In a September 17 washingtonpost.com “Media Backtalk” online discussion, Washington Post media critic and CNN Reliable Sources host Howard Kurtz responded to a question about his prior statement that Fox News is “entitled” to be a “cheerleader for the Bush administration” and to “misinform[] our society” by asserting that “if a network wants to be a cheerleader for the administration -- and I'm not saying Fox [News] is -- it has that right under the First Amendment.”

Kurtz was responding to a reader's question about his statement on the September 12 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, which Media Matters for America documented. On Glenn Beck, Kurtz said that MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has described Fox News as a channel that “poses as a news organization and puts out dangerous misinformation [and] is a cheerleader for the Bush administration, that it is misinforming our society.” Kurtz added: “But you know what? They're entitled to do that.”

In the online discussion, Kurtz stated: “I did not mean to endorse the 'misinformation' part, since I spend my career trying to hold news organizations accountable for misinformation. Not the most artfully put thing I've ever said.” He added: “My larger point was simply that whether you agree with a network or not -- and there are some folks who don't agree with NBC, ABC or CBS -- it has the right to offer its take on the news. And is of course subject to criticism for bias and mistakes.”

But while Kurtz asserted that networks are “subject to criticism for bias and mistakes,” he has a history of ignoring Fox falsehoods and ignoring criticism of the cable channel. In his April 19, 2006, profile of Fox News host Brit Hume, Kurtz presented Hume as the “Low-Key Voice of Conservatism on Fox News” but largely ignored the numerous false and misleading statements Hume has made during his tenure. Media Matters also documented Kurtz's response to a September 19, 2004, column by New York Times columnist Frank Rich, in which he referred to Fox News Channel as “G.O.P. TV.” On the September 26, 2004, edition of Reliable Sources, Kurtz asked Rich if that label was “fair to [Fox] correspondents like Carl Cameron and Jim Angle and Major Garrett ... who are trying to do a straightforward job.” At the time, Media Matters had documented several examples of misinformation spread by those reporters. Media Matters has also documented numerous subsequent examples (here, here, and here).

From the September 17 washingtonpost.com online discussion:

Somerdale, N.J.: Howie,

Perhaps you could clarify something for me. Recently on Glenn Beck's show you said:

KURTZ: I think the argument that I've heard Olbermann make in the past about Fox News -- it's not an argument that I embrace -- is that, because it poses as a news organization and puts out dangerous misinformation --and is -- is a cheerleader for the Bush administration, that it's misinforming our society. But you know what?

---

They're entitled to do that.

Did you really mean to say that a NEWS organization is entitled to put out misinformation and misinform our society? What kind of a standard is that? You are a media critic and yet you see no problem with a NEWS organization puting out misinformation and misinforming its viewers. Surely you can't be saying what it appears you are saying.

Say it ain't so!!!

Howard Kurtz: I meant that if a network wants to be a cheerleader for the administration -- and I'm not saying Fox is -- it has that right under the First Amendment. I did not mean to endorse the “misinformation” part, since I spend my career trying to hold news organizations accountable for misinformation. Not the most artfully put thing I've ever said. My larger point was simply that whether you agree with a network or not -- and there are some folks who don't agree with NBC, ABC or CBS -- it has the right to offer its take on the news. And is of course subject to criticism for bias and mistakes.