All Blog Posts from Public Eye

In the current issue of the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh has an explosive profile of Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba, who was responsible for the investigation into the affairs of Abu Ghraib. While it’s usually wise to read Hersh’s work with a skepticism meter up higher than usual, as his stories frequently rely in part on unnamed sources, his piece on Taguba is entirely on-the-record with the now-retired soldier. The article goes chapter-and-verse into what Taguba says everyone knew, when they knew it, and how much obfuscation he believes surrounded the scandal.

Digging deeper into the story, I found that Chris Wallace of Fox News accomplished a journalistic coup when he interviewed Army General David Petraeus on yesterday’s “Fox News Sunday” for what Wallace billed as “his first appearance ever on a Sunday talk show.”

Read full post…

Before they made news, Mike Wallace and Dr. Jack Kevorkian made waves.

The image of the “60 Minutes” correspondent and “Dr. Death” embracing upon Kevorkian’s release from prison Friday was beamed up on the web within minutes of its occurrence and spread like wildfire, immediately raising questions about credibility and objectivity – including inside this writer’s head.

After all, isn’t this the “cozying up” problem that pops up in concerns about embedded reporters and the White House Correspondents Dinner? Particularly in light of Mike Wallace’s favorable quote about Kevorkian in a USA Today interview last year:

”He's a decent and compassionate man who tried to help people get out of the suffering of their lives," says Wallace, whose interview showed Kevorkian ending a patient's life. That piece was used as evidence that sent Kevorkian to jail. Prison officials have refused to allow Wallace to see Kevorkian; Wallace says Kevorkian's incarceration amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment."

Read full post…

It would have been a surprise if last night's "60 Minutes" profile of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his family hadn't generated some criticism directed towards CBS News. But I must admit I did not anticipate the outrage in some quarters that greeted interviewer Mike Wallace's decision to question Romney about whether he'd had pre-marital sex. We are living in a post-Starr Report era, after all.

And yet:

"Must everything be about sex – or at least have a sexual component – these days?" asked Carol Platt Liebau at the conservative Townhall.com. "Remarkably, in the course of an interview for '60 Minutes,' Mike Wallace actually had the nerve to ask presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney whether he and his wife had engaged in premarital sex."

The American Daily, also conservative, called the question "so utterly rude it isn’t even funny."

Romney, of course, is a Mormon, a religion with strict rules against pre-marital sex. I can understand the objections to Wallace's question to some degree – one's sex life shouldn't automatically become fair play just because one is running for president.

At the same time, there was a journalistic justification for asking the question: Romney's answer, in theory anyway, could go to how serious of a Mormon he really is. And Romney's Mormonism is an issue for many voters.

In the interest of fairness, here's the counter-argument from Liebau: "It’s ludicrous to assert that Mormonism’s strict prohibition on premarital sex brought the question 'in bounds,' given that Romney is the first Mormon to run for President. The Catholic Church likewise frowns on premarital sex. Is anyone planning to ask the Giulianis the same question? Of course not."

(Incidentally, Romney's response to Wallace's query was this: "No, I'm sorry. We don’t get into those things. The answer is no.")

While we're on the topic of objections to the interview, let's go to Dean Barnett, another conservative, who objected to Wallace talking to Romney's sons about their decision not to enter the military. He writes:

Read full post…

A couple months ago, I noted the "Evening News'" propensity for using celebrities in feature stories. One example I cited was a piece on the rise in unmarried women in America. The piece opened with a scene from the show "Sex and the City" and a voiceover from Kelly Wallace, who said this: "Carrie and her 'Sex and the City' gal pals wanted husbands, right? But they turned their backs on the bouquet. Turns out, they're not alone."

Wallace, it turns out, is apparently quite the "Sex and the City" fan. Last night, her story on the trouble some women have sleeping again opened with scenes from the show. Over the scenes, Wallace said this: "No surprise, the 'Sex and the City' girls never slept. Or that working mom Miranda barely had a chance to snooze. But you'd think when the kids are all grown up women…would sleep soundly. Not the case."

