If you’re wondering what independent journalism that won’t bend to White House pressure looks like,you’re looking at it.
On Sunday night, CBS News’ newly imported “editor in chief,” Bari Weiss, killed a 60 Minutes story about Trump’s illegal deportations to a Salvadoran concentration camp—hours before it was set to air. Why? Because it might upset the White House. And because Weiss apparently doesn’t understand how television production works, she waited so long to kill it that it still got sent to foreign partners, meaning the story she tried to bury spread all over the internet anyway.
A perfect Streisand Effect, and a perfect illustration of what happens when you hand editorial control to someone more interested in protecting power than challenging it.
Supporting BestNetTech means supporting a news organization that won’t kill stories to please anyone in power. Not now, not ever.
The story itself was pretty typical 60 Minutes fare, and in some ways quite similar to a PBS Frontline piece, Surviving CECOT, that was released a few weeks earlier. The main new ground in the 60 Minutes story was that only about 3% of those Venezuelans illegally sent to CECOT actually had violent criminal records (contrary to what the administration claimed). There was also some further evidence showing that CECOT almost certainly violated the human rights of everyone in the concentration camp.
Here at BestNetTech, we’ve been covering the story of the illegal and unconscionable actions of the Trump administration, shipping these men to a concentration camp in El Salvador from the beginning.
While some have demanded that we “stick to tech” when an administration ships human beings to a modern torture camp based on nothing more than having tattoos, that’s everyone’s story to cover. If you want to “stick to tech,” feel free to go elsewhere. And if you want to get White House approved talking points and “view from nowhere” reporting, apparently CBS News is now there for you.
But if you want to know what all of this actually means and why it’s important, stick around.
Here’s the difference between us and CBS News: BestNetTech has been around for nearly 30 years precisely because we don’t have a Bari Weiss. We don’t have millions in venture capital or billionaire backers telling us what we can and can’t say. We’re nimble, we’re independent, and we answer to our readers—not to power.
But that independence comes at a cost. The price of a single 30-second TV commercial on 60 Minutes could fund BestNetTech for months. And right now, organizations that used to sponsor our work are backing away—not because they disagree with our reporting, but because they’re afraid Trump will come after them for supporting it.
So if you want independent reporting that won’t bend to White House pressure, we need your support. Back us at $100 or more between now and January 5th, and we’ll send you BestNetTech’s first-ever challenge coin—commemorating 30 years of Section 230, the law that makes comment sections and social media sharing possible, and which is under constant attack from the very people we’re covering.
Or hell, do it to spite the people who think journalism should serve power instead of challenging it. Either way works for us.
We promise we’ll put it to better use than any of the billionaire owned and controlled media orgs out there.
We’ve noted repeatedly how right wing billionaire Larry Ellison hired Bari Weiss to run CBS for a very obvious set of reasons: to coddle wealth and power, validate and amplify right wing grievance bullshit, divide and distract the electorate, and undermine real journalism.
And she’s doing all of those things incredibly well.
Weiss’ first major move was to host a town hall with a right wing opportunist nobody was actually interested in. Her second major move? To effectively kill a major 60 Minutes story about the president’s concentration camps. More specifically, to derail a 60 Minutes story focusing on the stories of Venezuelan men deported by the Trump administration to a brutal prison in El Salvador (CECOT).
CBS announced they were “postponing” the story, which had already seen multiple layers of fact checking and legal review, just three hours before it was poised to broadcast. Veteran 60 Minutes correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi was understandably pissed off, and shared a must-read complaint with her colleagues about Weiss’ ham-fisted effort to undermine the network’s journalism:
Per NY Times’s Michael Grynbaum on X, this is Sharyn Alfonsi’s email to her “60 Minutes” colleagues in full:
It’s quite a letter, which leaked almost immediately:
News Team,
Thank you for the notes and texts. I apologize for not reaching out earlier.
I learned on Saturday that Bari Weiss spiked our story, INSIDE CECOT, which was supposed to air tonight. We (Ori and I) asked for a call to discuss her decision. She did not afford us that courtesy/opportunity.
Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now-after every rigorous internal check has been met is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.
We requested responses to questions and/or interviews with DHS, the White House, and the State Department. Government silence is a statement, not a VETO. Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story.
