All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Back when sodas were a nickel and your grandfather had to walk uphill in the snow to school (both ways, natch), people used to watch TV at night and talk about it the next day.

Yeah. You tried doing that lately? USA Today has an interesting piece today on how TiVo is killing our national conversation:

We've gone from must-see TV to can't-talk TV.

As channel choices and technological options have expanded, fewer of us are watching the same shows at the same time on the same day. And it's increasingly affecting the national conversation...

So when we gather round the water cooler — or the Internet — to gab about what happened on, say, Grey's Anatomy last night, the dishing can dry up fast.

Even when “The Sopranos” finished in all its glory, the ratings stories were written with a curiously cautious ’12 million people watched, but who knows how many people will view it on-demand or on TiVo’ tone.

Read full post…

Bad news: The courtship phase is over.

There’s a lot of concern about the circulation dips in the newspaper industry. It’s seen as a sign of the demise of print news. It’s seen as a sign of America’s disenchantment with the traditional or mainstream media – or whatever the bloggers are calling it this week.

But it turns out, interestingly enough, that some of the decline is on purpose.

Newspapers finally realized that the cost of keeping some borderline readers just wasn’t worth the expense or the chase. It’s like the girl in high school that you’d call and call and talk to and walk to class and hope that you’d get a date with but … Wait, I’m getting a tad autobiographical here. Where was I?

Read full post…

Has it already been 25 years?

USA Today hits its silver anniversary tomorrow and the toasts are pouring in. What was mocked as "McPaper" back in the day is now basking in a flood of "ahead of its time" compliments and "they're number one"s.

Marketwatch's Jon Friedman offered up this view:

It was the summer of 1983. I had just landed my first newspaper job, at a daily with the unlikely name of USA Today. While the publication was not yet a year old, it had already achieved notoriety -- as a journalistic joke.
You see, I lived in Manhattan, where the New York Times is the dominant voice. Times loyalists, as well as newspaper purists and big-city pundits, got a kick out of ridiculing my new employer…

Figured. The city slickers didn't understand the strategy -- or the appeal -- of USA Today. Well, they get it now. USA Today now has an average daily circulation of 2.3 million.

And Editor and Publisher chimed in as well:

Since it launched on Sept. 15, 1982, amid complaints that it lacked in-depth reporting and used too many snappy graphics and color photos in place of hard-hitting news, the national daily has taken position as a circulation leader, ranking at or near the top consistently.

In addition, the paper has transformed the way many dailies operate, from pushing shorter, quicker brief-style stories to leading the way in color photography long before others saw the need.

Read full post…

McWow -- has it been 25 years already?

USA Today celebrates its silver anniversary tomorrow and the toasts are pouring in. What was mocked as "McPaper" back in the day is now basking in a flood of "ahead of its time" compliments and "they're number one"s.

Marketwatch's Jon Friedman offered up this view:

It was the summer of 1983. I had just landed my first newspaper job, at a daily with the unlikely name of USA Today. While the publication was not yet a year old, it had already achieved notoriety -- as a journalistic joke.

You see, I lived in Manhattan, where the New York Times is the dominant voice. Times loyalists, as well as newspaper purists and big-city pundits, got a kick out of ridiculing my new employer…

Figured. The city slickers didn't understand the strategy -- or the appeal -- of USA Today. Well, they get it now. USA Today now has an average daily circulation of 2.3 million.

And Editor and Publisher chimed in as well:

Since it launched on Sept. 15, 1982, amid complaints that it lacked in-depth reporting and used too many snappy graphics and color photos in place of hard-hitting news, the national daily has taken position as a circulation leader, ranking at or near the top consistently.

In addition, the paper has transformed the way many dailies operate, from pushing shorter, quicker brief-style stories to leading the way in color photography long before others saw the need.

Read full post…

McWow -- has it been 25 years already?

USA Today hits its silver anniversary tomorrow and the toasts are pouring in. What was mocked as "McPaper" back in the day is now basking in a flood of "ahead of its time" compliments and "they're number one"s.

Marketwatch's Jon Friedman offered up this view:

It was the summer of 1983. I had just landed my first newspaper job, at a daily with the unlikely name of USA Today. While the publication was not yet a year old, it had already achieved notoriety -- as a journalistic joke.

You see, I lived in Manhattan, where the New York Times is the dominant voice. Times loyalists, as well as newspaper purists and big-city pundits, got a kick out of ridiculing my new employer…

Figured. The city slickers didn't understand the strategy -- or the appeal -- of USA Today. Well, they get it now. USA Today now has an average daily circulation of 2.3 million.

And Editor and Publisher chimed in as well:

Since it launched on Sept. 15, 1982, amid complaints that it lacked in-depth reporting and used too many snappy graphics and color photos in place of hard-hitting news, the national daily has taken position as a circulation leader, ranking at or near the top consistently.

In addition, the paper has transformed the way many dailies operate, from pushing shorter, quicker brief-style stories to leading the way in color photography long before others saw the need.

Read full post…

It’s way bigger than Gabbo. And way way bigger than “The Itchy and Scratchy Movie.” And it’s coming out … wait, in three more weeks?

That’s right, America. We’re still over twenty days from “The Simpsons Movie” hitting your local googleplex, but the hype machine is already working at a higher level than anything we’ve seen in years. And recent weeks have shown a remarkably savvy one-two PR punch that the cruel slow summer months have swallowed whole. Google News has had “Simpsons”-related stories churning in the triple digits for the past week.

