All Blog Posts from Public Eye

How do you cover the back-and-forth over a story that hasn't come out?

That was the question political journalists were trying to answer yesterday, thanks to a story on the Drudge Report suggesting that the New York Times was investigating Sen. John McCain for alleged legislative favoritism.

The Drudge story did not get into the details of what might be in the Times' as-yet-unpublished report, leaving political reporters scratching their heads over its potential significance. It did suggest that McCain was lobbying the Times not to publish the story, which allegedly "involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation."

The CBSNews.com political unit, of which I am a part, would have simply monitored the story if it had begun and ended with Drudge. But McCain decided to publicly comment on the report, denying that the allegations and saying he had "never done any favors for anybody — lobbyist or special interest group." His campaign communications director suggested the story was part of a "smear campaign." Washington lawyer Bob Bennett, who said McCain had hired him to address the allegations, called the situation an "outrage."

And suddenly a story that might have passed more-or-less unnoticed in mainstream media – at least until the Times report came out – became a legitimate subject.

Numerous news outlets, including the Washington Post and USA Today, covered McCain's comments, and I wrote a post about it for one of our political blogs, Horserace.

It's difficult to know why McCain decided to address the Drudge piece, when he easily could have declined to comment and taken little heat for doing so. (The Times wasn't talking.) His advisors initially would not discuss it, according to the Post, "fearing that would open the door for news organizations to write about what his advisers regard as a non-story."

If McCain has become convinced that the Times story is going to come out eventually, he may have been trying to get out in front of it. Or he may simply have become frustrated over a story that he feels is bogus. The report comes at a difficult time for McCain – just two weeks before the Iowa caucuses, with his campaign showing the kind of momentum that has pundits speculating that he could be the last Republican standing. Like Mike Huckabee before him (addressing the Wayne DuMond case), he complained about the timing of the negative report, surfacing as it did just as his campaign appeared to be on the upswing.

Read full post…

How do you cover the back-and-forth over a story that hasn't come out?

That was the question political journalists were trying to answer yesterday, thanks to a story on the Drudge Report suggesting that the New York Times was investigating Sen. John McCain for alleged legislative favoritism.

The Drudge story did not get into the details of what might be in the Times' as-yet-unpublished report, leaving political reporters scratching their heads over its potential significance. It did suggest that McCain was lobbying the Times not to publish the story, which allegedly "involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation."

The CBSNews.com political unit, of which I am a part, would have simply monitored the story if it had begun and ended with Drudge. But McCain decided to publicly comment on the report, denying that the allegations and saying he had "never done any favors for anybody — lobbyist or special interest group." His campaign communications director suggested the story was part of a "smear campaign." Washington lawyer Bob Bennett, who said McCain had hired him to address the allegations, called the situation an "outrage."

And suddenly a story that might have passed more-or-less unnoticed in mainstream media – at least until the Times report came out – became a legitimate subject.

Numerous news outlets, including the Washington Post and USA Today, covered McCain's comments, and I wrote a post about it for one of our political blogs, Horserace.

It's difficult to know why McCain decided to address the Drudge piece, when he easily could have declined to comment and taken little heat for doing so. (The Times wasn't talking.) His advisors initially would not discuss it, according to the Post, "fearing that would open the door for news organizations to write about what his advisers regard as a non-story."

If McCain has become convinced that the Times story is going to come out eventually, he may have been trying to get out in front of it. Or he may simply have become frustrated over a story that he feels is bogus. The report comes at a difficult time for McCain – just two weeks before the Iowa caucuses, with his campaign showing the kind of momentum that has pundits speculating that he could be the last Republican standing. Like Mike Huckabee before him (addressing the Wayne DuMond case), he complained about the timing of the negative report, surfacing as it did just as his campaign appeared to be on the upswing.

Read full post…

How do you cover the back-and-forth over a story that hasn't come out?

That was the question political journalists were trying to answer yesterday, thanks to a story on the Drudge Report suggesting that the New York Times was investigating Sen. John McCain for alleged legislative favoritism.

The Drudge story did not get into the details of what might be in the Times' as-yet-unpublished report, leaving political reporters scratching their heads over its potential significance. It did suggest that McCain was lobbying the Times not to publish the story, which allegedly "involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation."

The CBSNews.com political unit, of which I am a part, would have simply monitored the story if it had begun and ended with Drudge. But McCain decided to publicly comment on the report, denying that the allegations and saying he had "never done any favors for anybody — lobbyist or special interest group." His campaign communications director suggested the story was part of a "smear campaign." Washington lawyer Bob Bennett, who said McCain had hired him to address the allegations, called the situation an "outrage."

