All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Drew Curtis, founder of Fark.com, has a book coming out on May 31st called "It's Not News, It's Fark: How Mass Media Tries To Pass Off Crap As News." We interviewed him over email.




Brian Montopoli: In printing soft, wacky, and oddball news - or "crap," as you put it in your book title - aren't the media simply giving people what they want? News is a business, after all.

Drew Curtis: Yes, however a lot of what people want isn't news, and we're talking about news sources giving up on their core mission - informing us. Journalism is straying into entertainment. The lines between serious news segments, news entertainment, and news comedy are blurring. For example, just last week CNN led with a story about a nudist colony trying to attract new members with free beer. What is the intrinsic value of delivering this under the guise of news? The problem is a lot of people like to watch videos of nudists with their bits fuzzed out, lots more than the latest body count from Iraq, as was evidenced by CNN.com's Most Popular list.

How can we fix this Afghanistan mess? What's Russia doing in Estonia these days? Is global warming real? Does anyone care? Sadly, few do.
Most people treat the news media like the exercise bike they have in their basement. They're glad it's there but they never use it. This is obviously a ratings problem for the news outlets.

The number one question I get when I meet people who read my website is "Where can I go to get the real news?" The implication is the major news outlets aren't meeting this need. Most people I've talked to are convinced that they're not getting valuable information from news media anymore. I'm not talking about tinfoil-hatters either, these are intelligent people who believe their news media has failed them.

It's not just consumers that are annoyed by this. Journalists themselves are in the same boat. I've met hundreds over the past few years, they're disgruntled and angry because they went into journalism to cover real stories and make a real difference, not waste time discussing drunk Germans getting arrested driving down the street in motorized wheelchairs.

If this is news to any media executives out there, I suggest they hold an all hands on deck meeting and let [reporters] freely express their frustrations. Ask them what they think about the stories they've been asked to cover and the priority that has been given to the stories. They'll get an earful.

Read full post…

Former CBS News correspondent Eric Engberg, who spent two decades covering Washington for the network, has passed along his analysis of the lessons of the Libby trial. Below, in question and answer form, he takes us through his conclusions. Think of this as an "Outside Voices" column, and bear in mind that the opinions expressed are Engberg's, not Public Eye's.

QUESTION #1 – Why did Vice President Cheney order Scooter Libby to conduct the smear campaign against the Wilsons when he could have easily picked up the phone and called a few Administration-friendly reporters, like Bob Novak and Judy Miller, and do the leaking himself?

ANSWER – Cheney knew he needed what in intelligence work is called a “cutout,” because he understood perfectly well that revealing the identity of a CIA undercover agent was morally wrong and almost certainly illegal. The juror who said Scooter was a “fall guy” had it right. But doesn’t that make Cheney both a shameless manipulator and a terrible coward?

The premeditated nature of the attack on Joe Wilson can be assessed further by the fact that Libby, given Cheney’s direction, did not peddle the Plame outing to an obvious Administration fugleman such as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. The carefully conceived plot called for a Wilson-Plame revelation that looked like real journalism, not propaganda.

QUESTION #2 – Is there any group that stands lower in public esteem than professional journalists?

ANSWER – Yes, defense lawyers for indicted government officials. Attempts by Scooter’s legal beagles to belittle the memories and honesty of journalists such as Tim Russert and Matt Cooper to influence the jury blew up in their faces. But the fact that reporters forget dates, lose notebooks and can’t decipher their own notes, all well established by the trial testimony, is not going to put any kind of sheen on the Washington press. They looked pathetic, as Cheney might say, “Big time.”

Read full post…

Each week we invite someone from outside PE to weigh in with their thoughts about CBS News and the media at large. This week, we asked Camille Elhassani, the Deputy Program Editor at Al Jazeera English in Washington, D.C. Previously, she was news director and advisor to Al Iraqiya TV in Baghdad. Prior to that she was at ABC News for six years. She is an Iraqi-American and lives in the Washington, D.C., area. Here, Elhassani argues that saying Americans aren't interested in foreign news is circular logic – the less they know about it, the less they will care. As always, the opinions expressed and factual assertions made in “Outside Voices” are those of the author, not ours, and we seek a wide variety of voices.


Other contributors have written on "Outside Voices" about the need for more international news on CBS. But the point is worth saying again.

I spent time this week watching different CBS News programs and came away feeling ill-informed about the world. I learned what’s happening in Congress, the White House, with schools and the Super Bowl… but I didn’t get a sense of what’s happening in the world. Events overseas affect Americans and our interests abroad – economically, politically, and increasingly, militarily.

Read full post…

Each week we invite someone from outside PE to weigh in with their thoughts about CBS News and the media at large. This week, we turned to Ankush Khardori, who writes about media and politics for The Huffington Post, its media adjunct Eat The Press and his personal blog, Penguins on the Equator. He is a recent graduate of Columbia Law School and currently works as an attorney in New York City. Below, Khardori suggests some ways in which CBS News can break some traditional broadcasting molds. As always, the opinions expressed and factual assertions made in “Outside Voices” are those of the author, not ours, and we seek a wide variety of voices.

