>> rick santorum's political career will be ending soon. he will go to the republican convention next year not as a candidate but as a fox news contributor again. >> santorum has traveled all of iowa, and he's still gaining no traction. there's a reason for that. >> then of course, santorum finished in a virtual tie in the iowa caucuses. how could news outlets make this mistake again and fail to scrutinize santorum's record in the process? mitt romney faces skeptical questioning despite winning iowa because his margin was a measly eight votes. >> what does did say about your candidacy that you actually won fewer votes than but in 2008, and you fought rick santorum to a draw? >> perhaps the press is just trying to keep this race alive? plus, we'll talk to the political director of the dominant tv station, wmur, about covering the nation's first primary as a local story. i'm howard kurtz and this is the new hampshire edition of "reliable sources." the media narrative here in new hampshire is set. mitt romney wins easily, everyone else fights for second place. sounds right, but remember four years ago when everyone in the press was convinced that barack obama would beat hillary clinton here? so much political coverage is driven by assumptions which, in turn, are driven by polls. take a look at these interviews with rick santorum in the weeks and months before his last-minute surge in iowa. >> what space do you occupy in this race? are you the conservative, truth teller? >> you're the underdog, relatively little money, fair to say. for republicans whose main concern is to defeat barack obama in 2012, aren't there several candidates who realistically stand a better chance of doing that than you? >> with poll numbers from michele bachmann and rick perry plummeting, why are not more of the social conservatives, the so-called anti-mitt romney, why is that contingent not gravitating toward you? >> joining us here in manchester to talk about the campaign coverage, roger simon, chief political columnist for politico. lynn sweet, bureau chief for the "chicago sun-times." and jonathan karl, correspondent for abc news. i was at a manchester event friday packed with press. and so many voters that the fire marshals evicted everybody. and santorum ended up having the event in the parking lot. hardly anyone could hear him. that's how hot he is. for nearly a year high campaigned unmolested by reporters. in retrospect, wasn't that a major miscalculation? >> yes, short answer is yes. we did at abc -- we had our great iowa correspondent, digital correspondent out there, traveling the state with santorum. often she was alone with him catching a ride with him from event to event. but i mean, just the transformation was phenomenal. the interesting thing is that it happened with the first poll that showed him moving up. and suddenly, overnight, boom, he was mobbed. >> and it seems to me, roger simon, that the press creates a closed loop. santorum low in the polls. we don't cover him except for an abc producer or couple of others. he stays low in the polls. finally, the voter get to show up and register what they think. so does anything trouble you it, you know, the way we sort of marginalize this -- >> the actual voting is the least important part to us. >> the least important part? >> yeah, come on. we're a poll-driven needia. iowa is so yesterday we don't care about it anymore. where santorum tied or maybe beat mitt romney. >> coming out of nowhere. >> coming out of nowhere. well, he spent more time in iowa than anyone else. his message was -- control? wans a -- was iowans are the greatest people in the world. not great for new hampshire. he'll have to tell them they're the second greatest people and the south corolinians are the third greatest. what the polls show -- romney has won the nomination. >> we'll come back to that. lynn sweet, i want to read you newspaper clips from earlier. "the new york times" in october, pursuing a low budget request for the presidency. and the "washington post" speculating whether santorum might drop out after the ames straw poll. even if santorum campaign becomes little more than a token bid, many say they expect him to press on. talk about missing the boat. the guy ends up in a virtual tie or maybe winning. >> well, i would never have counseled anyone to go that way since everyone knew that there was going to be a hunts for the anti-romney candidate in iowa. and that it's no surprise. it force -- that they coalesced around someone, happened to be santorum. i wouldn't fault everyone in the media for not picking up early on that santorum would be the romney alternative. i think it took reasonable time to develop. he earned it. newt gingrich didn't come up in a sustained way the way people thought. partly because of the super pac negative ads. >> the old-fashioned way, he met small groups of voters in iowa. mostly unrecorded by those of us in news business. >> but not in iowa. not in iowa. >> he