Howard Kurtz On Moving to The Daily Beast: ‘I Liked A Lot of What Tina Had to Say’

1005kurtz2 Howard Kurtz On Moving to The Daily Beast: I Liked A Lot of What Tina Had to SayDaily Beast editor-in-chief Tina Brown announced earlier this afternoon that she hired The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz to take over as her website’s Washington Bureau chief.  

“It was a hard decision for me to make because newsprint is in my veins and I have worked here for almost three decades,” Mr. Kurtz told The Observer on the phone this afternoon. “But once I was able to clear that psychological hurdle I liked a lot of what Tina had to say and the role that she laid out for me.”  

Mr. Kurtz has worked at the Post since 1981 in a number of roles, most recently as a media columnist. He said that he “essentially grew up” at the newspaper.

We asked Mr. Kurtz if it felt like selling-out to leave the Post for a news website. “I don’t know why anyone would say that,” he said. “What I like about The Daily Beast is that it’s a very solid journalistic enterprise. It practices journalism without paper. I’m spending more and more of my time online.”

“In the case of The Daily Beast, I have no hesitation because the quality of the contributors are extremely high and there are good editors overseeing what they do,” Mr. Kurtz added. He also noted that the site pays its contributors and that is important to him as a professional journalist.  

Mr. Kurtz said that he was excited by the chance to help craft Washington Coverage at The Beast, which turns two-years-old tomorrow. “At the moment there are a number of excellent Washington contributors, and I am going to write and report at my usual breakneck pace. But over time we hope to expand the bureau and I’d very much like to be a part of that,” Mr. Kurtz said. “Watch that space.”

The Observer asked Mr. Kurtz if his move to The Beast had anything to do with a potential deal between Newsweek owner Sidney Harman and Barry Diller. “The short answer is no,” Mr. Kurtz said. “I had no idea what will happen at Newsweek and I made my decision based on wanting to work for The Daily Beast. Period.”

zturner@observer.com / @zekeft

Article continues below
More from Politics
STAR OF DAVID OR 'PLAIN STAR'?   If you thought "CP Time" was impolitic, on July 2 Donald Trump posted a picture on Twitter of a Star of David on top of a pile of cash next to Hillary Clinton's face. You'd think after the aforementioned crime stats incident (or after engaging a user called "@WhiteGenocideTM," or blasting out a quote from Benito Mussolini, or...) Trump would have learned to wait a full 15 seconds before hitting the "Tweet" button. But not only was the gaffe itself bad, the attempts at damage control made the BP oil spill response look a virtuoso performance.  About two hours after the image went up on Trump's account, somebody took it down and replaced it with a similar picture that swapped the hexagram with a circle (bearing the same legend "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!"!). Believe it or not, it actually got worse from there. As reports arose that the first image had originated on a white supremacist message board, Trump insisted that the shape was a "sheriff's star," or "plain star," not a Star of David. And he continued to sulk about the coverage online and in public for days afterward, even when the media was clearly ready to move on. This refusal to just let some bad press go would haunt him later on.
Donald Trump More Or Less Says He’ll Keep On Tweeting as President