Public Eye
October 27, 2005 4:20 PM

Accuracy In Labeling -- How Much Information Should The Audience Get?

The Media Research Center has a criticism of a package done for the CBS Evening News by correspondent Lee Cowan last Friday about former Republican House leader Tom DeLay’s first appearance at a Texas court for charges of conspiracy and money laundering. While the MRC says the package was, “on some counts, balanced,” they take issue with the portrayal of a frequent DeLay critic who was used in the package.

Beverly Carter, a publisher and Republican precinct chair in DeLay’s district, was used in the package as an example of a member of DeLay’s own party not happy with him. The part of the story she was used in included a DeLay soundbite concerning his feelings about the prosecutor who indicted him, Ronnie Earle (a Democrat). Here’s the pertinent part of the package:

DeLay: “The only reason I had to be in that courtroom today was because Ronnie Earle has abused his prosecutorial power."

Cowan: “That's been his defense all along, and some Republicans aren't buying it."

Carter: “I've not heard of any Republicans that are supporting Tom at this point. Win, lose or draw, whether he's guilty or not guilty, they've kind of had it with him."

Cowan: "And that's coming from a Republican precinct chairwoman in his home district."

Carter: "Pigs get fatter, but hogs get slaughtered, and Tom's been a hog."

Cowan: "Don't mistake that for lack of support. He's still plenty popular here. Margaret Gow runs a neighborhood program for foster children that DeLay and his wife started years ago."
You can view the entire piece here.
Here’s the MRC’s problem:
“Although Fort Bend Star publisher Beverly Carter has been a longtime critic of DeLay who even endorsed his opponent in last year's election, Cowan simply referred to her as a "Republican precinct chairwoman," thus giving her credibility as if she were simply a typical local Republican leader.”
I asked Lee Cowan for a response, and here’s what he said:
“We were aware of her past criticism of Delay which we actually thought strengthened the piece. She’s known the Congressman longer than most, and her criticism (which for years has all been based on questions of Mr. Delay’s ethics) has not affected her standing in the party as a whole. In fact, she has retained her position as precinct chair in that district, which as I understand it, is an elected post. She may not be the ‘typical Republican leader’ – but she’s a very powerful one who is willing to buck her own party’s leadership to highlight a wrong she thinks needs to be corrected. We felt she was a well spoken example of what some believe is the thinking going on quietly throughout Mr. Delay’s home district.”

More Cowan: “We felt if we raised the issue of the past ‘feuds’ as the writer suggests, it would have raised more questions than it answered – and given our time constraints, we couldn’t explain everything. We don’t think we left anything out that editorially diminished the story or misrepresented her, or her viewpoint in any way. We believe the interview stands on its own – in fact, had we added the information the writer suggests we left out, it only would have made Beverly Carter’s case against Mr. Delay stronger, not weaker.”
The use of Carter in the piece is not objectionable, not identifying her as a longtime critic is. Carter was used in the piece as an example of a mainstream Republican in DeLay’s own district who was tiring of the Congressman’s problems when in fact she’s someone with motives that go beyond the charges involved here. The audience should have been informed of that fact.

There aren’t many aspects of reporting for an nightly broadcast more frustrating than the time constraints. It’s important for viewers to understand that there is only so much information that can be jammed into a minute, maybe two at the most. Still, it seems as though there might have been enough room to add a few words behind the identification of Carter, like, “a frequent DeLay critic.”