also earned it because everybody else blew up. really. this happened only after we went through perry, bachmann, cain, gingrich -- >> that sets up my next question. one of the factors in all those candidates blowing up is, when they looked up in the polls, they got hit with scrutiny in the media, negative stories, whether it was sexual allegations against herman cain or combing through the wreckage. now that santorum suddenly, you know, ties in iowa, here on friday, "the new york times"/"washington post" have detailed stories about santorum's role when he was in the k street project, he made $1.3 million during a recent 18-month period as a not-registered lobbyist. say advocate for health groups and industry groups. shouldn't iowa voters have had this information from the press before they went to the polls? >> you do your investigative work of candidates on top. how many stories have you seen it perry and the gifts he received in texas or his relationship with lobbyist down there? you don't see them anymore because he's down -- >> the phrase investigative work -- all of the stories about santorum's senate record, they were written at the "times." a question of going through the clips. >> whom the press builds up the press tears down. we don't investigate people at the bottom of the pack because they're at the bottom of the pack. once they climb up and might win something, well, then is the time to do the investigation. >> you know the phrase when you fly close to the sun your wings get burned? >> how much investigative work does it take to look at the guide's financial disclosure form and find out that he made this more than $1 million? i mean, nobody's saying -- >> if he's -- you played beautiful clips. thank goodness nothing from me. you know, when he's not considered somebody who has a chance, then, you know, how much ink are you going to waste or digital space going through all this -- >> the space is unlimited. a limited amount of airtime. >> i'll bet you can go back in the clips and -- electronic clips or paper clips and actually find stories like that on santorum from two years ago. nobody was paying attention then. >> let's take his position on the social issues. talk about, this is something he talked about at every appearance he made. talked about it in the debates. suddenly, a lot of journalists -- running up to him, what's your position on gay marriage because he's been getting booed on college campuses. what about your position that states have the power at least to ban contraception. i just wonder whether before -- this is circling back to the same question -- the press gave rick santorum a pass on these very -- these very positions that we now deem to be so controversial. >> well, you do stories on that a year ago, or you do stories on that six months ago, and you're -- >> you did it, we had it? >> no. you're accused of bashing this poor man. you do it now and you're accused by the public of bashing this poor man. there's no good time to do stories that some are going to interpret as negative. >> i don't want to let the big organization that's have platoons of reporters off the hook on when they should do stories. i also think we should recognize, everyone out there listening, that these -- these campaigns as the press coverage,volved. you don't do all the stories on everything up front. sometimes you should do the lower hanging ones like you mention good lobbyist. maybe should have done it first. but after all this time in iowa, if there were really things that iowa voters -- not press -- wanted to know, they actually could have just driven in their car and probably gone up and asked a candidate. >> and frankly, that's the beauty of the process, okay. so we haven't even voted in new hampshire yet. we're still orally, and he's getting the scrutiny. nobody is going to get through this process without getting intense scrutiny. nobody with a chance of winning is going to get through this without getting intense scrutiny. i would argue that if anything mitt romney's gotten something of a pass here. you just sketched through all those candidates. i mean, perry got all the scrutiny, bachmann to a large degree, as well. cain dominated our coverage -- >> certainly there's been talk about his massachusetts record, health care plan -- >> but what's dominated the news coverage of this campaign since september is the challengers -- >> the alternative to romney. i think that when all this comes in a kind of cascade where you pick up the newspapers and you turn on the tv and suddenly it's all about santorum's record, there is a perception at least that we're ganging up on him, which you alluded to. let me attorney mitt romney because as you recall, was only just a few short days ago, and this was a guy who was -- the conventional wisdom in the media was that he might be lucky to finish in the top three in iowa. look what happened the morning after he ekes out the victory. look at the questions