All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Having spent a number of years in the business of counting the amount of time that TV news gives to this story or the other, I always found the “Here’s What Was On” function of the job far less interesting than the “Here’s Who Covered What Differently” angle.

So it was with great interest that I read today’s Project for Excellence in Journalism report that summed up the first quarter of this year’s cable new agenda, breaking down what the three cable networks deemed newsworthy, and to what extent.

It’s not pretty. As much as it’s old hat to raise questions about Fox News Channel’s coverage of political issues, it was still surprising (even to a cynical eye) to see that FNC gave less than half the airtime that MSNBC did to coverage of the war in Iraq -- 15 percent of its airtime versus 31 percent for MSNBC. CNN devoted a quarter of its airtime to the war.

Another notable aspect of FNC’s news coverage? According to the report:

If Fox was less focused on the Iraq War, what took its place? Mostly—according to the numbers—Anna Nicole Smith. Coverage of her death trailed just barely the airtime spent on the Iraq policy debate, accounting for 9.6% of all the Fox content studied (versus 10.1% for the Iraq policy debate). Fox also stood out for its lack of coverage on the firings of the U.S. attorneys, compared with the other channels. The story, which gained real momentum in mid March, consumed a mere 2% of Fox’s total airtime. CNN devoted twice that percent (4%) and MSNBC four times (8%).

And this information isn’t coming from a partisan source. It’s coming from the well-regarded Project for Excellence in Journalism. (Though Roger Ailes disagrees.)

Read full post…

I’ve got to admit I was stunned by the nature, depth and fury of the responses to my blog post yesterday about the Bill Moyers Journal report on the news media and the War in Iraq.

Read those comments and you’ll see there’s alot of anger, no, make that rage directed at some of us – maybe all of us – in the news business.

In fairness, some of you had legitimate points of view to express. Fair enough. Others just wanted to tell me I was a jerk or worse. One of you even called me something that got Don Imus fired.

Sorry you feel that way.

Read full post…

For those who pay close attention to the much-plowed ground of the Bush administration’s rhetoric in defense of the Iraq war, there’s actually some new news in a terrific piecetoday by Scott Shane of The New York Times. There’s also something in the story for techies.


Shane reports that there’s a new player in the administration, Dr. Peter D. Feaver, a political scientist who studies public opinion and war. The Times says Feaver was a key architect of the president’s speech at Annapolis last week.

There could be no doubt about the theme of President Bush's Iraq war strategy speech on Wednesday at the Naval Academy. He used the word victory 15 times in the address; "Plan for Victory" signs crowded the podium he spoke on; and the word heavily peppered the accompanying 35-page National Security Council document titled, “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."


Although White House officials said many federal departments had contributed to the document, its relentless focus on the theme of victory strongly reflected a new voice in the administration: Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University political scientist who joined the N.S.C. staff as a special adviser in June and has closely studied public opinion on the war.


Despite the president's oft-stated aversion to polls, Dr. Feaver was recruited after he and Duke colleagues presented the administration with an analysis of polls about the Iraq war in 2003 and 2004. They concluded that Americans would support a war with mounting casualties on one condition: that they believed it would ultimately succeed.


That finding, which is questioned by other political scientists, was clearly behind the victory theme in the speech and the plan, in which the word appears six times in the table of contents alone, including sections titled "Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest" and "Our Strategy for Victory is Clear."

Read full post…