Netanyahu's Settlement Two-Step
(AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)
All Blog Posts from Public Eye
Read all 'News' posts in Public Eye
September 8, 2009 12:32 AM On Sept. 6, CBS News.com ran a news item that underscored the textbook definition of chutzpah.
December 21, 2007 12:17 PM 
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The Drudge story did not get into the details of what might be in the Times' as-yet-unpublished report, leaving political reporters scratching their heads over its potential significance.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.
After Drudge Story, McCain Gives Reporters Green Light
(AP)
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.
December 21, 2007 11:56 AM
McCain Drudge
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.
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.
December 21, 2007 11:56 AM
McCain Drudge
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.
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.
December 20, 2007 11:28 AM 
Um, so: Anyone want to interview al Qaeda?
Sky News reports that a new video, perportedly from the terrorist organization, includes an invitation for journalists to interview al Qaeda number two Ayman al Zawahri.
"If genuine, it represents the first such offer by the terror network to interview one of its leaders since the attacks of September 11, 2001," Sky notes.
Zawahri may be trying to cast himself not as a terrorist but a legitimate thinker and organizational head, one who should be treated with respect – a tall order, to say the least. The interview offer seems to be part of al Qaeda's public relations strategy: The organization's videos have gotten increasingly professional, and this week one was released showing "Zawahri in a classic, well-lit TV interview situation."
Interested parties are asked to send written questions to the web forums where al Qaeda's video production division, Al-Sahab, posts messages. (Al-Sahab means "The Clouds" in Arabic.)
Last year, Al-Sahab Media released a video called "An Invitation to Islam: An Al-Sahab Produced Video Featuring Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and Azzam the American AKA Adam Gadahn."
According to a report posted at this discussion forum, "The majority of the video, nearly forty-five minute, features Azzam the American explaining the perceived benefits of Islam over Judaism, Christianity, and other religions, and criticizing Western leaders for their alleged presentation of Islam as barbaric and Muslims as bogeymen."
Here's what Zawahiri reportedly has to say:
“And as our brother Azzam the American talks to you, he talks to you as one concerned about the fate which awaits his people, and as a perceptive person who wants to lead his people our of darkness into the light. So listen to him, because what he is talking to you about is serious and significant. He is talking to you about the fate which awaits every human, an extremely grave issue in which there is no joking, procrastination or backtracking.”
"So, Ayman: What Are You Like Behind Closed Doors?"
(AP)
Sky News reports that a new video, perportedly from the terrorist organization, includes an invitation for journalists to interview al Qaeda number two Ayman al Zawahri.
"If genuine, it represents the first such offer by the terror network to interview one of its leaders since the attacks of September 11, 2001," Sky notes.
Zawahri may be trying to cast himself not as a terrorist but a legitimate thinker and organizational head, one who should be treated with respect – a tall order, to say the least. The interview offer seems to be part of al Qaeda's public relations strategy: The organization's videos have gotten increasingly professional, and this week one was released showing "Zawahri in a classic, well-lit TV interview situation."
Interested parties are asked to send written questions to the web forums where al Qaeda's video production division, Al-Sahab, posts messages. (Al-Sahab means "The Clouds" in Arabic.)
Last year, Al-Sahab Media released a video called "An Invitation to Islam: An Al-Sahab Produced Video Featuring Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and Azzam the American AKA Adam Gadahn."
According to a report posted at this discussion forum, "The majority of the video, nearly forty-five minute, features Azzam the American explaining the perceived benefits of Islam over Judaism, Christianity, and other religions, and criticizing Western leaders for their alleged presentation of Islam as barbaric and Muslims as bogeymen."
Here's what Zawahiri reportedly has to say:
“And as our brother Azzam the American talks to you, he talks to you as one concerned about the fate which awaits his people, and as a perceptive person who wants to lead his people our of darkness into the light. So listen to him, because what he is talking to you about is serious and significant. He is talking to you about the fate which awaits every human, an extremely grave issue in which there is no joking, procrastination or backtracking.”
December 19, 2007 11:09 AM 
As any journalist can tell you, dealing with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) can be enough to make you wish you’d gone into a different line of work.
It all sounds so simple at first: If you want a document or piece of unreleased but legally available information from the U.S. government, you submit a FOIA request. But government agencies are, unsurprisingly, reticent to cooperate with journalists or other individuals seeking information that could make them look bad, so the response is almost never what you’re hoping for.
Instead of a few pages of documents or a neat summary of what you’re looking for, you might face long response times, be offered incomplete documentation, or be told that to pay high fees. You might get buried in so much paper that it becomes extremely difficult to find what you first requested. You might never hear back at all.
