All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Coverage of the abortion debate leave the media open to charges of bias and mischaracterization like few others. Take the emotions and beliefs involved, add in some loaded terminology and tricky legal issues, and you’ve got quite a combustible mix on your hands. Are opponents of abortion “pro-life” or “anti-choice?” Is a particular procedure terminating a pregnancy “late-term abortion” or “partial-birth abortion” or something else entirely? What exactly does “health of the mother” mean? What would happen to abortion if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned? Would that mean all abortion would be outlawed?

It’s not easy to lay out a lot of this in a short “Evening News” story, but CBS Correspondent Wyatt Andrews did it as well as possible in his story last night about the Supreme Court decision to hear the case of a “late-term” or “partial-birth” abortion law passed by Congress and struck down by lower courts.

Andrews explained why this decision to hear the case was important news – because of the new makeup of the Court, particularly Associate Justice Samuel Alito who replaced traditional swing vote Sandra Day O’Connor. He explained what was prohibited by the law and the primary reason that the law has been struck down in the past – because it does not include an exception for the health of the mother. He interviewed a co-sponsor of the bill, Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) who explained why that provision was not included in the law – because supporters believe “health of the mother” could mean virtually anything.

Read full post…

Upon opening up our PE in-box this morning, a series of e-mails immediately caught my eye. I noticed them quickly because they were all from the same address and they included links to stories about CBS. Both came from Newsbusters, the blog of the conservative media watchdog group, the Media Research Center. And both linked to posts regarding words used on CBS News programs to describe stories in the news.



In the first instance, it seems Newsbusters is disturbed by CBS’ use of the words “domestic spying” to describe the Bush Administration’s use of the NSA to eavesdrop on conversations:

“It’s been apparent since the story broke about President Bush’s terrorism surveillance program that the media wanted to frame the debate as ‘domestic spying’ and warrantless wiretaps, and nowhere has this been more clear than on CBS’s 'The Early Show' this morning [1/24]. In the span of 9 minutes, there were two stories regarding the subject, and four mentions of or references to this topic.”

President Bush has a different way of describing the program, calling it a “terrorist surveillance program.” Both can be seen as accurate in their own ways, although to this point the majority of the media have used the “domestic spying” angle. What critics object to is the NSA listening into conversations between people in this country (presumably including U.S. citizens) and people overseas (say, Iraq or Afghanistan) that raise suspicions of terrorist activities. Critics claim this breaks the law because the NSA does not seek warrants, either before or after, from a court. Supporters say that if someone on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan is calling someone in New York or Washington, it’s probably a damned good idea to find out what they’re talking about.

Read full post…

Joe Biden wants to scrap Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees, a thought that has occurred to more than a few of us who've watched this week's Samuel Alito snoozefest.



"Nominees now, Democrat and Republican nominees, come before the United States Congress and resolve not to let the people know what they think about the important issues," said Biden, adding, "The system's kind of broken."



Not that Biden isn't playing a role of his own: Richard Cohen devotes a whole column today to his bloviating during the hearings. "The New York Times had Biden out on Page One -- normally a position to kill for -- only this time it was not a paean to his considerable merits, but an account of how it took him nearly three minutes of throat-clearing to ask his first question and then took the rest of his allocated 30 minutes just to get in four more," he writes. (Dana Milbank of the Post noted that Biden "spoke about his own Irish American roots, his 'Grandfather Finnegan,' his son's application to Princeton [he attended the University of Pennsylvania instead, Biden said], a speech the senator gave on the Princeton campus, the fact that Biden is 'not a Princeton fan,' and his views on the eyeglasses of Sen. Dianne Feinstein.")



In an editorial, USA Today (which noted that "Biden engaged in a rambling, self-indulgent soliloquy") wrote that "[e]nough senatorial hot air was expelled to fill blimps from sea to shining sea" during the hearings. The paper noted phony questions (Orrin Hatch: "Are you against women and minorities attending college?") and "questions" that were pointedly not for the nominee (Lindsey Graham: "This is really not about you, so you don't have to listen. I'm talking to other people right now.")

Read full post…

Think the thrilling Senate hearings featuring Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito is burning up the blogosphere? In some circles perhaps but overall, not so much. A quick glance at Technorati shows that new products announced by Apple are getting by far the most attention. Included in the top ten most-searched topics on blogs: Macbook (1), Macworld (2), Macbook Pro (4), Apple (8) and Iweb (9). The only Supreme Court-related term on the list: Alito (7). Given the predictable course of the hearings thus far, should we be surprised?

Read full post…

Forget about the politics surrounding the Fox News Channel’s refusal to air an ad in opposition to Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for a moment and think of the possibilities if this should start a trend. FNC says they have rejected the ad because it is “factually incorrect.” Let that sink in for just a second – factually incorrect.



Why, this approach could lead to a revolution in advertising. “Closest shave ever?” I don’t think so. “New and improved?” Ha! “The best a man can get?” Whatever. “Tastes great, less filling?” Than what, a can of rocks? Two simple words could help rid us of such tiresome slogans – factually incorrect.



