Across The Media Universe: Hair, Drugs and Rupe Edition
(AP)
All Blog Posts from Public Eye
Read all 'john edwards' posts in Public Eye
July 31, 2007 2:09 PM Beat The Press: According to The Politico’s Ben Smith, John Edwards is the “first major Democratic candidate for president” to take a page from the Republican playbook and make attacking the press corps a part of his campaign strategy. He’s aggressively responded to stories about his expensive haircuts, for example, releasing a video flashing images of misery in Iraq and New Orleans while the theme song of the musical "Hair" plays. And at the end, this question: "What really matters?" (He has also used the issue in fundraising emails.) Perhaps if Internet video and the “Tank Girl” soundtrack had been around in 1988, Michael Dukakis could have put together a nifty response of his own.
April 24, 2007 1:31 PM 
In 2003, as Greg Sargent notes, the New York Times anonymously quoted a "Bush associate" calling John Edwards "the Breck Girl of politics.” Now the Times' Adam Nagourney is expressing regret for helping the unnamed "associate" spread the slur. "Our story may have had the result of not only previewing what the Bush campaign intended to do, but, by introducing such memorably biting characterizations into the political dialogue, helping it," he writes.
Continues Nagourney: "Was that a mistake on our part? Perhaps… faced with the same situation again, I would press the Bush officials to be named in offering their characterizations; no justification for anonymity here. And based on my experience in trying to insist more often that sources speak on the record in this campaign season, I think I might have succeeded."
The issue is back in the news because of revelations that Edwards got two $400 haircuts paid for by his campaign. (Edwards is reimbursing his campaign $800 to cover the cost of the cuts.) Sargent writes that the "decision by many in the media to devote the amount of attention to Edwards' fair locks that they did was idiotic and indefensible." He cites an Associated Press report and a Maureen Dowd column as evidence of the media's obsession with the topic.
I understand Sargent's criticism, and it's hard to disagree completely: A haircut should not be a major election issue. At the same time, we're talking about a $400 haircut, paid for by the campaign, for a candidate who champions himself as an advocate for America's poor. Is that really something the media should simply ignore? Isn't it possible that it tells us something, even if it's just that Edwards needs to exercise better political judgment so as not to play into the criticisms favored by his political enemies?
The haircut isn't even close to a major story, of course. It's no more than a footnote, and should be treated as such. Here's hoping that Nagourney and his peers spend this election cycle covering stories like this with restraint -- and make an effort not to let themselves be used by partisans looking to score cheap, and anonymous, political points.
John Edwards And The Case Of The "Breck Girl" Comment
(CBS)
Continues Nagourney: "Was that a mistake on our part? Perhaps… faced with the same situation again, I would press the Bush officials to be named in offering their characterizations; no justification for anonymity here. And based on my experience in trying to insist more often that sources speak on the record in this campaign season, I think I might have succeeded."
The issue is back in the news because of revelations that Edwards got two $400 haircuts paid for by his campaign. (Edwards is reimbursing his campaign $800 to cover the cost of the cuts.) Sargent writes that the "decision by many in the media to devote the amount of attention to Edwards' fair locks that they did was idiotic and indefensible." He cites an Associated Press report and a Maureen Dowd column as evidence of the media's obsession with the topic.
I understand Sargent's criticism, and it's hard to disagree completely: A haircut should not be a major election issue. At the same time, we're talking about a $400 haircut, paid for by the campaign, for a candidate who champions himself as an advocate for America's poor. Is that really something the media should simply ignore? Isn't it possible that it tells us something, even if it's just that Edwards needs to exercise better political judgment so as not to play into the criticisms favored by his political enemies?
The haircut isn't even close to a major story, of course. It's no more than a footnote, and should be treated as such. Here's hoping that Nagourney and his peers spend this election cycle covering stories like this with restraint -- and make an effort not to let themselves be used by partisans looking to score cheap, and anonymous, political points.