the anchors asked him. >> you didn't spend an awful lot of time in iowa, not a lot of energy until the late going here. so did you exceed your expectations, or are you just a little disappointed that you didn't walk out of that state with a more decisive victory? >> oh, i'm absolutely delighted. >> what does it say about your candidacy that you actually won fewer votes than but in 2008 and you fought rick santorum to a draw basically even though you spent -- outspent him 50-1 on television ads? >> well, this was a seven-person field, of course. >> jon, he wins iowa -- dude, you only lost by eight votes. what's the matter? can we get a recounted? >> who won in iowa? this is the nature -- to be fair, he -- this is what the other campaigns are saying, as well. he gets 24, 25%. so, you know -- 75% -- >> don't have to buy it -- >> we can ask him -- >> the new math. you add up all the votes against him and decide therefore he's lost. it was amazing, in fact, for mitt romn mitt romney who spent the least amount of time in iowa to beat merribeat narrowly the person who spent the most amount of time in iowa. he lost the points that. totally lost the spin. >> look at ad spending. the only campaign combined with super pac that spent more than romney was rick perry. i mean, romney and his super pac spent big time in iowa. >> you got to have a real couch potato to sit in front of your tv in des moines or any place else in iowa and take in those ads. >> it was inescapable. >> it was wall-to-wall ad after ad. i can't believe the public did not tune out. >> okay. so we're two days away now from the first primary here. and romney's above 40%. i think it's safe to say he's going to win some victory. will the press now discount a romney victory because it is "expected," and focus much of the attention on who finished second or third? >> yes, the race is for who's going to place, you know, the race is for silver. already you have the democrats saying -- it was chairman debbie wasserman shultz saying if he doesn't win by 50% -- i think the number has gone up -- >> the democrats are setting the bar. >> the bar at 50%, then it's a loss. so he's been doing so well. if he really wins by an innate point there's a problem. but the conventional wisdom in this one -- i'm not thrilled about it, but i think, yes, that's what the press will do. won't be a proudest moment. but there will be an analysis of the win. >> does it trouble anybody sitting on the set that the guy wins the first two contest, and you're telling me the story's going to be whoever finishes second? >> it troubles me. >> yeah. how deeply does it trouble you? >> it's ridiculous the number of games we're playing. it's a six-person field. how do you get 51% in a six-person field? what we're really afraid of is this story is about to end and editors are going to call us home. we're not going to get to go to florida. we're not going to get to arizona because this thing probably ends after south carolina. >> i don't think that -- i think when you've had every poll for months predicting that romney's going to win, why wouldn't you look for who's number two? yeah. that's -- a reasonable story. >> let me cut you off after we come back in the second block. roger simon, as editor of -- revealing truth, it's all about expense accounts for journalist. remember the iowa caucus, went on until 1:00 a.m. the lead seesawing between romney and santorum -- they worked up mock pages of what it would go to press with. take a look. there's the first one. and back here in manchester, one presidential debate last night on abc, another one this morning on nbc. a look at how the networks did in a moment. pe. oh! try these. i sprinted here... wow! from your house?! from the car. unh! ooh. [ male announcer ] get back on track with low prices on everything you need. backed by our ad match guarantee. walmart. and more. if you replace 3 tablespoons of sugar a day with splenda®, you'll save 100 calories a day. that could help you lose up to 10 pounds in a year. and now get even more with splenda® essentials, the only line of sweeteners with a small boost of fiber, or antioxidants, or b vitamins in every packet. just another reason why you get more... when you sweeten with splenda®. ♪ two presidential debates in 11 hours. that's got to set some kind of indoor record here in new hampshire. we'll start with saturday night's debate, abc news, diane sawyer, gege stephanopoulos. here's the question about mitt romney's time as a venture cap tailist working for bain capital. >> in december you said that governor romney made money at bane by "bankrupting companies and laying off employees." >> that was, i think, "the new york times" story two days ago. >> governor romney, your response? >> i'm not surprised to have "the new york times" try to put free enterprise on trial. >> roger simon, newt is invoking "the new york times." i thought he didn't like the elite media. >> well, what is surprising here