All Blog Posts from Public Eye

From the inbox comes this missive from Ruthann B. about efforts by media outlets to identify the person who tipped authorities off to the alleged Fort Dix plotters:

I am writing to protest your news staff trying to get the identity of the person responsible for alerting the FBI of the video tape of the accused men. I feel you are putting this person in danger, and every time I see when of your newspersons standing in front of the Circuit City store, I get upset. It is not important that everyone knows this persons name. He will have no peace once this becomes public record. It could discourage any other person from coming forward in a like situation. Please stop!!!!

The person in question is a store clerk who had been asked to dub a videotape made by the alleged plotters to DVD, a tape that prosecutors say shows the men shooting weapons and calling for jihad.

The person is being called an "unsung hero," and it appears he wants to stay that way. The AP reports that, according to a Circuit City spokesperson, the clerk was an employee at the Mount Laurel Circuit City and is still with the company. The company is not releasing his name. The Daily News reports that "co-workers claimed they don't know who he is." More:

Circuit City workers in the store's red polo shirts mostly refused to talk to reporters and private security guards escorted them to cars.

At least a dozen TV news trucks sprouted antennas in the parking lot as shoppers gawked on the hot spring day.

I'm actually kind of amazed that this person still has his privacy – not even Drudge has a name. Yet.

You’ve likely heard or read the phrase “bikini murder” lately. It’s been used in the headlines of many of the news stories (including those at CBSNews.com) about the murder of
Tiffany Souers, a Clemson University student who was strangled to death with her bikini top.

We got an email from reader Jim D. about the use of the phrase in most of the stories describing the case:

“Beyond the obvious titillation aspects, why exactly do almost all stories or articles (including some on CBS) use the phrases ‘bikini murder’ or ‘bikini murder suspect’ or ‘bikini’ something in the headline or article heading? I wonder how her family feels about that.”

A lot of news stories tend to become whittled down to a few catch phrases, or slugs, as they’re more commonly known in the news business. It’s an easy, quick way to refer to a story -- as soon as you hear or read those few words, you immediately know what’s being discussed. However, is there a point, as Jim D. appears to suggest, when these slugs are too crude? What considerations are made behind the scenes with regard to this type of story and the way that it's described? Michael Sims, director of news and operations at CBSNews.com, had this to say:

We always strive to be editorially sensitive when a death is involved. We try to recognize that someone is grieving for each victim, and treat our stories appropriately.

We do need to identify stories in a way that we think helps readers find what they're looking for. A growing number of people are finding their news by entering keywords into search engines. To give the reader the best chance of finding what they're looking for, and when appropriate, we try to use the keywords we believe our readers would be using to find the story.

We continually discuss the appropriateness of headlines, copy, photos, etc. It's a never-ending dialogue.

Questions of appropriateness and editorial sensitivity are obviously those that newsrooms encounter on a daily basis. And, like so many editorial decisions, they don't often offer any black and white answers. It's essentially a judgment call, one that every news outlet sharing the story might make differently. For instance, performing a Google News search using the terms "Tiffany Souers," turns up this list of articles -- most of which do not mention "bikini murder" in their headlines. A Google News search of the phrase "bikini murder" reveals similar articles, most with that phrase included the headline.

What do you think?
Update after the jump.

Read full post…

Here’s a question we get from time to time and one worth revisiting here. Jeremiah N. wants to know more about the ads run on CBSNews.com and the content on the site:

I was wondering if there are rules or guidelines that CBSNews.com follows in regards to the giant ads on the top of the homepage that one must collapse. While always irritating and too in-your-face for my liking, they don’t always appear. Is the appearance of these ads in any way related to the top stories? If there is a big headline or breaking news does the giant ad get removed, only to be used when the more “routine” stories are being highlighted? Or is the appearance of these awful things simply related to having advertisers willing to pay for them? And I guess a larger question would be, what power or promise is given to advertisers on the web page in relation to the placement of ads and/or major news stories?

Michael Sims, director of News and Operations at CBSNews.com answers:

Read full post…

Last night we received an email from "DYN175" asking the following:

What are the standards at CBS News for reporting vs. editorializing?

On the "CBS Evening News" tonight, February 14th, [Capitol Hill Correspondent] Sharyl Attkisson gave a report on Homeland Security Secretary [Michael] Chertoff and his actions dealing with Hurricane Katrina. In the Q&A after the report, [anchor] Bob Schieffer turned to her and asked, "Do you think, Sharyl, that Chertoff's job is on the line here?"