March 27, 2007 8:48 AM 
"My reaction was that Katie Couric asked questions that the American people are asking themselves, and I think they were completely legitimate questions. And I think the American people deserve answers from me and from Elizabeth to those questions. I mean, I'm asking America to support me and vote for me as their next president, and I think part of the evaluation of a candidate for president is a personal evaluation of the character and integrity and honesty of a candidate. So, no, I thought the questions were fair. Tough. I thought they were tough, but they were fair."
--John Edwards on the questions asked by Katie Couric in her controversial "60 Minutes" interview with the Edwards.
Edwards On Couric
(CBS)
--John Edwards on the questions asked by Katie Couric in her controversial "60 Minutes" interview with the Edwards.
March 26, 2007 10:36 AM
Katie Couric's Interview With John and Elizabeth Edwards
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:
Video: "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.
March 22, 2007 3:30 PM 
At 11:43 this morning, I received an email message with this subject line: "CBSNews.com News Alert! Edwards To Suspend Campaign Due To Wife's Cancer."
The body of the email sourced the claim to CBS News partner The Politico. In addition to sending the email alert, CBS News made the news the lead story on the Web site, where it was also sourced to The Politico.
We now know that the report was wrong: John Edwards is staying in the presidential race despite the fact that his wife's cancer has reemerged. The Politico's Ben Smith first claimed that Edwards would drop out in a blog post at 11:06. He has now posted an apology.
According to Smith, a single, anonymous source, whom Smith has known for years and whom he trusts, told him that Edwards was "suspending his campaign" this morning.
"…with less than an hour before Edwards was to announce, I unwisely wrote the item without getting a second source," wrote Smith. "When the campaign pushed back harder than I'd expected, I added that information to the original item, but that doesn't undo the damage. My apologies to our readers for passing on bad information."
I asked CBSNews.com Senior Political Editor (and former Public Eye editor) Vaughn Ververs about CBS News' handling of the story.
"We sourced the story correctly to Politico reporting," said Ververs. "But, while The Politico is an editorial partner of CBSNews.com, we should not have run breaking news of this nature that had not been independently verified by CBS News and will be careful not do so in the future."
The larger question here is this: Why rush out a story like this at all, especially as the press conference was less than an hour away? Is the bump in traffic really worth risking not getting it right?
"Something that's so basic but is often forgotten in the rush of working on a story - journalists often feel like 'I've gotta go with what I've got,'" Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, told me in an earlier interview. "But no one ever benefited themselves by going with something that turned out to be wrong."
Don't Believe The Hype: John Edwards Doesn't Suspend Campaign
(AP Photo/Gerry Broome)
The body of the email sourced the claim to CBS News partner The Politico. In addition to sending the email alert, CBS News made the news the lead story on the Web site, where it was also sourced to The Politico.
We now know that the report was wrong: John Edwards is staying in the presidential race despite the fact that his wife's cancer has reemerged. The Politico's Ben Smith first claimed that Edwards would drop out in a blog post at 11:06. He has now posted an apology.
According to Smith, a single, anonymous source, whom Smith has known for years and whom he trusts, told him that Edwards was "suspending his campaign" this morning.
"…with less than an hour before Edwards was to announce, I unwisely wrote the item without getting a second source," wrote Smith. "When the campaign pushed back harder than I'd expected, I added that information to the original item, but that doesn't undo the damage. My apologies to our readers for passing on bad information."
I asked CBSNews.com Senior Political Editor (and former Public Eye editor) Vaughn Ververs about CBS News' handling of the story.
"We sourced the story correctly to Politico reporting," said Ververs. "But, while The Politico is an editorial partner of CBSNews.com, we should not have run breaking news of this nature that had not been independently verified by CBS News and will be careful not do so in the future."
The larger question here is this: Why rush out a story like this at all, especially as the press conference was less than an hour away? Is the bump in traffic really worth risking not getting it right?
"Something that's so basic but is often forgotten in the rush of working on a story - journalists often feel like 'I've gotta go with what I've got,'" Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, told me in an earlier interview. "But no one ever benefited themselves by going with something that turned out to be wrong."
