MEDIA

HOWARD KURTZ, Washington Post Staff Writer, March 29, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: With the proliferation of news sources, there are more people covering and reporting the news. Has this affected the quality of reporting? Has this opened the doors to journalists with various perspectives? Has this allowed less qualified reporters to enter the profession? Is there a tendency for reporters to follow each other’s lead on how stories are reported, or are there now more reporters searching for different angles to stories?
KURTZ: That is a whole lot of questions. The explosion of media outlets has essentially been a good thing by allowing more voice into the grand echo chamber that used to be controlled by a handful of big media corporations. The recent rise of web logs is a striking example of how one person with a modem and a bunch of opinions can influence the dialogue. I don’t see any decline in qualification for reporters at mainstream newspapers, but for the first time in history they now have competition from 100 different directions. What is more, people can now do their own “reporting” by reading transcripts and documents online rather than simply accepting a terse description by some newspaper or network.

VICTOR DAVID HANSON, author, September 11, 2002
CZIKOWSKY: One generation learned of Pearl Harbor on the radio. Another generation learned of the assassination of President Kennedy on television. This generation watched the collapse of the World Trade Towers on live television. How do you think this will affect us, especially since this is the first major national disaster, indeed our greatest national disaster, that was brought right before our eyes? Is this affecting many people far more differently than past national emergencies?
HANSON: I think that is an excellent point and a suggestion that it has affected us because of its intimacy right in our living rooms is correct. There is much talk that in a global age of communications we Americans have grown soft and cynical yet both our sorrow over 9/11 and our anger at the perpetrators seems to me, even after a year, to have increased rather than waned. So for all our affluence and undeniable license I think we still remain the grandchildren of Pearl Harbor and that bodes ill for our enemies.

BOB SCHIEFFER, Washington Correspondent, CBS News, January 24, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What was it like working with Walter Cronkite? Do you have any particular memorable stories to mention about him?
SCHIEFFER: The great thing about Walter Cronkite is that he is exactly like he is on television. He is the most curious person I have ever known. Walter is my hero and I love him like I would love my own father, but he could drive you absolutely nuts on deadline. Like every good editor, he could always ask the one question that you had forgotten to ask.
Here are the kings of things that Walter would actually ask about 6:15, when the Evening News was about to go on the air: How long is Greenland? Do you happen to know how much oil there is in the world? Or maybe this one: In Poland, do they call him Father Christmas or Santa Claus?
CZIKOWSKY: Do you write your own questions, or do you have writers assisting you?
SCHIEFFER: We have a very small staff at “Face the Nation”. Basically, an Executive Producer and a Producer. They do a lot of research and the three of us write our questions. They give us an outline of what the interview will be like but rather than have specific questions, what I try to do is have a list of things I need to cover in the interview. The success of the interview is not the questions you have prepared beforehand but the follow-ups you ask during the interview itself. The most important thing is not so much the question, but to listen carefully to the answers you’re getting.
I always write the commentary at the end of the broadcast myself. I was hired at CBS basically as a writer and I still think of myself in that way.

TINA FEY, “Saturday Night Live” Head Writer, and ROSALIND WISEMAN, Co-Founder, Empower Women, June 4, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Do you have any comments on whether the empowerment of women is having greater success with young women (although not nearly enough amongst older people) yet, there are some young males who have grown up hearing the messages on TV programs and ads that “women can do anything” who are now beginning to feel that they, young men, are inferior? Now, we see fewer males going to college and young women are out-earning young men (which is fine for women, for a change). Shouldn’t the overall message be “anyone can be empowered and achieve if they try and work for it”?
FEY: I’d be curious to know if there’s some statistic that women are out-earning—if that’s true. I don’t think it’s the intent to make young men feel inferior.
WISEMAN: I’ve seen the college statistics, but I don’t understand why people want to see things in binaries. Why does women’s success mean men’s failure? Men and women will not be able to have successful relationships with each other if that’s the attitude taken—one person’s success does not equal another’s loss. And vice versa, with men as well.
I think that one thing that’s more difficult for young women is that they are very savvy consumers of the culture. They know they’re being manipulated to buy certain things, but it doesn’t stop them from being manipulated. So I think that you also see girls in a way struggling more and louder. They don’t suffer in silence as they used to. So as a result, you have girls that are outspoken but still suffering.
FEY: I agree. The image that I kind of fixate on is that you see the teenage girl with the tight baby-tee that says “Diva” on it—so you’re aware of this power but could probably be having better life experiences.

