All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Hi everyone. I wanted to let you know that today is my last at Public Eye.

I've learned a great deal in the last year and a half. More importantly, I hope I've helped you better understand how CBS News works – from why it's useful to keep an eye on the delivery trucks parked outside of the Pentagon to the many reasons why Africa is a seemingly forgotten continent in the world of television news.

And I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy examining all the quirkier news events in between: the "ic" not heard round the world, the intersection of cheese steak and immigration, the sound of newsic, "much ado about a hairdo", marketing adventures in Hell, Michigan, and part deux of the JonBenet media feeding frenzy.

I'd also be remiss not to thank the executives, producers, correspondents, cameramen and everyone else at CBS who was willing to let me hover over their shoulders and ask annoying questions as they tried to do their jobs. Also thanks to Dick Meyer, Brian Montopoli and former editor Vaughn Ververs for teaching me everything I ever wanted to know about pretending to seem interested in conversations about professional football.

So keep reading the site – I know I will be….

test

As the Libby trial has induced a flood of ink discussing the increasing number of reporters confronted with subpoenas, the case of jailed blogger Josh Wolf continues to draw attention.

Today, his story lands in the Washington Post, where Howard Kurtz looks at the question at the very core of Wolf's case: Is a blogger a journalist?

He's spent the last six months in a California prison for refusing to comply with a court order to turn over a video he shot of a violent San Francisco protest during a G-8 summit meeting. Wolf posted a portion of the video on his blog and sold some of it to local television stations. And his rationale for withholding it "is less than crystal clear," writes Kurtz, since he isn't really protecting any confidential sources, as was the case with Judy Miller of the New York Times or the San Francisco Chronicle reporters who recently avoided a prison sentence after their source came forward.

According to Wolf, "There was a trust established between people involved in the organization that I was covering and myself . . . that what I chose to release was what I chose to release, and that I wasn't an investigator for the state."

As far as the U.S. Attorney prosecuting him is concerned, Wolf needs "to come to grips with the fact that he was simply a person with a video camera who happened to record some public events."

But a classification as a journalist would probably not do Wolf any good anyway; his is a federal case and there are no federal shield laws for journalists.

Wolf has "repeatedly lost in the courts," including an appeal to the 9th Circuit, which upheld the grand jury's request for his testimony. Failing a solution from a mediation session today, "he will likely remain imprisoned at least until the current grand jury's term expires in July."

It's official. Here's the CBS News release announcing Rick Kaplan as the new Executive Producer of the "Evening News":

RICK KAPLAN IS NAMED EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF THE “CBS EVENING NEWS WITH KATIE COURIC”

Rick Kaplan, a multiple award-winning news producer and executive spanning a career in broadcast journalism of more than 35 years, has been named Executive Producer, CBS EVENING NEWS WITH KATIE COURIC, it was announced by Sean McManus, President, CBS News and Sports. The appointment is effective immediately.

“Few broadcast journalists have a list of accomplishments and the history of success that Rick has had – the list is truly extraordinary,” said McManus. “I’m very much looking forward to working with Rick and having the benefit of his vast experience and knowledge as we continue to build the best evening news broadcast at CBS News.”

“Rick Kaplan is a big personality with big ideas,” said Couric, the broadcast’s anchor and managing editor. “Though I’ve never worked directly with him, I know Rick is an extraordinarily experienced producer who has exciting plans for our broadcast. I’m thrilled he has decided to come home to CBS News.”

“I spent the first 10 years of my career at CBS News, including three years working on the ‘CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite,’” said Kaplan, “so coming home to that broadcast, especially as executive producer, is particularly thrilling. Katie is an enormously talented journalist and broadcaster, and this is an extraordinary opportunity for us to grow the broadcast in every way.”

More after the jump...

Read full post…

It's Thursday, and that means it's time for the latest installment of the Public Eye Chat. This week's subject is correspondent Bill Plante, who has been a CBS News White House correspondent since the Reagan administration. In our conversation, Plante discusses how the "Evening News" has changed since 1964, why 2008 coverage focuses so closely on top-tier candidates and how the television sound bite has shrunk over the years. You can read excerpts from the conversation below or click on the link to listen to the full interview.

---

Click here to listen to the interview.

---

You've covered every presidential campaign since 1968. When it comes to 2008 coverage, why do you think that it is so focused on the top-tier candidates? Do you think that in some way viewers are shortchanged by this?

The reason that the focus is on the top-tier candidates is because everybody who's covering politics expects this to be over by February 2008 -- less than a year from now. And they don't believe that anybody who is lower down in the polls right now is going to have any chance to get traction.

Now, it can easily be that several people who are leading now fall by the wayside. And maybe somebody from lower in the pack will pop up, but it seems unlikely. Because the top-tier candidates are all well known, all well funded and it's very likely that one of them is going to have the nomination. I mean in the Democratic party it's Hillary or Obama -- so it seems today. Is there a chance for a Richardson? Who knows? But it seems less likely so therefore, there's less interest in the second-tier candidates.

But beyond the fact that candidates like Clinton or Obama simply have more money and already have the attention, isn't it sort of circular logic for the media to say, 'These are the people we're going to cover because other people aren't going to get traction?' Isn't it sort of in the hands of the media to provide the traction?

There is a certain circular logic here because if nobody knows who the second-tier candidates are, then they certainly aren't going to rise. So, they will get some coverage. They simply won't get as much as the top-tier candidates. And they'll do everything they can to drive the coverage themselves, but for the most part, the interest is going to be in what the people who are likely to get the nomination are doing and saying about one another. If candidate X from the bottom of the pack says that a top- tier candidate is a jerk, it'll be a blip in the news cycle. But if two top-tier candidates start calling each other names -- as we've sort of seen already -- it becomes news.

