All Blog Posts from Public Eye

On Friday, CBSNews.com ran a story by London-based producer Tucker Reals suggesting that the London bomb plot might have been foretold on the Web.

"Hours before London explosives technicians dismantled a large car bomb in the heart of the British capital's tourist-rich theater district," the story said, "a message appeared on one of the most widely used jihadist Internet forums, saying: 'Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed.'"

I asked Reals how CBS found the posting, which was in the "al Hesbah" chat room.

"We have a team who very closely monitors jihadi web forums for us," he said, noting that news networks like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya are also monitored. "[The team] sends out messages daily, such as, 'here's video of a hummer being blown up in Iraq, posted on this forum.' The message they sent out Friday morning caught my eye."

Some media organizations, including CNN, have questioned the CBSNews.com report. On Friday, correspondent Octavia Nasr said "we cannot find this claim anywhere. It is not on the Islamic website…Now [Hesbah] is a major, major website. So we entered that website. There is nothing to that effect. Now some times people post things that the administrator goes back and takes out. So there is that chance that something like this happened. But that, by itself, is indication that the posting was not credible."

As it turned out, the posting was removed, according to the CBS journalist – a member of the team mentioned above – who first found it. (This did not happen until Sunday, however.) Because his job entails infiltrating jihadi Web sites for a Western news organization – an occupation that would not endear him to some of the more militant members of those forums – I am not using the journalist's name here.

Read full post…

DC Dispatch: Public Eye was sent to be the fly on the wall of today’s internal seminar for new CBS hires and interns about “Television Production 101.” Here’s your intrepid PE correpondent’s report from inside:

(Heck, being “The Mole” worked for Anderson Cooper …)

Bob Schieffer started off the meeting in his standard folksy manner, informing the crowd that he’s nearing his 50-year anniversary in the news business. Then he shared the story of the interview that led to his career, when he applied for work at a radio station. The man running the station pointed across the street and said “tell me what’s over there.” Schieffer observed “it’s the football field.” The interviewer responded “Yeah, but tell me what you see over there, describe it.” Apparently, given this second chance, Schieffer did well enough to earn a spot on the staff and … the rest is history.

After that, a lot of the seminar was spent deconstructing a four minute segment put together in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. Cameramen, producers and correspondents discussed the logistical difficulties of trying to wrap their heads around the story in order to condense it to a comprehensive report. "CBS Evening News” producer Andy Triay spelled out the difference between the live cable reporting of the story and the CBS segment analyzed. “A cable reporter's job is to say here is what I can see from this vantage point, but network reporters have to say here is what happened today” when faced with putting together a taped segment tying together all the day’s developments.** Also, overlooked logistical issues were discussed, from the four-hour trip down to Blacksburg, to the difficulties of finding set-up shots and witnesses to the task of trying to identify, you know, tracking down what happened in the midst of confusion and chaos.

Read full post…

In the roughly two years that I've written and edited Public Eye, I've gained some insight into the thought process of an ombudsman. Sure, sure, we're "nonbudsman," more or less, here at PE. But this job involves the same kinds of concerns that a traditional ombudsman faces. You've got to be critical enough to maintain your legitimacy in the eyes of readers, but not so critical that you alienate your colleagues. It's a balancing act, and, unfortunately, it can lead one to think twice before writing anything that might be considered either (1) too complimentary or (2) too critical, even when the situation calls for it.

Which leads me to yesterday's column from new New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt. It was Hoyt's first column, and, as such, an announcement of what type of Public Editor to expect. Hoyt looked at the way that the Times covered the JFK terror plot, which, as I noted last Monday, was over-hyped by many in the media. (More on that here.)

Hoyt notes that the Times didn't put the plot on its front page – a decision that left him "puzzled." The Times made the decision based on the fact that "law enforcement officials said that J.F.K. was never in immediate danger," he notes, with editors saying they were wary of “buy[ing] into the hype on an issue where stories have frequently been overstated.”

Hoyt concludes with a classic bit of ombudsman jujitsu – he compliments the Times story for being "very well reported and written" while gently taking issue with its placement in the paper. Here's his conclusion:

Domestic terrorism is a frightening — and now very political — issue. Newspapers cannot take sometimes overheated rhetoric from public officials at face value. But they have to be careful not to appear indifferent to plots that, allowed to mature, could pose real threats of death and destruction.

I'm not suggesting that Hoyt does not believe what he wrote here – I'm sure he does. But it's important to note that, particularly for a new ombudsman, this is just about the only place one can come down on the issue. If you say the Times handled the story the right way, you're dismissed as a big softie; if you come down too hard, you risk alienating your colleagues right from the starting gate.

Read full post…

This morning, an email landed in my inbox with the usage guidelines for tonight's MSNBC-sponsored debate between the Democratic presidential candidates. These are the rules that non-NBC media outlets need to follow if they want to use any of video of the event. The rules are fairly standard of the restrictions that media outlets often apply when it comes to content like this, and they are nothing if not thorough:

1. An unobstructed onscreen credit "MSNBC" must appear during each debate excerpt and remain on screen for the entire excerpt.

