All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Before this week’s big change at the Pentagon, there was another, albeit less momentous change that gained headlines -- the Pentagon’s newest public relations strategy. We noted last week that the Department of Defense appeared to be taking a page from the White House Communications Office in ramping up the “rapid response” unit of its public relations operation – a technique traditionally seen only during the rough and tumble of political campaigns. Much like the White House’s strategy, one aspect of this effort includes rebutting news reports that the Pentagon perceives as inaccurate or misleading.The New York Times last week looked into the operation, noting that one television reporter had been approached by the Pentagon press office regarding the tone of her reporting:

Barbara Starr, a veteran Pentagon correspondent for CNN, said she was surprised last month to be challenged by press officers within minutes after completing a report on a Baghdad briefing where the military’s top spokesman called the results of recent security operations “disheartening.” Ms. Starr said she had called it a “stunning development” on the air.

“They objected to the tone during my live shot,” she said. “My view is that if a general says things are disheartening, that is news.”

Pentagon Spokesman Brian Whitman told the Times that he was unaware of the call to Starr, “but said that he had challenged the content of television broadcasts before and that it had nothing to do with the reorganization of the press office.”

CBS News Pentagon correspondent David Martin told us that he hasn’t yet “been hit by the quick-reaction squad. But I would agree with Barbara that the use of the word ‘disheartening’ by the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq was a ‘stunning development,’ particularly since he was reading from a prepared text.”

As far as the potential effect that this might have on his reporting, Martin said that the new strategy poses detriments – as well as benefits.

Read full post…

Critiques about media coverage of Iraq often highlight the claim that news outlets don’t treat positive events related to the war in Iraq with the same amount of attention that they give to bad news about the war. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, often a critic along these lines, recently remarked that terrorists have been successful in “manipulating the media.”

The Pentagon’s concern about how the media relays events related to the war is substantial enough that it is being addressed with a bid for “a two-year, $20 million public relations contract that calls for extensive monitoring of U.S. and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage of news from Iraq,” writes Walter Pincus in the Washington Post today. According to the proposal, “the contract calls for assembling a database of selected news stories and assessing their tone as part of a program to provide ‘public relations products’ that would improve coverage of the military command's performance.” One anonymous “public relations practictioner” told the Post that “military commanders ‘are overwhelmed by the media out there and are trying to understand how to get their information out.’

“‘They want it [news] to be received by audiences as it is transmitted [by them], but they don't like how it turns out,’ he said. As an example, he said, there are complaints that reports from Iraq sometimes quote Shiite cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr more than military commanders.”

The article notes a similar example from Rumsfeld during a speech Tuesday: “a search of leading newspapers revealed that a soldier punished for misconduct was written about ‘10 times’ as often as the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in anti-terrorism efforts.”

The entire article is worth reading, and it will likely generate much fodder for those engaged in the ever-present “why isn’t there more good news coming out of Iraq?” debate -- an issue that we’ve touched on before, so it’s worth revisiting a few of those posts.

UPDATE: Rumsfeld expands on his recent comments in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.

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 we asked Steve Rubel, senior vice president at Edelman public relations and author of the blog Micropersuasion (one of Technorati's top 100 blogs.) As an influential blogger and PR executive, Rubel takes a look at what an effort for greater transparency might do for journalism and public relations (see more Rubel in this Washington Post chat). 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 Steve:

What is journalism? According to Wikipedia, journalism is “a discipline of collecting, analyzing, verifying, and presenting information gathered regarding current events, including trends, issues and people.”

Now, what is “public relations?” Turing again to Wikipedia, PR is defined as “the art and science of building relationships between an organization and its key audiences.”

OK, one last question. I promise. Why are we here? Well, Public Eye’s mission is to bring transparency to the editorial operations of CBS News. It’s a blog for CBS News and CBSNews.com journalists to explain and answer questions about the news they produce.

If you re-read the last three paragraphs, you might notice something striking. The mission of journalism hasn’t largely changed. However, in an era where everyone can be a publisher (not necessarily a journalist), CBS is increasingly using social media to become more transparent to get closer to its audience. They’re wisely using blogs and podcasts to break down walls and build a closer bond with their public. Journalism is no longer a largely one-way medium, but a dialogue. It’s a conversation. It’s a public relationship, or put another way, public relations.

Read full post…