MICHAEL HARRISON, Editor, Talkers Magazine, July 1, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I have listened to many political and civic leaders get bashed to pieces when they go on some local talk radio shows where the host just attacks and attacks and doesn’t give them much of a chance to respond. Sometimes, I wonder why anyone would even accept an invitation to appear on such shows. If one is to go on such a show, would it be a good strategy to just “shove it in the face” of such a rude interviewers and get your message across, even if you have to talk over someone who doesn’t give you a chance to talk? I hate to suggest that someone be rude, but if someone is being rude to you (to get those high ratings), is it better to try and fight back, or is it best to just surrender and let listeners listen to their hero interviewers ramble on as usual?
HARRISON: Great question. I often wonder that myself. However, hope springs eternal in our hearts of those who wish to be on TV and radio to promote their product, cause, or just plain ego. That aside, many people have learned that if you don’t let the bashing of the host bother you, there are plenty of people who will see through the bombast and get your message. This is an acquired skill.

BERNARD SANDERS, Member of Congress, July 15, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: Isn’t the fact that Time magazine puts a book written by the former head of CNN, now owned by Time Warner, on its cover just a small but glaring example of what happens when media becomes too concentrated? It reminds me of how many characters on ABC shows casually mention how much they enjoy going to Disneyland.
SANDERS: The question makes a very, very good point. And we’re seeing more of that concern as media conglomerates become more vertically integrated. But the more important issue, in terms of media consolidation, is the degree to which the corporate media “entertains us to death”, and deflects attention away from the most important issues facing the middle class of this country. When is the last time that the people of this country have seen on TV a program discussing why the U.S., for example, is the only country in the industrialized world not to have a national healthcare program guaranteeing healthcare to all of our citizens?
Where are the programs discussing the collapse of the middle class and the growing gap between the rich and poor? We have far more programming discussing gossip and the sex lives of movie stars than we have about the economic crisis facing millions of American workers.
That is one of the reasons I started my radio show. And why we have got to address this issue of corporate control of the media.

DEREK McGINTY, “USA Tonight” anchor, September 10, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts of switching from a national audience to a local audience, although perhaps being a more influential voice within an important D.C. area audience?
McGINTY: Well, I was never locked into being a network correspondent in terms of being a major national news guy. I’ve always wanted to have a job that I enjoyed, that allowed me some creativity and a chance to explore stories I care about. So while this show has a smaller audience than the network…the reality is…the network was probably never going to offer me an opportunity so much in line with what I like to do.

LEON HARRIS, news anchor, September 10, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: You have been doing a good job on CNN. What has made you decide to become a news anchor in Washington? Do you believe it will be more of a challenge, or that you will have an audience with more direct influence, or what?
HARRIS: (laughs) You already answered my question. A lot of it’s true. I think it’ll be, if not a bigger challenge, a different challenge. After 20 years in one place, that’s what I’m looking for. The Washington area has some of the most intelligent people in the country, newsmakers and there’s a lot of international news and events there and that’s a perfect mix for me.
Having that broad of a menu to choose from, that environment, makes it a perfect fit.

BOB LEVEY, Washington Post columnist, November 14, 2003
CZIKOWSKY: I just read Bill O’Reilly’s new book. When he is not busy trying to reintroduce Red baiting into politics, I observe he is also busy stating he doesn’t seem to appreciate you as well as the rest of us do. Have you read what he said about you and do you have a response?
LEVEY: No and no.
Except to say if The Big O runs for President (which Newsday quoted him this week as thinking about), I may move to Lithuania.

CHARLES OSGOOD, “CBS News Sunday Morning” Anchor, January 26. 2004
CZIKOWSKY: If you were given full control of the program is there anything you would change? If so, what would that be?
OSGOOD: Well, first of all, I would not like to take control of the broadcast. The producers have been largely responsible for the quality and the success of the broadcast. And I trust their judgment more than I do my own.

