All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Digging through the crates this week to just the sixth episode of "60 Minutes" that ever aired -- before it was even 400 minutes old -- back on December 12, 1968.

An international negotiator observes that “Divided countries are very difficult to bring together.”

Shoplifters are ruining the Christmas season, back in the days before Christmas was under attack.

Some football players play dirty.(?!)

(Click on the video box to watch.)

Before they made news, Mike Wallace and Dr. Jack Kevorkian made waves.

The image of the “60 Minutes” correspondent and “Dr. Death” embracing upon Kevorkian’s release from prison Friday was beamed up on the web within minutes of its occurrence and spread like wildfire, immediately raising questions about credibility and objectivity – including inside this writer’s head.

After all, isn’t this the “cozying up” problem that pops up in concerns about embedded reporters and the White House Correspondents Dinner? Particularly in light of Mike Wallace’s favorable quote about Kevorkian in a USA Today interview last year:

”He's a decent and compassionate man who tried to help people get out of the suffering of their lives," says Wallace, whose interview showed Kevorkian ending a patient's life. That piece was used as evidence that sent Kevorkian to jail. Prison officials have refused to allow Wallace to see Kevorkian; Wallace says Kevorkian's incarceration amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment."

Read full post…

Earlier this month, "60 Minutes" aired a mostly flattering piece on Redfin, an online real estate company that charges sellers a flat fee of $3,000 instead of a percentage-based commission. You can watch it by clicking on the video box.

The segment, headlined "Chipping Away At Realtors' Six Percent," infuriated many realtors. The National Association of Realtors posted a letter alleging that "60 Minutes" "made several important errors of fact" and complaining that the segment neglected to include NAR voices. "60 Minutes" then posted an Editor's Note in response to the letter, which now appears at the top of the Web version of the story. (Things get a lot more complicated from there; for more check out NAR's links to the back-and-forth between their representatives and "60 Minutes" producer Richard Bonin.)

And that, ladies and gentleman, is just for starters. As John Cook noted, NAR President Pat Combs called the segment "a shoddy news report" – and then really took the gloves off:

"Believe it or not there is still a Flat Earth Society whose members still argue that the Earth is not round. And there are those who will believe what they saw on '60 Minutes.' That is the bad news. The good news is that expectations based on false information eventually unravel, especially in a world where you can access information so easily."

That's not even the most notable response to the piece, however. That distinction belongs to Point2 Technologies, which Cook notes is "a Saskatoon, Canada company that sells online sales and marketing tools to real estate agents." The company produced a parody of the "60 Minutes" piece called "16 Minutes," and then, naturally, posted it on YouTube.

Featuring "Lesley Stool" in the form of a man in a blond wig, it presents Redfin customers as moronic and suggests that "60 Minutes" portrayed the company in a positive light despite facts suggesting otherwise. You can click on over to YouTube to watch Point2's effort. It's amateurish, unfunny, and not particularly convincing, but, if only as an example of our brave new world of media criticism, it's still something to see.

This is pretty cool: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer got its hands on the talking points put out by the National Association of Realtors instructing real estate professionals how to handle questions arising from last night's "60 Minutes" piece on the real estate industry. Click on the PDF link to check it out.

The document reads in part: "Bottom line is that we don't expect that the segment will make Realtors happy but it could have been much, much worse. Be glad that it is Mother's Day and the show will probably draw fewer than its average 14 million viewers."

In case you haven't watched the segment and are curious about the tone, consider the headline on the Web version: "Chipping Away At Realtors' Six Percent." You can watch the full segment by clicking on the video box.

It would have been a surprise if last night's "60 Minutes" profile of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his family hadn't generated some criticism directed towards CBS News. But I must admit I did not anticipate the outrage in some quarters that greeted interviewer Mike Wallace's decision to question Romney about whether he'd had pre-marital sex. We are living in a post-Starr Report era, after all.

And yet:

"Must everything be about sex – or at least have a sexual component – these days?" asked Carol Platt Liebau at the conservative Townhall.com. "Remarkably, in the course of an interview for '60 Minutes,' Mike Wallace actually had the nerve to ask presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney whether he and his wife had engaged in premarital sex."

The American Daily, also conservative, called the question "so utterly rude it isn’t even funny."