Okay, maybe that’s a little too much to hope for but it is slightly encouraging that a TV network would insist at least the political advertising it accepts stick to the facts. If that trend were to ever catch on perhaps we could get some of these slimy ads out of our national discourse. Now let’s see how broadly it’s applied.

Read full post…

CBS News White House correspondent John Roberts asked Public Eye to post this in response to the many comments and discussion about his earlier apology.

After reading some of the posted comments in response to my apology, I remain deeply troubled and wanted to take a moment to try to clear this situation up.



I can assure you that in no way did I intend to use the phrase 'sloppy seconds' in either a sexual connotation or a pejorative way. Rather, I was thinking 'second choice' - or 'second best'. If Harriet Miers was the "best person for the job" - then - where did that leave Alito? It was a poor choice of words, for which I am deeply sorry.



Many posters seem to think that it is indicative of an 'agenda' or 'reveals my true thinking' about the White House. That is simply not the case. I goofed. And I freely admit it. The words had barely escaped my lips when I cringed and thought 'oops - that was a stupid thing to say'.



Again, the forum was informal and is never broadcast, so I my linguistic guard was down. I uttered a phrase that is used colloquially these days to describe a number of situations. At no time did the sexual connotation ever enter my mind, but I agree, it has no place at the White House.



I have offered my apologies to Scott McClellan, and he has graciously accepted. Scott and I have a good working relationship and he is confident that I meant nothing untoward.



And I offer a humble apology to anyone who took offense upon reading the text of my question. Journalists must be held to high standards, and in this case, I fell short.



You can be confident that it will not happen again.



With highest regards,



John Roberts
Chief White House Correspondent
CBS News

Read full post…

Today's nomination unleashed a host of predictable reactions from the usual suspects in the form of the ever-powerful, mass e-mailed press release. Reaction from the blogosphere offered similarly expected predictions of partisan armageddon.

The Moderate Voice sees a not-so-moderate reaction from Democrats:

Bush has now fulfilled an oft-stated promise to conservatives and other Americans who voted for him for a direction-change in the court.

But Alito's nomination is certain to spark a vigorous battle from Democrats since his solid conservative credentials mean the days of the O'Connor swing vote on the court are now over.

Kevin Drum predicts partisan warfare:

No stealth candidate this time.

The movement conservatives wanted a war, and this time they've probably gotten one. I guess Bush was itching for revenge after Scooter Libby got indicted.

Read full post…

A question posed to White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan at this morning’s “gaggle” by CBS White House correspondent John Roberts has attracted quite a bit of chatter on the Internet. Of course, the topic of the day is the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito, and the question from Roberts, was, “Scott, you said that – or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?”



Public Eye asked Roberts about the incident and reaction and here’s what he said:

“At the morning White House gaggle, I used an unfortunate choice of words in a question to Scott McClellan. Please be assured that there was no pejorative intent to my question. I was merely attempting to reconcile past statements about Harriet Miers with the President's new nominee for the Supreme Court.



The early morning White House gaggle is an informal, free-wheeling and often irreverent forum, which is not broadcast and generally not publicly available.



Obviously, my tone this morning was a little too casual.



As we all experience from time to time, it was one of those 'oops' moments which we wish we could rewind and re-record.



I apologize to anyone who took offense to my poor choice of words. I can assure you I meant none."

UPDATE: Roberts also apologized to McClellan at the more formal, on-camera press briefing this afternoon. Following a back-and-forth between McClellan and NBC correspondent David Gregory, in which the press secretary mentioned there was no need to be rude, it was Roberts' turn to ask a question. He said:

"Scott, on the subject of rude, my apologies for my unfortunate choice of words this morning to you."

Read full post…

Reporters looking to take the temperature of various power centers for the upcoming battle over Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito are going to have a pretty easy day today. Unlike the topsy-turvy aftermath of Harriet Miers’ initial announcement – when Democratic leader Harry Reid praised the nomination and some conservative quarters balked immediately – this morning’s announcement was rolled out and received in a much more predictable manner.



Already a flood of reaction has poured into our inboxes from the usual suspects. Planned Parenthood “Opposes Nomination of Judge Alito.” Concerned Women for America “expressed its wholehearted support.” People For the American Way says “President Bush put the demands of his far-right political base above Americans’ constitutional rights and legal protections by nominating” Alito.



The President and Alito both spoke early this morning, ensuring coverage on the morning shows and all day today on cable news channels, talk radio and the blogosphere. By noon, we’re likely to have a photo-op of the nominee with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and pictures of them paying tribute to the late Civil Rights legend Rosa Parks, who’s casket sits in the Capitol Rotunda today. You can almost write the evening news stories, chart the talk show circuit and read tomorrow’s headlines already.



It’s all part of the constant campaign, which author Lewis Gould smartly wrote about in a Washington Post “Outlook” essay yesterday:

“There is an old theatrical adage that tragedy is easy, comedy is hard. For politicians, that could be reformulated as: Campaigning is easy, governing is hard. The Bush administration, long disdainful of governance as an exercise for wimps and Democrats, now finds its political and legal troubles mounting while its time-tested campaign mode falters.”

This morning’s Alito rollout suggests the campaign continues.


UPDATED: Blogs react to Alito nomination.

Read full post…