[Howard Kurtz:] It's New Year's Day. Maybe you were up partying, and anxiously awaiting bowl games. But the presidential campaign doesn't take a holiday, not with the Iowa caucuses just two days away. Of course, maybe the media are wrong, Iowa will be a pivotal, crucial, all important turning point in this campaign. But then, what are so many journalists doing in Des Moines?
[Unidentified Female:] Tonight, the gloves come off. The Iowa caucuses are exactly one week away.
[Wolf Blitzer, Cnn Anchor:] Happening now, we're live from Dubuque Iowa.
[Unidentified Male:] Ken Crawford is in Des Moines.
[Brian Williams, Nbc News:] Chuck Todd and Peter Alexander are in Iowa tonight.
[Unidentified Male:] ABC's Jon Karl is in Iowa for us tonight.
[Kurtz:] We'll turn our critical edge on the coverage with reporters in Iowa and Washington, and especially the surge in negative reporting about Ron Paul.
[Rachel Maddow, Msnbc:] This is the skeleton in Ron Paul's closet. This is from the Ron Paul newsletter.
[Gloria Borger, Cnn:] So, you read them but you didn't do anything about it at the time?
[Rep. Ron Paul , Presidential Candidate:] I never read that stuff.
[Kurtz:] Why did the press take so long to start examining the congressman's sometimes inflammatory record? I'm Howard Kurtz and we're kicking off the 2012 season on RELIABLE SOURCES. Happy New Year to all of you. But it's obviously not a holiday for much of the political press, which is gearing up for the first actual voting of 2012 after a year of prediction and prognostication. And if treating Ron Paul as an entertaining side show, the pundits reacted to his rise in the Iowa polls, the same way they did when Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich shot up in opinion surveys by belatedly examining his record, including those incendiary and racist newsletters that were published under Paul's name for years.
[John King, Cnn:] There are some racy and racist things if you read some of these letters.
[Maddow:] Quote, "It sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a congressman. What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it. We can thank him for annual hate whitey day.
[Ed Schultz, Msnbc:] "We're constantly told it is evil to be afraid of black men. It is hardly irrational." "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
[Kurtz:] Pretty strong stuff. Joining us now from the state capital in Des Moines to examine the coverage of caucuses, Michael Shear, political correspondent for "The New York Times"; Nia-Malika Henderson, national political reporter for "The Washington Post"; and here in Washington, A.B. Stoddard, columnist for the newspaper, "The Hill." And, Nia-Malika Henderson, the question I asked at the top, why did it take the media so long to seriously begin digging into Ron Paul's record?
[Nia-malika Henderson, The Washington Post:] Well, I think for a while the media we've been focused on the horse race. As you mentioned, everything happened this way. Every time there was a new front- runner, and we've had almost, what, five or six front-runners, the media would then start more dogged scrutiny of their record. So, I think that's what happened. And a lot of this stuff had already been out there. But I think when Ron Paul started to do so well, polling so well in Iowa, doubling a lot of his support from 2008, that that's when the spotlight finally fell on him. I will say, though, in talking to people out of his rallies, very raucous rallies, he's had a lot of people, hundreds of people there they don't seem to mind some of this rhetoric. They feel like it's a little disturbing but not a deal breaker in terms of how they feel about supporting him.
[Kurtz:] And I'm sure some think the press sort of ganging up on Ron Paul now. Michael Shear, this point about this stuff being out there, your newspaper just a week ran its first piece on these newsletters. And it was very frank in saying we're recycling something that was in "The New Republic" back in 2008. So, why wait all year to do that?
[Michael Shear, New York Times:] Well, look, I think there's some legitimate criticism leveled at the press for waiting, for not maybe putting some of this stuff out earlier. But, look, you've covered for years the problem of dwindling resources that the media has, and, you know, a struggling industry. And I think in that context, news organizations have to make some decisions about where they put their resources. And it makes sense to put your resources, your investigative resources, of which we don't have all that many, in the places where it looks like it's going to make the most sense, which is the people that are actually getting traction. So, I think
[Kurtz:] I understand that. But A.B. Stoddard didn't take an investigative team to do a database search to find out it was written about by "The New Republic" four years ago. I have an impression that the press largely gives a pass unless they are high in the polls.