DAN FROOMKIN, washingtonpost.com columnist, April 21, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Just a comment regarding an old story involving a journalist I knew. He once state he knows he is doing his best work when both sides hat what he writes. I corrected him: I believe a journalist writes his best when both sides like what he writes. To that end, Bob Woodward has reached that journalistic height.
FROOMKIN: Thanks. Good comment.

DAN CACCAVARO, “Express” Editor, August 4, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: There were discussions as to how your paper would affect circulation of the (Washington) Post, if any. Some theorized that some people would accept your free paper and decide they’ve read enough news to get by and would then not buy a paper. Others thought this would promote your paper and encourage people to buy the full paper. Bottom line: Have the circulation figures for the Post changed in the past year within your distribution area and, if so, do you think your paper had anything to do with it?
CACCAVARO: Good question. It’s still too early to answer it with any certainty. Our initial findings are that we’re not having much of a negative effect on Post readership and may even have a positive effect—whether it’s by steering people to the Post itself or to the web site. My general sense—speaking anecdotally—is that people get the purpose of the Express. If they were inclined to read the Post before we launched, they still read the Post now—maybe just not on the train. And then there are a lot of people who weren’t reading the Post before we launched who are now reading us. Hopefully some of them will notice our references to Post stories and decide to pick up the Post as well. But time will tell.

ROBERT GREENWALD, producer-director, August 25, 204
CZIKOWSKY: Rupert Murdoch is a leading publisher of tabloid journalism in Great Britain. There is nothing wrong with tat. What I find interesting is Americans take this tabloid journalism and filter it through outlets such as the Pittsburgh Tribune Review and the Washington Times and then the rest of the media flocks together and takes it for verified truth. Perhaps the fault is within our system of filtering hard facts versus tabloid gossip.
GREENWALD: That’s a very good and valid point and part of that, however, is by design and Fox News leads the way in confusing opinion and fact. The film demonstrates how Fox News by design turns fact into opinion and therefore removes any standard by which to look at and judge the news—a very troubling and dangerous trend for democracy.

JON LIEBERMAN, Former Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. Washington Bureau Chief, October 21, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: It is interesting that you were fired for taking a position to which the company eventually yielded. In many ways, you were ahead of the curve in advising your employer what should be done, and the employer realized this and choose a path similar to what you were recommending. Shouldn’t such an employer now agree that your advice had some basis and they should offer to take you back?
LIEBERMAN: I don’t think the company has any obligation to acknowledge what I did had an impact. If I did have an impact then for the sake of the viewers I’m glad.

GERALDINE FERRARO. Former Vice Presidential candidate, October 22. 2004
CZIKOWSKY: Have you considered returning to “Crossfire” or to some similar television venture? You are very articulate, composed (which is something lacking in today’s television), and exceptionally knowledgeable. I hope you return to televison analysis and debate.
FERRARO: Actually, I left “Crossfire” when I ran in the Democratic primary for the Senate in 1998. They had already moved on by the time I was available again (as you know I lost the primary) but Fox contacted me and asked if I would work as a “contributor”. So for the last several years I am the person on the left who allows the, to say they’re “fair and balanced”. It’s also a good arrangement since I work a full time job as a consultant and can pick and choose my appearances.

LINDA GARMON, producer/writer, November 9, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: What are your thoughts of the level of “tabloid journalism” of which Rupert Murdoch’s British publications are accused, and what are the journalistic standards imposed on his American media?
GARMON: Don’t get me started! My thoughts about tabloid British journalism—and the British media—could fill hours of chat time. In brief, I believe that tabloid journalism hurts the role of the media in the short term. But in the long term, it might play a role. For example, in earlier periods of American history, tabloid journalism served the purpose of “teaching” immigrants English. The huge headlines and simple, sensational statements drew readers who were just learning our language. People will look back on this time in history and learn that the sensational coverage of this era played some kind of similar role Who knows. But in the short term, it debases the role of all media. All outlets scramble to get viewers and readers, and in the process, true reporting gets lost. Combine this trend with the acquisition of networks by big corporations with quarterly earnings reports, and you see the deterioration of the role of the press as the “fourth estate”. News organizations embedded in big American corporations seeking profits cannot take the time and gather the resources to do the reporting that’s necessary for the watchdog role of the press. Thankfully, PBS is protected from many of these forces, and that’s why, for example, you see such great pieces of reporting on Frontline, for example, which was hunting for Osama bin Laden long before 9/11.