Such a question clearly requires the reporter to state a personal opinion. It would seem to me that this would cross the line into editorializing. Does CBS News have any written standards on this?

I talked to Bob Schieffer about that issue and the question and answer portion of the "Evening News" more generally.

"We're not trying to have people give personal opinions," says Schieffer. "We're trying to explain, to put things into context." He added: "There has been all this behind the scenes questioning and whispering about whether Chertoff will lose his job, and that's why I asked her about it."

Schieffer compares the question and answer portion of the "Evening News" broadcast to a sidebar in a newspaper. "The main story covers the who, what, where, why, and when, and the sidebar offers analysis, color, some detail that you couldn't get into in the main story," he says.

Such offerings are essential, he says, if the "Evening News" wants to compete in a crowded news environment.

"If the evening newses are going to survive – and I'm talking about all of them, not just us – they have to evolve beyond what they have been. If all we're going to do is put on a minute and a half piece that's the same as the minute and a half piece that's been running on cable all day, we're not going to make it." He says the question and answer exchange with correspondents, which fall somewhere between straight reporting and cable news-style editorializing, makes for content that sets the "Evening News" apart.

Read full post…

Many of the questions that often arise regarding how news is covered have to do with why certain aspects of a story are highlighted and others appear further down in the story. In a response to a recent post about how many times Presidents Bush and Clinton have granted interviews to the big three networks, PE reader mailpro56 posed such a question about the headline in this recent CBSNews.com story on the results of a CBS News/New York Times poll:

I can only wonder why Bush has ignored CBS. Hillary, I was wondering if you can find out why on the CBSnews website, one of the leads was Bush Approval Remains low. However, within the article it says most people agree with his wiretapping program. Can I get your opinion on what the bigger story is? I may be stupid ... but the big story has been wiretapping...why wouldn't that be the lead headline?

Instead of offering my opinion on the matter, because I don’t write the headlines that appear on CBSNews.com stories unless they appear on this blog, I decided to ask Michael Sims, director of news and operations at CBSNews.com.

Read full post…

After PE looked into the decision by CBS News to withhold some information about the FBI’s advances in discovering the origins of some Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) being used against U.S. troops in Iraq, we received this e-mail from reader Dan R.:

Dear CBS Public Eye,



In your January 18, 2006, story "CBS News Withholds Details At FBI's Request" the statement is made: "Most of us can agree that we don't want the FBI, or any government agency, deciding what we should and shouldn't know."



I definitely do not agree. And I believe your assumption that "most of us" do is simply wrong. I believe it's more likely that "most of us" are just fine not knowing many things that individuals in the media decide that we should know. Concerning the common welfare of our country, and our people around the world, I would much rather that those employed by the citizens to maintain a safe, orderly society actually make such decisions. We pay them to do just that.



Be it the FBI or any other government ("citizen's") agency, their training and activities are specifically defined and focused on various activities for the common good. That's why we've created and continue to fund and rely upon them. They are not always perfect -- and the media rightly informs the public anytime there is even suspicion such may be the case. But because these agencies – comprised, by the way, of our own individual neighbors, friends and relatives -- perform very well overall, we continue to enjoy a way of life that is the envy of the world.



I believe that it's individuals in the media who are obsessed with deciding what the public should and shouldn't know. I believe that "most of us" see it that way. I believe that "most of us" don't care to know many of the items of information put before us by the media. "Most of us" are stuck with the information the media decides we should know. "Most of us" often ask the questions, "How is that news?"; "Why are they telling us that?"; "And the reason I need to (or would want to) know that is...?"

Read full post…

After PE looked into the decision by CBS News to withhold some information about the FBI’s advances in discovering the origins of some Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) being used against U.S. troops in Iraq, we received this e-mail from reader Dan R.:

Dear CBS Public Eye,



In your January 18, 2006, story "CBS News Withholds Details At FBI's Request" the statement is made: "Most of us can agree that we don't want the FBI, or any government agency, deciding what we should and shouldn't know."



I definitely do not agree. And I believe your assumption that "most of us" do is simply wrong. I believe it's more likely that "most of us" are just fine not knowing many things that individuals in the media decide that we should know. Concerning the common welfare of our country, and our people around the world, I would much rather that those employed by the citizens to maintain a safe, orderly society actually make such decisions. We pay them to do just that.



Be it the FBI or any other government ("citizen's") agency, their training and activities are specifically defined and focused on various activities for the common good. That's why we've created and continue to fund and rely upon them. They are not always perfect -- and the media rightly informs the public anytime there is even suspicion such may be the case. But because these agencies – comprised, by the way, of our own individual neighbors, friends and relatives -- perform very well overall, we continue to enjoy a way of life that is the envy of the world.



