All Blog Posts from Public Eye

If you're interested in sharpening your media criticism skills, you could do worse than running for president.

Consider Barack Obama. On Friday, in an interview with the New York Times, Obama neatly summed up the prevailing press narrative about his campaign.

“A month ago, I was an idiot,” he said, according to a story published Sunday. “This month, I’m a genius.”

The implication is that the chattering classes have reversed their opinion about Obama even though the candidate himself hasn't much changed. And while his statement may be something of an exaggeration, there's clearly some truth in it. Has Obama really become a better candidate after spending much of the campaign as a bumbler? Or does the press corps now see him that way simply because he has moved up in the polls?

The Times suggests that the press corps' change of heart is justified:

The campaign of Mr. Obama, which slogged uncertainly through a period in the late summer and fall, alarming contributors who feared that he might have missed his moment, is now brimming with confidence as he delivers a closing argument to Iowa voters. His speeches are noticeably crisper, his poise is more consistent and many supporters say they no longer must rely upon a leap of faith to envision him winning the nomination.

Perhaps – although Mr. Obama himself might beg to differ. When it comes to something as messy and difficult to measure as the performance of a presidential candidate, it's difficult to determine to what degree the media follow reality, and to what degree they creates their own. Many of the same commentators crowing about Obama's ascent are the same ones who told us Hillary Clinton was the "inevitable" democratic nominee. Now it seems she was only inevitable until she wasn't.

Read full post…

Welcome to the snowglobe that is Washington, DC this morning.

(Yes, those of you playing “Holiday News Bingo,” feel free to block off the center top square.)

And one of the minor little media flurries we’re mucking through? A dubious Washington Post front page story last week entitled “Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him.”

According to to The Politico the piece has become a huge point of contention:

The Washington Post is accustomed to criticism of its coverage from the right and left blogospheres, but a Nov. 29 front page story about Barack Obama’s rumored Muslim ties came with a twist: Many voices within its own newsroom joined in the firestorm…

Since Thursday, there have been angry e-mails, Hamilton said, and allegations that the Post is swift-boating the Illinois senator by discussing rumors at length, without mentioning whether they’ve been thoroughly discredited by other media.

The Columbia Journalism Review folks jumped in as well:

In the front-page piece, [author Perry] Bacon muses over how the chances of Barack Obama getting elected president might be affected by the fact that he’s not Muslim. Seriously. To build his case, Bacon stumbles artlessly through all manner of rumor, innuendo, and xenophobic smear—never bothering to refute any of it, even though there is plenty of well-documented evidence to knock down much of this stuff.

Read full post…

We had a nice run, but it’s time to pass along the tiera. Our era as Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year” is coming to an end.

Today the magazine is holding a panel to discuss who’s going to be the big newsmaker this year, and it’s going to be a tough call. After all, who stood out in 2007?

There’s a little more to the equation than you’d think, remember. It’s not an award. It’s not even a compliment. The magazine says the distinction goes to “the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or ill.” Heck, Person of the Year doesn’t even have to be a person – Earth won once, and so did The Computer.

Time is holding an online poll right now, listing off ten possibilities. (Look! There go all the Ron Paul readers!) Some of the ones they’re tossing out? Al Gore, Barack Obama, Condoleeza Rice, J. K Rowling, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, General David Petraeus.

All notable public figures, to be sure. But none of them has a chance. The Time magazine is a complicated calculus of risk and PR, with a dash of quirk tossed in. It’s definitely a good annual publicity ploy by the magazine, but it always has a financial angle as well. Over the past 25 years, the magazine's decision has devolved into choosing a safe, newsworthy and palatable cover person or people.

So who might get it? It’s easier to say who won’t. And why.

Read full post…

We’ve got ourselves a Hillary Hullabaloo down in Miami at the Herald. And it’s a twist on the old checkbook journalism debate.

