Howard Kurtz Live Chat

Started at noon, pretty much of a snoozer. I submitted a question about failure of reporting about the radical background of the antiwar protest organizers, but after 45 minutes I doubt it will be answered. This was near the top, however:

Rockville, Md.: Dear Mr. Kurtz, I was at the anti-war demonstration this weekend and was impressed by the turn-out and the strong focus on Iraq (rather than other issues that get mixed in sometimes). It is my impression that the march did not get very wide coverage nationally and that the pro-war protesters, in spite of their comparably minuscule numbers, were given "equal time" by the press. What do you think? Thanks!

Howard Kurtz: I was traveling part of the weekend, but the demonstration certainly got plenty of newspaper coverage. On television, though, my impression was that it was all Rita all the time. Had there been no hurricane, my guess is that the networks would have devoted more attention to the protest. Instead, it got washed out.

"Impressed by the strong focus on Iraq" is a description of a different protest than the one I witnessed on C-Span, and witnessed in person by a variety of bloggers, but best wishes to whatever universe Rockville, Md. inhabits. The following question is a better indication of the protest's groupthink, even though it isn't about that event:

Bethesda, Md.: You seem quite comfortable with the notion that a major hurricane sells for the networks. But you don't seem to want to go near applying the same logic to the war (a well-documented bestseller for outfits like CNN). What would the networks do without Iraq to cover? Answer: not as well. Isn't it in their economic interests to play up the pro-war rally, to help prolong it and keep the cash cow coming in?

Howard Kurtz: With all due respect, that's the most offensive theory I've heard in a long time. You think the networks are consciously trying to prolong the way, and are willing to see hundreds or thousands more Americans die, just to keep the ratings up? That would be a pretty sick way of thinking. Besides, I think there's so much Iraq fatigue right now that I don't think the war, with its depressing daily dose of bombings and casualties, is helping the ratings much at all.

Not to worry, Bethesda, Brian Williams says a long period of reticence by news organizations is ending.

Update: The chat is done. Kurtz notes he was traveling for part of the weekend, so perhaps he is unaware of the whitewash of ANSWER--for starters--that took place over the past several days.

One participant argued that the Post's bias was shown by running a story about supporters of the Administration in the Metro section today and running the big antiwar demo story on the front page Sunday, but Kurtz was absolutely right to say this reflected the size of the protests involved.

I didn't think the Post overplayed the coverage of the protest; I just think the quality of its reporting was amateurish as conceived and slanted in its outcome. It didn't tell me what actually happened in the world.