interesting to watch -- >> why are so many conservative commentators ganging up on gingrich? president obama's state of the union draws the usual wall to wall television coverage. >> good evening. while our focus in primetime here in washington tonight will be the president's state of the union address before a joint session of congress at 9:00 p.m. eastern time. to be fair, the attention hasn't been on the president, not for months. >> within a day the story fades. has the media's attention span grown too short? plus, the "new york times" reports that a former yale football star withdrew from potential road scholarship after a student filed an informal complaint accusing him of sexual assault. no charges ever filed. is that out of balance? why did the yale daily news sit on the story? i'm howard kurtz, and this is "reliable sources." if the final days before the primary, newt gingrich needed another strong debate performance to overtake mitt romney. the presidential debates, after all, have pretty much become the campaign, and after beating up on the likes of chris wallace and maria bartiromo and most notably, john king, there was every reason to expect that the former house speaker would unleash another anti-media tyrade. here's what happened at the cnn debate in jacksonville. >> are you satisfied right now with the level of transparency as far as his personal finances? >> this is a nonsense question. >> you made an issue when you say he lives in a world of swiss bank accounts. >> i didn't say that, you did. >> i am happy to say that on an interview tv show. >> you make a serious accusation against governor romney like that, you need to explain that. >> that moment seemed to crystallize an increasingly rough media environment for gingrich with want just florida, but perhaps his entire candidacy on the line. joining us now to examine the coverage of this very intense political week in orlando, mark barabak, political reporter for "the los angeles times." in tampa jackie kucinich, political reporter for "usa today," and in new york jeff greenfield, co-anchor of pbs's "need to know" and a correspondent for cbs, abc, and cnn. jeff, did wolf blitzer by going up against gingrich and not just letting him walk all over him, did he put himself in the position of debating the candidate? >> no, i that wolf was perfectly the -- the tone was perfect, and i'm perfectly prepared to have been deeply crap of my former colleague had he screwed up, but he didn't. when you are a moderator, do you this and pose a question with both hands tied behind your back. you can't debate because you are not an advocate. what wolf did was to remind speaker gingrich of the context in which those remarks were made, and i think you saw that gingrich rapidly retreated and then no longer decided it was the right time to coin an old phrase beat the press. i think he went to the well once too often. he has had this very successful run of criticizing moderators, and i think it time it was like throwing a pitch that worked against a batter of five others times, only this batter was ready for it, and i think responded exactly appropriately. >> sorry. i would like to be more critical, but i think he did a great job. >> we'll give you a chance for another question. mark, when it was newt smacking around john king over that question at a previously debate about the interview with his ex-wife, mary ann, john king chose not really to argue with gingrich except to say this was a story first reported by abc and not cnn. wolf fought become. >> i think wolf called him on his, frankly, b.s. newt gingrich had made a charge. he gave a weenie answer about it's one thing to say it on a national tv show, but this is a debate where we talk about other issues. i think it resonated the way it did with voters and viewers because everybody knows the mouthy kick who pops off on the playground, and someone shows up and it turned tail. it looked like that. i don't think it's quite up there with ronald reagan's microphone moment, but i think wolf blitzer pushed it, and romney called him on his b.s. and said you are saying all this stuff behind my back in effect, so say it to my face, and that's why it was an effective moment and why it resonated the way it did. >> it's been replayed endlessly on television, jackie kucinich, but even though this makes a big splash in the media, how important are these moments? wolf is not running for anything. >> i do think they're important because voters -- one of gingrich's biggest things has been these debates, and because he has an issue with these debates, he wasn't as strong as it was. voters care about this. i was watching -- and also, newt's fans love when he goes after the media, right? i think because this didn't go as well for him, i think a lot of people who are on the fence, i kind of -- we're not enthused with this. i really do think it does matter. >> i've been looking at the boats behind you. there was a big headline on the huffington post about this. blitzer should put on his wall that said "wolf bites newt." let me move on to the earlier debate in tampa this past week. i was there for the nbc debate. the audience was awfully quiet. that's because of an admonition. >> hold their applause. any verbal reactions to what they hear on stage. >> well, i wish in retrospect i had protested when brian williams teek him out because i think it's wrong, and i think he took him out of it because the media is terrified that the audience will side. >> i could not have asked you the question if your ex-wife had not come forward. she's a republican, sir. she said she supported much of your candidacy. >> you have to ask yourself the question, why would abc go back in m years? why would they dredge up something that had been reported several years ago? why would they do it two nights before a primary? why would they refuse to have other witnesses rebut her? we offered them a number of people who were there at the time who said what she was saying just wasn't true. >> we've we kind of jumped the gun by playing the second soundbyte. let me take you back to the first. brian williams gave the audience the no clapping admonition. gingrich said the media is afraid that candidates are going to beat up on the -- that the audience would side against the media with the moderator. here's my question. why should a moderator tell the audience to be quiet? >> just a couple of things. read the transcript of the lincoln-douglas debates, and you'll find that those crowds -- >> you sound like knight newt. >> they yelled and screamed. the second thing is -- and this is something