All Blog Posts from Public Eye

CBS White House correspondent Jim Axelrod – you might remember him as the fellow labeled "defeatist" by then-White House press secretary Tony Snow – was involved in another tense exchange last week, this time with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

According to the Examiner article "Pelosi, Reid Take On Reporter":

CBS White House reporter Jim Axelrod mentioned to Pelosi that, come November 2008, the number of American troops in Iraq likely will be the same as in November 2006, when Democrats were swept into power. Then, he asked, “How do you view your stewardship of Congress as anything other than a failure to make the president change course?”

Pelosi was instantly taken aback. “What a lovely objective question on the part of the press!” she remarked.

And the blog world exploded with headlines like "Pelosi Shocked by CBS's 'Failure' Hardball from the Left ..." and "Nancy Pelosi Accuses Reporter of Bias"

Read full post…

A few weeks back, Public Eye sat down with CBS White House correspondent Jim Axelrod in the wake of his testy back-and-forth with White House Press Secretary Tony Snow. Snow had implied that Axelrod was a “defeatist” during a press briefing.

I thought it was tough enough on a journalist to defend oneself from an accusation from the White House’s spokesman. But you know what’s tougher? Getting singled out in print.

Late yesterday afternoon, the White House put out an entire press release calling out one reporter’s coverage of the White House stance on border patrol. The press release, one of their “SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT” series (all caps was their idea), began with the following passage:

The Washington Times inaccurately claims National Guard troops assigned to the U.S.-Mexico Border under Operation Jump Start are "being pulled off the line a year earlier than promised." (Jerry Seper, "Guard Troops Pulled Back From Border," The Washington Times, 8/9/07)

Read full post…

A testy exchange popped up this week in the new White House Briefing Room between Tony Snow and CBS News' chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod. Public Eye reached out to Axelrod for his insight on the incident.

On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and I engaged in an exchange that sparked some interest. The subject was political support for the President on Iraq coming on the heels of several Republican defections. To set a baseline for the questions, I asked Tony if in his view Republican support was eroding. He said he wasn't sure. We then had this exchange:

Read full post…

It's Thursday, and that means it's time for the Public Eye Chat. This week's subject is CBS News White House Correspondent Jim Axelrod.

Matthew Felling: It seems like the ‘gaggle’ exists in an old school media vacuum, as opposed to the afternoon briefing, with all the cameras present. Are there completely different moods? Are there different tones of voice used in the morning as opposed to the afternoon?

Jim Axelrod: Well, [Clinton Press Secretary] Mike McCurry famously said that the biggest mistake he made was allowing the briefings to be televised. They used to be just to be for a minute or two and then the cameras would be off. But with the televised nature of the briefing, I don’t think now that the gaggle is “old school,” I think the briefings sometimes become show business because everybody knows it’s on television. It generates a lot of heat, but I’m not sure how much light.

The gaggle is often a much better source for actual information, primarily because there’s no camera on. You can tape record comments and trancscribe them later. And I don’t want to say that they’re informal or casual, but they’re more relaxed in the sense of ‘performance’ that sometimes accompanies the briefing which is not always to the process’ benefit. If the process is getting information to the public, than I’m not sure the briefing is always the best way to do that. The gaggle often yields more.

Read full post…

On Friday, the "Evening News" opened with Katie Couric saying this:

"Tonight, he's on his way out. Sources tell CBS News it's just a matter of time now before the Attorney General gets fired."

After the opening, Couric reiterated that "sources are telling CBS News tonight that…the president will soon be forced to let his longtime friend and colleague go."

In his report on the matter, White House correspondent Jim Axelrod said "sources also say it is now inevitable Gonzales will be fired."

Over the weekend, Howard Kurtz, citing Axelrod's report, asked this: "Should journalists be predicting that Gonzales might go, based on a single or two unnamed sources?"

I talked to Axelrod about his report. Was he concerned, I wondered, about basing the report on anonymous sources that could have ulterior motives? After all, a high-profile report such as this could increase pressure on the attorney general or be used by interested parties for political cover.