is that newt won't stand up and make the charge himself. newt has been attacking the -- mitt romney at almost every stop, attacked him very ungraciously in his own concession speech in iowa. the most ungracious concession speech i've ever heard of. but here we are in new hampshire, and suddenly newt wimps out and -- put it all on the back of "the new york times." >> hiding behind the newspaper? >> absolutely. he clearly doesn't want to be out front, at least in that first debate on the attack. >> and i don't -- the "times" can defend itself. i don't think it's fair for romney to say the "times" news story, factual, was putting free press on trial. also we had one of our local anchors, josh mcle vain, asking a question followed by stephanopoul stephanopoulos. this had to do, as you'll see, this had to do with recycling some of the harsher words that the candidates have used against each other. take a look. >> let's go to you, speaker gingrich. recently dr. paul referred to you as a chicken hawk because you didn't serve, given what you just heard governor perry say about understanding the military and dr. paul's -- >> dr. paul makes a lot of comments. it's part of his style. >> you've got a new ad in south carolina taking direct aim at senator santorum. call him a corporate lobbyist, a washington insider with a record of betrayal. you also call him corrupt in that ad. >> lynn sweet, what would you say that the moderators are trying to accomplish here? >> i think they're trying to provoke ron paul. and he's so -- he could self-provoke. he doesn't need moderators to do it. i think they're trying to do what his competition won't, which is up the ante in his attacks. >> but also i think there's a tendency, at least by many candidates, to be a little bit more measured when they're on the debate stage. meanwhile, on the stump and in their own ads, they throw charges around like chicken hawk. so isn't this an effort to just kind of get -- i'll hold the coats, you guys fight? >> part of it is one of the good and bad things about the debate is the desire to want to mix it up. you know, look him in the eye and say that to his face. are you a chicken hawk or whatever? and sometimes -- but candidates usually know that that is a trap. the reason they like to use and hide behind their spots is that they are saying what they want to say, they're measured -- sometimes tested, howie. they don't want to get past that box. they may get in trouble. >> i think it's voubl to go and say, hey, this is what you're people are saying, what your ads are saying. he's here, say it to his face. >> go ahead. >> what the moderators are trying to do is make the debates entertainmenting, which they are not naturally -- >> and illuminating. >> naturally so. illuminating, the candidates are handling just fine. we're asking chicken hawk questions. we're asking -- insult this guy to your face. we're giving him 60-second answers and 30-second rebuttals because anything longer than that is not entertaining tv. >> not everybody gets the chance to speak -- >> how do you have six people on the stage -- >> the whole debate structure is to make news as entertainment. >> sorry, the light went on. your time is up. i got to go to another sound bite. >> people want to see a punch. >> right. which sometimes can overshadow the substantive aspects of the debate, i think you were alluding to. "meet the press" held the second debate moderated by david gregory. this exchange began with rick santorum questioning why mitt romney left the governor of massachusetts job, the post of governor, after just one term. >> run again? that would be about me. i was trying to help get the state into the best shape i possibly could. left the world of politics. went back into business. now i have the opportunity, i believe, to use the experience i have -- you've got a surprised look on your face. wait -- it's still my time. >> are you going to tell people you're not going to run for re-election for president if you win? >> is governor romney unelectable in your judgment? >> i'm surprised the press has never brought this up or rarely brought this up about romney voluntarily making himself a one-term governor. >> it's interesting. but the response was -- was star-ofun. he went back to civic life, went to run for president. and if -- right after that, newt gingrich called it pius bologna which may be a line we'll hear again. >> yes. at the time that romney chose ton run again, he had a 54% unfavorable rating in massachusetts. that might have played a role. thank you very much for joining us. and a reminder that cnn will air last night's abc/wmur republican presidential debate tonight. see it at 8:00 p.m. eastern. next, when politics meet tragedy, are some pundits going too far in talking about the death of rick santorum's baby? journalist face the question, what is fair in report being presidential candidates? this ranges from $400 haircuts, to sexual harassment allegations to