February 20, 2007 2:19 PM 
The press used to love John McCain. Maybe it wasn't quite an Obama-level infatuation, but in 2000 his "straight talk" had the press corps swooning – at least according to supporters of his then-opponent, George W. Bush, who complained bitterly about the McCain coverage.
McCain charmed journalists in large part by providing them with the kind of access reporters rarely get from serious candidates. In Feb. 2000, ABC News' Linda Douglass said this on "Reliable Sources": "Whenever there is an issue that is somewhat controversial, the reporters will go after McCain on the bus in the morning, and he will take about 20 minutes worth of questions and diffuse the tension."
He was also a good story – the relative outsider who took on the establishment candidate. Here's Bob Schieffer on that same program: "It has all the elements of a good drama. You know, this is the little guy taking on the establishment. This is a candidate that didn't have a lot of money. This is a candidate that said, well, what I'll do is just get out on this bus and drive around and talk to people."
Unfortunately for McCain, things have changed. As Howard Kurtz pointed out in his Web chat today, "[t]here has been a steady drumbeat of stories for months now about McCain abandoning his maverick ways, McCain flip-flopping on the likes of Falwell, McCain hiring political gunslingers he had once denounced, and how McCain's pro-war position is hurting his candidacy." So why has McCain fallen out of the press' good graces? The simplest reason is that the press isn't going to maintain the same narrative about a candidate for a decade. In the interest of a good storyline, they had to turn on McCain at some point. But it's more than that.
In 2000, McCain sold himself as a straight talker who didn't play the double-talk games most politicians are known for. This time around, he's taken the more-traditional approach – reaching out to extremists like Falwell, for example, whom he once called an "agent of intolerance." It made his earlier "straight talk" look like a political ploy, a cynical strategy by a politician who fooled the press into thinking he was different. Bitter about having fallen for McCain back in 2000, journalists are now quick to hammer the candidate for the kind of political maneuvering most politicians can easily get away with.
There is a lesson here for another 2008 candidate: John Edwards.
What Happens When You Burn The Press
(AP)
McCain charmed journalists in large part by providing them with the kind of access reporters rarely get from serious candidates. In Feb. 2000, ABC News' Linda Douglass said this on "Reliable Sources": "Whenever there is an issue that is somewhat controversial, the reporters will go after McCain on the bus in the morning, and he will take about 20 minutes worth of questions and diffuse the tension."
He was also a good story – the relative outsider who took on the establishment candidate. Here's Bob Schieffer on that same program: "It has all the elements of a good drama. You know, this is the little guy taking on the establishment. This is a candidate that didn't have a lot of money. This is a candidate that said, well, what I'll do is just get out on this bus and drive around and talk to people."
Unfortunately for McCain, things have changed. As Howard Kurtz pointed out in his Web chat today, "[t]here has been a steady drumbeat of stories for months now about McCain abandoning his maverick ways, McCain flip-flopping on the likes of Falwell, McCain hiring political gunslingers he had once denounced, and how McCain's pro-war position is hurting his candidacy." So why has McCain fallen out of the press' good graces? The simplest reason is that the press isn't going to maintain the same narrative about a candidate for a decade. In the interest of a good storyline, they had to turn on McCain at some point. But it's more than that.
In 2000, McCain sold himself as a straight talker who didn't play the double-talk games most politicians are known for. This time around, he's taken the more-traditional approach – reaching out to extremists like Falwell, for example, whom he once called an "agent of intolerance." It made his earlier "straight talk" look like a political ploy, a cynical strategy by a politician who fooled the press into thinking he was different. Bitter about having fallen for McCain back in 2000, journalists are now quick to hammer the candidate for the kind of political maneuvering most politicians can easily get away with.
There is a lesson here for another 2008 candidate: John Edwards.
February 14, 2007 10:21 AM 
Well, yesterday's news that blogger Amanda Marcotte was resigning from the Edwards' campaign after a whole lot of hoopla was not the final chapter of this story.
