All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Earlier today, I posted my thoughts on the "Evening News" spending much of this week focused on cancer. I wrote that "since we can get our news in a lot of different places these days, the decision to devote so much of the show to cancer strikes me as an admirable one."

Not everyone agrees with my take on this, and CBSNews.com's John Kreiser has written a reply to my post. You can read it below.

There is a place for the kind of coverage the "CBS Evening News" provided this week on the subject of cancer. Unfortunately, the "Evening News" wasn't that place.

With 30+ years in the news business, I'm old enough to remember when the "Evening News" actually focused on the day's biggest stories. As Brian points out in his entry, with the abundance of sources these days, network news shows no longer function as the principal source of news for many people — though because network news demographics tend to skew older, a lot of the people who watch the news shows still get a great deal of their daily take on what's going on in the world from them. Also, there were indeed hard-news pegs on which the cancer coverage was hung — the recurrence of Elizabeth Edwards' and Tony Snow's cancer, the news that MRIs can be used to help diagnose breast cancer, and that a prostate cancer vaccine moved another step closer to approval.

But did CBS really need to spend part of its 22-minute news block telling you how cancer spreads within the body (a perfect thing to put on CBSNews.com, but not on some of TV's most precious real estate), or on many of the other aspects of the package that had informative value but weren't part of the day's news? It's the type of subject that screams for a one-hour special in the evening (the kind of thing CBS used to do so well, back in my day) — not a bunch of pieces centered around a common theme.

Putting a longer show on cancer (or Africa, or any topic) would also allow correspondents to do some real reporting. One problem with anything that airs on any of the evening news shows is time: Any piece that requires in-depth reporting also requires the time to give it the treatment it deserves — and that kind of time generally doesn't exist on an evening news program. One of the few pieces that I found interesting and useful was Anthony Mason's story on the costs of cancer. He got a little over two minutes. Imagine if he could have delved into the subject a little further — what are cancer's costs to business, for example? Watching correspondents do what I call "fly-by's" on a subject drives me nuts — there rarely seems to be enough time for a piece to actually tell viewers something useful.

Read full post…

This week, the "Evening News" has been dominated by stories about cancer. There have been pieces about prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and how cancer spreads; also cancer research, the financial cost of cancer, and cancer prevention. And that's not even all of them: On Tuesday's show, to give you an idea, 17 minutes of the 22 minute broadcast was devoted to cancer stories.

There was a news hook for the cancer focus: Both White House spokesman Tony Snow and Elizabeth Edwards, wife of presidential hopeful John Edwards, announced renewed fights with the disease last week. But the coverage still went far beyond what would traditionally be considered commensurate to the news developments.

Whether you think that's a positive or negative depends on what you expect from the "Evening News." If you expect the show to fill the classic role of a nightly newscast – to provide viewers with well-rounded coverage of the most important stories of the day – than the cancer focus might have seemed excessive.

Those of us who feel that the role of the nightly newscasts has evolved, however, see things a little differently. Thanks to technological advances like the Internet and the rise of cable news networks, news today is everywhere – some of us even see headlines in the elevator on the way to work. Nightly newscasts no longer need to function, as they once did, as many people's primary source for news.

That means the nightly newscasts are somewhat less relevant than they were when Walter Cronkite was behind the anchor desk. But it has also freed up the "Evening News" and its competitors to experiment with the format.

Of course, that's not always a good thing – many a media critic bemoaned the "freeSpeech" segment that CBS tried when Katie Couric came on board as anchor, for example. But it can be a good thing, and I think that was the case this week. By focusing so heavily on cancer, the "Evening News" was able to educate viewers about the subject in a way that would have been impossible had producers felt the need to shove as much news into the broadcast as possible. And since we can get our news in a lot of different places these days, the decision to devote so much of the show to cancer strikes me as an admirable one.

Last night on "60 Minutes," Katie Couric interviewed John and Elizabeth Edwards. Many of those who commented on the story on CBSNews.com felt that Couric was too hard on the couple.

"I was shocked and saddened at Katie Couric's lack of compassion and the nastiness of her questions," wrote "brlaks." Another commenter, "l8c6," called the interview "cold and improper," while "sharonc50" wrote, "I couldn't believe the hostility [Couric] showed towards the Edwards."

A portion of the commenters, meanwhile, defended Couric.

"Katie Couric asked the very tough questions that needed to be asked and gave the Edwards the opportunity to respond in full," wrote "kasey444." Commenter "fred7231," meanwhile, wrote "I'm quite surprised by the tone of the comments toward Katie Couric. She did her job."

