Tags

On Tuesday April, 22, Steve Krakauer of TV Newser was the first to report that CNN's suspender-wearing newsman Larry King had re-upped with the cable news network through June 2011.

The news immediately kicked up more speculation about what that might mean for the beleaguered Katie Couric, who had been (conveniently!) rumored as a possible replacement for Mr. King, sometime next year. Most commentators greeted the news of Mr. King's contract extension as a sign that, whatever else she might end up doing, Ms. Couric was now unlikely to join CNN's primetime lineup.

But not so fast! Now Verne Gay of Newsday has reported that Mr. King "did not secure a guarantee to continue anchoring the 9 p.m. hour," which according to Mr. Gay's sources, "opens the door wide for Couric when she leaves CBS after the inauguration, as she almost certainly will."

"When the Katie-out-at-CBS story broke a couple weeks ago, CNN - with remarkable haste - signed King to a new deal that will carry him through 2011," writes Mr. Gay. "But Larry effectively was given the kingdom without getting the throne. Sure, he'll be at CNN - but at 9? The answer to that is the only one that matters."

More bad news for Katie Couric and CBS: Evening News lost 1.1 million viewers over the last 12 months, according to ratings numbers for the third week of December reported by the New York Post.

By contrast, Brian Williams of NBC lost just 164,000 viewers, and ABC's Charlie Gibson gained 38,000 over the same period.

Somewhere, Dan Rather is smiling.

According to a source who's been talking to Usmagazine.com, Hannah Storm is set to leave her gig as an anchor on CBS' The Early Show after five years.  But she she'll stay at the network, and focus on longer-form reporting. 

The source says that Early Show producer Shelley Ross fought to have Ms. Storm stay, but network brass were insistent on making the move.

NASHUA, N.H.—The rushed primary schedule gives reporters only five days in New Hampshire, with virtually no sleep since they finished up in Iowa late last night. This morning in New Hampshire, they were feeling it.

Fernando Suarez, the 28-year-old beat reporter for CBS News, was punching furiously at his laptop trying to find a new hotel while waiting for Hillary Clinton to show up at an 8 a.m. event here.

He' s staying at a Radisson in Nashua, about a 20-minute trip from Manchester, the capital for all New Hampshire reporting where her campaign bus departs from. It's a little farther than he would have liked, but with price tags at more than $350 a night and the entire world descending here this morning, the options to get any closer were few.

"Sadly, we don't have anytime to do this," he said.

Even with a new hotel room it wouldn't make much of a difference. "I generally don't even find a time to read or put on the TV to watch anything. I just sit there and think about what else I should be reading and what else I'm missing."

He's been covering politics for CBS News for six years, and he's been covering Hillary for the last three months. All the beat reporters here were pretty sleepy after taking a sad Charter flight between Iowa and New Hampshire that arrived here after 4 in the morning.

But if she's not stopping to sleep between Iowa and New Hampshire, neither can they.

"That keeps me moving," Suarez said. "It's like, 'uh, you're 60.'"

So now we know what Matt Drudge was talking about: Tim Arango at the Times is reporting that CBS "has been in discussions with Time Warner about a deal to outsource some of its newsgathering operations to CNN," a report sourced to "two executives briefed on the matter."

This is something CNN has talked about with other networks in the past, Mr. Arango points out in the article, but the talks with CBS have been "revived and lately intensified."

Though Matt Drudge, jumping the Times report, pictured a tearful Katie Couric above his headline, it appears from the Arango piece that Katie Couric and other "frontline personalities" would remain the stars of the network coverage, and that these talks are largely about using CNN correspondents.

CBS has been troubled lately, with its bet on Katie Couric as the anchor for its historically important CBS Evening News program appearing not to pay off; it has fewer than half the viewers the show had in 2006. And in the morning, CBS has always been No. 3.

Writes Arango:

CNN and CBS have had a long flirtation, and there is no guarantee that this latest round of talks will be any more fruitful. In 1998, it emerged publicly that the two sides were talking about an extensive joint venture, and later, in 2002, CNN was close to reaching a deal with ABC News, but those talks eventually broke down over control issues.

We'll be on top of it.

TV Newser confirms that CBS News' PublicEye blog, once described as the "de facto ombudsman of CBS News," has been shuttered.

The former editor of the site, Matthew Felling, had been laid off last month as part of a round of job cuts at CBS Interactive -- though CBS had at the time insisted that the site would continue.