Read full post…

When Alan Greenspan speaks, people tend to freak. That's why, during his 17 years as chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan only held a handful of press conferences.

Which is part of the reason why the markets tended to fluctuate based on how thick his briefcase was or how his glasses happened to be tilted.

At least that's what Greg Robb believes. He argues as much in MarketWatch following a kerfuffle over Greenspan (who, of course, isn't even the Fed chairman anymore) dropping the "r-bomb" last month. (That's right, recession.) Greenspan made the comment during a forum in Hong Kong that was closed to the media. Inevitably, his statements leaked out, and now Greenspan says they were misconstrued.

Now that he's retired, Greenspan's policy when discussing the economy with clients is to insist that "there will be no reporters present and no recording."

But it may be just that stipulation which creates all the hoopla, writes Robb. Since there are no reporters from reputable news outlets covering his remarks, news moves based on rumor. And, as one economist put it to MarketWatch: "You know what markets always say, buy the rumor, sell the fact. By the time you figure out it was wrong, the markets move, people have been in and out, they've made their money."

So even though Greenspan is attempting to avoid becoming the impulse for market changes, his decision to refuse "to allow reporters to listen in and report on his remarks [is] actually creating market volatility."

A day after the Scooter Libby verdict, the media – pretty much the only group of people that seemed to really care about this trial – has unleashed a flood of reaction.

Other than Libby, after all, it was the media that had the most at stake in this fight. The case unleashed a storm of questions about the relationship between government and media and between reporters and anonymous sources.

Some believe that the biggest consequence for media is the possibility that this case – which led to the subpoenaing of a number of reporters and the jailing of Judy Miller – has set a precedent in which more reporters will be subpoenaed in criminal trials and forced to reveal their confidential sources.

The general counsel of Hearst Corp., which owns the San Francisco Chronicle (where two reporters were subpoenaed to reveal their sources for a story on the BALCO steroid scandal) told the AP that her company has gotten 84 subpoenas in the past two years. "Previously, Hearst might have seen only five subpoenas in a two-year period, a jump that Burton blames partly on a Bush administration eager to go after journalists," wrote the AP.

And as far as media-watcher Tom Rosenstiel is concerned, this case will make prosecutors even more likely to compel journalists to testify. If they do – as a veritable parade of reporters did during the Libby trial – that could mean fewer whistle-blowers coming forward in the future.

"A source with confidential information is going to see this and say, 'All I saw in the Libby case is that all of you reporters testified,' " Rosenstiel told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Read full post…

If you've been a follower of the Libby trial drama over the past several weeks, you'll know that searching for a jury became a particularly thorny problem along the way. That's because in a Washington-based trial that cuts through the intersection of media and politics, everyone seemed to have some connection to a person involved with the case.

As it turns out, however, one juror ended up being particularly useful to the media. Denis Collins, a journalist who has written for the Washington Post, among other papers, outside of the courthouse immediately following the verdict to provide a detailed account of the jury's deliberations and answer questions from reporters.

For a trial that has garnered so much media attention, that's a rare and valuable bonus.

CBS producer Deirdre Hester, who has covered the trial from the beginning, told us that Collins' statements were "absolutely" helpful to journalists in reporting the story.

"I think the jurors were well aware of the tremendous interest from the media," she said. "Collins said the other jurors did not feel comfortable coming out and talking."

But Collins felt an obligation as a journalist to share details with reporters about deliberations. "He said because of his profession he 'didn't think he could just walk away and not say anything,'" said Hester.

In the race for the White House, it isn't just the candidates who are getting press attention. In the past few days, Rudy Giuliani's children – from whom the former New York City mayor is apparently estranged -- have grabbed headlines. At least one reporter has mixed feelings about covering candidates' kids. Writes Time correspondent Karen Tumulty on the magazine's Swampland blog:

I've gotta admit I feel torn about this one. On the one hand, I'm not all that comfortable with writing about a politician's children. (Whatever else you say about the MSM during the Clinton years, it pretty much--with some notable exceptions--left Chelsea alone.) And given the stakes of this election, personal dramas really should take a back seat to big issues.

But then again, you can't discount that there is an interesting political situation here for the guy who is leading in the polls. As the NYT points out--and has a slide show to prove it--Rudy's children have been a big asset in his political career in the past. Family values, and how you live them, have an important place in Republican primary politics. And for both of his leading opponents, their children are an important part of the message. McCain's support of the war has more poignance because of the fact that his son signed up to serve. And Romney's family--five handsome sons, married to beautiful wives--could be a poster for functionality.

The New York Times' blog The Lede highlights an interesting tidbit from a story out of Afghanistan that generated headlines this weekend. Fleeing and ambush, U.S. Marines "opened fire on civilian cars and pedestrians on a busy highway in eastern Afghanistan, wounded Afghans said," according to the AP. "Up to 16 people were killed and 34 wounded in the violence." A suicide car bomb had gone off and militants fired on an American convoy, which returned fire.

Following the incident, freelance photographers working for the AP were taking pictures when "a U.S. soldier deleted their photos and video showing a four-wheel drive vehicle in which three people were shot to death about 100 yards from the suicide bombing." The photographers said the soldier told them that they didn't have permission to take photographs.

A U.S. military spokesman said he did not have any confirmed reports that coalition forces "have been involved in confiscating cameras or deleting images," writes the AP.

The AP "plans to lodge a protest with the American military."