All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Is opinion journalism poised to replace the “objective” media model? Is that perhaps a good thing? That’s what Michael Kinsley argues at Slate where he looks at the seeming success of Lou Dobbs’ tenacious attack on immigration policy (hat tip, Lost Remote). He makes a good argument but it’s worth remembering that Kinsley has always been in the opinion business:

Abandoning the pretense of objectivity does not mean abandoning the journalist's most important obligation, which is factual accuracy. In fact, the practice of opinion journalism brings additional ethical obligations. These can be summarized in two words: intellectual honesty. Are you writing or saying what you really think? Have you tested it against the available counterarguments? Will you stand by an expressed principle in different situations, when it leads to an unpleasing conclusion? Are you open to new evidence or argument that might change your mind? Do you retain at least a tiny, healthy sliver of a doubt about the argument you choose to make?

Read full post…

We at PE will be the first to admit that media is an industry ever fascinated with itself. For a host of different reasons that many a pundit has deconstructed, the Judy Miller story has been of particular interest to the journalistic navel-gazers everywhere. Tina Brown got it half right when she weighed in on the matter herself yesterday by saying the Judy Miller story has been to Arianna Huffington’s blog “what O.J. Simpson was to cable news.” She’s only half right because that analogy applies not just to the Huffington Post, but every media critic from Chicago to Oregon and every media-attentive blog in between.



Amid all that, it is a rare case when one encounters an interpretation of the situation that actually unearths a rather unique angle. Michael Kinsley has done just that in today’s Washington Post by examining The New York Times’ strange appropriation of its views on First Amendment rights. While the paper says a journalist’s right not to cooperate with law enforcement in order to protect the identity of an anonymous source is upheld by the First Amendment, the contention seems to sit oddly with another of the Times’ views on the clause.

Read full post…

A pair of sentences in Michael Kinsley's Los Angeles Times column yesterday have created a stir in the blogosphere. Here they are:

The TV news networks, which only a few months ago were piously suppressing emotional fireworks by their pundits, are now piously encouraging their news anchors to break out of the emotional straitjackets and express outrage. A Los Angeles Times colleague of mine, appearing on CNN last week to talk about Katrina, was told by a producer to "get angry."

The identity of the mysterious colleague had the blogosphere abuzz – TVNewser wondered, "Who was the LA Times "colleague?" Who was the CNN producer? How often is this happening?" The Drudge Report, meanwhile, reacted to the passage with outrage, complaining that CNN is "coaching guests to artificially enhance emotions!"



We're not looking to beat up on a competitor so early in Public Eye's young life, but a mini-media controversy has raised media issues we feel are important to look at. A quick search of which Los Angeles Times employees have recently appeared on CNN revealed a likely suspect: Jon Healy, the paper’s editorial writer, who showed up on "Paula Zahn Now" on Sept. 2. We called Healy, and he confirmed that he was the mystery colleague. He also fleshed out the story a bit.

Read full post…