The North Carolina Democratic Party has just announced that the proposed April 27 presidential debate in North Carolina has been officially cancelled. The star-crossed debate would have been hosted by CBS News--and would have been Katie Couric's first opportunity to prove herself as a debate moderator on a national stage.

From the web site for the North Carolina Democratic Party:

We regret to inform you that the proposed Democratic Presidential Debate scheduled for April 27 has been cancelled due to time constraints and logistical issues associated with such a large, national event.

You have shown tremendous passion and interest in being a part of history as Democrats are poised this year to elect the first female or African-American President. However, there were also growing concerns about what another debate would do to party unity.

Amid reports of a possible news-sharing partnership between CBS News and CNN and stories about layoffs at CBS stations around the country, today Matea Gold and Meg James of the L.A. Times write about the state of the local news gathering business.

They begin by noting the layoffs last week of more than 160 employees at CBS-owned stations in 13 cities, including a number of top anchors and seasoned correspondents.

"The jettisoning of such experienced on-air talent exposed the weakening of the once-robust local station business, which historically has enjoyed some of the fattest profit margins in the media industry," writes Ms. Gold and Ms. James. "It marked a dramatic shift from the days when television stations paid top dollar to attract big-name anchors."

"Today, stations are feeling the same financial squeeze as their newspaper and network news brethren," they add. "An economic slowdown, combined with changes in news consumption patterns and the migration of advertisers to the Internet, have contributed to a lean start to a year that was supposed to benefit from a gush of political advertising."

Deeper in the piece, the Times adds some new details about the cuts at CBS News:

The network news division has been undergoing its own cost cutting. Last week, CBS News laid off a little more than 1% of its 1,500-person staff. Executives have also been seeking to lower expenses at the network's Baghdad bureau, which costs the news division $7 million a year.

In recent weeks, CBS News executives had been in negotiations with CNN to license the cable news channel's coverage from Iraq when CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan was not there. The deal fell apart over the issue of international rights, according to an executive familiar with the discussions.

As we reported last week, Jim Stewart, the retired former Washington- based correspondent for CBS News, recently filed a motion in federal court, in which he continued to defy a federal judge's orders that he name his confidential government sources from a series of stories he produced in 2003 about the FBI's investigation into the scientist Steven J. Hatfill. At the time, Mr. Hatfill was suspected of being involved in the domestic anthrax attacks of 2001, and he is now suing members of the federal government, alleging that they violated the federal Privacy Act by talking about him to reporters.

On Friday, Mr. Hatfill's lawyer, Thomas Connolly, officially responded.

In a 19-page document filed in federal court on Friday afternoon, Mr. Connolly characterized Mr. Stewart's legal arguments for not naming his sources as "improper and baseless," argued that Mr. Stewart was trying to create a "war of attrition" by seeking "to re-litigate the merits of his reporter's privilege claim," and continued to urge Judge Reggie Walton to hold Mr. Stewart in contempt of court.

"The Court ordered Mr. Stewart to name his sources," wrote Mr. Connolly. "Mr. Stewart knew that; yet Mr. Stewart refused. He is in contempt, and none of the recovered recollections he offers in his latest pleading would change that even if they were entirely credible."

"Moreover, Mr. Stewart's claim that he 'made a good faith effort to secure waivers' is demonstrably false and his attempt to take credit for the identification of one of his sources is at best misleading," added Mr. Connolly. "In fact, Mr. Stewart stands out as the most defiant of all the reporters whose privilege assertions the Court overruled."

That defiance, Mr. Connolly went on to argue, continued to undermine his client's ability to advance his lawsuit.

"Mr. Stewart also argues that, despite his conceded defiance, the Court should, as a discretionary matter, decline to enforce its order against him on the grounds that his defiance does not harm Dr. Hatfill," wrote Mr. Connolly. "Mr. Stewart's refusal to identify three of his four distinct FBI sources plainly harms Dr. Hatfill. As explained in [Lee v. Dept. of Justice], the more agency sources a Privacy Act plaintiff can uncover, the more sure he can be of overcoming the Agency Defendants' ongoing denial that their personnel made the disclosures at issue."

It's now up to Judge Walton to decide whether Mr. Stewart will indeed be held in contempt.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

After two years of record-low ratings, both CBS News executives and people close to Katie Couric say that the "CBS Evening News" anchor is likely to leave the network well before her contract expires in 2011—possibly soon after the presidential inauguration early next year.