Last Sunday, the Herald’s ombudsman admitted that the newspaper had ponied up $50 to attend a Hillary Clinton fundraiser:

Miami Herald reporter Evan S. Benn, under instruction from his editors, paid $50 last Sunday to the Clinton campaign to cover a fundraiser and rally by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Benn said he tried to get in for free, presenting himself as a reporter, but was told the event was closed to the media and was turned away. He then made the minimum contribution to get in. Local television stations remained camped outside.

The Miami Herald's decision to contribute was made after nearly a week of what, by all accounts, was a strong internal debate among editors and reporters. The concerns, which strike at the ethical core of a newspaper, were: fairness to readers and other candidates; paying for news; whether to sneak in; and what to do going forward.

The ombudsman continued on, conveying how he spoke with a bunch of people in the newsroom about how Florida is in such an odd position, given the state’s decision to move up their primary and the Democratic National Committee publicly chastising the state:

The issue was created by a novel situation, unforeseen by most ethical guidelines.

It began when the Legislature moved up the date of Florida's primary, putting it among the earliest in the nation. Fearing hop-scotching by other states, the Democrat and Republican national committees took counter measures….

The Democrats have resorted to sleights of hand. Instead of exclusive fundraisers for big rollers, the Democrats are creating large, cheap ones that are, in fact, also mass rallies.

So the Miami Herald made its decision, stuck to it, and adopted a fully transparent approach. Good enough, right?

Nah, not so much.

Read full post…

Stephen Colbert, like savoir faire, is everywhere.

It’s no news that the host of “The Colbert Report” is running for President. It’s been the talk of the political world and blogosphere ever since he announced two weeks ago.

But today’s New York Times piece got me wondering. Former TVNewser Brian Stelter wrote:

Stephen Colbert’s presidential candidacy may be phony, but his supporters are very real…

One of them — a group created by Raj Vachhani and titled “1,000,000 Strong for Stephen T Colbert” — has grown to more than a million members in just over a week, making it the most popular political group on Facebook by far.

Read full post…

It’s a YouTube world and we’re just living in it. This much is clear, as the Web site seems to find a new way to generate media buzz every day. Take a look at these recent samplings…

Andy Warhol Online:

We’ve had Obama Girl. We’ve had Britney-loving weeper Chris Crocker. (That's 'him' above.) Now we’ve got a woman singing with her hands? According to the Canadian Globe and Mail, an odd-even-given-the-company-it-keeps video showing a pair of hands ‘singing’/grooving to a Daft Punk song is the flavor of the week.

Ad Nauseam:

Google’s ad network and YouTube are teaming up to spread advertising around the web. According to the New York Times:

The Internet search giant is expected to introduce a service on Tuesday to allow Web sites in its ad network to embed relevant videos from some YouTube content creators. A Web site or blog specializing in hiking, for instance, might choose to embed hiking videos from YouTube.

Just another example that wherever you are online, commerce is going to find you … somewhere, somehow.

Off The Radar, On Computer Screens:

You can’t find Al Jazeera English on most American cable providers, but you now can find them online via YouTube. TechCrunch reports that Al Jazeera has signed a deal where they share advertising revenue with the website.

By this point, I guess you can tell I'm ever-so-fixated on how journalists can improve the accuracy of their work and clean up political discourse.

Whether it's the Associated Press editor pushing for "accountability journalism" or that NPR segment from last week where they discussed how debunking misinformation merely solidifies the incorrect perception most of the time, the newsmedia implicitly has admitted they need to get more careful.

Today's well-intentioned journalistic initiative to make the campaign trail less cluttered?

The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" story
section, with the following goal:

The purpose of this website, and an accompanying column in the Post, is to "truth squad" the national political debate in the period leading up to the 2008 presidential election. Our goal is to shed as much light as possible on controversial claims and counter-claims involving important national issues, such as the war in Iraq, immigration, health care, social issues, the economy, and the records of the various presidential candidates. When we come across a statement or claim that is at variance with the facts, as best we can establish them, we will point that out.

