Fox News Hires CNN’s Washed Out Media Analyst Howard Kurtz

Howard Kurtz

Chalk up another acquisition by Fox News of an outcast from some other news network. As has been noted here at News Corpse, Fox “seems to regard the discards of other networks as their richest vein of new talent.” Today it was announced that Fox has scooped up CNN’s media analyst Howard Kurtz, who was recently censured by CNN, and jettisoned by The Daily Beast, for “sloppy” reporting that disparaged Jason Collins, the newly out NBA player. So of course Fox News would leap at the chance to add Kurtz to their roster. Other recent rejects by CNN that have joined Fox include Erick Erickson, Lou Dobbs, and Tucker Carlson.

Kurtz has a spotty reputation at CNN where he has, on occasion, had some profound commentaries that expose media hypocrisy and bias. But he has just as often proven to be a tool of the Washington villagers who dismisses serious failings and neglects the shortcomings of his colleagues. He is the ultimate insider who is married to a right-wing PR consultant, a fact that he does not disclose when reporting on related matters. In statements marking the new relationship, Fox and Kurtz were typically effusive of one another:

Fox VP Michael Clemente: Howie is the most accomplished media reporter in the country.
Kurtz: I’m excited to be bringing my independent brand of media criticism to Fox News. [...] I hope to add a new dimension to Fox’s coverage and have some fun while diving into the passionate debates about the press and politics.

Not everyone at Fox has the same opinion of Kurtz as Clemente does. Sean Hannity sneered that Kurtz was a “nitwit,” and railed that “I don’t like him. He’s full of crap. He thinks he’s a sanctimonious, self-righteous, phony establishment journalist.” Bill O’Reilly, upset that Kurtz had criticized his epically erroneous analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision on ObamaCare, said “Kurtz does the bidding of Media Matters, and, I don’t know, maybe I should just ignore that and, as you say, move along down the highway, but it certainly disturbs me a little bit.” It should be noted that associating Kurtz with Media Matters is about the worst thing that O’Reilly could ever say about anyone. He regards Media Matters as “vicious, far-left, dishonest, smear merchants.” The question now is, will Kurtz provide fair and balanced coverage of those programs as a Fox News anchor?

On Fox, Kurtz will assume the anchor role on Fox News Watch, a weekend program that is distinguished by its panel of five devout conservatives against one alleged liberal. The five conservatives (Judith Miller, James Pinkerton, Cal Thomas, Richard Grenall, and host Jon Scott) are weekly regulars while the “liberal” seems to be whatever phony they can manage to scrape up that week. If they stick to this format it should be an easy transition for Kurtz who is used to covering for Fox’s biased reporting.

Full disclosure: I was once mentioned in a Kurtz column when he was with the Washington Post. Kurtz was aggregating reactions from a Laura Bush speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner:

The colorfully named News Corpse says the media should take a deep breath:

“The humor-challenged media is tripping all over itself to to praise the First Lady’s appearance before the White House Correspondents’ Association. Apparently their funny bone twitches uncontrollably at the sight of Laura being able to read from a sheet of prepared jokes. The talk in the television press has ranged from, ‘ Get this woman her own show .’ to, ‘ Maybe she should run against Hillary .’. . . .

“I suppose it’s too much to ask that the people who brought us Monica Lewinsky, Chandra Levy, Michael Jackson, Terri Schiavo, the Old Pope, the New Pope, and Jennifer ‘Runaway Bride’ Wilbanks, would suddenly chose to avoid blowing things up beyond all sense of proportion.”

Colorfully named? Maybe Kurtz will get the joke now that he is working in the News Corp empire. And just so nobody forgets, this is what Fox News thinks about their new colleague:

Advertisement:

12 thoughts on “Fox News Hires CNN’s Washed Out Media Analyst Howard Kurtz

  1. Mark, It appears you were happy to ignore Mr. Kurtz’s sloppy reporting in the past, but now that he’s going to join FOX News, he’s automatically another ne’er do well. I guess you didn’t like being called “colorful” back in the day. You would have preferred ‘colorless’?

    • Where on earth did you get the idea that I “ignored Mr. Kurtz’s sloppy reporting in the past?”

      See this.
      And this.
      And this.

      And then do some research before you make absurd assertions that you can’t support.

      • Thank you for the links. You’re right that I didn’t do research to determine if you had, in fact, ignored Mr. Kurtz in the past; since you usually ignore other media outlets in favor of your obsession with FOX News, I expected you would have included any links to articles you had written about him in the past.

        You will note that I said, “It appears you were happy to…”, not “You were happy to…”. Instead, your only reference was to his “colorful” remark, which took up 20% of the blog post space.