Romney, of course, is a Mormon, a religion with strict rules against pre-marital sex. I can understand the objections to Wallace's question to some degree – one's sex life shouldn't automatically become fair play just because one is running for president.

At the same time, there was a journalistic justification for asking the question: Romney's answer, in theory anyway, could go to how serious of a Mormon he really is. And Romney's Mormonism is an issue for many voters.

In the interest of fairness, here's the counter-argument from Liebau: "It’s ludicrous to assert that Mormonism’s strict prohibition on premarital sex brought the question 'in bounds,' given that Romney is the first Mormon to run for President. The Catholic Church likewise frowns on premarital sex. Is anyone planning to ask the Giulianis the same question? Of course not."

(Incidentally, Romney's response to Wallace's query was this: "No, I'm sorry. We don’t get into those things. The answer is no.")

While we're on the topic of objections to the interview, let's go to Dean Barnett, another conservative, who objected to Wallace talking to Romney's sons about their decision not to enter the military. He writes:

Read full post…

The most awkward moment by far in last night's "60 Minutes" came right after Lesley Stahl's profile of Lou Dobbs wrapped up. Addressing the audience, Stahl announced this: "While we were talking to Dobbs, unbeknownst to us, he was talking to CBS News and has now joined 'The Early Show' as a weekly commentator."

Seeing as Stahl had just spent part of the segment questioning Dobbs' journalistic credentials, it was a startling admission, at least for those who haven't been following Dobbs' arrival at CBS News. But it was also a necessary one, and "60 Minutes" clearly did the right thing by disclosing the CNN host's connections to CBS News.

In the piece, Dobbs calls himself an "advocacy journalist," a concept Stahl presses him on. Here's that portion of the transcript:

STAHL: I'm sitting here saying to myself, `This man runs a news show?'

Mr. DOBBS: Hmm. I do.

STAHL: And you can just tell me you don't like the president. Whoo.

Mr. DOBBS: I, matter of fact, insist that the audience know where I come from.

STAHL: What about fair and balanced?

Mr. DOBBS: I've never, Lesley, found the truth to be fair and balanced. I found it to be...

STAHL: But that's--but wait, what's the definition of "journalism?" That that's in there.

Mr. DOBBS: I...

STAHL: That has to be part of what a journalist is, is fair and balanced.

Mr. DOBBS: I truly believe there's a nonpartisian, independent reality. But more of the same...

STAHL: But it's your reality.

Mr. DOBBS: It is my reality.

STAHL: But it's not the reality.

Mr. DOBBS: Well, how so?

(Footage of Dobbs)

STAHL: (Voiceover) Dobbs scoffs at suggestions that his advocacy tarnishes his credentials as a journalist.

Mr. DOBBS: The idea that a reporter should be disqualified because he or she actually cares, actually isn't neutral about the well-being of the country and its people, that's absurd.

I'm hesitant to just dash off a couple lines about this – the debate over what makes a "journalist" is about as old as journalism itelf, and its an issue that deserves a more thorough treatment than I can give it here. But I wanted to post this and see if anyone wanted to weigh in on Dobbs definition of journalism, which one might also apply to people like Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, and even jailed blogger Josh Wolf.

The question, I think, is this: Should journalists try to overcome their natural biases and present some semblance of an objective reality? Or are they better off embracing those biases and bringing their own reality, as Dobbs does, to their audience?

Last Sunday, "60 Minutes" ran a piece "On How France Is Becoming The Model For Nuclear Energy Generation."

Media watchdog group FAIR has objected to the piece on the grounds that it amounted to nuclear-power boosterism. The thrust of the objection was that "60 Minutes" did not provide a balanced argument – that "the program spoke only to nuclear power supporters (in France and elsewhere), thereby allowing their rhetoric to go unchallenged."

I asked "60 Minutes" Producer Frank Devine, who produced the piece, to respond to FAIR's complaint.

"We were not debating nuclear power in this piece," said Devine. "This was a piece on the French approach. It was not to look at nuclear power, pro or con. God knows we're aware of the shortcomings in nuclear power. [Correspondent] Steve Kroft has done two pieces from inside Chernobyl. I worked with him on a piece on security problems at U.S. power plants after Sept. 11."