And Howard Kurtz at The Washington Post adds this: "If Couric is eased out as anchor, CBS plans to offer her either a syndicated talk show or a full-time role on '60 Minutes.' Otherwise, executives have signaled they would release her from her contract to seek a better deal elsewhere."

Back in April, 2007 Gail Shister reported something similar in the Philadelphia Inquirer, noting that at the time there was "a growing feeling within the network that Katie Couric is an expensive, unfixable mistake," and that as a result she "may leave CBS Evening News, probably after the 2008 presidential elections."

CBS executives aggressively denied the report then. Ditto this time around.

"We are very proud of the 'CBS Evening News,' particularly our political coverage, and we have no plans for any changes regarding Katie or the broadcast," CBS News responded in a statement.

What will Ms. Couric do if she leaves CBS News?

The Journal's Rebecca Dana speculates:

One possible new job for Ms. Couric: succeeding Larry King at CNN. Mr. King, who is 74 years old, has a contract with the network into 2009. CNN President Jon Klein, a CBS veteran with close ties to some at the network, has expressed admiration for Ms. Couric's work, and the two are friends. They had lunch in late January, and the anchor attended Mr. Klein's birthday party in March.

Sounds like Shelley Ross has really taken to heart her mandate to shake up CBS's The Early Show since being named the struggling show's executive producer in September.  So much so that, according to Page Six, eight staffers have left since she took over.  Another Page Six source says the remaining staff has an over-under pool on how long Ms. Ross herself will last. 

On Friday, before he got sidetracked, Senator Barack Obama suggested that he might bow out of a proposed April 27 debate in North Carolina to be hosted by CBS News and moderated by Katie Couric and Bob Schieffer, reports the Charlotte Observer.

"In a telephone interview with the Observer to discuss his economic plan, Obama doubted whether a proposed April 27 debate at Raleigh's RBC Center would fit with his schedule," reports the Charlotte Observer.

Some twenty debates into this primary season, Ms. Couric the highest paid anchor in evening news, has yet to get a shot at playing host on the big stage.

But on April 3, the Clinton campaign announced that they had agreed to participate in a 90 minute debate to take place in North Carolina and to air on CBS on the night of Sunday, April 27, immediately following "60 Minutes."

Over the past week and a half the debate has remained in limbo, however, with Ms. Couric and company waiting to hear back from Mr. Obama.

Said Mr. Obama to the Charlotte Observer on Friday:

I am always open to debates but I think that obviously we've got to structure our campaign so that we're reaching as many voters as possible, and it's not clear that the April 27 debate will work for our schedule.

According to the Associated Press, two journalists with CBS News are missing in the Iraqi city of Basra.

CBS has put out the following statement:

Two journalists working for CBS News in Basra are missing. All efforts are underway to find them and until we learn more details, CBS News requests that others do not speculate on the identities of those involved. CBS News has been in touch with the families and asks that their privacy be respected.

"Democracy cannot survive, much less thrive, with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news," said Dan Rather.

It was Thursday night, and Mr. Rather was sitting across from Larry King, explaining, one suspender-wearing newsman to another, why he was suing CBS for $70 million. “I’ve never been clearer in my mind,” Mr. Rather later said. ""It's the right stand at the right time on the right issue."

>> Read the full transcript of the interview here.

>> Watch a four-minute clip of the interview here.

But for the duration of Thursday night’s much anticipated interview on CNN, Mr. Rather didn’t sound like a man clear in his mind so much as a man in search of clarity.

Long after the rest of the world had moved on, Mr. Rather still wanted answers. Answers about President Bush’s military records. Answers about Les Moonves’ oversight of CBS News. Answers about White House intimidation. Answers about the Thornburgh and Boccardi panel that ultimately sealed his fate at the network. And he wanted them under oath.

“I’m the person who stepped forward and said, okay, I’m ready to go under oath,” said Mr. Rather. “I’m ready to be deposed. The question is, ‘Are they?’ Because that’s the only way you’re going to get the truth of what happened at CBS News.”

Over the past three years, many talented American journalists had tried to get the truth of what had happened at CBS News in the prelude and aftermath of Mr. Rather’s flawed report on 60 Minutes II that portrayed President George W. Bush as an artful dodger trading on a bogus record as a national guardsman on the eve of his reelection. By now everyone knows the rest of the story: Documents produced by CBS News were exposed by bloggers as having been created using word processors that weren't available back when they were supposed to have been created. America had had done with them: they were forgeries. But, in Mr. Rather’s estimation, the investigation has still only just begun, and the next stage requires not so much reporters as lawyers.