2. Each debate excerpt must be introduced with an audio credit to MSNBC.

3. No excerpt may air in any medium until the live debate concludes at 8:30 pm ET.

4. No more than a combined total of 2 minutes of excerpts may be chosen for use during the period from the end of the live debate (8:30 pm ET) until 1:00 am ET on Friday, April 27. After 1:00 am ET, Friday, April 27, a total of 10 minutes may be selected (including any excerpts aired before 1:00AM). The selected excerpts may air as often as desired but the total of excerpts chosen may not exceed the limits outlined.

5. No excerpts may be aired after 8:30 pm on Saturday, May 26th. Excerpts may not be archived. Any further use of excerpts is by express permission of MSNBC only.

6. All debate excerpts must be taped directly from MSNBC's cablecast or obtained directly from MSNBC and may not be obtained from other sources, such as satellite or other forms of transmission. No portions of the live event not aired by MSNBC may be used.

Oh, and no Internet use whatsoever. But otherwise, go nuts!

UPDATE: Jeff Jarvis is outraged at these rules. He asks: "What makes NBC think it has the right to own the democratic discussion in this country?"

When it comes to snow storm coverage, as anyone watching or reading the news can attest, there is no shortage of information available online, on television and in the newspapers. And it's not just a local story – two evening newscasts (CBS and NBC) led with the winter storms last night. As for today's morning shows, NBC led with the weather and the "Early Show" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were pre-empted for local weather coverage.

While weather might not seem like the most important story when you stack it up against, say, North Korea taking steps to dismantle its nuclear program (which also happened yesterday) it's still what audiences show up for.

The second most popular story on CBSNews.com right now is "Northeast Gets A Blast Of Winter." Twenty-eight reporters apparently contributed to the Washington Post's snow coverage this morning.

And for local television news outlets, the drama of a winter storm can make for a ratings bonanza, as some local news folk told the Connecticut Post.

For example, during last year's "major northeaster" in lower Fairfield County, ratings for local cable network News12 "spiked, topping the heavy-hitter New York City broadcast stations that normally dominate Fairfield County rating wars."

"It's the biggest thing we do," Tom Applebee, anchor and news director Cablevision's News12 told the paper. "Weather is the main reason people watch local television news, and when a snowstorm hits it's even bigger."

Over at BBC's behind-the-scenes blog, The Editors, the editor of "The Politics Show," Gareth Butler clears up what he thinks might be some confusion about major interviews with the Prime Minister Tony Blair.

"Given that they're so rare, you might think there would be all kinds of shenanigans from the No. 10 side - you can't ask questions about this or that, you can only have x minutes, it has to be such-and-such a location or whatever. Actually, in my experience such negotiations aren't nearly as common or extensive as people think, and there certainly wasn't anything like that in this case: we were allowed to ask Mr. Blair whatever we wanted (although as viewers will have seen, he could still refuse to answer!)"

In the past, we've spoken to those at CBS News who have handled the logistics of interviews with the American equivalent of the Prime Minister, President Bush. The rules with those interviews are somewhat similar.

For example, last summer, when Bush was visiting an Arizona border town and talking immigration, he granted all three networks interviews during the trip. While the White House chooses the order of each network's interview, and limits the time to five minutes each, there aren't any other editorial ground rules.

Producer Carter Yang told us at the time: “We would never agree to an interview in which the White House said there were certain topics that were off limits." Producer Tom Seem added that the White House will occasionally tell reporters that if topics outside of the primary premise (in this case, immigration) are broached, the president will likely just not answer them.

Read full post…

Vaughn Ververs, former editor of Public Eye and current senior political editor at CBSNews.com, offers some advice to news consumers as 2008 coverage kicks off.

When Hillary Clinton made her entrance into the presidential race, you had to figure it would make a little bit of news. So it’s no surprise that last week’s Talk Show Index, produced by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, showed that the 2008 presidential race had become a major topic of conversation. We do seem to have hit warp speed in the race for the White House over the past couple of weeks with a slew of candidates jumping in on both sides of the aisle (and at least one, John Kerry, opting out.)

We’re already being bombarded with news from Iowa and New Hampshire, national horserace polling, Hollywood fundraisers and, yes, even political ads. Money, polls and ads – yep, the campaign is off and running. Even for those who aren’t political junkies, it’s a pretty exciting time. But you get the feeling we’re all going to be pretty tired of it all in short order.

That’s why I wanted to offer news consumers a few campaign ‘08 survival tips.

The Only Polls That Count: With all due respect to our national media organizations, these polls showing John McCain or Rudy Giuliani battling it out with Hillary Clinton are almost meaningless. Reflected in them is the fact that nationally recognized figures are, well, nationally recognized. It’s mildly informative that at this moment in time, Clinton appears to be capable of winning a national election and becoming the nation’s first woman president. But given her profile over the past decade, is that really news?