I believe that it's individuals in the media who are obsessed with deciding what the public should and shouldn't know. I believe that "most of us" see it that way. I believe that "most of us" don't care to know many of the items of information put before us by the media. "Most of us" are stuck with the information the media decides we should know. "Most of us" often ask the questions, "How is that news?"; "Why are they telling us that?"; "And the reason I need to (or would want to) know that is...?"

Read full post…

Reader Robert S. of Hayward, California, has concerns about the way CBS Correspondent Gloria Borger has characterized the scandal revolving around Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Specifically, Robert asks:

“Why does Gloria Borger insist on saying that Abramoff ‘gave money to both Republicans and Democrats,’ when it is NOT true? While Jack Abramoff gave numerous personal checks to Republicans, including the President's reelection campaign, he never gave a thin dime to Democrats. Ms. Borger said this on the 6 O'clock News on Saturday, and even though I'm a Republican, I'm tired of hearing this lie repeated.
Now I understand that Abramoff's allies and clients gave money to Congressmen, including Democrats, but by that standard, the amount given to Republicans becomes astronomical.



What those few of us who love the truth want from you is a CONSISTENT standard of what constitutes a ‘contribution,’ or ‘giving money,’ to be applied equally to all parties in this emerging scandel.



Please answer or at least address my concerns. I think it's very important to our Democracy.”

We spoke to Steve Chaggaris, a CBS News producer who works with Borger, about this question. Here’s his response:

Read full post…

In case you’ve wondered whether or not anyone is actually reading all those e-mails you send Public Eye’s way, here’s proof we do. This e-mail, from Floyd M. in Nashville, caught our attention and we wanted to pass it along:

An Open Message to Rome Hartman [the next Executive Producer for the CBS "Evening News"]:



When planning for the future of the "CBS Evening News," I'd like to offer a suggestion, maybe more of a plea: bring back one of the classic features of the broadcast, the commentary. (My candidate for this spot is Bob Schieffer.) As a 50-year old who grew up on Walter Cronkite, I remember even as a young man looking forward to the insightful commentaries of Eric Sevareid. He offered truly intelligent observations and opinions on the matters of the day.



The only time I see the same quality of commentary these days is on Sunday Mornings, when Bob Schieffer's observations at the close of "Face The Nation" "call it as it is."



Today's news is dominated by spin from the Washington propagandists, particularly that of the Bush White House. As a result of the media giving the administration, if not the entire federal government, a free pass after 9/11, the major networks are running scared.



After Dan Rather got burned with the whole memo debacle, it gave the Bush Gang more chutzpah. (Watching the original broadcast, I found it most interesting that the secretary of the TX National Guard officer who allegedly wrote the memo stated that it did sound like something her boss would have said.)



My point is that today's Attention Deficit audiences desperately need to see and hear the truth spoken to power by a free media. Most of the commentaries I've seen Bob give should be broadcast at a time that everyone will see it, not just the Sunday Morning news and CBSNews.com geeks.

The possibilities are boundless: Henry Kissinger, Snoop Dogg, Don Rickles, Phillip Roth. Or maybe Bill Clinton and Bob Dole could team up … oops, that’s already been tried. We’re listening, send us your ideas.

Read full post…

Ever get annoyed when that SUV ad drives right through the article on gas prices you’re reading online? We received this e-mail from Greg E., who was irked about pop-up ads on the CBSNews.com Web site.

“Why do news Web sites go out of their way to circumvent pop-up blockers? If a pop-up blocker is enabled the user obviously does NOT want to see them. I understand the advertising standpoint, but these are reputable news organizations, and I would think they would respect a user’s wishes. I also realize you can't speak for all networks, so why does CBS do it?”

We asked Michael Sims, director of News and Operations at CBSNews.com, to field this one:

“Web sites are very expensive to produce, especially those sites that produce original content. There are only two ways to pay for production of this site, through advertising or subscription. We have chosen to be a free, advertising-supported site (after all, we have to be able to pay those Public Eye people!). We always take into account the user experience when considering new ad formats and presentations. We put strict limits on rich media and pop-under ads (we don't accept pop-over ads). We constantly monitor user feedback and make changes based on that feedback. After all, we want to build a loyal readership, and we can't do that with a bad user experience.”

There was a second part to Greg E.’s inquiry, which quite clearly applies to us here at Public Eye:

Read full post…