FAWN GERMER, author, November 12, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: I think Helen Thomas is a fantastic journalist. Did you interview her for your book? If so, did she provide any useful insight? GERMER: I LOVE Helen Thomas. She was one of the first women to come on board when I wrote my first book, “Hard Won Wisdom”. I remember telling her that I kept getting into trouble and being told that I didn’t know my place. She said, “What is your place? It’s what YOU say it is, not what THEY say it is.”
Helen is so extraordinary. She really fought the battles so women journalists like me could have an easier time of it.

PAULA SPAN, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism Faculty, January 25, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: I presume the industry does not release these figures, but do you have any sense of who is buying vanity books? Would it be safe to presume that, for the vast majority of vanity publications, the majority of sales are those made by the author?
SPAN: The majority of sales, we’re told, are to authors and their circules—friends, family, coworkers, perhaps neighbors and local residents who turn out for a signing if they can persuade a local bookstore to hold one. And this isn’t a bad way to start; lots of authors are local phenoms first, with regional followings. They get coverage in local papers, stage local events.
The problem with vanity or self-publishing is that it’s very difficult to get past your local contacts to reach a broader audience. Maybe you can spread the word in your own town, if you’re very entrepreneurial, or in a few adjoining towns. But how can you let readers, booksellers, and reviewers in Denver, Chapel Hill, or Tampa know that your self-published or vanity-published book exists? Not easy, even if you are very energetic.
One way I have heard that this can work is if someone had an active public speaking career. If you’re a dermatologist who addresses larger gatherings every month or two, and you want to take your self-publishes guide to skin care along and sell copies in the back of the auditorium, maybe you can sell enough to make back your investment.

BRANT HOUSTON, Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. Director, June 3, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Has there been a disintegration of the journalistic rule that, if a reporter did not directly observe something, that the reporter needs two separate sources to confirm a story? It seems now that anything from exaggerate and false reports from British tabloids, opinionated magazines, and the Internet has become fair game to be reported by mainstream newspapers. Am I observing this correctly?
HOUSTON: There has not been a disintegration of that rule among experienced investigative journalists. Trying to publish too quickly or underestimating the impact of a story can lead to errors as shown in the brief Newsweek article—which served as a grim reminder of the necessity of the rule.
CZIKOWSKY: During the Viet Nam War, the American public knew the body count on a daily basis. Today, hardly any one knows many were killed, especially the number of Iraqis and enemy combatants killed. Why do you think the news emphasis has shifted away from the death toll of war?
HOUSTON: The press is in one of its toughest struggles to get information about the war. The military has been much more successful in controlling that information and is applying lessons learned from Viet Nam. Adding to the difficulty of reporting independently is that journalists who venture out of the safe zones are specific targets themselves.

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC News Correspondent, September 21, 2005
CZIKOWSKY: Are there any things unique to Philadelphia you believe influenced you in your career, things that you might not have found in another city?
MITCHELL: Absolutely. If I had not encountered the former Police Chief and then Mayor Frank Rizzo, who was one of the first “tough guys” if not scoundrels, I probably would not be the journalist I am today. He challenged me in so many ways, but primarily because he was so popular with large parts of the public, especially the white ethnic wards, it forced me to be willing to take on the establishment.
Rizzo was also a very divisive figure, polarizing the city and it threw me into a very challenging environment. So I had to learn very early how to be independent and resist pressure and that was a very important lesson.
Philadelphia also offered a wealth of wonderful, engaged citizens, and terrific neighborhoods, so it was the perfect place to learn how to cover politics.

STEVE JONES, University of Illinois Communications Professor, January 17, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: Is the Internet to blame for young people no longer reading a newspaper or even watching the evening news, or is this more a general cultural thing?
JONES: Sadly, it’s a more general cultural thing. Newspaper readership, particularly among young people, has been on the decline for quite some time. On the other hand, as research by my colleague Kevin Barnhurst has shown, young people are actually very connected to, and concerned about, politics and social issues, but often in ways that are not necessarily visible, and in ways that may not “count” to older generations. (Perhaps the most exaggerated example of this might be the phenomenon of the Daily Show).