Would he call off his lawyers, Mr. King asked, if CBS offered him a nice settlement package?

“A strictly financial package?” said Mr. Rather. “Absolutely not.”

Mr. King played a clip from Mr. Rather’s appearance on the Larry King Live show in June, 2005. “I’m not a victim of anything except my own shortcomings,” said Mr. Rather at the time.

Yet here he was back on the show some two years later, Mr. King pointed out, claiming to be a victim of White House intimidation and corporate cowardice. What had changed?

“I didn’t know then what I know now,” said Mr. Rather. “I played team,” he said.

But now he thinks the team played him.

“They succeeded in doing it,” said Mr. Rather. “Some of it they did in secret, talking among themselves.”

Putting aside all the other reasons he gave for the lawsuit, like the rest of us, Mr. Rather wants to know what they--Les Moonves, Summer Redstone, Andrew Heyward et al--were saying to each other when the scandal broke, after they stood by the report, when they decided no longer to stand by the report, and why, when the investigation into the source of those documents hit a dead end, the investigation seemed to terminate with the exit of Mr. Rather.

If the suit goes forward, whether it redounds to Mr. Rather's benefit or not, we are likely to find out.

On Feb. 5, during MSNBC’s Super Tuesday political coverage, anchor Keith Olbermann joked that during this long primary season, it sometimes seemed like everyone in the business had already anchored a debate. “I think most people at home have now moderated one as well,” said Mr. Olbermann.

If Katie Couric was watching at home, chances are she wasn’t laughing. Eight months and more than 20 debates into podium season, Ms. Couric has yet to get anywhere near the big stage.

How did the highest-paid anchor on evening television get upstaged by Brian Williams, Brit Hume, Charles Gibson, Wolf Blitzer, Tim Russert, George Stephanopoulos, Campbell Brown, Chris Wallace, Natalie Morales and on and on?

The official explanation from CBS: Ms. Couric was the victim of circumstance.

“I wish we had been able to work it out,” said Sean McManus, the president of CBS News. “I think [Ms. Couric] would have been really good at it. I think it would have been a good showcase for CBS News. But it just wasn’t to be this cycle.”

But recent conversations with competitors, current and former CBS News employees, and experts in the TV-debate business raised the question whether CBS News, facing a perpetually shrinking budget and having already committed to a reported $15 million a year to Ms. Couric, has enough resources—emotional and financial—to deliver big for their biggest star.

Throwing a debate is a budget-busting expenditure for a news division because of both the cost of setting up a staging facility and because of the advertising revenue lost due to the limited commercial inventory during such news events—but what networks gain is a voice in the election cycle, for the network and for the network’s rising and established stars.

In the past, CBS has not been reluctant to shell out money to maximize on the Katie Couric phenomenon.

“You think about how much they wasted early on in billboards and other crap, wouldn’t it be smarter to invest in substance now?” said one source, with knowledge of CBS’s aborted debate plans. “Either the network is fundamentally dedicated to spending the money, or they’re not. If you’re really dedicated to bumping your news to another level, you host a debate. But there’s either no interest or no follow-through.”

Mr. McManus said that CBS News remains committed to all things political, including hosting primary debates.

“It wasn’t a financial decision,” said Mr. McManus, of this season’s shutout. “It’s a programming decision and finding an appropriate time to put it in prime time. It does cost a fair amount of money in preemption costs to put them in prime time. But that wasn’t the primary reason it didn’t happen.”

The story began back on May, 16, when the Democratic National Committee announced the dates, locations and media sponsors of six DNC debates. CBS would host one in Los Angeles on Dec. 10. It was a choice assignment because of (a) the timing (it would be the final debate before the Iowa caucus) and (b) the location. As CNN would later prove at the Kodak Theater on Jan. 31, a debate in L.A. is bound to attract stars—Jason Alexander!—and eyeballs.

Shortly thereafter, during the summer of 2007, CBS News informed the DNC that they wanted to hold the debate inside a studio at the CBS Television City in Los Angeles and—notably—without a live audience.

According to several sources, that idea didn’t sit well with the DNC. Holding the debate in a closed studio rather than in front of a live audience is seen by those in the business as a classic cost-saving gambit—and one (collateral damage!) that would deny Democratic diehards and donors the opportunity to show up and get crazy for their candidates. The plan was also at odds with the terms already hammered out with the Democratic candidates. Negotiations sputtered. According to sources, at several points over the summer, the debate appeared on the brink of death.