If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a “kill switch” for any reporting they find inconvenient. If the standard for airing a story becomes “the government must agree to be interviewed,” then the government effectively gains control over the 60 Minutes broadcast.
We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state.
These men risked their lives to speak with us.
We have a moral and professional obligation to the sources who entrusted us with their stories. Abandoning them now is a betrayal of the most basic tenet of journalism: giving voice to the voiceless.
CBS spiked the Jeffrey Wigand interview due to legal concerns, nearly destroying the credibility of this broadcast. It took years to recover from that “low point.” By pulling this story to shield an administration, we are repeating that history, but for political optics rather than legal ones.
We have been promoting this story on social media for days. Our viewers are expecting it.
When it fails to air without a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship. We are trading 50 years of “Gold Standard” reputation for a single week of political quiet.
I care too much about this broadcast to watch it be dismantled without a fight. Sharyn
Before killing the segment, Weiss had recommended numerous changes, including adding a new interview with Trump’s unhinged racism-czar Stephen Miller, and replacing the term “migrants” more frequently with words like “illegals.” You know, to be fair and balanced:
“Ms. Weiss first saw the segment on Thursday and raised numerous concerns to “60 Minutes” producers about Ms. Alfonsi’s segment on Friday and Saturday, and she asked for a significant amount of new material to be added, according to three people familiar with the internal discussions.
One of Ms. Weiss’s suggestions was to include a fresh interview with Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff and the architect of Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown, or a similarly high-ranking Trump administration official, two of the people said. Ms. Weiss provided contact information for Mr. Miller to the “60 Minutes” staff.
Ms. Weiss also questioned the use of the term “migrants” to describe the Venezuelan men who were deported, noting that they were in the United States illegally, two of the people said.”
Alfonsi notes that the 60 Minutes team had already asked for comment from the White House, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security. She also noted that Weiss had basically implemented a “kill switch” for any journalism the Trump White House finds inconvenient.
One presumes they found this particular story extra problematic not just because it exposes the Trump administration’s brutal and unconstitutional industrialized racism machine, but because it humanized Venezuelans at a time when the administration is trying to inflame racial tensions to justify its illegal, militaristic pursuit of Venezuelan precious metal and oil resources.
CBS, of course, wasn’t exactly a bastion of independent, hard-nosed journalism before Weiss and Ellison came to town. The network’s very first response to authoritarianism was to hire more right wing voices. Like many media outlets, it had already been compromised by generational bullying by the U.S. right wing, designed to discredit all factual opposition of right wing ideology for having a “liberal bias.”
Weiss was just hired to finish the job.
The latest paper-edition of the Onion satirical newspaper put it pretty well:
This should not have surprised anybody who has been paying attention. As noted previously, Weiss doesn’t have any actual experience in journalism (certainly not enough to warrant the promotion). She’s an opportunistic, contrarian-for-contrarianism’s-sake troll who built a blog dedicated to culture war grievance and lazy engagement bait.
Billionaires hired Bari Weiss to inflame cultural divides, disorient the public, and undermine journalism. They fire real journalists and replace them with Weiss (and others like her) to divide and distract the electorate from the actual causes of most U.S. dysfunction: usually unchecked corporate power, extreme wealth disparity, corruption, and our increasingly sociopathic, technofascist billionaire class.
Weiss part of an army of fake journalists employed by U.S. billionaires for this purpose (aided in some instances by hostile foreign intelligence), and despite the agenda never being subtle, the consolidated corporate media (the remnants of which Ellison is steadily trying to buy up and dominate) is utterly incapable of being honest with itself about any of it. Quite by design.
I see a lot of commentary pointing out that “Bari Weiss isn’t very good at journalism,” which distracts from the point that she wasn’t hired for journalism. She was hired to blow smoke up the ass of establishment right wing power, whether that’s Trump’s concentration camps or Netanyahu’s industrialized murder of toddlers.
If Weiss gets fired sometime next year it won’t be because she’s a terrible journalist that undermined the outlet’s already sagging credibility, it will be because she’s a clumsy propagandist and a ratings bore.
We’ve already explored at length how Bari Weiss was hired by the billionaire Ellison family to make CBS even more friendly to billionaires and authoritarians after their embarrassing capitulation to (and bribery of) U.S. autocrats. This isn’t really a pivot real people were actually asking for, it’s simply extension of the right wing extraction class’s assault on informed consensus and real journalism.
And while Weiss likes to pretend she’s shaking things up at CBS with audience-focused innovation, most of her early moves have fallen completely flat. Like Weiss’ recent new town hall effort, whose inaugural episode featured a softball interview with right wing activist Erika Kirk. The interview was pretty much what you’d expect, with lots of downplaying of Charlie Kirk’s role as a radical, divisive, inflammatory bigot.
But as we’ve noted previously, the U.S. media market is already well-saturated with news organizations focused on telling affluent, white, right wingers what they want to hear. In Weiss’ case, the new CBS is a gambit to make men like Donald Trump, Larry Ellison, and Benjamin Netanyahu happy. The actual, real-world interest in this bizarre pseudo-journalistic kayfabe is arguably very limited.
As Weiss quickly found out, as her inaugural chat was relegated to a hollow ratings hour filled with ads for products like the Chia Pet:
“The news special aired at 8 p.m. on Saturday, one of the least-watched hours in broadcast TV. And that may have contributed to a relative dearth of top advertisers appearing to support the show. During the hour, commercial breaks were largely filled with spots from direct-response advertisers, including the dietary supplement SuperBeets; the home-repair service HomeServe.com; and CarFax, a supplier of auto ownership data. Viewers of the telecast on WCBS, CBS’ flagship station in New York, even saw a commercial for Chia Pet, the terra-cotta figure that sprouts plant life after a few weeks.”
Mainstream advertisers are reticent to affix themselves to absolutely anything deemed remotely off-putting, whether that’s an exposé on mass shootings, or a softball interview with the grieving wife of a right wing propagandist paid by U.S. billionaires to sow division and stall consensus-oriented reform.
Weiss, a shameless opportunist without much actual journalism experience, made all manner of proclamations when she was hired about how she was going to “shake things up,” solve CBS’ perceived bias, and restore journalistic rigor. Yet her very first major move not only involved platforming herself, it involved elevating a fringe, right wing activist who isn’t particularly of interest to most normal people.
Again, she had the opportunity here to platform any of the amazing scientists, academics, artists, thinkers, athletes and doers America has on offer, and settled on a fringe right wing activist of fleeting interest to CBS’ actual news audience.
Larry Ellison’s efforts to dominate what’s left U.S. media should be extremely alarming, but there’s a single, solitary bright spot: there’s very little evidence anybody involved in this strange collection of trolls, brunchlords, and nepobabies has any actual idea what they’re doing.
That has involved chasing pointless “growth for growth’s sake” megamergers, imposing bottomless price hikes and new annoying restrictions on customers, undermining labor, and cutting corners on product quality in a bid to give Wall Street that sweet, impossible, unlimited, quarterly growth it demands.
And the price hikes show absolutely no sign of slowing down. All of the major streaming companies have been raising prices like it’s going out of fashion. Techspot broke it down nicely in visual form:
Extremely innovative.
Paramount was the latest to boost streaming prices this month as the company tries to recoup debt created by its massive recent acquisition of CBS and Bari Weiss’ weird, overvalued right wing troll blog. In addition to price hikes, companies are intent on just generally being more annoying and making their services less enjoyable to use, including crackdowns on family member password sharing.
And there’s a weird, ignorant tone deafness that’s growing among media executives, as we saw back in September when Warner Brothers CEO David Zaslov complained about how modern TV often provides a “a terrible consumer experience,” while with the very next breath lamenting that there’s too much competition and his companies haven’t imposed enough new price hikes on customers.
King Trump’s destruction of whatever is left of regulatory oversight and media consolidation limits means there’s going to be another huge new wave of pointless shitty mergers across media (likely involving Comcast/NBC, Warner Brothers, and Paramount). That means more debt from pointless deals that companies try to recoup via price hikes imposed on already annoyed customers.
As we saw with traditional cable, eventually this consolidation scheme falls apart as consumers flee to alternative, cheaper (or free) entertainment options, including piracy.
At that point, executives inevitably blame absolutely everything but their own behavior (generational entitlement! inflation! a stagnant housing market!) and the cycle begins anew, with nobody in any position of power having any financial incentive to learn absolutely anything from experience.
A coalition of former FCC officials are pushing for the elimination of a longstanding FCC rule the Trump administration abused to “bully” ABC and CBS into kissing the president’s ass (I’ll use the term bully loosely since both companies seemed very eager to roll over for the far right wing).
Last October, Trump sued CBS claiming (falsely) that a 60 Minutes interview of Kamala Harris had been “deceitfully edited” to her benefit (they simply shortened some of her answers for brevity, as news outlets often do). As Mike explored at the time, the lawsuit was utterly baseless, and trampled the First Amendment, editorial discretion, and common sense.
CBS/Paramount was looking for regulatory approval for its $8 billion merger with Skydance (run by Larry Ellison’s kid David). Trump and his FCC boss Brendan Carr quickly zeroed on on this, and began using merger approval as leverage to bully CBS into even more feckless coverage of the administration.
One of the FCC rules they abused during this whole process was the FCC’s “Broadcast News Distortion” policy. The policy, created in 1949, gives the agency the power to punish media companies for ethical violations featuring a clear distortion of “a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect of the news report.”
Ideally, this would be something like a media company taking a bribe from a company or public official to kill a story. The FCC has only actually used the rule eight times between 1969 and 2019, and few of those actions actually resulted in serious, substantive punishment.
Carr’s already grossly abused the rule twice; one to bully CBS into weakening its journalism, and once to try and bully ABC/Disney into pulling Jimmy Kimmel off the air for making fun of Republicans. Both times, Carr leveraged the rule to launch fake “investigations” into the companies to create the illusion he’s a very big boy doing very serious things.
In response to recent abuse of the rule by Trumpism, a coalition of former FCC officials are pushing for its elimination entirely. A bipartisan coalition of seven former FCC chairs and commissioners, including five Republicans, have filed a petition with the FCC urging for the elimination of the rule, saying it’s a threat to free speech and functional journalism:
“The News Distortion Policy gives any administration a tool to target outlets that provide unfavorable coverage. Chairman Carr’s recent threats against ABC and Disney demonstrate exactly this risk.
After ABC aired Jimmy Kimmel’s commentary on Charlie Kirk’s murder, Carr threatened to revoke the network’s licenses for alleged news distortion. The message was clear: Criticize those in power and face government retaliation.
As petitioners warn: What a Republican FCC Chairman can do today, a Democratic FCC Chairman could do tomorrow. The only solution is to eliminate this dangerous tool entirely.”
Of course, FCC boss Brendan Carr refuses to give up any power so this is a non-starter for him. Carr has made a big stink about eliminating all manner of “burdensome FCC regulations” as an act of “government efficiency.” As we’ve noted, this mostly involves important consumer protections and media consolidation limits his friends in the media and telecom sector don’t like.
Carr’s still keen to maintain FCC authority he can abuse to stifle speech. He’s also keen, as we saw with TikTok, to just make up authority the FCC doesn’t have whenever it suits him.
So it’s little surprise that his response to this petition from a bunch of his predecessors was to mock it, rather than live up to his promise to eliminate “burdensome FCC regulations.” Apparently that doesn’t matter when he has the power to punish media companies for their First Amendment-protected speech:
That’s Brendan Carr tweeting the following in response to a story about this petition:
How about no
On my watch, the FCC will continue to hold broadcasters accountable to their public interest obligations.
And it is quite rich for the exact same people that pressured prior FCCS to censor conservatives through the news distortion policy to now object to the agency’s even-handed application of the law.
There’s another irony here; for generations, telecom and media giants routinely whined about the FCC “abusing its regulatory authority” and engaging in “radical extremism” any time it engaged in even the softest act of consumer protection. This was a cornerstone of “free market Libertarian” complaints. Remember the histrionics over some fairly basic, loophole-filled, net neutrality requirements?
Yet when the worst abuses of FCC authority finally did arrive, it came at the hands of far-right extremists.
That doesn’t mean we should abandon FCC oversight of corporate power (including media consolidation and diversity ownership rules) entirely, though I suspect that between good faith worries about abuse, and bad faith lobbying by corporate power, that’s the most likely outcome.
U.S. media mergers always follow the same trajectory. Pre-merger, executives promise all manner of amazing synergies and deal benefits. Post-merger, not only do those benefits generally never arrive, the debt from the acquisition spree usually results in significant layoffs, lower quality product, and higher rates for consumers. The Time Warner Discovery disaster was the poster child for this phenomenon.
It’s a silly, hollow game. With streaming growth saturated and executives all out of original ideas, the only way to goose quarterly earnings and generate new tax breaks is “growth for growth’s sake” consolidation. Such consolidation creates the illusion that these are savvy deal makers creating innovative new things, but as we’ve seen repeatedly this sort of media consolidation is mindlessly corrosive.
The massive debt incurred from this and other deals (like the $7.7 billion bid for exclusive MMA rights, and the $150 million acquisition of Bari Weiss’ weird troll blog) is already resulting in a wave of layoffs as the company tries to cut costs, which (surely entirely coincidentally appear to be disproportionately impacting women and minorities):
“Eight on-air correspondents and hosts were given their pink slips – and all of them are women, with half of them people of color. According to three sources with knowledge of the situation, a male correspondent was initially included on the layoff list but was removed after he appealed directly to the new editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, leading to another female correspondent being added to the list at the last minute.“
Nice. Classy. We’ve noted how Bari Weiss, a “contrarian” right wing opinion troll who has failed upward into her new job at CBS News (despite no serious experience in actual journalism), was hired by Ellison to ensure that CBS is nicer to far right wingers like Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu (the softening of the latter’s ongoing war crimes being clearly important to Larry and Bari alike).
While Weiss is busy firing black and female employees and journalists, she’s apparently under the impression that she’s important enough to warrant a $10,000 a day security detail:
“Page Six hears that as staffers watch their colleagues pack up their desks, they’re also learning that the security detail for new CBSNews boss Bari Weiss costs the company five figures every day. Insiders tell us that eight bodyguards surround the Free Press founder at all times, and she’s shuttled around in a caravan of SUVs, much like the president and vice president.”
Weiss is busy eyeballing new CBS news hosts to replace the ones she already fired, and most of them (unsurprisingly) appear to be coming over from Fox News. Folks like Weiss will vehemently deny this (possibly even to herself), but the Ellisons’ goal here is to demolish whatever was left of CBS’ already pretty flimsy journalism, and turn the outlet into yet another right wing propaganda mill (see: Sinclair, Fox News, Breitbart, Newsmax, OANN) financed by profits from the infotainment arm (again, much like Fox).
That’s the plan, anyway. There’s no indication that this weird assortment of fail-upward brunchlords, nepobabies, and authoritarian apologists will actually succeed. The media market for billionaire ass kissing is pretty saturated (see: WAPO), U.S. media is an unforgiving and ever-changing mess being endlessly disrupted by new media and piracy, and we all saw what happened when AT&T tried to buy their way to modern media domination (spoiler: they fled screaming toward the exits after setting billions on fire).
It’s far more likely this effort stumbles around drunkenly for a few years, before the entire mess is offloaded to some clumsy new suitor in a few years allowing the pointless cycle to begin anew.
60 Minutes is under new management and things are getting stupid faster than you might expect. Last night’s episode featured President Trump, which is currently being described as “nuts.” There are all sorts of crazy moments to call out, but let’s start with the recursively meta nonsense.
60 Minutes edited out a segment where Donald Trump tells them to edit out a segment in which he brags about getting CBS to pay him because of them editing out part of an answer by Kamala Harris, and he notes that CBS clearly did the wrong thing in editing Harris in the same fucking sentence he tells them to edit out what he’s saying.
It is so fucking stupid.
As you’ll no doubt recall, last year, Trump sued CBS over the show. Right before last year’s election, 60 Minutes had interviewed Kamala Harris. As every such news show does, it had edited the interview down to make it fit into the TV time slot. MAGA culture warriors, desperate for anything to culture war about, started screaming that 60 Minutes had edited Harris to sound more coherent. This was nonsense.
What had happened was that in one question, Harris had given a long answer. CBS broadcast part of the answer on 60 Minutes. But it had broadcast a different part of that answer during the CBS Sunday morning show, Face the Nation. This… happens all the time. The full answer was too long. They edited it down to a shorter bit. The two different broadcasts chose different parts. That’s basic, fundamental, editorial discretion.
Given how often Trump is edited to make him sound more coherent, he should appreciate this. But Trump will never, ever care about how much leeway he is given and will always seek to gain whatever advantage he can. So he sued, claiming it was “election interference,” which it wasn’t. And even if it was (it wasn’t) he still won the election.
But Trump’s censor in chief Brendan Carr made it clear that the only way he’d approve Paramount’s (owner of CBS) sale to Skydance was if they first bribed Trump by agreeing to settle this frivolous case. So they paid a $16 million bribe just to get the case settled, while agreeing to install a Trump lackey as an internal censor at the network.
Trump’s full interview was 73 minutes long, but 60 Minutes only aired 28 minutes of it. They then did release the longer interview online along with a transcript, which caused people to look at what was edited. And that included this segment:
TRUMP: And actually 60 Minutes paid me a lotta money. And you don’t have to put this on, because I don’t wanna embarrass you, and I’m sure you’re not– you have a great– I think you have a great, new leader, frankly, who’s the young woman that’s leading your whole enterprise is a great– from what I know.
I don’t know her, but I hear she’s a great person. But 60 Minutes was forced to pay me– a lot of money because they took her answer out that was so bad, it was election-changing, two nights before the election. And they put a new answer in. And they paid me a lot of money for that. You can’t have fake news. You’ve gotta have legit news. And I think that it’s happening. I see–
NORAH O’DONNELL: Mr. President–
TRUMP: –I see good things happening in the news. I really do. And I think one of the best things to happen is this show and new ownership, CBS and new ownership. I think it’s the greatest thing that’s happened in a long time to a free and open and good press.
Again, I feel the need to repeat this because it is so incredibly stupid. Literally in the same sentence where he says CBS had to pay him “a lotta money” because it edited a 60 Minutes interview, he tells them to edit the interview not to air that section. Then he claims “you can’t have fake news.” Even though what he’s claiming is literally fake news. They didn’t pay him because they changed the answer. They paid him to get their merger done. Everyone knows it.
And, yes, I’m sure some people will try to defend this, but come on. There’s no defense. The President views everything in simple terms: “if it helps me, it’s good, if it doesn’t, it should be illegal.” It’s a narcissistic simpleton’s understanding of the world. And he’s in charge. It’s fucking crazy.
Speaking of fucking crazy, there were so many other crazy bits in the interview, but let’s just call out two. After all, the request to edit the section of the interview, while hypocritical, is nothing compared to the blatant corruption he admits to, or his desire to unleash the American war machine on American people.
Let’s start with this: just last week, MAGA loyalist Rep. James Comer released what may be the least self-aware report ever, screaming about how White House aides covered up Joe Biden’s mental and physical decline and because of that he didn’t know who he was pardoning, meaning those pardons should be null and void.
This comes the same week that people are raising serious questions about White House aides covering up the true nature of Trump’s physical and mental decline. And, now he’s admitting he has no idea who he’s pardoning—the very thing the Comer report claims means the pardons are void.
Two weeks ago, Trump (or whoever within the White House) pardoned CZ, the founder of Binance, who had pleaded guilty to money laundering. Though, when asked about it that day, Trump appeared to have no idea who CZ was, even though he had also (just coincidentally) given billions to the Trump family’s cryptocurrency business.
And even though he’d flubbed that question when he was asked about it right after the pardon was announced, when 60 Minutes asked him about it, he doubled down—seemingly proud of his ignorance. Which is bold, considering his administration’s entire argument against Biden’s pardons rests on the claim that Biden didn’t know who he was pardoning:
O'DONNELL: Why did you pardon Changpeng Zhao?TRUMP: Are you ready? I don't know who he isO'DONNELL: His crypto exchange Binance helped facilitate a $2b purchase of World Liberty Financial's stablecoin. And they you pardoned him.TRUMP: Here's the thing — I know nothing about it
From the full (unedited) transcript, which is way worse than that short clip above:
NORAH O’DONNELL: This is a question about pardons. The Trump family is now perhaps more associated with cryptocurrency than real estate. You and your son– your sons, Don Jr. and Eric, have formed World Liberty Financial with the Witkoff family.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Right.
NORAH O’DONNELL: Helping to make your family millions of dollars. It’s in that context that I do wanna ask you about crypto’s richest man, a billionaire known as C.Z. He pled guilty in 2023 to violating anti-money laundering laws.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Right.