Some viewers may have felt it unseemly to talk about the political implications of a health crisis like the one the Edwards family is now going through. But it is also necessary in light of the decision by the couple to stay in the presidential race. That decision prompts voters to consider all sorts of important questions, not least of which is whether John Edwards could run the country effectively while also dealing with his wife's illness.

As "fred7231" wrote, it is Couric's job to ask those questions. And it's the Edwards' responsibility to address them. If Couric had offered up softballs, she wouldn't have given the couple an opportunity to do so.

Another issue raised by some commenters was Couric's reliance on the journalistic convention of prefacing criticisms with the phrase "some say" instead of sourcing them to someone specific. Here's an example, from the interview, of what I'm talking about:

Couric: Your decision to stay in this race has been analyzed, and quite frankly judged by a lot of people. And some say, what you're doing is courageous, others say it's callous. Some say, "Isn't it wonderful they care for something greater than themselves?" And others say, "It's a case of insatiable ambition." You say?

Commenter "bb2881" wrote this in response: "Katie-stop using the fox news tactic of 'some people say' If you're going to ask 'tough' questions, be tough enough and have the guts to quote whoever is saying it." A number of commenters, expressing similar views, argued that Couric should have sourced the criticisms to conservatives like Rush Limbaugh.

Read full post…

Looking at the Laura Bush cancer story, I was reminded of an old Homer Simpson quote: "If celebrities didn't want people pawing through their garbage and saying they're gay, they shouldn't have tried to express themselves creatively."

Famous people, you see, don't deserve privacy – or so many people (and media outlets) seem to think. Laura Bush's skin cancer, while not insignificant, appears to have been relatively small potatoes. "It's no big deal and we knew it was no big deal at the time," she said in reference her decision not to disclose her tumor five weeks ago. The matter arose because reporters noticed a bandage on Bush's knee, leading spokesman Tony Snow to discuss the medical issue.

The reporters pushed Snow at the press briefing yesterday on why Mrs. Bush hadn't come forward. "And she didn't feel any obligation as a person of public status to talk about this?," one reporter asked. Many similar questions followed. One reporter pressed Snow over why Mrs. Bush did not come out publicly to raise awareness over the dangers of skin cancer. "What I'm saying is even though she may not be an elected official, she's a very public official and very well loved. And as someone who has two adolescents who don't like to listen to mother when she says, put on the sun screen, get out of the sun, she could potentially have a great influence on a lot of people's lives, especially young women." Here's the exchange that followed:

MR. SNOW: She's also had colds, she's had the flu, she's had stomach aches --

Q When? (Laughter.)

Q But those tend not to be --

MR. SNOW: -- she's had a number --

Q Melanoma can kill, skin cancer can kill. It can be very serious.

MR. SNOW: This particular one could not.

Q But she could still -- it could be a platform.

MR. SNOW: You guys are really stretching it. I mean, it is now officially a really slow news day.

Well, no argument here.

Read full post…

The Skinny Today: The LA Times looks at the phenomenon of finding religion in odd places ... like grilled cheese. Plus, another dire assessment on Iraq, Condi rejects recommendations of help from Syria and Iran on Iraq and finally, some good news about breast cancer. The Skinny is Hillary Profita's take on the top of the news and the best of the Web.

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…

Earlier this month, the "Evening News" featured a two-part report from correspondent Sharyl Attkisson that examined claims of a link between antiperspirants and breast cancer. You can watch both segments below:










Dr. Ted S. Gansler, director of medical content for the American Cancer Society, who was interviewed for the report, had several complaints about its “sensational and misleading tone.” He outlined his concerns in a recent letter to “Evening News” Executive Producer Jim Murphy. From his letter:

“The average viewer hearing the story would believe there might quite likely be a link between antiperspirants and breast cancer that is being covered up by the government, health experts, and the cosmetics industry. As a result, rather than dispel this common misconception, your report served to further the baseless and scary rumor, leaving women confused, concerned, and arguably, worse off than they would have been had they not watched the program.”

Upon receipt of Gansler’s letter, Attkisson responded to his concerns. From her letter:

“Your letter appears to once again repeat a widespread misconception in seeming to imply that a link between antiperspirants and breast cancer has been ruled out. The point made in our report is that no such link has been ruled out, a fact that surely antiperspirant users deserve to know when making decisions about their product usage.”

You can read both letters in full after the jump.

Read full post…