[A.b. Stoddard, The Hill:] Well, I think you're probably right. With dwindling resources, they tend to focus on the frontrunner of the moment. This year was particularly unique and that there was a new flavor every month or so. Sometimes, you didn't even get four weeks. And so, they would focus on the person who was topping the polls. And as Ron Paul continued to gain in Iowa, when we heard more and more about his superior ground game there, people continued to write him off, the other campaigns as well as the press. Once he was really a threat and possibly a third party candidate who could help re-elect President Obama and Newt Gingrich began to fall, then the focus went to Ron Paul. And I agree with Nia, I don't think his supporters care all that much about what they learned in that new scrutiny.
[Kurtz:] Right. Well, let me you know, an interview that's gotten a lot of attention was when CNN's Gloria Borger asked Congressman Ron Paul about those newsletters, others have since asked that as well. Let me play a little of that and we'll ask questions on the other side.
[Paul:] I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written. And it's been going on 20 years people have pestered me about this. CNN does it every single time. So, when are you going to wear yourself out?
[Borger:] I mean, it's legitimate. It's legitimate. These things are pretty incendiary.
[Paul:] Because of people like you.
[Borger:] No, no, no, no. Come on. Some of this stuff was very incendiary, you know, saying that in 1993, the Israelis were responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center, that kind of stuff.
[Paul:] Yes. Goodbye.
[Kurtz:] Nia-Malika Henderson, CNN got some criticism for the idea that suggesting the congressman had walked out on the interview. I don't see that. I mean, CNN didn't characterize it that way. You see the guy taking his microphone off during questioning. But my question to you is, when Ron Paul said it's because of people like you that this is seen as incendiary is he engaging in the time honored tactic of blaming the press?
[Henderson:] Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. I have to tell you the people I talked to didn't really blame the press. They felt like, A, maybe it wasn't that important. Or maybe that it was and that he should come out and at least say something about it. And good for Gloria for actually getting an interview with him, because I've got to say, in covering him over the last few days, he just doesn't really answer questions. There we are in a gaggle surrounding him and shouting questions to him and he doesn't really answer. And here's a guy, of course, who was all about the Constitution, all about freedom of the press and then liberty and all of those things, who really in terms of dealing with the press has had a blackout in terms of answering questions over the last couple of days.
[Kurtz:] Right. He does do TV interviews, but isn't very accessible to reporters on the trail. In fact, he's on a number of programs this morning, including "FOX News Sunday" where host Chris Wallace asked Ron Paul about a book he published four years ago and quoted from it. Let's take a look.
[Chris Wallace, Fox News:] In that book you wrote this, "The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim, frequently a victim of his own lifestyle. But this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care." Question, Congressman, do you still feel that same way?
[Paul:] Well, I don't know how you can change science.
[Kurtz:] Michael Shear, to your point about dwindling resources in newsroom. Again, I don't think it would take an investigative team to buy the book that Ron Paul wrote, "Freedom Under Siege" back in 2007. And again, I wonder why this is being brought up so late in the campaign.
[Shear:] Well, I mean, I think, you know, those kinds of things probably should have been brought up sooner. And I think that, you know, the dynamics of these campaigns are such that, look, we saw the same thing happen with Rick Perry's books where folks as soon as he got in started looking at that. That book had been out for a year. You certainly had instances in which reporters have dug through Mitt Romney's book as well. You know, I think you've got a legitimate point in terms of the criticism. And I think, you know, that this is one of those examples. If Ron Paul wins this caucus, we'll all go back and look at ourselves and say, maybe we should have done it earlier.