W. JOSEPH CAMPBELL, American University Communication School Professor, July 29, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: How politicized was the media in 1897? Was newspaper coverage (not editorials) more biased, in your opinion, then? If so, how well did the public understand that papers were slanted to one opinion or another?
CAMPBELL: Thanks for a great question.
The American press was a very politicized in the late 19th century. And it’s interesting—like today, the press in 1897 was often assailed for what one critic called “lamentable lack of fairness in everything that touches upon political opinion.” Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? The news media these days often are criticized for their “lamentable lack of fairness” in political coverage.
People pretty clearly knew what they were buying, in terms of political orientation, in newspapers in 1897. And the press then was typically open about its political leaning. Some newspapers (including Hearst’s “Journal”) even tried to take credit for the outcomes of elections in the late 19th century. But quite often, election results did not correspond to the editorial positions of most newspapers, particularly in New York City. No major newspaper, save Hearst’s “Journal”, supported the winning candidate in New York’s 1897 mayoral election, for example. And that outcome prompted a good deal of commentary—and worry—about the declining power of the press.

LESLIE CLARKE, PBS Producer, July 27, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: I don’t wish to put words in Mr. (Walter) Cronkite’s mouth, but I admired how Walter Cronkite seemed to understand that international strife will never end until we rise about nationalistic interests and view ourselves as one world. Would you please provide us with a better explanation of his views on this and how he came to this realization?
CLARKE: Actually, I think you do a very good job of paraphrasing what Mr. Cronkite has said repeatedly in public speeches and panel discussions for years. I don’t know how he came to these views. But I do know he is passionate on this subject and repeats his ideas whenever he can. I think probably the best expression of these ideas (although there are lots and lots of occasions) was a speech he gave at the University of Wisconsin Medical School on May 14, 2004 in which he said “Now there is something terribly flawed about us as human beings if we can’t come to an understanding that (war) is no solution at all…Even the matter of defense expenditures is immoral. To spend that much money not just in building more refined systems of murder, but how many more can we kill…is that a civilized consideration?”
CZIKOWSKY: CBS seems to have forgotten all about Dan Rather. What particularly upsets me about the incident that destroyed his career was that the essential facts were corroborated, but the fact there was a recreated document seems to have become larger news than the reality that the story got the essential facts correct. Considering it was not Dan Rather’s job to verify every document, some think he got a bad deal. Has Walter Cronkite expressed any views on the matter?
CLARKE: To the best of my knowledge, Walter Cronkite has not expressed any views on the subject. We weren’t specifically looking for this in our research—but I think we would have run across it in the big sweep we did for information on all of Cronkite’s career.
CZIKOWSKY: Please refresh my memory. Wasn’t the news broadcast at one time only for 15 minutes? When was the news expanded to a half hour and what led to the realization that people could use a little more than 15 minutes of news a day (minus commercials)?
CLARKE: Your memory is correct. Network news broadcasts used to be just 15 minutes—and they were ALL talk, just an occasional photograph. However, in the early 1960s—in September 1963 to be specific—CBS went to 30 minutes and NBC soon followed. Cronkite was one of the voices at CBS that persuaded network management to expand the broadcast. The addition of better video facilities helped too. With news film coming in from bureaus around the nation and the world, there was more need for longer time.
By the way, the first half-hour broadcast on any network---CBS—contained a special interview with President Kennedy—the last television interview he gave before his death.

CZIKOWSKY: Did Walter Cronkite know Chet Huntley and/or David Brinkley personally? If so, what was their relationship like?
CLARKE: I don’t know this definitely. But I’m sure that he did. Cronkite knew everybody. And he was and still is a very social man. He probably knew then and he probably liked them.

KATHY CRONKITE, journalist, July 27, 2006
CZIKOWSKY: What aspects about life and relationships do you wish to explore on your upcoming show “Dump’d”?
CRONKITE: Dump’d will be a website before it is on the air. It will address the needs , concerns, and feelings of those of us who are suddenly single, especially at midlife. Expert professionals will answer questions on finances and legal issues, but primarily we will offer support and common0sense wisdom to each other through blogs, forums, and articles.
CZIKOWSKY: Will you please tell us what attracted your father (Walter Cronkite) to the Connecticut River area and to boating? CRONKITE: Dad had fond memories of boating with his father as a youngster, and it was a great family for us all. He spoke eloquently once, in an interview I did with him, about the challenge and thrill of having to work with nature to achieve one’s destination. Connecticut was great sailing, close to Manhattan, pretty, and lots of little harbors to stop into. Then it got too crowded.

