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 Capitol Hill Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.

Matthew Felling: Many reporters have a few politicians or individuals they cover. But in a sense, you have 535. What challenges or opportunities does that present?

Sharyl Attkisson: The challenge? There are so many stories going on up here on a given day, I couldn't possibly cover them all. It’s difficult to cover all the machinations of the members and the committees. The opportunity? There are so many stories going on up here on a given day. Another benefit is that you will always be able to find someone willing to talk to you.

Matthew Felling: You’ve been the Capitol Hill correspondent for over a year. How has reporting changed since the 2006 elections? What was the before and after like?

Sharyl Attkisson: I think in many ways it's the Democrats, now in the majority, who've had to make the biggest attitude adjustment. They just weren't used to the media appearing to "come after them" or challenge them the way Republicans have been challenged all the years they held the majority. In fact, some Democrats and their staffers appeared surprised if not offended when they took over leadership and we asked them the type of tough, challenging questions that we'd been asking Republicans when the GOP was in the majority. One example was when we asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to explain her alleged desire for a bigger, more expensive jet to fly her to and from California at taxpayer expense. I've probably asked Ms. Pelosi for an on-camera interview 40 times in the past couple of months and she has never granted me one, on the jet topic or any other – even on matters that are positive for her party. The fact is, whoever is in the majority has to spend more time than the minority justifying what is or isn't getting done on the hill and will be questioned harder by the public and the press if it appears they aren't following through with promises. They're a bigger target for attack and criticism because they're in essence "running the show." But I just think this caught some Democrats by surprise.

Read full post…

BBC News has an interesting little segment on their Web site called “On This Day.” It’s a daily compilation of major news stories that happened “on this day” at various points in history. Today’s edition caught our eye because it highlighted one chapter of one of the biggest media events in history. On Sept. 21, 1998, the videotape of then-President Bill Clinton’s grand jury testimony about his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky was released to the public and broadcast immediately by television networks. In an odd confluence of events, the tape was being shown to the nation just as Clinton was giving a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson was reporting on the release of Clinton’s testimony that day and she recalls one of the more memorable elements of that experience – the spin:

My main memory of this day is how effectively the media had been "spun" in advance of the grand jury testimony video being released.

Before the video was made public, leaks had sprung up all over saying that those who had viewed President Clinton's testimony in advance said he "lost his temper," actually uttered cuss words, and stormed out of the room ... all captured on videotape. Rumors of the cucumber-cool president losing his temper on camera permeated all of Washington, D.C., and were even reported before the tape was ever shown.

Then, the tape was released. President Clinton was clearly uncomfortable at times. He certainly didn't come off well explaining about differing ideas of the definition for "is." But there were no outbursts, no cuss words, and he never stormed off camera.

So where did the bad information come from?

Well, without naming names, suffice it to say the advance leaks had come from allies of President Clinton's. The question is why would they mislead us as to the content of the video ... preparing us for a much worse performance by President Clinton than what we actually saw?

We may never know for sure. But the best we journalists could figure, the Clinton allies knew he didn't come off looking good in the testimony. So their strategy was to prepare the public for a worse scene ... a horrible scene. Then, when that scene never materialized, the public would think, "Hey, he didn't do so badly." And that was precisely the reaction I heard most among the public.

Washington, D.C.: The Ultimate Spin Zone.

Read full post…

The House of Representatives’ debate on a non-binding resolution about the war in Iraq got plenty of play on the evening newscasts last night, as well as in newspapers and on news Web sites this morning. The Republican-drafted resolution declares “that the United States must complete ‘the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq’ without setting ‘an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment’ of U.S. troops,” as The Washington Post reports today. Further down in the story, we learn that “the votes will not bind the administration …” to action.

CBSNews.com’s story on the resolution indicates as much in the headline: “House Passes Symbolic Iraq Resolution.” Last night on the “Evening News,” Congressional correspondent Sharyl Attkisson : “Think of it not so much as a real debate with a real chance of changing anything in the war on Iraq. It's more of a political dare -- a nonbinding resolution that Republicans are putting to a vote, calling for the U.S. to stand firm in Iraq and the war on terror, and who in their right mind would vote against that?”

So if it’s likely not going to change anything, why is it getting so much attention? The reasons are mostly related to the story’s political relevance, according to Attkisson. She wrote in an e-mail:

“It's getting attention because the war in Iraq and the war on terror are foremost on the minds of so many Americans. That's why Congress wants to debate it: to let constituents back home in this election year see that they are talking about the big issues and controversies.

The resolution that was proposed isn't the one Democrats would have chosen to debate; it's the Republicans' choice. Many Democrats would rather be voting on a timeline for troop withdrawal. Many Republicans, on the other hand, felt it was important to send a symbolic message of support for the war in Iraq and the war on terror.”