i am critical of cnn and the other cable nets about particularly in their openings, cnn and msnbc have covered these things like espn's game day, and they want the crowd to scream and yell because it's "good television." i happen to be one of those old foeingies that thinks it's better to listen to the candidates and keep the audience as all the fall debates have always done. the moderate raiders alleges tell the audiences during the general election debates, please just a little deck or up. i think that's the basic way to go. the irony here, of course, is that newt got -- allowing the audience to respond, whether they packed the hall with romney people or they just like those romney in your face moments, it was romney that got the applause, and i think jackie is right. i think audiences -- a couple of political scientists found this out in a study awe foo years ago. when an audience -- when viewers watch an audience cheer much less jump to its feet, which has never happened before, they kind of think that answer must have been right. >> oh, yeah. it makes it look like the candidate is absolutely on a roll, and everybody likes that energy. >> also, howie, my mother was a librarian, so i tend to favor kind of more quiet audiences. >> but it's a live event, mark. why shouldn't the audience be a part of it? why should the moderator be saying sit on your hands? >> well, i guess i would agree with jeff. i'm a somewhat younger foeingy, but this is about the candidates. skwet who is going to run the show? literally. if the idea it s to inform voters, then i think the more time that's devoted to candidates, the less time it's given over to cheering and applause, again, maybe it's sort of old-fashioned, but it's about the candidates. it's about the voters learning. i don't think so much in the production value and the hiss reonices is as important. >> i'm going to disagree. you don't want people hoot and hollering to the point where you can't hear the candidates and it becomes a circus, but, you know, it shouldn't necessarily be anticeptic show that's done in the temperature-controlled quiet of a television studio. >> they don't have to be anticeptic. >> there's a lot of backing and forthing between candidates. i don't think anyone that saw those exchanges would suggest it was ant septic. i don't think that the audience has to add to that. >> okay. let me move on to -- you know, we played -- >> i will say people have been -- if can i insert here, people have been watching these debates, though. look at the ratings that these debates have gotten, and i think part of that is the audience. it's the same reason people use laugh tracks. it engages the voter. i think they like -- if it gets more people to watch, gets more people involved in politics, i think it's okay. >> all right. i mean, there is, as jeff says, a little bit of show biz to this. maybe too much. let me come back to you, jeff greenfield, and we played a bite earlier. we saw newt gingrich going -- having a rematch, in effect, with john king after their confrontation at an earlier debate, and gingrich said something that was blatantly untrue, and we talked about this on this program last week where abc's brian ross who did that interview with the ex-wife, second ex-wife, marianne gingrich. newt's campaign had been claiming that it put out other people to support his side and that dispute with his former wife and abc refused to interview them. well, that's not true. abc says it's not true. now finally gingrich's camp admits it's not true. why would gingrich go back on the air and make this charge again? any idea? >> well, not being a political psychologist, i can't tell you. i do think -- look, i think part of the reason goes way back to a dilemma that journalists always have when dealing with politicians which when they make an assertion, it seems -- it seems like you're taking sides if you say that's wrong. you are sometimes resorting to he-said-she-said journalism. you know, when a politician says something that's demon strably false, then i think it's absolutely right for a network or any network, any jrnlist to come out and say this is not true. this isn't a matter of opinion. that's what happened here. now, you -- if john king had known that at that moment, i think wee have been totally right to say, excuse me, mr. speaker, but we can't find any of those witnesses. yeah -- >> the fact is they weren't even offered to abc and, you know, he was wrong the first time, and i agree with you. the media were absolutely right to call him on it, and i'm surprised he made the charge again, but jackie kucinich, going back on john king's show, i thought he was really mad at john king. gingrich seems to revel in these platforms, whether he is getting worked up about the moderators or not. >> i think it helps him when he -- aside from this last debate, i think it's helped him. i think when juan williams was asking him really tough questions and the fox debate and i think when the john king moment happened, i think that ultimately helped gingrich in south carolina. you know -- >> my question, jackie is -- my question, jackie -- hold on a second. my question is how much of this is for show? i mean, newt gingrich looked really, really -- >> a couple of days later it's like, sure, go on the show, talk some more. you're saying? >> i think it's absolutely -- i think it's absolutely for show. i do. because it plays to his base and to the people that are angry at the media. it plays to people who are angry at the president, frankly, and the people who love him best. i think a lot of it's for show. i think the explosiveness of the anger, particularly with the john king question, i think that -- i think it was -- i wouldn't say orchestrated, but i think that was planned a little bit. >> before -- i want to play wrun wun more bit of sound, i'm sorry. this is just getting a lot of traction here. mitt romney on the air with an ad about newt gingrich that features a former pretty prominent television news anchor. >> newt gingrich, who came to power after preaching a higher standard in american politics, a man who brought down another speaker on ethics accusations, tonight he has on his own record the judgment of his peers, democrat and republican alike. >> mark, the beginning research camp -- excuse me, the romney campaign refusing to pull that ad heing despite mrants from -- what do you make of tom brokaw? >> stupid like a fox. it's like they put this ad up, where gingrich disagrees. everyone is going on youtube to see the ad. the ad popped up, and tom brokaw? it didn't seem like an ad chshgs