As far as grassroots, guerilla marketing efforts go, it’s still miles behind “The Blair Witch Project.” I mean, c’mon: Millions of dollars worth of advertising and a 20-year reputation is a huge head start. But what the promotional people behind “The Simpsons Movie” have done is still worthy of a pat on the back.

In a world of crass cross-marketing – can someone explain to me the link between Transformers and General Motors? Will that Chevy Cobalt trying to pull into my lane turn into a sword-wielding robot of death and destruction if I don’t let him in? – the Simpson’s people have truly lapped the field.

Read full post…

In Sept. 2005, Randall Joyce, then-CBS News acting Baghdad bureau chief, told me that one of the hurdles in covering "good news" stories from Iraq was that the presence of Western news organizations can draw the unwanted attention of insurgents.

"We run into situations where we're willing to go someplace but the people beg us not to come, because we're putting them at risk by our presence," he said. "They can be seen as collaborators by the insurgents. We pack up our cameras, and then five hours, five days, five weeks later, who knows what happens."

The Western media effect is still something Iraqis need to watch out for, as a story in today's USA Today illustrates. The 14th of Ramadan Mosque, which has become one of the defining monuments in Baghdad, has served as the backdrop for many a TV report. And that has made it a target.

"The maximum number of people you would see is about 15 at the noon and afternoon praying," Sheik Omar al-Saedi, the imam of the Sunni mosque, told USA Today. "Nobody comes at the dawn prayer." al-Saedi's predecessor was killed last year.

Read full post…

"So all those angry protests about leaks from Bush and others now look more like selective, manufactured outrage than the genuine article. Like other administrations before it, this one leaks when it wants to. It uses leaks to manipulate public opinion, undermine critics and punish or reward individual reporters."

--USA Today, in an editorial about the lessons of the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

You might say that what's a bit dry about watching the House floor on C-SPAN (other than the actual people talking) is that the cameras in place – which are operated by government employees – are limited in their scope. That means, for example, that cameras don't pan the floor for reaction shots, but offer tight shots of the lawmakers who are speaking or wide shots as votes are being called. For those behind the cameras in television news, that's particularly frustrating.

As Al Kamen notes in today's Washington Post, C-SPAN recently asked incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi if the new Congress (which she has said will be "the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history," Kamen notes) would consider adding more cameras to allow more liberal visual access to the chamber. C-SPAN chief Brian Lamb argued in a letter to Pelosi that the current system is "an anachronism that does a disservice to the institution and to the public."

Pelosi denied the request in a letter, writing that the current system should remain: "Under the current practice, every word spoken in an exchange between Members or between the Chair and a Member is broadcast live. This programming informs the American people and ensures an accurate historical record. It has served the American people and the House and Senate well since the advent of televised proceedings nearly 30 years ago."

After an editorial in USA Today yesterday opposed that decision, and Pelosi was invited to write an opposing view to the editorial (which she declined), her office told the paper that "she intends to meet with Lamb soon to discuss a possible compromise."

USA Today's argument in favor of greater camera access suggested that such a move could have some practical impact: "Perhaps there'd be less blatant arm-twisting and deal-making on the floor during close votes, such as the 2003 roll call on the Medicare prescription drug benefit that lasted three hours instead of the customary 15 minutes. Perhaps members would be less likely to doze or read magazines while colleagues are debating. And perhaps lawmakers would be less inclined to deliver stemwinders to empty chambers if they knew their lack of an audience would be apparent."

As for the opposing view, Donald Wolfensberger, former staff director of the House Rules Committee and current director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
argues in USA Today that Pelosi "is right to reject the request."

Read full post…

You might say that what's a bit dry about watching the House floor on C-SPAN (other than the actual people talking) is that the cameras in place – which are operated by government employees – are limited in their scope. That means, for example, that cameras don't pan the floor for reaction shots, but offer tight shots of the lawmakers who are speaking or wide shots as votes are being called. For those behind the cameras in television news, that's particularly frustrating.

As Al Kamen notes in today's Washington Post, C-SPAN recently asked incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi if the new Congress (which she has said will be "the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history," Kamen notes) would consider adding more cameras to allow more liberal visual access to the chamber. C-SPAN chief Brian Lamb argued in a letter to Pelosi that the current system is "an anachronism that does a disservice to the institution and to the public."

Pelosi denied the request in a letter, writing that the current system should remain: "Under the current practice, every word spoken in an exchange between Members or between the Chair and a Member is broadcast live. This programming informs the American people and ensures an accurate historical record. It has served the American people and the House and Senate well since the advent of televised proceedings nearly 30 years ago."

After an editorial in USA Today yesterday opposed that decision, and Pelosi was invited to write an opposing view to the editorial (which she declined), her office told the paper that "she intends to meet with Lamb soon to discuss a possible compromise."

USA Today's argument in favor of greater camera access suggested that such a move could have some practical impact: "Perhaps there'd be less blatant arm-twisting and deal-making on the floor during close votes, such as the 2003 roll call on the Medicare prescription drug benefit that lasted three hours instead of the customary 15 minutes. Perhaps members would be less likely to doze or read magazines while colleagues are debating. And perhaps lawmakers would be less inclined to deliver stemwinders to empty chambers if they knew their lack of an audience would be apparent."

As for the opposing view, Donald Wolfensberger, former staff director of the House Rules Committee and current director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
argues in USA Today that Pelosi "is right to reject the request."

Read full post…