"Sex and the City" and sleep deprivation? Not a connection I would have made. Anyway, click on the video box to watch the story.

There have been plenty of stories out there telling us about is changing the face of American politics. And now, more and more, we are seeing stories about how YouTube is changing television news. Dedicated PE readers will note our continued documentation of CBS’ own storied relationship with the video-sharing site. Most of those conflicts deal with the copyright issues that inevitably arise when YouTube posts CBS News material.

It’s becoming a hot-button issue – and, like all great American hot-button issues, now the lawyers want in. When Fox News’ ever-popular interview with former President Bill Clinton hit YouTube, the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog wondered what was up: “Did you see Chris Wallace’s interview with Bill Clinton? If not, you can watch it here, thanks to YouTube. But wait a minute, doesn’t Fox News own a copyright on this content? Is the video-sharing site breaking the law?”

Actually, that’s pretty much what Fox News thought when they contacted YouTube and requested that the clips be removed from the site. Ever the dispenser of new media wisdom, BuzzMachiner Jeff Jarvis concluded that was an idiot move: “Fools. They would be getting a whole new audience. They’d be even more part of the conversation.”

Well, apparently Fox News agreed with that too, because the following day, the clips reappeared on YouTube. Fox News told digital news site dmwmedia (via TVNewser) that the move was a mistake.

“In an official statement, Fox News claims that their Internet division used ‘poor judgment’ when going after YouTubers. Strategically, Fox News recognizes that the clips are of great PR value and that the company is ‘thrilled’ that the interview received so much publicity.

So is YouTube going the way of Napster? As far as news networks are concerned, not just yet.

Read full post…

Interviews with controversial figures often, and inevitably, become those that are the most-watched and the most talked about. As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become far more amenable to interviews with Western journalists than ever, those interviews are generating substantial reaction from audiences.

NBC “Nightly News” Anchor Brian Williams’ interview with Ahmadinejad this week is generating much of the similarly impassioned reaction from viewers as CBS received following Mike Wallace’s interview with the Iranian leader. On Wednesday evening, Williams read a few such e-mails, many of which expressed disappointment that the interview was conducted at all. For example, Williams read this e-mail, from a viewer in Flushing, N.Y.:

"I was very disappointed that NBC's Brian Williams gave a forum to Iranian President Ahmadinejad. He treated him as he would any rational leader from any other country, while the truth is he is not rational at all. I think President Bush was right not to meet with him, and I think Brian Williams did a disservice by interviewing him."

That sentiment was similar to many of the e-mails we received from viewers regarding Wallace’s interview, and we later discussed the issue with Bob Anderson, who produced the story (you can read that story here.) “Whenever you interview someone who's controversial, there are always those who think he shouldn't be interviewed,” Anderson told us at the time.

Interviewing Ahmadinejad, says Anderson, is “not an endorsement of his policies,” he said, adding that “the tenor of Mike's questions probably indicated as much.”

“It’s an opportunity for the American people to hear his view of the world,” said Anderson. “And the audience can take its own measure” of the Iranian president.

In light of that, it seemed worth noting Williams’ response to viewers with a negative impression of the interview, which he conveyed on the “Nightly News’” blog:

If you watched last night's broadcast, you saw and heard a small selection of the e-mails we've been getting -- most having to do with our interview of the President of Iran. A staggering number of e-mails are harshly negative, and the writers vehemently argue that we should not have interviewed Ahmadinejad and should not air his comments on NBC...

Read full post…

As the president of one of the countries that President Bush has identified as part of the axis of evil, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a world leader who garners a lot of attention and one who rarely gives interviews to Western media. He did grant an interview to Mike Wallace, which aired on “60 Minutes” Sunday, and again last night, uncut, on C-SPAN. (You can also watch the full interview here.) According to producer Bob Anderson, who produced the story for "60 Minutes," CBS News had been chasing an interview with the Iranian president for some time. It was CBS's “fixer,” or liason, in Tehran, Sia Zand, who had been in touch with the Ahmadinejad administration with an ongoing request to interview the president. In July, the press office called and said the president would be interested in granting Wallace an interview. Although Anderson isn’t entirely sure why Wallace got the interview, his best guess is that “we were probably helped by Mike’s stature in Iran,” given that Wallace had interviewed the Shah, the Ayatollah Khomeini and former President Hashemi Rafsanjani in the past.

