All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Are a couple digitally-altered photographs and a few pictures that raise some suspicions enough to damn an entire profession? Of course not – no more than some fabricated stories in well-regarded newspapers like the New York Times were enough to completely destroy journalism. Like it or not, though, these incidents over time have chipped away at the credibility of the press and given agenda-driven critics all the ammo they need to continue blasting away. But you can’t blame bloggers alone for mistakes that simply never should have been made in the first place. Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher sees things differently:

With most others in the mainstream media silent, I rise here in support of the overwhelming number of press photographers in the Middle East who bravely, under horrid conditions, in recent weeks have sent back graphic and revealing pictures from the war zones, only to be smeared, as a group, by rightwing bloggers aiming, as always, to discredit the media as a whole.

This broad condemnation, and the conspiracy theories, lodged against photographers in war zones -- who are risking their lives while bloggers risk nothing but carpal tunnel syndrome -- needs to be refuted.

Read full post…

Greg Mitchell over at Editor & Publisher has a unique angle on the New York Times story that's been burning up the blogosphere today. Here's the first two grafs of the Times story, if you're as yet uninitiated:

In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

Mitchell has reprinted excerpts from the press conference that followed the meeting, in which the two leaders stress that Saddam could disarm in order to avoid war. You can see the excerpts here.

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. Greg Mitchell is the editor of Editor & Publisher and author of seven books on politics and history, including "The Campaign of the Century" and "Tricky Dick and the Pink Lady." Today, Mitchell takes a look at the medias' comparison of Rep. John Murtha's call for a withdrawal from Iraq to CBS "Evening News" Anchor Walter Cronkite's February 1968 Vietnam epiphany.



When the hawkish Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) suddenly came out for a speedy U.S. withdrawal from Iraq last month it caused many media commentators to just-as-hastily call it a possible “Cronkite Moment.” I was one of them; in fact, I was probably the first, in a column at the Editor & Publisher Web site. What we all meant was: This shot across the bow of the Bush war policy from a well-respected mainstream figure might one day be seen as a “turning point” in setting the U.S. on a different path in an unpopular war, similar to what happened, allegedly, following CBS anchor Walter Cronkite’s legendary and equally unexpected soul-baring on February 27, 1968.



In one typical instant reaction, on Nov. 19, Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s “Situation Room” told his colleague Bill Schneider:

“Bill, you'll remember what President Johnson said when he heard what Walter Cronkite had said at that point, after coming back from Vietnam. He said if he's lost Walter Cronkite, he's probably lost the country. And I suppose that some Republicans are saying now if they've lost John Murtha, a very moderate-conservative Democrat, a strong supporter of the military, they probably realize they've got some serious problems."

Indeed, many Republicans fired back at Murtha, a Vietnam veteran, causing current CBS anchor Bob Schieffer to observe, "Republicans accused him of wanting to cut and run, and all but challenged the patriotism of war critics."



Of course, this is not the first so-called “Cronkite Moment” since the original. Some even invoked Uncle Walter last summer after Cindy Sheehan, mother of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, galvanized antiwar protest. In any case, it’s hard to guess what long-term effect the Murtha “Cronkite Moment” will have, but it did, for the first time, put pullout on the national agenda, provoked angry media and congressional debate, and forced the president to outline his own plan for withdrawal (i.e. “A Plan for Victory”).

Read full post…