All Blog Posts from Public Eye

It's Thursday, and that means it's time for the Public Eye Chat. This week's subject is CBS News White House Correspondent Bill Plante, who caused a stir at Karl Rove’s farewell press conference when he asked President Bush “If he’s so smart, why did you lose Congress?”

Matthew Felling: Interesting week. Anything surprise you?

Bill Plante: Nothing much, actually. Anytime you challenge or appear to challenge the president – and I don’t care if the president is a Republican or a Democrat – there are people who will take issue with it and tell you it’s inappropriate. And you kind of expect that. I knew that what I did on Monday was smart-assed, but I think that that’s beside the point.

Our asking questions should not be dependent on what the White House thinks the mood or the tone of an event should be. And the fact that they say ‘no questions’ or don’t allow time for questions really has nothing to do with it. They don’t have to answer, but I think we need to preserve and aggressively push our right to ask.

Matthew Felling: This week, you asked a question, it got uploaded on the web, it got broadcast everywhere. Did you see any increased polarization or partisanship in the responses you received?

Bill Plante: Yes, the response was instant because of the Internet. In this case, my question got put up on DCFishbowl and then on Drudge, so then it spread like wildfire. That’s no surprise, since there are people that monitor those sites and others everyday.

When I did this 20 years ago in the Rose Garden, I yelled a question at Ronald Reagan at the ‘Teacher of the Year’ event as he was leaving and going inside. Several of the teachers complained and said I disrupted things and that it was inappropriate. In that case, I got a few phone calls but then had to wait for the angry letters to come in. Then after that, I wrote a Washington Post Outlook piece about questioning the president. It took more than a week to play out.

But in this case, it was instantaneous, of course. But I know that’s how things happen these days.

Read full post…

What’s a journalist to do nowadays? Or, more to the point, what are they allowed to do? Nobody seems to be able to agree.

Journalism websites are abuzz over how Seattle Times Executive Editor David Boardman issued a memo requesting that reporters keep their “personal politics” to themselves – a missive written in light of some reporters’ responses to the news of Karl Rove’s departure.
According to the paper’s chief political reporter:

Seattle Times Executive Editor Dave Boardman wrote today in one of his morning notes to staff that there had been "an awkward moment at yesterday's news meeting." That's the meeting where editors and other staff from throughout the newsroom talk about the stories planned for the next day's paper. Boardman wrote in "Dave's Raves (and the occasional rant)"

When word came in of Karl Rove's resignation, several people in the meeting started cheering. That sort of expression is simply not appropriate for a newsroom.

Here at Public Eye, we continue to see a mixed bag of attaboys and how-could-you’s about CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante’s question from Monday, where he asked of President Bush, " If [Rove] is so smart, why did you lose Congress?"

Back at the beginning of the summer, we saw some journalists get called out for contributing to political campaigns. And then there’s the camp of journalistic purists who don’t vote, to avoid creating some perceived conflict of interest.

Read full post…

One of the accidental subplots to Karl Rove’s departure yesterday was a question directed to President Bush by CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante at Rove's farewell press event. His question was picked up by a DC media blog and generated many responses. So we asked Bill for his side of the story, which follows.

As the President and Karl Rove walked away from the lectern after their emotional announcement of Rove’s resignation, I yelled a question.

“If he’s so smart, why did you lose Congress?”

The President, as usual, didn’t answer.

That’s OK – he doesn’t have to if he doesn’t want to.

But judging by some of the reaction, you’d think I had been shouting obscenities in church!

“Unprofessional;” “Inappropriate;” “Unbecoming;” “Doesn’t show much class;” “you are a total idiot;” “Shill for the liberal Democrats.”

People who sympathize with the President – no matter who the President happens to be – always seem to think it’s impolite to yell questions. Or they argue that the question is inappropriate at the moment. That may sometimes be true, but not [this time].

Rove has been a controversial figure in this administration, the man most often credited or blamed with framing support for the war by politicizing terrorism.

There was no time to frame that question because the event this morning was a statement, not a news conference. So I asked a more direct one. I thought it unlikely that they would answer, but it’s always worth a try.

This isn’t the first time I’ve been blasted for yelling. Twenty or so years ago, I yelled a question at President Reagan as he left the Rose Garden after the annual Teacher of the Year ceremony.

One woman wrote to tell me that I was a guest in the President’s house and ought to be behave as one.

Ten years ago, I asked President Clinton a question which brought a red-faced angry response.

The point is that reporters are not here as guests. We’re here to ask questions.

Why?

Because if we were ever to agree to “behave,” we’d be walking away from our First Amendment role – and then we really would be the shills we’re so often accused of being.