And suddenly a story that might have passed more-or-less unnoticed in mainstream media – at least until the Times report came out – became a legitimate subject.

Numerous news outlets, including the Washington Post and USA Today, covered McCain's comments, and I wrote a post about it for one of our political blogs, Horserace.

It's difficult to know why McCain decided to address the Drudge piece, when he easily could have declined to comment and taken little heat for doing so. (The Times wasn't talking.) His advisors initially would not discuss it, according to the Post, "fearing that would open the door for news organizations to write about what his advisers regard as a non-story."

If McCain has become convinced that the Times story is going to come out eventually, he may have been trying to get out in front of it. Or he may simply have become frustrated over a story that he feels is bogus. The report comes at a difficult time for McCain – just two weeks before the Iowa caucuses, with his campaign showing the kind of momentum that has pundits speculating that he could be the last Republican standing. Like Mike Huckabee before him (addressing the Wayne DuMond case), he complained about the timing of the negative report, surfacing as it did just as his campaign appeared to be on the upswing.

Read full post…

From CBS News' Andante Higgins

HAMPSTEAD, N.H. -- John McCain responded today to the reports that the CIA destroyed interrogation tapes.

"I don't think they should have destroyed those tapes," McCain said at a news conference here. "It will harm the credibility of the CIA, in my view. And I wish they had listened to members of Congress who said they should not do so."

Read full post…

Let me say it one more time for the cheap seats.

Dear Presidential Candidates: You’re always on camera.

Last year we had a Senate candidate lose his momentum because of an insult he uttered. An insult that was recorded and uploaded online, of course.

Now we’ve got a presidential candidate hit a political speed bump because of – and get this – not something he said, but something that was said to him that he didn’t challenge, rebut or otherwise criticize.

Read full post…

Once is an anecdote. Twice raises an eyebrow. Three times, and you’ve spotted a trend.

Could we be two-thirds of the way there with Fox News Channel and the Giuliani campaign?

Back in August, the cozy relationship between Fox News Channel head Roger Ailes and Rudy Giuliani was discussed in this space. Ailes ran Giuliani’s mayoral campaign in 1989, you see, so it was curious that Fox was giving Rudy a lot more airtime (25 percent) than any of his competitors in the GOP.

And this past week had the story of how the network barred John McCain from using footage of him participating in a Fox News Channel debate, but not being so strict with a certain former mayor of New York City.

Yesterday, Fox News lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to John McCain's campaign, demanding that he halt use of a new ad that uses footage from the Fox-sponsored GOP debate on Oct. 21. Fox is alleging copyright infringement. McCain's campaign is refusing Fox's demand.

What's amusing, though, is that if you head over to Rudy Giuliani's campaign web site, you find that it is absolutely festooned with Fox News footage. It even prominently features footage from the very same debate that Fox is demanding McCain yank down from his site.

Read full post…

"If she were escorted by a hundred armed American soldiers, with Blackhawks and Apaches overhead, my gosh even Paris Hilton could probably ride a bicycle in a bikini through Anbar province and get through the other side.”

--NBC Iraq correspondent Tom Aspell, speaking about John McCain's high-security visit to a Baghdad market on "The Imus Show." McCain has been criticized for his comments about the level of safety in Baghdad, among them the claim that "[t]here are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today."

On CNN's "Late Edition," John McCain said "[t]here are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today."

That prompted a pretty jarring "Reporter's Notebook" from CBS News correspondent Allen Pizzey in Baghdad, who's been on a roll lately. He writes that "perhaps there ought to at least be a rule that says no one should be allowed to seek [the job of president] unless they demonstrate a grasp of reality greater than the reach of their own ambitions." Then comes the not-so-subtle sarcasm:

By an unofficial count, there have been seven major explosions in Baghdad so far today, at least some of them car bombs.

There was, however, some good news, at least in the context of Iraq. The U.S. military reported that only one of two truck bombs used in attacks on Iraqi and American forces in Falluja contained chlorine. And things could improve. It is only one p.m. local time as this is being written.

Pizzey finishes with this:

"For Senator McCain to claim there are places here where all is well is to woefully minimize the dangers faced by the troops he otherwise so admirably supports…Any time Senator McCain wants to walk the streets of Baghdad, unarmed and without a serious security detail, we'd be glad to lend him a camera so he can record his experience."

Read the whole thing here.