At the same time, CBS News executives were grappling with the absence of political director, Molly Levinson, who had gone on maternity leave in July. Barbara Fedida, a CBS News executive charged in part with recruiting talent, began looking for somebody who could fill in and help Ms. Couric prepare for the debate. According to sources, CBS eventually reached out to a number of individuals, including former NBC political director Elizabeth Wilner; and—more surprisingly—to Michael Feldman, a former senior adviser to the Clinton-Gore administration and a founding partner of the Glover Park Group.

In some quarters, word of the latter meeting raised eyebrows.

“Networks use political consultants as outside contributors to do commentary all the time,” explained one source with extensive knowledge of TV debate logistics. “But you should not have one in charge of your debate preparation. The debate is a news event. They should know better.” Next Page >

From The Times' Jacques Steinberg:

Mr. Rather, 75, asserts that the network violated his contract by giving him insufficient airtime on “60 Minutes” after forcing him to step down as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” in March 2005. He also contends that the network committed fraud by commissioning a “biased” and incomplete investigation of the flawed Guard broadcast and, in the process, “seriously damaged his reputation.” As plaintiffs, the suit names CBS and its chief executive, Leslie Moonves; Viacom and its executive chairman, Sumner Redstone; and Andrew Heyward, the former president of CBS News.

In the suit, filed this afternoon in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Mr. Rather charges that CBS and its executives made him “a scapegoat” in an attempt “to pacify the White House,” though the formal complaint presents virtually no direct evidence to that effect. To buttress this claim, Mr. Rather quotes the executive who oversaw his regular segment on CBS Radio, telling Mr. Rather in November 2004 that he was losing that slot, effective immediately, because of “pressure from ‘the right wing.’ ”

From the suit, filed today in Manhattan Supreme Court:

He was provided with very little staff support, very few of his suggested stories were approved, editing services were denied to him, and the broadcast of the few stories he was permitted to do was delayed and then played on carefully selected evenings, when low viewership was anticipated.

Next Page >

• The New York Times

According to The Huffington Post, Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson have all announced that they'll skip a December 10th debate, to be hosted by CBS News in Los Angeles, unless the network can come to an agreement with its striking employees.

Note that all four candidates' statements refer to those on strike as "workers" (Hillary gets the word in three times in two sentences), which sounds better than saying you're supporting news media professionals.

Editor's Note: This post has been corrected from an earlier version. Next Page >

Wanna see a clip of Katie Couric making fun of Dan Rather for trying to decide whether to wear his coat open or closed? Ok, so did we.

  Next Page >

Last week, on Thursday March, 13, Ed O'Keefe of ABC News reported that Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton might debate at least twice more before the all-important Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

Both senators, ABC reported, had agreed to an ABC News debate in Philadelphia; and Mr. Obama had agreed to a CBS News debate in North Carolina at a time and place to be determined.

As NYTV had earlier reported, Katie Couric has yet to host a debate in this podium-rich primary season. The North Carolina gig would be her first chance at the big stage.

But will it happen?

On Friday afternoon, Chris Ariens of TV Newser reported that the Clinton camp might not accept the invitation from CBS News because "agreeing to a North Carolina debate would de-emphasize the importance of Pennsylvania, just three days before PA voters go to the polls." Also according to TV Newser, there might be a scheduling conflict between the debate and the first night of Passover, Saturday, April 19, although other dates were in consideration.

What's the latest?

The Media Mob checked in with CBS News this morning. According to Vice President of CBS News Paul Friedman, the debate is still up in the air.

"Timing is still being worked out," he said. Next Page >

Filling out the rumors floated in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, today the New York Times reports that a “wide-ranging discussion” about Katie Couric’s future took place among CBS executives back in February:

The discussion took place in New York on Feb. 28 and involved four people: Ms. Couric; her agent, Alan Berger of the Creative Artists Agency; Sean McManus, the president of CBS News; and Leslie Moonves, the chairman of CBS. The meeting took place in Mr. Moonves’s office.

The conversation included what one participant said was some “idle talk and musings” about the big question hanging over CBS News: should Ms. Couric leave her position as the news anchor after the presidential election, a development that had long been rumored.

According to the Times, Ms. Couric talked about a number of possibilities should she leave the anchor post, including the idea of hosting a daily talk show or replacing Larry King at the 9 p.m. hour on CNN:

But the conclusion drawn from the meeting, the executives said, was that no decision about the anchor job would be made until after the presidential election and inauguration.