Which is why it’s good news that Congress has passed legislation to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act. If the president does not veto the bill, it would mandate that agencies respond to FOIA requests within 20 days – and be punished if they don’t – and create a system for tracking requests, among other innovations.
“Currently, delays, staggering legal fees and mountains of red tape undercut FOIA’s usefulness for citizens and journalists,” David Cuillier of the Society of Professional Journalists in a statement emailed to Public Eye. “This bill is crucial for helping FOIA work better, which in turn, helps democracy work better.”
In recent years, agencies' response time to FOIA requests has decreased, and the Bush administration has not exactly shown a propensity towards making information publicly available. In 2001, for example, President Bush signed an executive order allowing presidents to delay the release of many of their records indefinitely.
It is thus something of an open question whether the president will sign the legislation, which reflects a compromise crafted after the White House and Justice Department objected to some of the details, including restoration of a provision that agencies release information unless they determine it will do harm. (After Sept. 11, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft had instructed agencies to err on the side of not releasing information.) The Associated Press speculates that Mr. Bush might simply ignore the bill, which would have the effect of causing the new rules to go into effect after 10 days.
“This pocket-veto-in-reverse would give Bush some political cover, allowing the FOIA bill to become law without taking the affirmative step of endorsing it,” notes the AP.
Is FOIA Becoming (A Little) Less Frustrating?
(AP)
It all sounds so simple at first: If you want a document or piece of unreleased but legally available information from the U.S. government, you submit a FOIA request. But government agencies are, unsurprisingly, reticent to cooperate with journalists or other individuals seeking information that could make them look bad, so the response is almost never what you’re hoping for.
Instead of a few pages of documents or a neat summary of what you’re looking for, you might face long response times, be offered incomplete documentation, or be told that to pay high fees. You might get buried in so much paper that it becomes extremely difficult to find what you first requested. You might never hear back at all.
Which is why it’s good news that Congress has passed legislation to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act. If the president does not veto the bill, it would mandate that agencies respond to FOIA requests within 20 days – and be punished if they don’t – and create a system for tracking requests, among other innovations.
“Currently, delays, staggering legal fees and mountains of red tape undercut FOIA’s usefulness for citizens and journalists,” David Cuillier of the Society of Professional Journalists in a statement emailed to Public Eye. “This bill is crucial for helping FOIA work better, which in turn, helps democracy work better.”
In recent years, agencies' response time to FOIA requests has decreased, and the Bush administration has not exactly shown a propensity towards making information publicly available. In 2001, for example, President Bush signed an executive order allowing presidents to delay the release of many of their records indefinitely.
It is thus something of an open question whether the president will sign the legislation, which reflects a compromise crafted after the White House and Justice Department objected to some of the details, including restoration of a provision that agencies release information unless they determine it will do harm. (After Sept. 11, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft had instructed agencies to err on the side of not releasing information.) The Associated Press speculates that Mr. Bush might simply ignore the bill, which would have the effect of causing the new rules to go into effect after 10 days.
“This pocket-veto-in-reverse would give Bush some political cover, allowing the FOIA bill to become law without taking the affirmative step of endorsing it,” notes the AP.
December 18, 2007 1:45 PM 
There's a picture over at Wired that you really have to see.
It's of Jorn Barger, the first person to use the word "weblog." Barger coined the term, which has been shortened to the now-ubiquitous "blog," ten years ago yesterday. He used it "to describe the list of links on his Robot Wisdom website that 'logged' his internet wanderings," as Wired puts it.
In the picture, Barger, clad in a blue t-shirt, doesn't exactly look like your office IT geek. He's got a long, scraggly beard, and long tufts of hair shoot out from beneath his ratty "Google" cap. Barger looks like he was working the land in remote mountains somewhere until he gave it all up to get his startup off the ground.
And in terms of a representative of the blogging phenomenon – not to mention the whole internet, really – you couldn't ask for much more.
Think about it: Ten years ago, the truly industrious folks who wanted to share opinions or interesting articles might have had a newsletter. Today, thanks to the drastically reduced barriers to entry that the internet has provided, blogs have taken their place – there are 100 million of them at the moment, according to Technorati, and that number is growing.
Thanks to blogs, no matter how remote you might be, you're now easily interconnected. They've given us windows into warzones, shown us the minds of foreign leaders, and offered insights into everything from tort reform to gay square dancing, to mention just a tiny fraction of the total picture.