Read full post…

The Mike Wallace interview with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has unleashed a flood of reaction. The comments that have come in on Public Eye and on the news story are filled with conversation about Middle East politics and the like (not all so pleasant, let’s keep the level of discourse up here folks), but we want to stick to the interview itself. We noted the criticism being leveled at Wallace and CBS News based just on the excerpts released on Friday. Now that we’ve all had a chance to see it, we’d love to hear your thoughts on Wallace and the interview. Here’s a smattering of what’s landed in our in-box thus far:

One e-mailer wrote:

I thought Mike Wallace was out of line and I thought the President did a great job of handling rude, and confrontational questions well. Not the right guy for the interview. I was impressed with the President of Iran. Well spoken ,articulate, had a sense of humor. And, yes, I love the United States but that was not handled well.

Another wrote:

I think that your interview was appalling. It's a real shame that CBS has no allegiance to the US, especially while we're at war. Why don't you ever show any of the positive things that are happening because of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of giving a known terrorist a platform to spew his garbage? You should be ashamed of yourself -- CBS news will never be on in my home again.

And still another:

It's about time you give Iran's perspective. Mike Wallace is showing his true colors when he cuts the President of Iran off. I have watched 60 minutes for 30 of my 45 years on this planet this is what we need in this world - open dialogue!

I applaud 60 minutes - keep the real stories coming and we will watch.

Curious to see more of the exchange? The full, un-edited interview will be available on CBSNews.com later today and will also air on C-SPAN tonight at 8:00pm, ET.

Update: The complete interview in three parts can be seen here.

Read full post…

On Sunday, "60 Minutes" aired a special on the career of Mike Wallace, who is going into semi-retirement after 38 years with the show. As the retrospective illustrated, Wallace has a reputation as a tough, sometimes even "mean" interviewer, as Lesley Stahl put it. "Let's ask the questions that might be on the minds of the people looking in," Wallace said of his interview strategy. But there was at least one question on my mind that went unanswered during the special: If Wallace was known to be tough, how did he get people to keep talking to him? I asked him today.

When people think about going on "60 Minutes," Wallace said, "they know they're going to be treated fairly…if they have an idea they want to get across, or a favorite cause they want to get exposure for, they figure it's worth the price. And besides, they think, 'I can handle it.'"

I asked Wallace who in the journalism world has interview skills that he admires. "[Ted] Koppel used to do it well," he said. "To a certain degree, [Bill] Moyers does it. Anderson Cooper does it some degree. It doesn't cause as much stir as it used to. The audience is used to more candid talk because of what we've done down the years."

Wallace said the expanded media universe has changed the rules for getting interviews, but he said the "60 Minutes" name still carries weight. "There used to be three networks and PBS. Now there are 300 places to go if you want to be interviewed. But if you want the prestige of and credibility of something like "60 Minutes," there's nothing quite like it."

Still, if someone wants to follow in his footsteps, he doesn't advise starting out in his favored medium.

"Try radio," he said. "It's easier to be tough on the radio. And that's where you begin to understand what works and what doesn't work, and how you can persuade people."

Read full post…

Jacques Steinberg reports on The New York Times Web site that “60 Minutes” correspondent Mike Wallace will retire when the show wraps up its current season this spring. Wallace has been with "60 Minutes" since its premier in 1968 and first joined CBS in 1951. From The Times:

After serving as a correspondent on "60 Minutes" since its inception in September 1968, Mr. Wallace said today that he had decided to retire this spring, at the end of the current television season. He said that the move had come at his initiative, and that "CBS is not pushing me."

"As I approach my 88th birthday, it's become apparent to me that my eyes and ears, among other appurtenances, aren't quite what they used to be," said Mr. Wallace, whose birthday is May 9. "The prospect of long flights to wherever in search of whatever are not quite as appealing."

Update: CBS News comments on Wallace

Read full post…