However, rumors from CBS News and reported in the news media may have, inadvertently or not, done what the meeting failed to do: ensured Ms. Couric’s early departure.

Over at the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz speculates about who might replace Ms. Couric. Possible internal candidates, according to Mr. Kurtz, include Harry Smith, Scott Pelley, and Russ Mitchell.

As for external candidates:

Among those whom CBS is said to covet most is Anderson Cooper, 40, who hosts CNN’s 10 p.m. show and moderated several presidential debates this season. Cooper, who doubles as a part-time "60 Minutes" correspondent, specializes in field reporting and brings a touch of celebrity as Gloria Vanderbilt's son.

Another key name being bandied about by insiders, agents and media analysts is David Gregory, 37, NBC's White House correspondent and an MSNBC anchor. Other NBC stars include Lester Holt, 49, the weekend co-host of "Today," and Ann Curry, 51, the "Today" news anchor and frequent substitute for Williams. But several analysts doubted that CBS would turn to another woman.

At the same time, the Daily News speculated that Ms. Couric might return to Jeff Zucker and NBC, where she spent the bulk of her career:

Even though the news broadcast has fallen deeper into the ratings abyss under Couric, CBS doesn't want to lose the perky TV princess to another network - especially to NBC, where she was the star of the "Today" Show.

"I would never rule out a return to the arms of the guy who brought her to the dance," said a network TV insider. Even after 18 months at CBS, Couric "is so clearly identified with NBC," the source added.

Next Page >

On Monday morning, Karl Rove stood next to President George W. Bush on the South Lawn of the White House and announced that he would be resigning from the administration at the end of the month. In front of the assembled D.C. press corp, he read a statement, and the President spoke. There was no formal opportunity for questions.

Towards the end of the appearance, as the President and his favorite pol were about to head in the direction of an awaiting helicopter, Bill Plante, CBS White House correspondent, broke the embargo.

“If he’s so smart,” said Mr. Plante, “how come you lost Congress?”

The president ignored Mr. Plante. But the bloggers did not.

By early afternoon, Mediabistro’s FishbowlDC had reported on Mr. Plante’s question, which quickly ricocheted around the Web.

Conservative bloggers were not amused.

“Besides being a rude little liberal, Plante also manages to show just how unqualified he is to be reporting on politics,” wrote Invincible Armor. “No doubt that's why CBS hired him.”

A blogger at Planetsave.com, on the other hand, gave Mr. Plante the “balls of the day award.”

Reached by phone at his home in Washington D.C. on Monday night, Mr. Plante said he wasn’t surprised by the attention. What people should understand, he said, was that the question was of less importance than the principle.

“Here’s the point,” said Mr. Plante. “It’s important that we ask questions even if some people don’t believe that they’re appropriate. They don’t have to answer them. But we have to ask them. Did I have to ask that question? That’s a point of legitimate argument.”

Mr. Plante said that if his bosses at CBS were unhappy with him, he hadn’t heard about it.

Earlier, Mr. Rove had chosen to break the news of his resignation in a hospitable forum with absolutely no threat of shouted questions—that is, in an interview with Wall Street Journal's editorial page editor Paul Gigot, a known conservative.

“That was Rove doing what he does very well: manipulating the media,” said Mr. Plante. “He chose the venue in which the story broke. It was basically a friendly one…That’s what Rove is very good at: shaping the message.”

Not that there’s anything wrong with it, said Mr. Plante.

“I’m not saying they are wrong to do that,” said Mr. Plante. “But we are not wrong either to ask questions. Sometimes they answer, sometimes they don’t. This has been going on for a long time.”

Mr. Plante, who first joined CBS’s Washington Bureau in 1976, said he seen similarly evasive tactics employed in previous administrations. “Clinton completely dried up during the time he was under investigation and under impeachment,” said Mr. Plante. “And we yelled at him too.”

Was he worried that his pointed query might subject CBS News to yet another round of accusations (see Rather, Dan) about the organization’s supposed liberal bias?

“You can have a long discussion about whether there’s some kind of structural bias in the reporters who cover Washington,” said Mr. Plante. “You can drag out the statistics that 82 percent of them voted for George McGovern, or whatever the hell that was. But I do think that the argument is most often used when you don’t agree with what the reporter is saying. If you the viewer of reader don’t agree with the point of view, you take it that the person who’s reporting that is somehow aligned with the enemy.” Next Page >