        Just wondering, since you have ventured beyond FOX News and their ilk, have you ever taken to your keyboard to criticize any one reporter, commentator, host or guest at MSNBC that made any remark at all that was:

        a. inaccurate
        b. deceiving
        c. hateful
        d. propaganda
        e. sloppy
        f. biased
        g. irresponsible
        h. crazy
        i. racist or racially insensitive
        j. left out of a story, although relevant
        k. self serving
        l. divisive
        m. irrelevant
        n. in support of a political agenda
        o. not journalistic
        p. unfounded
        q. poor judgment
        r. in poor taste
        s. below the belt
        t. hypocritical
        u. race baiting
        v. questionable
        w. silly
        x. outlandish
        z. just plain dumb

        • Yes, I have. Despite your frequent and false assertions that I never write about anyone but Fox, you are just plain wrong. And with your comments above you prove that you prefer to make baseless accusations without doing even the simplest research. Don’t you find that embarrassing?

          But I understand. It’s a tactic you picked up from your right-wing comrades who value dishonest attacks over informed discourse.

          • I believe the use of the word ‘comrade’ is reserved for those folks closer to your end of the political spectrum — perhaps Lawrence O’Donnell might give you a hug if you called him that.

            Once again, you’re avoiding an answer to my question, Mark. 90% or more of your posts are about FOX or people associated with them. (FYI, I’m using ’90%’ figuratively. I didn’t check all your articles to determine the exact number, but suffice it to say it should be defined in this context as “the vast majority”.) Generally speaking, anyone who is a FOX employee or a contributor is either dishonest, incompetent or both in your eyes. Liberals on the network are not considered genuine or are really probably right wing zealots with a left wing lisp. Nothing ever reported on FOX is ever accurate or without some evil ulterior motive.

            So then, once again, since you proclaim not to be obsessed with FOX, and you have seen fit to criticize Kurtz in the past (albeit reasonably appropriate in my view), show me a little blurb you’ve written about:

            a. How Al Sharpton is a bumbling idiot with a shady, hateful, race baiting past and present, and doesn’t belong on any network;
            b. How Chris Matthews ridiculously considers almost any word in the Republican lexicon to be racist code;
            c. How Touré openly race baits when he appears on the network.
            d. Choose your own topic

            I’m not embarrassed, but nonetheless there’s nothing dishonorable about being wrong in a given instance.

            So are you going to answer my question, as misguided and probably poorly researched as it may be, or are you going to try to try to point out my inadequacies while ignoring your own?

            • I’ll go with pointing out your inadequacies. I’m certainly not going to waste my time doing your homework. Especially after you just proved that your accusations are bullshit. You may have the time to write long, open-ended questions that have no relevance and that you could answer for yourself if you weren’t such a lazy troll, but you’re not gonna suck me into that vortex of lame. See ya.

          • “Yes, I have…”

            No, you have not. The only time any of the ridiculous crap on MSNBC gets brought up is when we bring it up. You never initiate it. Your respone has either been “I have never denied that MSNBC has an opinion”, or “Keith Olbermann left MSNBC to find greener pastures” or your favorite response – “(yawn)”.

            Come to think of it, you did once admit that MSNBC hiring Toure the 9/11 truther was a dumb idea.

            Oh, and don’t forget: Chris Matthews even thinks that using the word “Chicago” is racist.

  2. As usual, the temper tantrum that Mark keeps throwing on his site is predictably moronic.

    Howard Kurtz’s CNN show “Reliable Sources” was an excellent show. He freely criticized the flub-ups he saw at Fox News, MSNBC, and the other alphabet-soup networks, including CNN. Regarding the Jason Collins kerfuffle: Kurtz apologized for his goof-up – and then he brought on some other media critcs and invited them to grill him about the incident. That was gutsy.

    Kurtz’s reputation is bloody good. A good rep is something that Mark would never recognize.

  3. Furthermore, if Howard really wanted to ruin his reputation, he could have moved to MSNBC, or even Current TV. What a combination – no credibility and no audience.

  4. Mark, Not to worry, your response answers my question perfectly. You can call me a troll if you like, but that’s just you trying to bully your way out of the situation by trying to minimize what I say. If taking an opposing view is offensive to you, I couldn’t be more pleased.

    I thought Lefties were the tolerant ones. Perhaps you’re afraid some of your loyal readers may actually agree with something I have to say.

    Have a great weekend.

  5. They setting up Howie to be a Liberal, so they can claim they are unbiased. They need him to give them some sort of street cred.

  6. I thought Bernie Goldberg was the “media cop” on duty at FNC? Did he get demoted to just an ordinary right-wing pundit?

Comments are closed.