ALICIA C. SHEPARD, author, October 27, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What led the Washington Post to stick with Woodward and Bernstein through the entire Watergate saga? Was there ever pressure from more senior writers to take over the story? What led to the story staying with Woodward and Bernstein?
SHEPARD: Initially the more senior reporters at the Post, especially those familiar with Washington politics, didn’t think much of the story. I found a quote from William Grieder who was a reporter at the Post at the time, who said if he’d gotten the same information he would have shrugged his shoulders and said “politics as usual”.
Woodward had only been at the Post for nine months when the break-in occurred on June 17, 1972 and he was hungry and extremely hardworking, and a natural to put on initially. He worked so hard at the time that the Post practically had to beg him to take time off, so it was natural to keep him on the story.
Bernstein was another story. He wasn’t happy at the Post, was looking for other jobs, and they weren’t happy with him. But there was one editor there who saw past Bernstein’s foibles, and that was Barry Sussman. Carl was a reported with a lot of raw talent and a terrific investigator and a terrific writer. But he wasn’t considered reliable. Carl and Bob were paired together by Sussman, who instinctively knew they together could do something neither one of them could do individually. Today, Sussman doesn’t speak to either man, which seems sad.

SALLY KOSLOW, former McCall’s Magazine Editor-in-Chief, May 1, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What do you see as the future of magazine publishing? Are young people more oriented towards reading on the Internet and becoming less apt to purchase reading material?
KOSLOW: Yes, young people are definitely oriented toward reading on the Internet but that doesn’t mean they have abandoned mags. If the Internet had been invented first and then someone came up with the great idea of a magazine, people would flock to this new medium that can be held and torn apart! But readers are definitely pickier about what they read.

GENE WEINGARTEN, Washington Post Staff Writer, August 21, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: I was once quoted in the press as stating I thought someone, at age 67, was “too old” for the position he was seeking. What was wrong with the quote was: the reporter never interviewed me. Plus, that is not what I felt, especially since I am one who heralds that there was someone at age 90 still working on the job. I called the newspaper, and the editor stated to me “the writer only has to presume to know what you would have said in the situation.”
Years later, the editor was on a panel with two other newspaper editors. I asked them this scenario, and the other two editors insisted that such a thing could never happen. The editor who did it sat there quietly and never said a word.
I guess the story is: most editors are ethical, but there are some out there who aren’t. I have learned to not always trust that quotes in newspapers are what they claim to be.
WEINBARTEN: Uh. Wowm.
This is rather startling. I’d say it sounds like the editor was kidding, but apparently not.
As an editor, I once told someone complaining about an error is a story that “clearly, this was no error. It has been published, so it is an established fact.” There was dead silence on the other end of the line, until I burst out laughing.
We corrected the error.

TOM SHALES, Washington Post Staff Writer, September 1, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Were you familiar with the group Viewers for Quality Television? It was an interesting group, founded by a woman who first wanted to save one show, and then she started a newsletter where people would join and decide upon letter writing campaigns to shave shows they thought were quality that were being canceled. I believe networks stated they helped save “Cagney and Lacey”, “China Beach”, and “Quantum Leap”. Was this a good idea, and if so, can we ever go back to such a thing, or has the Internet made it impossible for a real grassroots group to not be overtaken by a group with an agenda?
SHALES: Good question re: Viewers for Quality Television. They started out with good intentions but I fear became a little too integrated into the system—they seemed to become less adversarial the more the network executives co-opted them by pretending to listen to their concerns (or maybe they weren’t always pretending, to give them the benefit of the doubt.) But when Viewers for Quality TV decided to start giving out awards, I thought “Aw-oh. If they cared so much about TV, they wouldn’t want to increase the population of awards shows—not even by one.” Now they are extinct. I don’t think a consensus could be reached any more about what’s Quality Television…

TOM SHALES, Washington Post TV Critic, September 19, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Why do TV networks show us different versions of the same theme over and over? All networks once had to have Westerns (I know, I’m dating myself), all networks had to have crime lab shows, and this season all networks have to have shows about geeks. What happened to variety? Are Americans incapable of absorbing multiple themes of TV series?
SHALES: Ah yes, the year of the geek! Also the slacker/ f we combine these two words into one, we would be able to label this trend—the Gleeker? The answer to sameness in TV is always the same: Whatever worked last year or before will be imitated to death this year. Fred Allen said—AGES ago (I was of course a mere fetus at the time)- “Imitation is the sincerest form of television”. Now I can’t see exactly which the geek or slacker shows were hits last year—hmmm—maybe it’s something the TV folk got out of the movies?

