All Blog Posts from Public Eye

"For the mainstream media, I think there ought to be general standards of newsworthiness. And they basically are, how important is what happened? And how important is the person it happened to? And I think David Hasselhoff, although 'Baywatch' got exported to 160 countries, is exactly the kind of C-list celebrity that we really have to raise questions about."

--Mark Jurkowitz, associate director of Project for Excellence in Journalism, on CNN's "Reliable Sources."

It's apparently a banner day for insights about the role of the ombudsman (or nonbudsman, as the case may be.) “We’re beginning to see — if not quite a golden age — at least a flowering of the ombudsmanship movement,” writes Mark Jurkowitz in the Boston Phoenix today. He’s the former ombudsman for Boston Globe, and his piece is a unique look at what it’s like to have “what has often been considered one of journalism’s most thankless jobs.” How so? Writes Jurkowitz:

The truth is that ombudsmen tend to leave everyone unsatisfied. Colleagues and bosses are often taken aback by any level of criticism, and the public is usually deprived of the full-throated assault it wants.

In an interview for today’s Boston Herald PBS NewsHour anchor Jim Lehrer told the paper that he didn’t want a full assault, but maybe more of a closer look behind the curtain for the audience. On the disconnect between reporters and the audience they serve:

“There’s always been (one), and it’s always been our fault,” Lehrer said. “They think we’re doing it for ourselves. We need to say, ‘We go to the White House because you’re too busy to.’ We just haven’t explained the basics.”

He suggested newspapers include reports on the reporting process - “not just an ombudsman” - for any enterprise or investigative story.

Well, we’re not a newspaper, but we’re here for you Jim Lehrer.

Read full post…

New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh's recent piece on the Bush administration's hawkish plans for Iran, which he claims reflect a desire for regime change and involve the possible use of nuclear weapons to achieve it, have increased scrutiny on the administration's strategy regarding the axis of evil member. Hersh has an impressive track record as an investigative reporter, but, as we've mentioned before, it's important to keep in mind that the story relies heavily on anonymous sources, who may have agendas other than getting out the truth. The sources could be trying to get Iran to the bargaining table on behalf of the White House, as Howard Kurtz theorized. They could be trying to kill plans to attack Iran by exaggerating the administration's intentions. They could be telling the truth. It's impossible to know.

Now the Boston Phoenix's Mark Jurkowitz raises a pair of different issues I thought worth considering:

…reading “The Iran Plans” can be as frustrating as it is enlightening. Hersh portrays an administration — already militarily and politically bogged down in Iraq — using the same philosophy driven by the same people to repeat the same policy in Iran. In that case, two huge questions come to mind.

First, can it really be true that the situation in Iraq hasn’t given this administration a little more reason to pause, to view the virtues of multi-lateralism more warmly, and to question its ability to control events and manage the spiraling fallout from a major military operation? Is that possible?

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 Mark Jurkowitz, senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix and author of the newspaper's daily Media Log offers up some advice for the CBS "Evening News" in it's quest for a new anchor. Through the lens of his experience covering the Boston television media market, Jurkowitz examines how local Boston stations have chosen their anchors and why it should matter for CBS. 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. Here's Mark:

I’m sure CBS executives enjoyed reading last Sunday’s San Jose Mercury News story in which Walter Cronkite voiced his support for Bob Schieffer for the permanent anchor slot at the CBS “Evening News.” Actually, the Schieffer saga is a nice one. A strange twist of circumstances lands a respected 68-year-old newshound in the anchor seat as an emergency replacement last year. And lo and behold, he clicks.

The Washington Post writes a flattering story. Network news analyst Andrew Tyndall calls him “the people’s anchor.” And the ratings at the number three network in the nightly news wars start moving in the right direction. When I interviewed him last year, it was clear that Schieffer was having the time of his life.

“I feel like, in a way, kind of a playing coach,” he cracked, adding that at least the anchor gig “will give me something to do until I’m old enough to be on ‘60 Minutes.””

Of course, CBS has made no secret of its courtship of NBC’s “Today” host Katie Couric, an anti-Schieffer if ever there was one. With all due respect to the fact that Couric is NBC’s most important personality, I have trouble viewing her as more than a toothy morning host who’s conducted a few too many giggly interviews with movie actors. (This week one of Katie’s journalistic duties was giving co-worker Ann Curry a haircut on the air.)

Lest I be considered too much of a curmudgeon, I’m not here to try and convince CBS that chasing Couric is a mistake. I’m just saying that having her follow Schieffer is not really an orderly succession. It’s whiplash.

Which brings us to the key question here. Are good anchors born? Or does the job transform the anchor? More importantly, do anchors really matter?

Read full post…