[Kurtz:] And if Ron Paul wins this caucus, A.B. Stoddard, I'm already hearing certain commentators saying, and one of them is Rich Lowry, the editor of the conservative "National Review," well, the caucuses will be discredited because it produced a winner who in the view of a lot of people who analyze this game for a living, you know, can't win the nomination, kind of a fringe character. His supporters would certainly take issue with that. But how can you cover caucuses and they say, OK, if this guy wins, then they don't really count?
[Stoddard:] Well, it's interesting because back in August, Ron Paul himself said, if I win the straw poll in Ames, it will be written off as a joke. But if I don't, it will become very important. And so
[Kurtz:] And he came very close to winning.
[Stoddard:] And he came very close. He lost by 152 votes to Michele Bachmann who now is struggling to matter in the caucuses, excuse me. But I think Ron Paul knew all along that he was being ignored by the press, that he was always considered
[Kurtz:] He complained about it.
[Stoddard:] by the press and by the other campaigns. Exactly. He is getting his moment in the spotlight. As I said, I don't think his supporters care all that much. But he is a serious threat to the establishment. They are very worried that he will win in Iowa and get some momentum maybe from some quirky voters in New Hampshire and get a head of steam going. That is why you see the establishment saying that this will be a joke and we can write it off if Ron Paul is the victor there.
[Kurtz:] It is interesting that Paul spent so many months complaining about lack of media coverage. And yet, as Nia says, not very accessible to reporters on the trail. I didn't see him take questions when I was at a Ron Paul event in Iowa a couple of weeks ago. Let's turn now to Newt Gingrich, who certainly can't complain about lack of media coverage. In fact, maybe he gets too much from his point of view, especially this moment just the other day when he had an emotional moment being asked about his mother. He talked about his mother who had bipolar disease and depression, going into a long term facility. Here is what the former congressman had to say.
[Newt Gingrich , Presidential Candidate:] And my whole emphasis on brain science comes in directly from dealing see, how you got me emotional of dealing with, you know, the real problems of real people in my family. So it's not a theory. It's, in fact, you know, my mother.
[Kurtz:] And, Nia, the guy tears up talking about his late mother. It seemed like an emotional moment. Why this rush by the press to play it again and again and again and turn it into some sort of viral event which has a potentially huge impact on the campaign?
[Henderson:] Well, I mean, that's a captivating moment. I have to say, I mean, you know, I was looking down at the camera here so I could see it again. And it's moving every time I see it. This whole idea of whether or not it will change the campaign, I think everybody is thinking what happened with Hillary Clinton, what happened with Muskie, I think, in '72 when he cried after there were some things written about his wife. In those instances they definitely did change the course of the campaign. I think for Gingrich because they sort of fed into narratives or changed narratives, at least for Hillary Clinton, who was seen as a little detached, there she was crying, so it made her it humanized her. I think for Newt Gingrich, his problem is he's had millions of ads negative ads dumped on his head, calling up questions about his ethics and his record in Congress. He hasn't had a problem of whether or not he's a real humanized figure. So, I don't think it will necessary matter in terms of that. Again, a real YouTube moment.
[Kurtz:] Maybe it was a humanizing moment, A.B. But I wonder if it dehumanizes us 80 seconds later, we're doing political analysis because the guy choked up talking about his mom.
[Stoddard:] Well, I mean, these people are running for the highest office in the land. They are under intense scrutiny for many for their policy positions, as well as their private life, their personal story. Newt Gingrich has been a tough guy about his divorces, and his adultery. And everything he's been frank he's asked for forgiveness but he doesn't seem to ever get ruffled. It was a very emotional moment. He was actually talking about the subject of mental illness. I think it gets played again because as Nia mentioned with Hillary Clinton not only was it a surprise but they are about to begin the voting process for this huge campaign for the White House. They are kind of breaking down. I mean, they might be tired.
[Kurtz:] Yes.
[Stoddard:] But it is I think it's a newsworthy moment.
[Kurtz:] A peek behind the armor. All right. When we come back: does a blip in the polls really amount to what some are calling a Santorum surge?