There was a time before "CSI" -- hard to recall, I realize, but try hard. In the 1990s, CBS's primetime lineup was in the lurch: Notable offerings included the inexplicable prairie throwback, "Doctor Quinn, Medicine Woman," and the delightfully crazy "Diagnosis Murder." CBS seemed to revel in its reputation as the "geezer network," and things were not looking up when Les Moonves came to the network in 1995. It was then -- with CBS's ratings in the dumps and, it seemed, nothing to lose -- that the network began to move out of its comfort zone. In 2000, "Survivor" arrived out of nowhere and changed network TV as we know it. Later that year, "CSI" brought the crime procedural into the twenty-first century, and today it seems that every other show is either a spin-off or transparently (if successfully) mimicking its style. Neither of these successes was predicted.

There is a lesson in the recent history of CBS Primetime for CBS News: Failures -- stretches of failures, even -- have significant upsides. When networks (or divisions) are on top, they stagnate (think "CSI," " CSI:Miami," and "CSI:NY"), and viewers inevitably lose interest when the old, good thing dies (think "Must See TV") or something new comes along. As with CBS primetime in 2000, that something new frequently comes from a competitor that is at the back of the pack but has shown the will to experiment -- to take risks, to shake things up, to throw things against the wall and see what sticks. Desperation, oddly, is very often the best catalyst for innovation.

Read full post…

Each week we invite someone from outside PE to weigh in with their thoughts about CBS News and the media at large. This week, we turned to Bob Giles, veteran journalist and curator of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University. Here, Giles discusses the harm in U.S. news outlets' lack of tough questions. As always, the opinions expressed and factual assertions made in “Outside Voices” are those of the author, not ours, and we seek a wide variety of voices.

Not long ago, I was with a group of journalists looking at videotapes of a BBC reporter interviewing British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The reporter was clearly well informed and was aggressively pressing Blair when the prime minister’s answers seemed less than forthcoming. It was wonderful journalistic combat and highly informative for the audience.

BBC reporters routinely have opportunities to sit down with the prime minister for a face-to-face interview. The broadcasts, which can be seen and the transcripts reviewed online, come off as lively exchanges highlighted by sharp questions, occasional interjections by the reporter and relentless probing for clarity in the prime minister’s responses.

These interviews represent a striking contrast with the U.S. television, where there is an absence of spirited inquiry. Public officials are treated with courtesy, which is appropriate, but on balance are accorded far too many opportunities to respond to reporters’ queries without challenge. When the reporter fails to probe more deeply, he or she becomes simply an electronic stenographer providing the elected official or official spokesperson a video platform for getting out the message.

A recent CBS News Investigative Unit story offers a case in point.

Read full post…

Each week we invite someone from outside PE to weigh in with their thoughts about CBS News and the media at large. This week, we asked Justin Rood, a reporter/blogger for TPM Muckraker. He has reported for Government Executive magazine and the Congressional Quarterly as well as other publications. Here, Rood discusses the differences between reporting for traditional media and reporting for a blog. As always, the opinions expressed and factual assertions made in “Outside Voices” are those of the author, not ours, and we seek a wide variety of voices.

Starting out as a Washington beat reporter, I quickly learned the power of a cup of coffee. While most of my reporting was done at one end of a telephone line, I got much of my best stuff after convincing sources to sit down with me at a Starbucks.

It's not hard to understand why: Out of earshot from co-workers and bosses, sources tend to feel more free to say what they really think. They more readily develop trust when they interact with you in person.

Lunches and dinners with sources could yield even better results. As long as I didn't try to match my companions' scotch intake, I often came away with great details, anecdotes and insights of the way the nation's capital functions.

That was then, however.

For the past year, I've been reporting on Washington for a different sort of publication: TPMmuckraker.com, an investigative blog covering all manner of political scandals and corruption. And I've come to appreciate a very different kind of relationship with a very different group of sources, our readers.

Read full post…

Each week we invite someone from outside PE to weigh in with their thoughts about CBS News and the media at large. This week, we turned to Philip Seib, a professor of journalism at Marquette University and author of the recent Beyond the Front Lines: How the News Media Cover a World Shaped by War and Broadcasts from the Blitz: How Edward R. Murrow Helped Lead America into War. Here, Seib writes that the "Evening News'" international coverage is narrow and incomplete and offers a suggestion to improve it. As always, the opinions expressed and factual assertions made in “Outside Voices” are those of the author, not ours, and we seek a wide variety of voices.

After watching the CBS "Evening News" recently, I’ve come away dissatisfied with international coverage that is so terse and narrow that it raises more questions than it answers. I’ll make my complaints and then offer a suggestion.

If a principal role for the news media is to provide the public with the information needed to make a democracy work, then "Evening News" -- like other U.S. network newscasts -- is not doing its job in terms of international news. Reporting about Iraq is part of this and should be addressed first, since most nights that sad country constitutes all or almost all of the outside world as seen by CBS.

Apparently no one at CBS is asking the question that occurs to me after each of these stories: What does it mean? For instance, a Dec. 13 report discussed the idea of sending a surge of U.S. troops into Baghdad, and then noted that “Iraqis wouldn’t stand for” a big build-up of the American military presence. Why not? The story didn’t say.