Read full post…

It’s turning out to be a newsworthy day on Capitol Hill. But yesterday, when I spent the day with Capitol Hill associate producer Allison Davis and correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, there was quite a bit of news coming out of the Capitol building as well. Among other topics, the FBI’s search of Congressman Jefferson’s office was still causing quite a bit of reaction from lawmakers; the Senate was set to vote on an immigration bill; and in the wake of a data breach at the VA, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee was holding a hearing on the matter. For those at CBS News covering the hill, it’s “a moving target all day long,” as Attkisson put it. When I joined Attkisson and Davis that morning, they were aiming for a story on the immigration bill for the “Evening News” that night – so their focus that day was on the Senate.

There are a host of hearings, press conferences, pen and pad sessions with members, etc., going on any given day – they have to figure out what to pay attention to and where to direct their resources.

Today, they were keeping an eye on the Senate floor, as well as any press conferences about the immigration bill that might come up. Each week, Attkisson sends a note to “Evening News” executive producer Rome Hartman, letting him know what on the upcoming agenda might be of interest. He gives an indication of what the show is most interested in and she focuses on that.

Read full post…

Last night we received an email from "DYN175" asking the following:

What are the standards at CBS News for reporting vs. editorializing?

On the "CBS Evening News" tonight, February 14th, [Capitol Hill Correspondent] Sharyl Attkisson gave a report on Homeland Security Secretary [Michael] Chertoff and his actions dealing with Hurricane Katrina. In the Q&A after the report, [anchor] Bob Schieffer turned to her and asked, "Do you think, Sharyl, that Chertoff's job is on the line here?"

Such a question clearly requires the reporter to state a personal opinion. It would seem to me that this would cross the line into editorializing. Does CBS News have any written standards on this?

I talked to Bob Schieffer about that issue and the question and answer portion of the "Evening News" more generally.

"We're not trying to have people give personal opinions," says Schieffer. "We're trying to explain, to put things into context." He added: "There has been all this behind the scenes questioning and whispering about whether Chertoff will lose his job, and that's why I asked her about it."

Schieffer compares the question and answer portion of the "Evening News" broadcast to a sidebar in a newspaper. "The main story covers the who, what, where, why, and when, and the sidebar offers analysis, color, some detail that you couldn't get into in the main story," he says.

Such offerings are essential, he says, if the "Evening News" wants to compete in a crowded news environment.

"If the evening newses are going to survive – and I'm talking about all of them, not just us – they have to evolve beyond what they have been. If all we're going to do is put on a minute and a half piece that's the same as the minute and a half piece that's been running on cable all day, we're not going to make it." He says the question and answer exchange with correspondents, which fall somewhere between straight reporting and cable news-style editorializing, makes for content that sets the "Evening News" apart.

Read full post…

If there's one tutorial that probably shouldn't be described as "complicated and quick," it would be instructions for operating the ejection seat in a B-52 combat plane. Just ask Sharyl Attkisson. Check out her answers to 10 of our questions and one of yours to find out the details.


So, what do you do for a living?

I'm an investigative correspondent. I look at general news stories from the opposite of the prevailing view to find out if the pack reporting is missing an important viewpoint or facts. I dig up original information on waste, fraud and abuse wherever it can be found. I track widely-used medicines and products that sources say can be problematic in some people, and uncover cases where dangers may have been hidden from the public. I explore undisclosed financial conflicts between government health decision-makers, physicians, researchers and pharmaceutical companies. Lastly, I expose cases in which widely-accepted "conventional wisdom" is legitimately questioned or just plain flawed. Most of the stories I look into turn out not to be an investigative story for me, because things are exactly as they seem: The drug works. The product is safe. Nobody is wasting money. The stories I do end up putting on television, because of my investigative specialty, are where things aren't as they seem, or aren't as the public widely believes. In short, I try to give people relevant, important information they don't already know ... and haven't seen anywhere else.

Read full post…

Here’s our final plug for tomorrow’s 10 Plus 1 feature, where correspondent Sharyl Attkisson will answer 10 of our questions and one of yours. She’s covered a range of stories recently, from the naming of the new panda at the National Zoo to Public Citizen’s recent FDA petition to add black-box warnings to the labels of impotence drugs. You can check out her bio here. E-mail us your questions --we’ll pick one and she’ll answer it.

Read full post…

You probably already know that correspondent Sharyl Attkisson primarily covers investigative stories for CBS News. Some time ago, PE took a look at the genesis of one installment of her week-long investigative series, “Crisis Check,” following Hurricane Katrina. You may not know that Attkisson is a black belt in TaeKwonDo and she co-authored a college journalism textbook. Check out some more biographical tidbits about Attkisson here and find out more about her by e-mailing your questions. We’ll pick one and she’ll answer it in this week’s 10 plus 1 feature.

Read full post…