All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Last night, the "Evening News" ran a story, "ambush pornography," which discussed how children are "bombarded with online porn" that they do not seek out.

According to a new study from the University of New Hampshire, CBS News technology correspondent Daniel Sieberg noted, 34 percent of kids between 10 and 17 have inadvertently viewed pornography online. Sieberg went on to talk about how, according to experts such as Parry Aftab of wiredsafety.org, "it's critical to have candid discussions in the classroom and the living room."

I have no doubt that kids sometimes accidentally view online pornography, and Aftab's advice is probably sound. But I think it's worth looking a little more closely at this story, which has gotten major play in many media outlets.

In any study in which people are reporting on their own habits, the information is going to be unreliable. In this study, which was conducted via telephone, that problem is magnified because of both the age of the participants and the subject matter discussed. The researchers admit as much: They told Bloomberg that some kids may have "characterized exposure incidents as unwanted because they were embarrassed to admit they sought out such material." In other words, that 34 percent figure should be viewed with skepticism.

Read full post…

The Skinny Today: Iraq Study Group co-chair says the president must not treat the panel’s report like "fruit salad," president appears to do exactly that. Plus, a sad homecoming for GIs; and the Clinton-Obama sixth grade drama. Check out today's edition here.

Read full post…

Editor & Publisher has seized on what happens on and after page 93 of the Iraq Study Group report, where reporting of war violence is addressed. Specifically, the report says that "there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq" by the U.S. military. E&P notes that "[l]ooking at one day, the report found undercounting of violent attacks by more than 1000 percent."

Some reasons why: The military does not necessarily count the murder of an Iraqi as an attack. If the source of a sectarian attack is not determined, it is not put into the database. And roadside bombs, rocket and mortar attacks that don't injure U.S. personnel don't count. "Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals," notes the report.

E&P sees this as evidence that the press does not "overstate the level of violence in Iraq," as some critics have claimed. I'm not sure one can directly conclude that from the report's findings, which here, at least, are focused on the military's reporting, not that of the press. What one can conclude is that the military seems to substantially understate the level of violence in Iraq, which is plenty jarring on its own. As for press coverage, E&P is at least partially right – since reporters do rely to some degree on the military's figures, coverage will sometimes reflect the military's underreporting bias. Does this mean that the press never misstates the level of violence in Iraq? No. But it does mean that those who see coverage out of Iraq as unfailingly pessimistic might want to reassess their position.

Read full post…

The Skinny Today: Readers are snapping up the paperback edition of the Iraq Study Group report -- oddly, it's available online for free. As today's front pages report, it makes grim reading for the most part. Check out today's Skinny here.

Read full post…

The Skinny, Hillary Profita's take on the top of the news and the best of the Web, appears daily here on Public Eye and on the "Evening News" page at CBSNews.com.

The nation's major newspapers dwelled at length on what everyone is suggesting was a snub by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki – who abruptly cancelled a meeting with President Bush yesterday – and the White House denies was a snub. "The White House insisted Mr. Bush was not upset and had not been snubbed," writes the New York Times. " 'Absolutely not,' said Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president."

The cancellation follows yesterday's leak in the The New York Times of a classified memo from NSA Adviser Stephen Hadley that expressed doubts about Maliki's leadership. White House officials "insisted the document had nothing to do with it."

The cancellation also occurred following turmoil in the Iraqi government yesterday, when a bloc of lawmakers loyal to Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr boycotted their duties "to protest Maliki's decision to meet with Bush," writes the Washington Post.

Everyone mentions Bartlett's quote response to the suggestions of a snub, that: "No one should read too much into this." The Los Angeles Times, however, does read into it, writing that "the surprising change of plans suggested more was at work than a scheduling matter among friends," as Bush rarely alters his plans.

"Senior Bush aides offered at least four explanations for the cancellation," writes the LAT, "finally dispatching a more junior official to tell reporters late Wednesday that Maliki and Jordan's King Abdullah II had decided mutually that a three-way conversation was not necessary."

Bush and Maliki met this morning privately and in a joint news conference and "said they agreed to speed the training of Iraqi security forces, and they pledged to continue cooperation between the U.S. and Iraq to stem violence."

Read full post…

According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, network news coverage is favoring the Democrats this year. Part of the reason, of course, is what the CMPA calls the "predominant storyline" over the course of the study, which began right after Labor Day and wrapped up on Oct. 22nd. I'll give you three guesses what said storyline might be. (Hint: Send me a "pic!") The other dominant storylines? Iraq and terrorism.

The study found that Democrats got positive evaluations on the nightly news shows 77 percent of the time, while Republicans only got such treatment 12 percent of the time. This news will be greeted as further evidence of liberal media bias in the MSM – yup, there it is – but it is important to remember that when the news is bad for one party or another, the stories are going to reflect that. I'm not saying there aren't ideological biases at play in the media, only that it would be ridiculous to expect the nature of the news not to influence the tenor of the coverage.

One could, I should add, plausibly argue that the focus on Mark Foley and the war is itself evidence of bias. (Though it's worth pointing out that there are plenty of people who think the media isn't talking about the war nearly enough. As for Foley, I think we've all pretty much had our fill.) CMPA director Robert Lichter told USA Today that the problem for Republicans is two guys who aren't even running. “What's hurting Republican candidates is the media's focus on two non-candidates: Mark Foley and George W. Bush,” he said.

Read full post…

The liberal media watchdog group Media Matters has responded to my take on their new study about the ideological makeup of guests and commentators on the Sunday morning shows. The study’s author, Paul Waldman, writes:

You take issue with the fact that our study focused on the simple question of who gets on the Sunday shows, while ignoring "the intra-party dynamic" -- the fact that a few prominent moderates like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) make frequent appearances. While this may be an interesting topic to explore, it has no bearing on our fundamental findings: that Republicans outnumber Democrats, and that conservative pundits outnumber progressive pundits.

Please read Waldman’s entire response and make your own judgment about the critique. He raises some interesting points that to me illustrate how some of the guests – like McCain – and some of the journalists – like columnist David Broder – may be viewed differently by those coming from different perspectives. While I don’t think my views are “laughable” or “ridiculous,” I’m certainly willing to acknowledge there is a difference of opinion.

Read full post…