http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Dec19.html

Howard Kurtz, a Washington Post reporter answers questions about the press and surrounding issues in "Media Backtalk".

quote:

Alexandria, Va.: it's just so predictable that the media would take Dean under now. There is no liberal or conservative media, there is only horse-race media. It's got to be such a satisfying feeling to pump up a blow-up doll emperor for all the plebeians to see, only to pop it and watch the disappointed looks on all of our faces. Merry Christmas... Howard Kurtz: Well, to take the other side of the argument, when someone is the leading contender to take on President Bush next fall -- especially if that someone is a previously obscure small-state governor -- don't the media have a responsibility to dig into his record and his past? Every front runner who emerges (Carter, Dukakis, Clinton) gets this sort of hyper-scrutiny. Remember the huge "story" of whether Bush had used drugs as a young man or not? My main beef is that we don't apply that level of scrutiny to other serious candidates until they are somehow deemed by the media to either be the front-runner or a real threat to the front-runner.

It cracks me up the way that statement was worded:"It's got to be such a satisfying feeling to pump up a blow-up doll emperor for all the plebeians to see"

quote:

Alexandria, Va.: What is your take on Bush's stated aversion to direct contact with newspapers? Do you think he's telling the whole truth? Is he trying to tell reporters he can't be shaken (or influenced) by them? Howard Kurtz: I have no reason not to take the president at his word. But I think it's a shame if he's insulating himself from the daily slings and arrows and relying on Card/Condi briefings for his "news." A president can't overreact to every bit of press criticism, but the Oval Office can be an isolating place, and I think you isolate yourself more by not knowing what's on the front pages. Bush does say, however, that Laura passes on some things for him to read.

quote:

Fairfax, Va.: Time Magazine's "Person of the Year" is supposed to be the individual who had the most impact on the news, but has the magazine allowed political correctness factors to influence its most recent decisions? I'm referring to Rudy Guiliani being picked instead of bin Laden two years ago, the female whistleblowers last year, and the U.S. soldiers who carried out the Iraq policy (rather than the policymakers themselves) this year. In light of Tony Blair's crucial role in shaping this year's events, why didn't Time include the British soldiers (and perhaps the rest of the coalition) in their designation? Howard Kurtz: Probably because it's an American magazine.

That's all of the response that you need.

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire