Interview: Washington Post’s Dana Priest on investigative reporting

20 Oct 2009, Posted by Shaoli Chaudhuri in National Politics, News, interview, 0 Comments

The Chronicle’s Shaoli Chaudhuri interviewed Washington Post investigative reporter Dana Priest Monday. Priest spoke at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy about uncovering the CIA’s secret prisons and revealing poor conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. She won Pulitzer prizes for both scoops.

Priest told The Chronicle that reporting during Barack Obama’s presidency is not very different from reporting during George W. Bush’s time in office, and said that students interested in journalism should still go into the profession, despite a tough job market.

Excepts from Chaudhuri’s interview are below:

The Chronicle: What do you hope your listeners, particularly those aspiring to go into journalism, take from today’s lecture and the experiences you share?

Dana Priest: It’s a great field to go into even though there’s a lot of turmoil in the business model. I can’t think of a better way to spend your life if you’re interested in doing a lot of different things, in being your own boss in a lot of ways—effecting change really, which you can do with accountability and investigative reporting. I also hope they get the flavor for the excitement of it—the story behind the story of secret prisons, and Walter Reed and the important role journalism plays in our democracy.

TC: If you could take on another beat anywhere in the U.S., where would it be and what would you write about?

DP: I’m at the place where I’ve always wanted to be. If I had a second life, I would do more on the environment and really look into false claim of greenness, but also prove the scientific evidence for different changes in environmental things, the atmosphere, climate change. I’d go to places where there’s degradation and really describe that.

TC: Could you tell me a little about how working during the Obama administration differs from working during the Bush administration?

DP: It really does not differ at all…The same people are in charge of dealing with the press. They’re not more open…I’m not surprised by it. Administration to administration there aren’t big differences in the area of intelligence…Maybe [Obama] will try harder in the future.

TC: Your reports on the CIA secret prisons earned you a Pulitzer, but another consequence was that the CIA fired one of your alleged sources. Did this impact your views on publishing classified information?

DP: No. People who work in the government have to follow different rules than people who don’t. You certainly wouldn’t want to stop what you’re doing as a reporter because someone might decide to go after the people who might be helping you. After 9/11 we automatically went into the classified arena. You automatically get into really sensitive areas [with investigative reporting].

TC: How have you seen journalism evolve over the years and what do you think the future has in store for the profession?

DP: Right now, papers are dying left and right and they’re cutting back on investigative reporting. And if that trend does not stop we are going to be a different country…I still find young people have a lot of desire to get into the field…We haven’t yet figured out how to use the power of the internet to make investigative reporting more powerful and reach more people.

Sanford professor evaluates Obama’s use of media

24 Sep 2009, Posted by Lindsey Rupp in Faculty and Staff, National Politics, News, media, 0 Comments

Ken Rogerson, professor of public policy and director of undergraduate studies at the Sanford School of Public Policy, participated in the New York Times’ Room for Debate blog, “Obama on All Channels,” Sept. 23.

Rogerson was one of several professors, presidential speechwriters and authors to comment on President Barack Obama’s frequent media appearances. Posts addressed whether the president is in danger of being overexposed.

In his post, Rogerson noted that Obama is “doing his job.”

“He is out among the citizens—both virtually and physically—promoting his policy agenda, showing support for existing programs and asking us to think hard about political decisions that are being made,” Rogerson wrote.

Rogerson added that still, Obama may be overexposing himself, leading citizens to prioritize consuming other information available to them in the “maze of modern technology.”

He contrasted the surplus of information about Obama and his doings with the  author J.D. Salinger’s media shyness, noting it is “interesting” that Salinger’s reclusive behavior has made  him  more compelling to the public.

“The next time Salinger decides to say something in public, I suspect people will stop to listen,” Rogerson wrote.

Quoted: Peter Feaver on Obama and Bush diplomacy

20 Sep 2009, Posted by Zachary Tracer in Faculty and Staff, National Politics, News, 0 Comments

Peter Feaver, Alexander F. Hehmeyer professor of political science and director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, was quoted in the New York Times Sunday. The article, by Peter Baker, discusses how President Barack Obama has gained few concessions from foreign leaders, despite the good will he has built up abroad.