The following night, another story about the same topic. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in Iraq with a congressional delegation, called for an “overwhelming troop presence,” which has been taken to mean up to 35,000 more combat soldiers. Where would they come from? More call-ups of Reserve and National Guard soldiers? Redeployment of forces from elsewhere? Would there be an effort to expand enlistments and the overall size of the U.S. military? No direct answers. Presumably someone has some thoughts about this.

Then, at the end of its story, CBS reported that a year would be needed to recruit and train just 6,000 new troops. Put these items together and you have stunning evidence about how the Iraq commitment has crippled America’s ability to respond quickly to a new crisis in North Korea or elsewhere. Something about that needed to be in the story or, better yet, in a follow-up story addressing just that topic. But there was not a word.

Read full post…

Each week we invite someone from outside PE to weigh in with their thoughts about CBS News and the media at large. This week, we turned to Siobhan Darrow, a former CNN correspondent and author of the 2002 book, Flirting with Danger: Confessions of a Reluctant War Reporter. Below, Darrow wonders how much more of an impact journalism might have if the focus turned to storytelling and away from the latest "breaking news" item. As always, the opinions expressed and factual assertions made in “Outside Voices” are those of the author, not ours, and we seek a wide variety of voices.

My life has changed a bit since my days as a war correspondent for CNN, back in the 1990s. I still find myself embroiled in conflict. Only now, instead of being on the front lines of a war, I am usually still in my pajamas, trying to keep my 3-year-old twins from all out battle. It does not leave me much time to view or ponder news coverage these days. But when I do get a chance to watch the news, I am often disappointed. I find the coverage so slavishly devoted to live shots of some late-breaking item that there is less attention to storytelling.

Live TV is great for a big breaking event. But it does not lend itself to giving the audience a deeper sense of any story. And that is what we need.

Read full post…

Each week we invite someone from outside PE to weigh in with their thoughts about CBS News and the media at large. This week, we turned to Margaret Lowrie Robertson, who was an International Correspondent in CNN’s London Bureau from 1993 to 2002. Robertson, one of the first female reporters to broadcast live from inside Iraq during the Allied bombing campaign, worked as a reporter in CNN's Chicago Bureau from 1989 to 1993 and also covered the Middle East for CBS News in Cairo. She is the author of Season of Betrayal. Below, Robertson discusses her surprise at the number of women on the "Evening News" – a stark contrast to when she worked at the network. As always, the opinions expressed and factual assertions made in “Outside Voices” are those of the author, not ours, and we seek a wide variety of voices.

On a visit to New York last month, I watched the CBS Evening News, along with millions of other people.

The anchor told the top story: A mass kidnapping in broad daylight at a center of higher education in Baghdad. Next, the Baghdad reporter popped up live on the screen. The anchor interviewed an Iraqi academic, then voiced over a couple of related topics before tossing to the correspondent on Capitol Hill.

And all of the above were women. The anchor, the Baghdad reporter, the Capitol Hill correspondent. Even the Iraqi academic. It was practically the ad break before the first sign of testosterone appeared.

An average night, perhaps, for CBS viewers now.

An eye-opener for me.

Having hardly seen CBS since we moved to London in 1993, finding this proliferation of women on the Evening News was akin to emerging from a Rip Van Winkle-type sleep to find an uber-race of intelligent, brightly-clad creatures had taken over Earth’s airwaves.

Read full post…

Each week we invite someone from outside PE to weigh in with their thoughts about CBS News and the media at large. This week, we turned to Andrew Holtz, MPH, a former CNN medical correspondent and author of the book The Medical Science of House, M.D. Holtz is also the past president of the Association of Health Care Journalists and currently sits on its board. The opinions he expresses here are not necessarily those of AHCJ. Below, Holtz wonders if we're getting all the news we need to make informed decisions about health care. As always, the opinions expressed and factual assertions made in “Outside Voices” are those of the author, not ours, and we seek a wide variety of voices.

A recent international report had some good news about mammography… and some not so good news. The systematic review of clinical trials concluded women who get mammograms are less likely to die of breast cancer. However, for each life saved, 10 women may be treated unnecessarily for cancers that are not dangerous to their health.

Did you know that?

Probably not, if you get your news from CBS, because the network apparently didn’t think the report was news at all. I’m picking on CBS only because this is the CBS Public Eye Web site; none of the major U.S. news organizations reported on the study that concluded routine mammography screening may be 10 times as likely to lead to unnecessary treatment as it is to save a life.

I’m not saying mammography is bad. In response to the latest study, a number of cancer experts rose to defend recommendations that most women start getting regular mammograms in middle age.

Actually, I’m not writing about mammography at all. My question is: are we getting the sort of information in news stories that will help us make informed decisions about widely-used medical tests and treatments?

Are you interested in getting the big picture on mammography … the imperfections and limitations … as well as the benefits? Apparently, news editors at CBS and other U.S. news organizations didn’t think you’d be very interested in the systematic review of randomized clinical trials of mammography screening that was released in October by a prestigious international collaboration of medical researchers.

News editors in Britain and other countries made very different judgments.

Read full post…