"You really have to look at '60' over the course of 30 whatever years it is," he continued. "We've covered nuclear power from all sides. You have to take this in context."

Devine said the piece wasn't initially envisioned as one focused on nuclear power. "We set out to do a piece, years ago, on how the French approach differs from ours," he said. It developed into a piece on how French are influencing the U.S. government."

As to the argument that CBS News is pushing nuclear power, Devine said "60 Minutes" wasn't pushing anything – just letting "the deputy secretary of energy have his say and asking 'how has the U.S. been influenced by the French nuclear program?'"

Last Sunday, "60 Minutes" ran a piece "On How France Is Becoming The Model For Nuclear Energy Generation."

Media watchdog group FAIR has objected to the piece on the grounds that it amounted to nuclear-power boosterism. The thrust of the objection was that "60 Minutes" did not provide a balanced argument – that "the program spoke only to nuclear power supporters (in France and elsewhere), thereby allowing their rhetoric to go unchallenged."

I asked "60 Minutes" Producer Frank Devine, who produced the piece, to respond to FAIR's complaint.

"We were not debating nuclear power in this piece," said Devine. "This was a piece on the French approach. It was not to look at nuclear power, pro or con. God knows we're aware of the shortcomings in nuclear power. [Correspondent] Steve [Kroft] has done two pieces from inside Chernobyl. I worked with him on a piece on security problems at U.S. power plants after Sept. 11."

"You really have to look at '60' over the course of 30 whatever years it is," he continued. "We've covered nuclear power from all sides. You have to take this in context."

Devine said the piece wasn't initially envisioned as one focused on nuclear power. "We set out to do a piece, years ago, on how the French approach differs from ours," he said. "It developed into a piece on how the French are influencing the U.S. government."

As to the argument that CBS News is pushing nuclear power, Devine said "60 Minutes" wasn't pushing anything – just letting "the deputy secretary of energy have his say and asking 'how has the U.S. been influenced by the French nuclear program?'"

A few observations about last night's "60 Minutes":

CBS News made the decision last week not to identify the Duke accuser. So you can imagine my surprise when her name – and picture – made an appearance in last night's lead story. Linda Mason, who explained the initial decision not to reveal the woman's identity, is out this week, and is thus unavailable for comment on the decision to now do so.

The second story last night was a repackaging of an Imus profile from a decade ago, one that again became relevant this week. What was notable here was the decision by the show to use the N-word in a discussion of the host's purported racism. The word also appears in the Web version of the story. We discussed CBS News' policy on airing offensive words here.

Finally, the least sexy story last night was, for me, the most interesting: Bob Simon's piece on the rigorous liberal arts education being offered to serious criminals by Bard College. It was a good news story that remained compelling from start to finish, and if you missed it I strongly suggest you check it out. You can do so by clicking on the video box.

John McCain, who was profiled on "60 Minutes" yesterday, has been heavily criticized for suggesting that "there are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today."

On Friday, "60 Minutes" put out a press release suggesting that McCain would reveal in his interview with Scott Pelley that he "REGRETS HIS REMARKS ON SECURITY IN BAGHDAD, SAYING HE MISSPOKE."

Following the lead of the press release, media outlets have largely treated McCain's comments on "60 Minutes" as an acknowledgment by the senator that he misspoke about the level of safety in Baghdad.

I'm not sure that the interview itself bears out that interpretation, however. Here's the relevant exchange:

PELLEY: You mentioned in an interview that General Petraeus sometimes goes into Baghdad in an unarmored humvee, and that there were neighborhoods you could walk through without being concerned for your safety.

MCCAIN: There is no unarmored humvees, obviously that’s the case. I’m trying to make the point over and over and over again that we are making progress. And there are signs of progress. But it’s long and it’s hard and it’s tough.

PELLEY: You were a little annoyed with yourself, I think.

MCCAIN: Of course I’m going to misspeak and I’ve done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do in the future. I regret that when I divert attention to something that I’ve said from my message but you know that’s just life, and I’m happy with frankly with the way I operate, otherwise it would be a lot less fun.

McCain clearly said he was wrong about the unarmored humvee, but it's unclear, to me at least, whether or not he was trying to back off his much more widely criticized comments about the level of safety in Baghdad.

You can watch the full piece by clicking on the video box.