"Absolutely," said Axelrod. "Those are very important concerns to have. You can't ignore that. But if the same sources have been very supportive of the president and the administration in the past, if these are sources that have made arguments that what the administration is doing is appropriate on other issues, it raises your flag."

Axelrod stressed that his comments apply only to his piece, and not to the way the story was addressed elsewhere in the broadcast. I've reached out to "Evening News" Executive Producer Rick Kaplan to discuss the issue, and will update this post if and when I hear from him.

When it comes to something like this, Axelrod said, "you never take one source and report on that – it has to be double sourced at least."

"All I'm doing is telling you what they're saying inside," he added. "I'm reporting what the sense is out of the White House."

On last night's "Evening News," White House Correspondent Jim Axelrod used two different terms to describe the Bush administration's proposed increase in troop levels in Iraq. First Axelrod said this: "And when the President calls for an escalation in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, he'll be going against what voters said they wanted last November, and what the new Democratic leaders in Congress say they want right now."

And, later, this: "The President may not see the midterm elections as a call to withdraw troops, but Gordon Smith, the Republican Senator who's critical of a surge, met with President Bush today, and says the President understands exactly what's at stake now."

Notice the difference? In the first sentence, Axelrod talked about an escalation in troop numbers, while in the second he mentioned a surge. The difference is more than just a matter of semantics – the language used to describe an initiative can have a real impact on how it is received by the public. (What would you prefer: A massive tax hike or temporary refund adjustment?)

The term "surge" is favored by Republicans, and it has largely caught on – though when used by outlets like the Washington Post, The New Republic and Salon, it usually comes with scare quotes. (In those outlets, it's a troop "surge," not a troop surge.)

Democrats, meanwhile, are pushing the term "escalation." Check out Nancy Pelosi on Sunday's "Face The Nation": "But escalation of the war is opposed by the Democrats." "What is there for an escalation? What is the justification for that?" "The generals on the ground have said that the escalation, the increased number of troops going into Iraq will not be effective." Needless to say, Pelosi didn't utter the word "surge."

I asked Axelrod about his use of the two terms. He told me he looked both up in the dictionary and found each to be relevant. "I think this is an argument that two political parties can have," said Axelrod. "It's our job to talk to a viewer in a way that doesn't carry anybody's water. An escalation is an increase, correct? A surge would be an increase, correct? Politicians can have all the debates they want, it's our responsibility to talk in clear, understandable, not-loaded language."

He added that he was "not interested in political ramifications" of the two terms. "I'm trying to be as true to the definitions in dictionary as possible," he said. "There's no hidden agenda – no wink and a nod."

Read full post…

The relationship between the press and the White House can be seen every day in the briefing room (or temporary briefing room, as the case happens to be), where the press corps meets with Press Secretary Tony Snow. Of late, the gathering has gotten more attention than usual because some think the level of contentiousness has reached a fever pitch. It's been awhile since our own visit to the briefing room, so we decided to ask White House Correspondent Jim Axelrod -- who's there every day, front row – how he approaches the job:

In terms of yielding worthwhile answers -- from Snow or anyone speaking at the podium in the briefing room -- what works and what doesn't?

The presumption in the briefing room is that Tony Snow is there to explain the administration's point of view. That makes him an advocate. Sure, he can tell you facts -- who the President met with that day, what the subject of the week's radio address might be, or where the Bush family will spend Christmas. But the bulk of his job is to explain why the President is doing what he's doing -- and answer questions from reporters who are often trying to glean more information than the White House wants to share.

I generally have one chance to ask a question or a series of questions at the briefing. I know that if I ask a question like, "so what's the President's new way forward in Iraq?" it's not going to yield much. They'll announce that when they are ready, and not a moment before. However, I can ask questions designed to peel back a layer or two of the onion. For instance, yesterday I asked if the White House is factoring in the feelings of the American people in devising a new strategy. Either answer is going to provide a little better sense of how the process of crafting a new way forward is unfolding. That's all I try to do.