makes it all the more effective, and the fact that gingrich has protest and we're talking about it and like i said, it's probably getting double or triple or some huge exponential number more? >> it seems to be fair game. it's just like running a newspaper clip. nbc has complained -- yes, jeff. >> the point -- what's interesting to me about this is i see the dilemma for any news person to be part of an ad, but one of the things we always criticize about political ads is how blatantly false they are. they're over produced. they use bad pictures. they use danger music, and they distort facts. now, here's an ad that simply is taking a news report and running it. apart from the awkwardness for tom brokaw or if any of us find ours in an ad, it almost seems to me that given fair use doctrine of copyright, it's maybe an appropriate thing to goushlgt streeter than distorting facts and throwing up an ad that libels an opponent. >> that is a good point. brokaw, however, says he is extremely uncomfortable with the use of his personal image and feels he doesn't want to be compromised as a journalist. when we come back, president obama gave a state of the union speech this week, but if you blinked ushg missed it, before it faded to black. americans believe they should be in charge of their own future. how they'll live tomorrow. for more than 116 years, ameriprise financial has worked for their clients' futures. helping millions of americans retire on their terms. when they want. where they want. doing what they want. ameriprise. the strength of a leader in retirement planning. the heart of 10,000 advisors working with you one-to-one. together for your future. ♪ the network anchors fly in for an off the record lunch with the president and then head to the hill to anchor the big speech. the coverage lasted barely 24 hours. the state of the union almost serving as half hour time entertainment between the two republican debates, and jeff greenfield, i know it's an election year, but in this twitter era, has the state of the union speech become just another piece of programming? >> i think it may be an idea whose time has passed. when woodrow wilson decided show up in person, that was the first time in more than 100 years a president has done this, and then it became more and more of an event. almost like a speech from the throne. i do think in many ways archaic. it's a speech where you almost never have a memorable line. it's a laundry list, and it's inherently political document. i always got a kick out of the fact that some of the responses both pro and con were written before the speech. >> the pre-bites. >> i always thought one speech a president should throw up something completely out of line. like, you know, i'm going to ae sex changes operation or something completely -- >> i do think in an era of twitter and social networking it is a kind of an archaic -- it's a pleasant enough experience, you know. okay, who is sitting in the president's box? we make a speech and say something in israel. maybe it's time that the president started setting these things up in the hill in written form or e-mail and save everyone some time. >> nobody is iffing to give up that hour of primetime. we're a little short on time, but the fact that none of these things -- with the gridlock congress may be contributed to the brief duration of the news coverage. >> sure, there's that. i think it was important to the extent that it was a chance to lay out. people saw it for what it was. as you started by saying, this is an election year. this is not surprising. i mean, you know, i'll take a $5 million check if i could tell you what president bush in his 2008 state of the union address. the focus is on the republican race. they've had a short shelf life. >> they tend to be forgettable. jackie, 91% of the people was an on-line poll saying they aprauf of the speech, and often the public likes these more than the journalists do. >> all of obama's state of the union watched this one. 37 million people watched this, which is the least of all of his speeches, and of that i think 20% tuned out within the first five minutes. i think even the public is more -- part of the public is more interested in the gop race. i think you're right, though. i think a lot of it is that a lot of this stuff isn't going to get done -- >> all of you, especially you two in the warm temperatures in florida, enjoy yourselves. coming up in the sect part of ""reliable sources" "going negative on newt. a square-off on why conservative pundits and publications are safageing the former speaker. a vast right-wing conspiracy perhaps? >> later, should the "new york times" have reported on the sexual assault complaint against the former yale football star when no charges have been filed. what about reporting unprooun sexual assault allegations against a fox anchor in new york, who happens to be the police commissioner's son? if they want "big" savings on car insurance, it's a bit like asking if they want a big hat... ...'scuse me... ...or a big steak... ...or big hair... i think we have our answer. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. i have a cold. and i took nyquil, but i'm still stubbed up. [ male announcer ] sorry buddy. truth is, nyquil doesn't un-stuff your nose. what? it doesn't have a decongestant. really? [ male announcer ] you need a more complete cold and flu formula, like alka-seltzer plus liquid gels. it's specially formulated to fight your worst cold and flu symptoms, plus relieve your stuffy nose. [ deep breath ] thank you! [ male announcer ] you're welcome. that's the cold truth! [ male announcer ] and to fight your allergy symptoms fast, try new alka-seltzer plus allergy. it was a remarkable snap shot of the media elite. the conservative media elite, that is. the banner headline on the drudge report insider gingrich repeatedly insulted reagan and there was a piece on bob dole blasting his colleague. a cnn story that gingrich admitted he was wrong in the way he ripped abc news with his interview with his ex-wife, and the flamboyant confront takers -- what's behind this seemingly orchestrated assault? joining us now here in washington, cathleen parker columnist from the washington post. and clarence page columnist for the "chicago tribune". cathleen, national view ann coulter, drudge, all unloading on newt within a couple of days. was there a secret meeting here? >> i didn't get the memo. you know, it's interesting, i want to clarify something right out of the gate, which is that when we talk about the media or commentators, pundits, et cetera, coming after someone in an