On the whole, I agree with the MRC, the story was mostly balanced. But I also agree that it would have given viewers more information to consider if they had been informed of Carter’s past criticisms.
Tags:
Cowan ,
DeLay ,
Carter
Topics:
CBS News Issues
Add a Comment See all 11 Comments
by newser-2009 October 28, 2005 11:45 AM EDT
Vaughn: the MRC has enough of a forum of it\'s own - all you are doing is providing them underserved credibility. These cyber-brownshirts don\'t rate a larger audience. Find something important to discuss, leave the petty to them on their site.
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 October 28, 2005 2:32 AM EDT
Looks like you found it-- modern marvel of politics, the web battle has escalated to the point equally uninformed neighbors can argue all night with each other, based on what they just read on the web. One immediate consolation soars above all the noise-- our widespread American tendency to public debate remains strong and healthy. We still have the ability to disagree without worrying about a midnight visit from the secret police-- or have we? What are these officially designated \"Protest Zones\" about, which keep protesters miles from official political functions where the mass of people is gathered? Bush has begun doing that to keep protesters out of the nightly news. It makes him look bad.
Reply to this comment
by centralcal-2009 October 28, 2005 1:57 AM EDT
alphaa10: \"Perhaps, to balance the whole circus, we need another center dedicated to exposing conservative disinformation since before 1896.\" Isn\'t there just such an organization? I think it is called Media Matters, but I could be wrong.
Reply to this comment
by neuro-con October 28, 2005 1:54 AM EDT
Also, I am curious if anything will happen to Cowan now that you have run this piece? Or is this it -- a brief venting for us right-wing mouth-breathers and then back to business as usual?
Reply to this comment
by neuro-con October 28, 2005 1:52 AM EDT
Vaughn, Thank you for your honesty on this one. I might point out that Cowan\'s trick is the same one Richard Schlesinger tried to pull last year in his infamous \"draft hoax\" story. As you (undoubtedly) recall, Schlesinger\'s piece leaned heavily on a woman he claimed was an anxious Republican mother; she was actually an anti-war organizer. (CBS later scrubbed the transcript without flagging the correction.) Does CBS News keep a Rolodex filled with names of left-wing, maverick \"Republicans\" who can be trotted out to attack real Republicans (ie, conservatives) on cue? (BTW -- This also explains why John McCain gets more TV time than any other Republican).
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 October 27, 2005 10:39 PM EDT
PostScript-- I just had a look at the so-called \"Media Research Center\", a neutral-enough sounding name, so I expected to find a balanced discussion of issues ranging from excesses on the left to excesses on the right. Guess again. The MRC is actually dedicated, according to its masthead/logo to \"Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996\". Well, surprise, surprise! You mean no conservative media bias exists, or does not deserve to be tracked? Where does funding for the MRC come from? Who runs/steers/committees the MRC, and what are their connections to the GOP or its boosters? How \"objective\" can this setup be? Now, I understand where some of these indignant little GOP-leaning posts are coming from. So, I suggest CBS not forget most of the \"spontaneous\" messages complaining about liberal bias may originate from MRC devotees, just after they read the latest MRC sermonette on media objectivity. Perhaps, to balance the whole circus, we need another center dedicated to exposing conservative disinformation since before 1896.
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 October 27, 2005 10:21 PM EDT
Merely to \"balance\" the other comments I have seen here-- just because Carter happens to be a \"long-time critic\" of Delay neither reduces her credibility nor increases Delay\'s, so why was that phrase essential or even material to any point? Carter is by no means the only Delay critic, a substantial and growing crowd which includes not only GOP national figures but even one of the posters, by self-admission. And besides-- how could you not understand Carter\'s own comments make her status entirely clear? Cowan\'s report stands on its self-evident merit.
Reply to this comment
by jrpcbs October 27, 2005 9:30 PM EDT
Vaughn - for the first time since I\'ve been reading, I think you are spot on in your analysis (which was balanced and reasonable and, ultimately, right - it\'s a little deal, not a big one, but deserves to be called a spade). Now - for the money shot - is Mr. Cowen going to do anything about it? Website correction? Would he agree to try harder next time? What does he think should happen when we catch his hand in the cookie jar again? Anyway, I do concur with \'centralcal\' about the three words - that would have been just the remedy.
Reply to this comment
by centralcal-2009 October 27, 2005 8:26 PM EDT
Vaughn: You and MRC said in three words what Cowan should have stated when referring to Carter -- \"a longtime critic.\" Leaving those words out of his description of her as a \"Republican precinct chairwoman\" (just as she segues into her swine monologue) is not fair to Delay or the audience. I am no fan of Delay and I don\'t need Cowan to subtly or otherwise assist me in reaching any conclusions about him. I find Cowan\'s explanation quite lame. And I do not agree with nor understand the logic of his last sentence.
Reply to this comment
by mailpro56 October 27, 2005 8:06 PM EDT
Vaughn: Is it possible to ask Cowan how he found Carter.....
Reply to this comment
by mailpro56 October 27, 2005 8:02 PM EDT
I would expect nothing less from CBS. Cowan doesn\'t get it..he thinks he was being fair...that is the mentality at CBS.
Reply to this comment
See all 11 Comments

60 Minutes

The secrets of tennis legend Andre Agassi; the growing threat of cyber wars; and more.
Read More

About Public Eye

Description for Public Eye