DC Dispatch: Public Eye was sent to be the fly on the wall of today’s internal seminar for new CBS hires and interns about “Television Production 101.” Here’s your intrepid PE correpondent’s report from inside:

(Heck, being “The Mole” worked for Anderson Cooper …)

Bob Schieffer started off the meeting in his standard folksy manner, informing the crowd that he’s nearing his 50-year anniversary in the news business. Then he shared the story of the interview that led to his career, when he applied for work at a radio station. The man running the station pointed across the street and said “tell me what’s over there.” Schieffer observed “it’s the football field.” The interviewer responded “Yeah, but tell me what you see over there, describe it.” Apparently, given this second chance, Schieffer did well enough to earn a spot on the staff and … the rest is history.

After that, a lot of the seminar was spent deconstructing a four minute segment put together in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. Cameramen, producers and correspondents discussed the logistical difficulties of trying to wrap their heads around the story in order to condense it to a comprehensive report. "CBS Evening News” producer Andy Triay spelled out the difference between the live cable reporting of the story and the CBS segment analyzed. “A cable reporter's job is to say here is what I can see from this vantage point, but network reporters have to say here is what happened today” when faced with putting together a taped segment tying together all the day’s developments.** Also, overlooked logistical issues were discussed, from the four-hour trip down to Blacksburg, to the difficulties of finding set-up shots and witnesses to the task of trying to identify, you know, tracking down what happened in the midst of confusion and chaos.

Read full post…

At President Bush's press conference today, CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante, upon hearing his first name called, began to ask a question. Reporter Bill Sammon of the Examiner was standing next to him, and he started talking as well. So Plante paused and asked, “which Bill?”


“You," the president replied. "The cute-looking one.”

I asked Plante what it was like to have the president call him cute.

Plante theorized that the impetus for the comment may have been the colorful pocket square Plante was wearing, which might have lead to a little locker room teasing back in the president's baseball days.

"As long as we have a chance to talk to them, presidents can call us whatever they want," Plante added over email. "And, I’m reliably informed, they do, at least in private."

It's Thursday, and that means it's time for the latest installment of the Public Eye Chat. This week's subject is correspondent Bill Plante, who has been a CBS News White House correspondent since the Reagan administration. In our conversation, Plante discusses how the "Evening News" has changed since 1964, why 2008 coverage focuses so closely on top-tier candidates and how the television sound bite has shrunk over the years. You can read excerpts from the conversation below or click on the link to listen to the full interview.

---

Click here to listen to the interview.

---

You've covered every presidential campaign since 1968. When it comes to 2008 coverage, why do you think that it is so focused on the top-tier candidates? Do you think that in some way viewers are shortchanged by this?

The reason that the focus is on the top-tier candidates is because everybody who's covering politics expects this to be over by February 2008 -- less than a year from now. And they don't believe that anybody who is lower down in the polls right now is going to have any chance to get traction.

Now, it can easily be that several people who are leading now fall by the wayside. And maybe somebody from lower in the pack will pop up, but it seems unlikely. Because the top-tier candidates are all well known, all well funded and it's very likely that one of them is going to have the nomination. I mean in the Democratic party it's Hillary or Obama -- so it seems today. Is there a chance for a Richardson? Who knows? But it seems less likely so therefore, there's less interest in the second-tier candidates.

But beyond the fact that candidates like Clinton or Obama simply have more money and already have the attention, isn't it sort of circular logic for the media to say, 'These are the people we're going to cover because other people aren't going to get traction?' Isn't it sort of in the hands of the media to provide the traction?

There is a certain circular logic here because if nobody knows who the second-tier candidates are, then they certainly aren't going to rise. So, they will get some coverage. They simply won't get as much as the top-tier candidates. And they'll do everything they can to drive the coverage themselves, but for the most part, the interest is going to be in what the people who are likely to get the nomination are doing and saying about one another. If candidate X from the bottom of the pack says that a top- tier candidate is a jerk, it'll be a blip in the news cycle. But if two top-tier candidates start calling each other names -- as we've sort of seen already -- it becomes news.

Read full post…

For the past week, news outlets have been awash in talk of Bush's upcoming speech on his Iraq strategy. That cycle has been fueled, of course, by leaks from the White House about what the speech will actually contain. By now, the official previews of the speech have emerged – including a morning preview at the White House for network anchors and White House counselor Dan Bartlett's appearances on television discussing the speech. His remarks are effectively dominating the news right now.

All of this is typical of what happens before a major presidential speech, but it begs the question of what, exactly, the White House's strategy is in showing its hand early. Why do they explain what's going to be in the speech before the president gives it? The reasons, unsurprisingly, have a lot to do with controlling the way the speech is received.

"Basically I think there is a point like today at which [the previews] become a practical courtesy," said White House correspondent Bill Plante. "But the leaks over the last week were to enlist allies and to give maximum exposure to the ideas while perhaps holding back specifics. And by those yardsticks it's received great success -- we've been talking about nothing else for a week now."

Official appearances like Bartlett's allow the administration to respond to information that's been widely consumed for the past week, said Plante, which offers "another news cycle to consider the speech."

