturday Night Live. What did you make of the flap? Was this indicative of change in the media (i.e. part of a larger shift in the media) or was this more just about Brian being Brian (i.e. him trying to show his loose side as you talked about in the book)?
The book makes clear that Williams was so concerned about his image that he passed up the chance to host SNL last season. This time, he allowed himself to be talked into it by Jeff Zucker and Steve Capus, his two top bosses at NBC. My own view is that this was not some tarnishing of the anchor throne, that most people get that he was fooling around on Saturday night and back to the serious job on Monday evening. And he's lucky to have done the last show before the writer's strike.
I wanted you to elaborate on a paragraph on page 254 and whether you think it was fair for the media to caricature Katie Couric and whether she herself ever made that quote attributed to friends:

But she couldn't stand the way the press invented a shorthand for you, a Velco label that you could never peel off. The joke among her friends was that Katie had decided what she wanted chiseled on her tombstone, 'Don't Call Me @!$%#ing Perky.'

Also, how much of the criticism of Katie came because of her gender?
Yes, she said it among friends as a joke, which is clear. But underlying the joke is a real resentment at the press over the way she is covered and, in her view, caricatured. I think Couric made a number of mistakes when she got to CBS and is paying the price. But there's no question that she's held to a different standard than male anchors, with all the focus on her hair, legs, wardrobe and social life. No one questioned Brian's decision to go to Iraq, but when Katie went there was a debate about her being a single mother and whether it was some kind of stunt. That was unfair.
I get the impression that some sources were much more open with you than others. Brian Williams, for example, seems to have shared with you his thoughts on many developments while I get the impression Katie Couric gave you little, if any, with the book. Is that correct and, if so, what do you think the result of that is? Does it end up showing Williams in a better light than Couric or does she only have herself to blame for that?
I think the anchors have different approaches to the press, and that Couric is generally less accessible than the others. But in terms of Reality Show, I felt quite satisfied with what I got from people at all levels of ABC, NBC and CBS — one of the advantages of doing a book as opposed to being on a daily deadline.
I don't watch TV news and you spell out many of the reasons why I don't -- the reporting is so often shallow or superficial, many of the stories are grabbed from the daily newspapers, etc. Instead I read the Washington Post and The New York Times each day and read other stories via the Internet. Do you think someone who gets the news this way is missing something by not watching TV?
Yes. First, the networks do sometimes break important stories, as ABC's Brian Ross did with the Mark Foley scandal. Second, television is a visual medium that lets you see, for example, the pain in a woman's face as she discusses her son serving in Iraq — so just surfing the Net or reading papers doesn't necessarily provide the same level of storytelling. Finally, it helps to see how stories are framed for a mass audience, rather than being unplugged from what 25 million Americans are watching.
What was your media diet like while working on this book? What is your media diet like now that you're done with the book? By media diet I mean what do you read daily, what do you watch TV, etc. For example, do you TiVo and then watch all of the major TV newscasts?
It's not much different now than it was during the book-writing process, except that now I occasionally miss a newscast or two. I read a half-dozen newspapers in print form, a bunch of magazines, keep cable news on in the background and visit a seemingly endless number of Web sites and blogs. At 6:30 I switch back and forth between the CBS Evening News and World News (sometimes catching a 9 p.m. repeat of Charlie Gibson on a local cable news channel) and watch Nightly News at 7. If I'm out for the evening I may catch the newscasts online.
Lastly, there's been a lot of talk about Jon Stewart and what the success of his show means. Some, for example, fret that some viewers may be getting their news only from his show while others cite a study showing that those viewers are more aware of the news than others. What do you think of Jon Stewart's show? What do you think his success means? And how has the show influenced TV network news. You mention on page 400, for example, that the Daily Show's practice of using quick cut editing to show someone -- in this case Alberto Gonzales -- repeatedly giving the same answer, "I don't recall," to numerous questions and then adding, "The Stewart style was now embedded in once-sober network newscasts."
The Daily Show is not just funny but important in the way it uses videotape to illustrate the absurdity of politics and media coverage itself. The reason I devote a chapter to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (who believe that no one would get their jokes unless they follow the news) is precisely because the evening newscasts are ripping a page from the Comedy Central playbook — not in doing fake news but in copying some of the editing techniques. It's no accident that Brian Williams is an occasional Stewart guest, or that NBC Nightly News and the CBS Evening News have recently played Daily Show clips.
What kind of response has Reality Show sparked from TV news personalities?
Several have told me they thought it was fair and got most of the nuances right. Several more have told me they couldn't put it down. Those who I presume weren't crazy about it have said little or nothing.
Lastly, was there any question you were hoping I and other interviewers would ask that we didn't ask? If so here's your chance to ask it.
You've covered the waterfront.