Here’s Feaver’s take on the matter, as quoted in the Times:

“The problem is he’s asking for roughly the same things President Bush asked for and President Bush didn’t get them, not because he was a boorish diplomat or a cowboy,” said Peter D. Feaver, a former adviser to Mr. Bush now at Duke University. “If that were the case, bringing in the sophisticated, urbane President Obama would have solved the problem. President Bush didn’t get them because these countries had good reasons for not giving them.”

Time Magazine Can't Read Good

08 May 2009, Posted by Kevin Lincoln in Culture, Lists, Literature, Playground, 0 Comments

It’s questionable as to whether Time Magazine has any influence of its own nowadays, but that hasn’t stopped them from continuing to publish their annual list of the world’s 100 most influential people. The feature is one of those cute, marketable gimmicks that ensure a (certainly much-needed) boost in sales, but it does provide for some interesting fodder as to what qualities enable the quantification of an individual’s influence. Apparently, whatever this logarithm involves, it doesn’t look kindly on fiction writers.

This year’s list is a frustrating mixture of self-congratulatory stunts—T. Boone Pickens and Ted Turner writing each other’s profiles, Ashton Kutcher musing on the Twitter guys (he owes them for all that free publicity), Quincy Jones celebrating John Legend after the two just recently recorded a duet for Jones’ upcoming album—with a commendable lauding of some of the world’s giants. Inclusions like Captain Chesley (Sully) Sullenberger and Captain Richard Phillips raise the question of what actually comprises influence; yes, these two men are heroes, but beyond the scope of this year, will anyone recognize their names? And hasn’t Phillips only been famous for about a month? Do their respective influences extend to the average person, who will never fly a commercial airliner or be taken hostage by Somalian pirates? Plus, elementary-school current events summaries, like General Chuck Yeager’s 255-word recounting of Sullenberger’s story, do little to impress upon anyone this significance; far more successful is Sullenberger’s piece on Phillips, a nuanced and insightful tribute that makes both men look impressive.
(more…)

Obama’s start

02 Apr 2009, Posted by Jeff Ditzler in Backpages, Jeff Ditzler, 0 Comments

A little over two months ago, President Barack Obama was inaugurated amid much fanfare and excitement. Since the time of Franklin Roosevelt, it has become customary for presidents to get their agenda started within the first 100 days of their administrations, a period that ends on April 30.  Your fearless columnist, though, will be too busy studying for his econ exam or, more likely, procrastinating then, so we’ll have to settle for a recap of the first 71 days:

• January 30: Intense debate breaks out among White House aides over whether to stimulate the economy of Applebee’s or TGI Friday’s during happy hour.
• February 2: Joe Biden walks out his front door and sees his shadow, signaling six more weeks of stimulus proposals.
• February 17: An attempt to introduce Obama’s hip-hop supporters to Washington’s power elite goes awry when Ludacris gets drunk and spends the entire evening hitting on Nancy Pelosi.
• February 21: The relationship between the Obama administration and the liberal wing of his party deteriorates after Michael Moore eats everything in the White House pantry.
• February 25: Attempting to bury the hatchet,  Obama sends Rush Limbaugh a box of peanut-butter sandwiches.
• March 6:  Obama’s political advisers become concerned when, for the first time, polls show his approval rating in Durham slipping below 90 percent.
• March 11: Embarrassed at his gaffe in sending the British Prime Minister a set of classic American movies on DVDs that don’t work in Europe, Obama attempts to rectify the matter by sending him an original print of the Declaration of Independence and a painting of the battle of Yorktown.  It doesn’t work.
• March 21: Concerned about an escalating bracket dispute, the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend deploying troops to Gonzaga.
• March 23: An unexpected stock market rally broadens the Obama administration’s bipartisan support, leading Sarah Palin to declare that she can see 10,000 from her house.
• March 29:  Obama urges a calming of public outrage against AIG executives after realizing that given the amount of AIG’s assets the federal government bought, he is now, technically, an AIG executive.