While it's clear they're taking their job very seriously, they still keep it readable with features like "The Pinocchio Test" where they score misstatements or exaggerations on a scale of one to four Pinocchios. (And reward fully truthful statements with the mark of "Geppetto.")

And, unsurprisingly, I'm a fan. Sort of. So far, it looks as if they're getting the hang of things by picking on some political low-hanging fruit.

Read full post…

By this point, you can probably infer I'm ever-so-fixated on how journalists can improve the accuracy of their work and clean up political discourse.

Whether it's that Associated Press editor pushing for "accountability journalism" or that NPR segment from last week where they discussed how debunking misinformation merely solidifies the incorrect perception most of the time, the newsmedia is acknowledging they need to get more careful.


Today's well-intentioned journalistic initiative to make the campaign trail less cluttered?

The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" story
section, with the following goal:

The purpose of this website, and an accompanying column in the Post, is to "truth squad" the national political debate in the period leading up to the 2008 presidential election. Our goal is to shed as much light as possible on controversial claims and counter-claims involving important national issues, such as the war in Iraq, immigration, health care, social issues, the economy, and the records of the various presidential candidates. When we come across a statement or claim that is at variance with the facts, as best we can establish them, we will point that out.

While it's clear they're taking their job very seriously, they still keep it readable with features like "The Pinocchio Test" where they score misstatements or exaggerations on a scale of one to four Pinocchios. (And reward fully truthful statements with the mark of "Geppetto.")

And, unsurprisingly, I'm a fan. Sort of. So far, it looks as if they're getting the hang of things by picking on some political low-hanging fruit.

Read full post…

Just as the number of debates proliferates – the reviews for last night's technically challenged Spanish-language Democratic debate have been withering – another major, very major, media outlet has been removed from the equation: Oprah.

You've probably seen that Oprah and her couch have taken sides in Campaign 2008. The talk-show host has decided to back Barack Obama, going so far as to host a fundraiser this past weekend. Was it profitable? You betcha, to the tune of $3 million. Was it star-studded? According to the Los Angeles Times, oh yeah:

The overwhelmingly African American crowd included distinguished senior figures, including basketball superstar Bill Russell and Academy Award-winning actor Sydney Poitier, and younger stars, including Holly Robinson Peete and cutting-edge comedian Chris Rock. Motown's Stevie Wonder provided the entertainment, singing his hits from the '70s and '80s.

And not only has Oprah made her allegiance clear to the world, she has also decided that she won't invite any other candidates on her program. Denying the other candidates this key forum? That's huge.

Read full post…

Our Crush On Obama Girl Fades: There's a new "Obama Girl" video out, and while some are giving it high marks, Public Eye has had just about enough of songs about candidates sung by scantily-clad ingénues. Well, at least until our "Gravelicious" video, starring Matthew Felling and a giant rock, comes out.

Junket Science: Patton Oswalt, star of "Ratatouille," reflected on media junkets in the Onion. "Now, when I see Will Smith or Tom Hanks give kind of a gobsmacked, deer-in-headlights interview, and I'm like, 'What the f---'s wrong with those guys?' Now I know what's wrong with them. This is how they break people in Guantanamo: They ask them variations on the exact same question. 'What time did you go to the store?' 'At 12:15.' 'So what time of day was it?' 'At 12:15.' 'So, was it 12:14?' They're just breaking me down." (via mb)

Pass The Gupta: Jon Friedman says CNN has been milking its battle with Michael Moore for every last rating point it can. And he complains that Wolf Blitzer asked Moore for "a couple of headlines," showing "that he needed Moore to say something controversial, so CNN could use it on a promo." Well, yeah. But it's July, and there's not much news. And the Wolfman is not normally a scandal-monger; we're thinking he meant "bullet point" or "basic thought." But either way, better an over-hyped debate over health care than, say, a giant squid story, no?