Read full post…

It’s the biggest news of the day: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted terrorist in Iraq, has been killed, which is certainly good news. Interestingly, the White House is taking a somewhat different approach in discussing this news from Iraq than it has in the past, according to Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times:

Mr. Bush was careful to speak in measured tones this morning, when he announced the news at a hastily called 7:30 a.m. announcement in the Rose Garden.

“Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues,” Mr. Bush said, speaking somberly and betraying no elation. “We can expect the terrorists and insurgents to carry on without him. We can expect the sectarian violence to continue.”

Speaking with White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, Rutenberg offers some insight into the White House's strategy in handling the news:

Officials also decided to proceed carefully and not repeat mistakes of the past by referring to the capture as a turning point or an end to violence in Iraq, which is expected to, if anything, increase in recent days.

"There are no delusions that violence will dry up," Mr. Snow said. "We wouldn't be surprised if we saw a spike in violence as those who were Zarqawi's charges say, 'Look, we're still a factor.' "

CBS News White House correspondent Jim Axelrod thought Bush’s announcement had a “a somber tone, reflecting on a serious event.” But he didn’t notice anything particularly significant about the way the president made his announcement, “I thought his tone was entirely presidential,” he said. However, Axelrod added that the White House is “extremely careful in how they handle this. They don’t want to give the impression that happy days are here again.”

Read full post…

Left-leaning media watchdog group Media Matters is criticizing CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Jim Axelrod for mischaracterizing the debate over domestic surveillance in his May 8 "Evening News" report on the forthcoming Senate hearings over Michael Hayden, who has been nominated to become the new CIA director.

Writes Media Matters:

[Axelrod] noted that "[t]he White House believes it wins any time there's a debate on electronic eavesdropping of terrorists and would welcome the grand stage for Hayden to defend" the Bush administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program. However, the debate over the surveillance program is not a question of whether the government can conduct "electronic eavesdropping of terrorists," but rather whether the government can conduct warrantless surveillance of residents of the United States in apparent violation of federal statute.

I asked Axelrod to respond.

"I don't think these are inconsistent points," he said. "Warrantless surveillance is a subset of the general issue. The White House believes anytime the debate turns to electronic eavesdropping, it plays to their advantage."

"I didn't go through every subset of the general topic that I introduced," he continued. "This was a subset of a larger topic. I don't think there's any conflict."

Read full post…

There are few reporting jobs more important, romantic, visible and sometimes downright miserable than the coveted White House correspondent slot. Whether the medium is print, radio, television or even online, covering an administration guarantees a regular place in the paper or on a broadcast. It also comes with more than a fair share of constraints and challenges, however, as information and even physical movement is tightly controlled. With this morning’s announcement by CBS News that Jim Axelrod will soon be taking the slot of chief White House correspondent for the network, we sought him out to discuss his approach to the job.



Axelrod has been what he called a “bureau correspondent” for the past nine years, a position that has called on him to cover a wide variety of stories, often on very short notice. While he spent time in 2004 covering the presidential election, he has not had a true political beat since reporting on the North Carolina state legislature for WRAL-TV in Raleigh. Saying he is “properly overwhelmed” by the prospect of covering the White House, Axelrod realizes he’s about to go “from zero to a hundred and twenty” in short order.



Asked whether his background was a virtue or handicap, Axelrod said it’s both. “This is more than just reading the paper in the morning, so to that extent, yeah, it’s an overwhelming thing to sort of get up and running,” he said. “On the other hand, I think fresh eyes are always an advantage, especially in journalism. How many times have we heard that whole idea about ‘inside-the-beltway?’ And you know what? I’m not a creature of the beltway, so I think there’s probably some merit, some value” in an outside perspective. “Until I’m completely absorbed by the machine and end up a creature of the beltway, hopefully I’ll be able to maintain a sense of freshness and vision and be able to supply the viewers with a sort of translation.” Axelrod added that he has a competitive mandate in mind as well, saying, “we badly want to be the place where people tune in to find out what’s going on among the network broadcasts. That’s our goal, nothing less.”

Read full post…