Read full post…

For the past week, news outlets have been awash in talk of Bush's upcoming speech on his Iraq strategy. That cycle has been fueled, of course, by leaks from the White House about what the speech will actually contain. By now, the official previews of the speech have emerged – including a morning preview at the White House for network anchors and White House counselor Dan Bartlett's appearances on television discussing the speech. His remarks are effectively dominating the news right now.

All of this is typical of what happens before a major presidential speech, but it begs the question of what, exactly, the White House's strategy is in showing its hand early. Why do they explain what's going to be in the speech before the president gives it? The reasons, unsurprisingly, have a lot to do with controlling the way the speech is received.

"Basically I think there is a point like today at which [the previews] become a practical courtesy," said White House correspondent Bill Plante. "But the leaks over the last week were to enlist allies and to give maximum exposure to the ideas while perhaps holding back specifics. And by those yardsticks it's received great success -- we've been talking about nothing else for a week now."

Official appearances like Bartlett's allow the administration to respond to information that's been widely consumed for the past week, said Plante, which offers "another news cycle to consider the speech."

Read full post…

The Swamp is one of many blogs for political junkies. If you're on "Obama Watch," don't worry: so are they. There was a bit of irony on the site recently, when a post noted that in a recent Gallup poll, people were asked who they wanted to see elected president in 2008. Thirty-eight percent – the largest percentage of respondents -- said "I don't know." That's more than Hillary (15%), more than McCain (11%), more than Obama (6%). In fact, it's more than all three combined.

This isn't particularly shocking information, of course, given that the election is two years away. It's also something not lost on news producers. Right now, people like Steve Chaggaris, a CBS News producer who focuses on politics, assumes that stories like this one -- about Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack's (heard of him? He's from Iowa) official announcement of a run for the presidency -- are pretty much off the radar of anyone who isn't a political junky.

Nonetheless, says Chaggaris, "you write it because it is news in the political world and you hope that people are going to pick that up." He adds, "but I think most of the country doesn't pay attention until much closer to the election."

But the coverage is coming early this year, in part because the field is wide open, says Chaggaris. That's because there is no sitting president or vice president running and plenty of pols on both sides maybe, sorta, kinda considering runs. "It hasn't been this wide open for, I would say, at least 50 years," Chaggaris says of the race.

That means it's difficult for some candidates to distinguish themselves enough to get national media attention, which is part of the reason they're getting started early – that and the fact that they're going to need more money than ever. Political plotters, says Chaggaris, estimate candidates will need to amass around $50 million to be players in the primaries. That's $10 million more than what the Democratic heavy hitters in 2004 came to the primaries with.

People with tons of campaign cash – even if they aren't making official announcements – are staffing up and getting coverage. Sen. Hillary Clinton, for example, "hasn't come out and said anything about an exploratory committee. And she's hiring people. …She's naming hires for a campaign that doesn't even exist in an exploratory form yet," says Chaggaris.

Read full post…

Nicholas Kristof's column in the New York Times ($) last Tuesday concluded with a remark about the Pentagon's internal news clipping service, the Early Bird. It's a daily compendium of articles related to military matters that's widely read by those inside the Pentagon, including the reporters who work there.

Kristof wrote that the traditionally "dispassionate collection" of articles was, of late, reflecting some spin. "Lately it has been leading with in-house spin," wrote Kristof. "The Early Bird of Nov. 20, for example, began with three separate unpublished letters to the editor by Pentagon officials before getting to the news from around the world." Pentagon Correspondent David Martin confirms that he's noticed the same pattern in the past month or two, and it appears to be a part of the larger communications strategy that the Pentagon has adopted recently. One aspect of that strategy includes rebutting news reports that the Department of Defense perceives as inaccurate or misleading.

In the past, says Martin, the Early Bird has always been a "fair mix of news" in which you could "almost never spot any slant." At some point during Sec. Rumsfeld's tenure, says Martin, the first section of the Early Bird began including corrections of military-related stories that had been printed in newspapers the previous day. They were primarily small factual corrections, such as a major general being referred to as a brigadier general, etc.

"There was this sort of unstated editorial point that these corrections were important" since they appeared before other news, and "it just emphasized the point that newspapers get it wrong sometimes," said Martin. Nonetheless, he doesn't think most reporters thought too much of it.

But more recently, letters from the Pentagon to the editors of various papers have been included in the front section of Early Bird, and "they were contesting not just an individual fact, but sometimes contesting the whole thrust of a story." It's an example of the types of rebuttals that have been identified as part of the Department of Defense's new strategy, says Martin, referring to a recent situation in which a public affairs officer took issue with CNN reporter Barbara Starr's tone in calling a top military spokesman's comments a "stunning development" in a news segment.

"When you walk around this building, you will inevitably run into someone who's been tasked with responding to the thrust of some story," said Martin. "That means putting it in the Early Bird. It's part of this battle to get their message out."

Read full post…