HOWARD KURZ. Washington Post columnist, October 22, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: The Washington Post book review of your latest book seemed to fault you for not having enough footnotes. Yet, when you mention conversations with people, aren’t they from direct interviews and thus they do not require attribution as the source is obvious? Or, if I have this wrong, what is the explanation for the claim that your book has few sources (and one could argue quality is better than quantity, anyway)?
KURZ: There were dozens of footnotes; I footnoted every scrap of information that I got from somewhere else. But you’re right, the bluk of the book is based on my own reporting, interviews, and time spent observing the process at NBC, CBSm and ABC (plus Comedy Central!).
CZIKOWSKY: Isn’t a problem with cable news that it is not around-the-clock news reporting, but around-the-clock recycled news? Why hasn’t someone created a cable news station that allows for longer insights into major stories, i.e. focus on the major issues with discussions from an array of experts and a look at the events behind the story? I know it would not get the ratings, but it would serve a market for those who want to know more about our news in-depth.
KURZ: I’ve often wondered why there aren’t more 5 minute of 8 minute stories on cable news, given the luxury of time that they enjoy, rather than the 2 minute pieces we see on the broadcast networks. Part of the answer is that longer stories take more time and money to develop, and part is that producers feel they have to keep things moving quickly and that the audience doesn’t have the attention span for longer pieces. I wonder, though, whether that’s true.

MICHEL MARTIN, National Public Radio show host, October 29, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: My observation with radio is that most stories are not dealt with in-depth. Did you feel as a print journalist you were able to go into stories at their proper depth, or did you find the reality of daily reporting making that difficult? Do you find a hour long radio show provides you the opportunity to go into the proper depth of what you are discussing?
MARTIN: Interesting question. I don’t know any reporter who ever feels he or she was enough time or spade to tell it all. I guess that’s why so many of colleagues turn to writing boos, and not to be greedy, but, who am I kidding? I would like another hour? Hear that, NPR?

BOB WOODWARD, Washington Post Assistant Managing Director and JEFF LEEN, Washington Post Investigative Reporter, November 20, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What are the parameters of what this investigative team will have? What is the focus of this team?
WOODWARD and LEEN: We can investigate subjects on a local, national, and international level. We are only limited by the quality of information and the knowledge of our sources, whether they are willing to be named or request anonymity. We still believe the “follow the money” is central tenet of investigative reporting.

ROY HARRIS, JR., CFO Magazine Senior Editor, April 8, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: When you state that no Pulitzer Prize award is given if the prize awarding board can’t reach a majority, it made me wonder: how many ballots do they use in their voting/ Do they deliberate like a jury and keep re-voting, or do they vote a set number of times?
HARRIS: It’s a secret body, and we don’t know what goes on in the World Room of Columbia’s Journalism Building. But I’d think that is the members didn’t majority vote, they’d do everything they could to win a majority—and give up only, like a jury, they were “hung”.
CZIKOWSKY: How often are Pulitzer Prizes taken back, and for what reasons have people been stripped of Pulitzer Prizes?
HARRIS: It’s extremely rare. Besides Janet Cooke, the debate about Walter Duranty’s coverage of the Stalin years is the other case of prize-debunking that’s discussed. There’s discussion of that on the Pulitzer site, as well.

TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC Senior Campaign Correspondent, October 22, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: If anyone has been fair and balanced this campaign, it has been your friend Willie Geist. What did you teach Willie Geist and what did you learn from him?
CARLSON: I wish I could take credit for Willie, but he was born that way. One of the very best people in television, not that it’s a long list. He’s every bit as witty and decent as he seems on the air. Twenty years from now, when a lot of the current blowhards in cable news have joined Morton Downey, Jr. in the Museum of the Once Popular, Willie will be bigger than ever. He’s the real thing.