Melissa McEwan, who says she was not hired by the Edwards' campaign as a blogger, but as a "part time technical advisor," hasresigned that post. (She was widely identified in the press as a blogger.) An announcement of her departure is on her personal blog: "This was a decision I made, with the campaign's reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign, and making me increasingly uncomfortable with my and my family's level of exposure."
Edwards' Blog Saga, Vol. II
(AP)
Melissa McEwan, who says she was not hired by the Edwards' campaign as a blogger, but as a "part time technical advisor," has
February 13, 2007 10:30 AM 
Yes, it's a storyline you've likely read more than once (probably way more) in the past year: The Internet is going to have a bigger influence than ever on the 2008 presidential campaign.
The hoopla surrounding two bloggers hired by John Edwards' campaign – Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan – ushered in yet another chapter to that story. And today offers another volume: one of the bloggers, Amanda Marcotte, has resigned.
After a firestorm erupted over the bloggers' respective "cyber trails" of incendiary remarks – specifically, some anti-Catholic ones – some critics were calling for their removal from the Edwards campaign.
Ultimately, Edwards decided last week to keep the bloggers on staff, while distancing himself from some of their comments. The bloggers also offered apologies.
But Marcotte has resigned anyway, the Washington Post reports today, blaming Bill Donohoe, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and one of her loudest critics.
According to the Post, she wrote on her blog yesterday that Donohoe "and his calvacade of right wing shills don't respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics," which Marcotte described as being "anti-theocracy."
The whole situation is, of course, a microcosm of the conflict that candidates now face as the blogosphere comes to play a bigger role in the campaign media game.
One More Chapter In A Familiar Online Story
(CBS/iStockphoto)
The hoopla surrounding two bloggers hired by John Edwards' campaign – Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan – ushered in yet another chapter to that story. And today offers another volume: one of the bloggers, Amanda Marcotte, has resigned.
After a firestorm erupted over the bloggers' respective "cyber trails" of incendiary remarks – specifically, some anti-Catholic ones – some critics were calling for their removal from the Edwards campaign.
Ultimately, Edwards decided last week to keep the bloggers on staff, while distancing himself from some of their comments. The bloggers also offered apologies.
But Marcotte has resigned anyway, the Washington Post reports today, blaming Bill Donohoe, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and one of her loudest critics.
According to the Post, she wrote on her blog yesterday that Donohoe "and his calvacade of right wing shills don't respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics," which Marcotte described as being "anti-theocracy."
The whole situation is, of course, a microcosm of the conflict that candidates now face as the blogosphere comes to play a bigger role in the campaign media game.
February 7, 2007 2:33 PM 
The Catholic League is demanding that John Edwards fire a pair of liberal bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, who recently signed up with the Edwards campaign.
The bloggers' crime? They're "anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots,” according to Catholic League President Bill Donohue. ABC's Terry Moran has a roundup of some of the pair's comments, which they made before they joined Edwards. Among them was this, from Marcotte, on the Catholic Church's position on birth control:
Great stuff on both sides, really.
The Problem With Harnessing The Blogs
(AP)
The bloggers' crime? They're "anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots,” according to Catholic League President Bill Donohue. ABC's Terry Moran has a roundup of some of the pair's comments, which they made before they joined Edwards. Among them was this, from Marcotte, on the Catholic Church's position on birth control:
Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.Media Matters notes that Donahue has his own history of incendiary speech, including this: "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions."
Great stuff on both sides, really.
January 8, 2007 2:20 PM 
Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz digs up the latest development in the convergence of politics and the YouTube generation today, one which raises questions about the use and manipulation of user-generated content tools in the political process. Kurtz looks at a unique video posted on the Web site of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards featuring the former Senator in an apparent, “behind-the-scenes” moment and asks:
Even Transparency Is Tricky In New Media Landscape
(CBS)
An unscripted moment caught on a cellphone camera? Not exactly. The video of the presidential candidate chatting on his plane is on Edwards's Web site. The former senator seems unusually frank about the absurdities of political life -- or is this just carefully choreographed candor, packaged for the YouTube age?