The Wired article features plenty of quotes about What It All Means, and you can head over there for the full treatment. One could write a book about how much blogs mean – in fact, folks have – but on the 10-year anniversary of the medium, this particular blog, a tiny voice in the cacophany, simply wanted to simply pay its respects. Blogs can be monumental or inconsequential, insular or wide open, enlightening or enraging. They have made the whole spectrum of human thought available, in all its messy glory, in the click of a button. And what's more revolutionary than that?
The Blog Turns Ten
(AP Photo)
It's of Jorn Barger, the first person to use the word "weblog." Barger coined the term, which has been shortened to the now-ubiquitous "blog," ten years ago yesterday. He used it "to describe the list of links on his Robot Wisdom website that 'logged' his internet wanderings," as Wired puts it.
In the picture, Barger, clad in a blue t-shirt, doesn't exactly look like your office IT geek. He's got a long, scraggly beard, and long tufts of hair shoot out from beneath his ratty "Google" cap. Barger looks like he was working the land in remote mountains somewhere until he gave it all up to get his startup off the ground.
And in terms of a representative of the blogging phenomenon – not to mention the whole internet, really – you couldn't ask for much more.
Think about it: Ten years ago, the truly industrious folks who wanted to share opinions or interesting articles might have had a newsletter. Today, thanks to the drastically reduced barriers to entry that the internet has provided, blogs have taken their place – there are 100 million of them at the moment, according to Technorati, and that number is growing.
Thanks to blogs, no matter how remote you might be, you're now easily interconnected. They've given us windows into warzones, shown us the minds of foreign leaders, and offered insights into everything from tort reform to gay square dancing, to mention just a tiny fraction of the total picture.
The Wired article features plenty of quotes about What It All Means, and you can head over there for the full treatment. One could write a book about how much blogs mean – in fact, folks have – but on the 10-year anniversary of the medium, this particular blog, a tiny voice in the cacophany, simply wanted to simply pay its respects. Blogs can be monumental or inconsequential, insular or wide open, enlightening or enraging. They have made the whole spectrum of human thought available, in all its messy glory, in the click of a button. And what's more revolutionary than that?
December 11, 2007 1:19 PM 
It’s getting bumpy out there for Mike Huckabee.
After weeks of glowing coverage over his aw-shucksiness, the honeymoon for the Baptist minister is over – as predicted in this space.
And how is he dealing with the rise in critical coverage? Opening up the first page out of the political playbook and attacking the messenger.
Huckabee's Defensive Posture
(AP)
After weeks of glowing coverage over his aw-shucksiness, the honeymoon for the Baptist minister is over – as predicted in this space.
And how is he dealing with the rise in critical coverage? Opening up the first page out of the political playbook and attacking the messenger.
December 10, 2007 5:26 PM 
“Decider” is so 2006.
Nowadays it’s all about the “Influencers.”
And contrary to the ‘decider’ where you couldn’t really pass yourself off as The One, the bonus about ‘Influencers’ is that you may be one and not even know it.
According to Editor and Publisher, there’s a new Newspaper National Network study out today:
This inspired me to ask a very basic question: What the heck is an influencer?
Peddling Influence
(CBS/iStockphoto)
Nowadays it’s all about the “Influencers.”
And contrary to the ‘decider’ where you couldn’t really pass yourself off as The One, the bonus about ‘Influencers’ is that you may be one and not even know it.
According to Editor and Publisher, there’s a new Newspaper National Network study out today:
Newspaper Web site users, who also read the print editions, are 52% more likely to shape opinions about new products, technologies, and issues than those who use the Web without consulting newspapers, according to a new study from the Newspaper National Network (NNN).
This inspired me to ask a very basic question: What the heck is an influencer?
December 10, 2007 1:45 PM 
Is the campaign trail getting a tad easier with the absence of the “Daily Show” and “Colbert Report?”
In my listening to the “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” replay on XM radio yesterday, I heard one of his panelists making that observation. Her argument being basically that ‘if Jon Stewart had been around, the Clinton campaign wouldn’t have gotten away with the Barack/kindergarten letter story.’
For a moment it sounded silly, like a child saying ‘Ooooh, it’s a good thing mom didn’t see you,’ but then I realized that the panelist’s observation had the added quality of being … true.
No "Daily" Dose?
(CBS)
In my listening to the “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” replay on XM radio yesterday, I heard one of his panelists making that observation. Her argument being basically that ‘if Jon Stewart had been around, the Clinton campaign wouldn’t have gotten away with the Barack/kindergarten letter story.’
For a moment it sounded silly, like a child saying ‘Ooooh, it’s a good thing mom didn’t see you,’ but then I realized that the panelist’s observation had the added quality of being … true.
Author Thomas Friedman on Obama's Afghanistan plan and the war on terror.