MICHAEL WOLFF, Vanity Fair Media Columnist, December 4, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Have you seen “Outfoxed”? If so, what did you think about the part where former staff people stated they were directed to put political slants on how they reported the news? Do you find this credible? I know the British press is different, but didn’t Mr. Murdoch have a more open political slant with his British press holdings and to what degree do you believe Rupert Murdoch is attempting to slant American public opinion?
WOLFF: It’s entirely credible and I’m sure it happened exactly that way.

DANIEL GROSS, Slate Moneybox Columnist, December 11, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: Do you think the future of newspapers is their online versions? How do you judge (at the risk of an appearance of conflict of interest) washingtonpost.com and its online newspaper? Personally, I find The Post far ahead of most other newspapers in developing an online site.
GROSS: So, while I work for the Washington Post Company (my salary comes from Newsweek and Slate), I don’t work directly for the Washington Post. So no big conflict of interest. And it’s how I read the Post (it’s not on the newsstand where I live). I think it’s very good. The New York Times has been doing an excellent job, and so has the WSJ, except you have to pay for that.
That said, in answer to your question, I think it’s likely that, 30 years from now, newspapers in their current form may not be with us. However, for the near future, I think the newspapers’ future will be in a combination of print and online When things are going well in the economy at large, newspapers have proven they can be profitable businesses, and the revenues from online only aren’t good enough to support the newsgathering and all the other resources that make the online publications great.
CZIKOWSKY: How would you compare the situation with the Tribune to the situation with the New York Times? I know the Times has its troubles but---or am I wrong---there seems to be a family ownership that has kept the paper in check and is fighting to see that the Times survives?
GROSS: The situation with the Times is very different than that with the Tribune. For one, the level of debt at the Times Co. is much more manageable---it’s a challenge for the Times to manage, but nothing on the scale of what was piled on the Tribune.
Family ownership at publicly held companies (the washingtonpost.com falls into this category) can be a double-edged sword at times. On the one hand, it encourages long-term thinking, preservation of capital, and guards against things like the Zell takeover. On the other hand, it sometimes means there are other interests at work. Take, for example, the New York Times and its dividend.
Right now, the Time’s main operating businesses---the New York Times and the Boston Globe---don’t seem to be making money. About.com seems to be generating some cash. And it has some valuable assets---its building, a chunk of the Boston Red Sox---but it can only monetize those by selling. In an environment where cash is king and access to credit is difficult, you would think a company in the Times’ situation would be doing everything it can to preserve capital. Eliminating your dividend would seem to be a no-brainer.
And yet in recent years, the Times increased its dividend---only to cut it sharply (but not to eliminate it). One of the reasons, of course, is that there are a few generations of Sulzbergers who depend on the Times Co.’s dividends to support themselves in comfort. So there are times when family control can influence corporate policies in ways that are not always optimal.
On the whole, however, in this climate, companies are frequently off under family control than under the control of highly indebted private equity types.

LISA De MORAES, Washington post Staff Writer, December 12, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: I think having Leno on at 10 is fine. What I am wondering about is the continuing trend of fewer TV series---dramas, comedies, etc and an increase in mostly unscripted reality, game, and now interview shows. Do you think we may reach a point where audiences will finally say “enough”, give us something with a plot and requiring some thought process to watch? Or is this the financial reality that we will be watching low production cost TV from now on?
De MORAES: I think cable networks will see opportunity in NBC’s retreat from drama series at 10 p.m.---and scripted programming in a lot of other of its primetime timeslots (can you say “two hour” Celebrity Apprentice?) I’m guessing you’re going to see more 10 p.m. scripted series on cable going forward. Don’t assume NBC’s effort to put lipstick on its primetime pig is an indictment of the entire broadcast industry. CBS, for instance, is hanging in there in this tough economy000mostly because its execs know how to develop scripted series Americans actually want to watch000in marked contrast to NBC. And some of the networks actually make money with “Rerun Theatre” on Saturdays so it’s not a given they might turn that back over to local stations. All that said, a lot is riding on the Screen Actors Guild. If they vote to strike---vote results announced January 23---what’s left of the broadcast TV business when a strike is over would be hellbent on coming up with strike-proof schedules. Leno is perfectly capable of, and will to, go ahead with his show during a strike.