Read full post…

As the mid-term election season heats up, White House correspondent Bill Plante explains a relatively new strategy out of the White House Communications Office – offering rebuttals to news coverage that it views as false or misleading.

The White House may be on the defensive three weeks before the mid-term elections, but the Bush administration's Communications Office has mounted its own sustained offensive.

Since Labor Day, the White House communications operation has been in the kind of rapid response mode usually seen in campaigns, publishing eight pieces on its Web site to rebut news coverage it regards as inaccurate or misleading under the title, "Setting the Record Straight." One such release criticized a CBS “Evening News” segment on Medicare Part D as “misleading.”

White House Communications Director Kevin Sullivan says his group picks its targets every morning in an attempt to correct something it regards as misleading "before it becomes conventional wisdom."

"Sometimes it's not inaccurate," said Sullivan, "but more a matter of context. But it's never personal."

On Saturday, October 14, "Setting the Record Straight" took on an Associated Press story which made the point that President Bush has repeatedly revised his explanation for the U.S. presence in Iraq. The administration's rebuttal quoted from the President's speeches as far back as 2003 to assert that he has been consistent in explaining the purpose of the war as liberation from Saddam Hussein and the spread of Democracy in the Middle East.

Author Bob Woodward's new book, "State of Denial," brought forth three separate responses, including one titled, “Five Key Myths in Bob Woodward's Book."

The staff was delighted when the Reuters news service picked up that response - and even more pleased when it appeared in a box in the middle of the Washington Post excerpts from Woodward's book.

"Setting the Record Straight" first appeared in March, 2004 to give the White House answer to former Counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies."

It reappeared once in November of 2004 and once in early 2005, then returned for good in November of 2005, taking on Democrats on the war and The Washington Post and The New York Times on pre-war intelligence.

Read full post…

The temporary off-grounds White House briefing room has been the subject of quite a bit of chatter lately. White House Correspondent Bill Plante tells us about the facility's most recent development that has everyone talking -- a somewhat inconspicuous video camera.

Is Karl Rove watching? Or does he have better things to do, like trying to save the Republican majority in Congress?

Well, Karl, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, and other senior staffers CAN watch a video feed from the Briefing Room - even if it’s one of the briefings (also known as “gaggles”) which are not normally made available for TV.

There’s a small TV camera mounted on the ceiling of the temporary White House briefing room. It’s black, matching the TV lights – and consequently, unobtrusive. I noticed it a few days after we moved into the new space a month ago.

But today, during the 9:30 a.m. gaggle, as my colleagues and I went back and forth with Press Secretary Tony Snow about whether the President’s Oval Office address last night was “political,” I watched the camera swing from questioner to questioner. A quick glance to the side of the room confirmed that the White House Communications Agency Technician who handles the audio for the briefings was also controlling the camera.

So, as it hovered in my direction during another reporter’s question, I began waving. Isn’t that what everyone does in front of a camera?

Tony Snow, distracted, stopped in mid-sentence to ask me why I was waving.

“Hi Josh,” I volunteered. “Hi Karl.”

Read full post…

You have to hand it to FAIR – when the liberal media watchdog group issues an “action alert,” their community takes action. When FAIR complained about a commentary by “Face The Nation” host Bob Schieffer last month, our inbox was flooded with e-mails and we responded. Once again we’re up to our size limits with hundreds of e-mails spurred by one of FAIR’s “action alerts,” this time taking issue with an “Evening News” story.

On August 21, White House correspondent Bill Plante reported on President Bush’s press conference, most of which dealt with the war in Iraq and the ongoing tension in the Middle East. Plante’s report can be seen by clicking the box above and the entire transcript of the press conference can be accessed here. Here’s FAIR’s beef:

During his August 21 press conference, George W. Bush responded to a question about the Iraq War by saying that "sometimes I'm happy" about the conflict. But many readers and TV viewers never heard the remark, since journalists edited the statement to save Bush any possible embarrassment.

Bush's unedited comment was as follows:
Q: But are you frustrated, sir?

BUSH: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country. I understand that.

Viewers of CBS Evening News (8/21/06) saw a carefully edited version of that response—one better suited to presenting Bush as serious and concerned with the effects of the war. Reporter Bill Plante previewed the answer by saying that Bush "conceded that daily reports of death and destruction take a toll, both on the nation and on him." The edited quote that followed:
Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated, rarely surprised. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times, and they're difficult times. And they're straining the psyche of our country. I understand that.

FAIR notes that the NBC “Nightly News” report on the press conference also omitted the “happy” part of the comment and that print outlets “generally left out” the remark. The folks at FAIR think this was all very unfair, concluding: “with the Iraq War widely unpopular with the public, many viewers may have found Bush saying that it sometimes made him "happy" jarring and distasteful.” More on that below. First, some samples from our in-box. Melissa O. asks:

Why did CBS decide that Bush's comments about the Iraq War making him "happy" should be excised from your reporting?
As reporters, you hold a public trust to report credibly, accurately and thoroughly.

Read full post…