NORAH O’DONNELL: Looked at this, the government at the time said that C.Z. had caused “significant harm to U.S. national security”, essentially by allowing terrorist groups like Hamas to move millions of dollars around. Why did you pardon him?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Okay, are you ready?I don’t know who he is.
Trump’s own administration is claiming Biden’s pardons are invalid because he didn’t know who he was pardoning. And Trump just proudly announced, on camera, that he has no idea who CZ is.
Then he admits that his sons basically told him to do this for their crypto business:
My sons are involved in crypto much more than I– me. I– I know very little about it, other than one thing. It’s a huge industry. And if we’re not gonna be the head of it, China, Japan, or someplace else is. So I am behind it 100%. This man was, in my opinion, from what I was told, this is, you know, a four-month sentence.
But this man was treated really badly by the Biden administration. And he was given a jail term. He’s highly respected. He’s a very successful guy. They sent him to jail and they really set him up. That’s my opinion. I was told about it.
By who? Who told you about it? A good reporter would have stepped in and asked that question, but this is the new Bari Weiss 60 Minutes where you won’t see follow-ups like that. Or if you did, they’d be edited out.
He continues:
I was told that he was a victim, just like I was and just like many other people, of a vicious, horrible group of people in the Biden administration.
Again, “who told you this?” is the next question any reporter should be asking. O’Donnell did not. Though she at least did point out that he pleaded guilty to allowing terrorist groups to engage in money laundering, which seems notable for a guy who keeps talking about fighting crime.
NORAH O’DONNELL: The government had accused him of “significant harm to U.S. national security”–
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That’s the Biden government.
NORAH O’DONNELL: Okay. Allowing U.S. terrorist groups to, you know, essentially move millions of dollars around. He pled guilty to anti-money laundering laws. That was in 2023. Then in 2025 his crypto exchange, Binance, helped facilitate a $2 billion purchase of World Liberty Financial’s stablecoin. And then you pardoned C.Z. How do you address the appearance of pay for play?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, here’s the thing,I know nothing about it because I’m too busydoing the other–
Um. Isn’t that exactly why your administration is claiming Biden’s pardons don’t count?
NORAH O’DONNELL: But he got a pardon–
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I can only tell you that–
NORAH O’DONNELL: He got a pardon–
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Norah, I can only tell you this.My sons are into it. I’m glad they are, because it’s probably a great industry, crypto. I think it’s good. You know, they’re running a business, they’re not in government. And they’re good– my one son is a number one bestseller now.
So here Trump admits (1) he doesn’t know who CZ is, then (2) admits that basically his sons are the ones into cryptocurrency and “not in government,” and effectively admits that (3) he pardoned CZ on the advice of his sons, who directly profit from the pardon through their cryptocurrency business, while claiming ignorance of the entire arrangement.
This isn’t just yet another example of the most corrupt pay-for-play administration in the history of the United States but one that literally does everything it falsely accuses past administrations of doing, but way worse. Just as they’re claiming that Biden’s pardons weren’t valid, Trump is effectively admitting he has no idea who he’s pardoning, but he’s doing it to help his corrupt sons.
And I won’t even get into the frenzy MAGA continues to go through about Hunter Biden supposedly enriching himself by using his father’s name. Remember all those stories claiming payoffs to the “Biden family”? Funny how those folks are all silent about the Trump family (1) actually doing what they falsely accused Biden of doing and (2) doing it way, way, way worse.
Speaking of crime, another part of the interview involves the President falsely claiming that immigration enforcement is targeting criminals (leaving aside that he keeps pardoning criminals).
When O’Donnell asks about CBP’s tactics in Chicago—tear-gassing residential neighborhoods, smashing car windows—Trump’s response is to call for more violence:
O'DONNELL: Americans have been watching videos of ICE tackling a young mother, tear gas being used in a Chicago residential neighborhood, and the smashing of car windows. Have some of these raids gone too far?TRUMP: No. I think they haven't gone far enough.
NORAH O’DONNELL: More recently, Americans have been watching videos of ICE tackling a young mother, tear gas being used in a Chicago residential neighborhood, and the smashing of car windows. Have some of these raids gone too far?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No. I think they haven’t gone far enough because we’ve been held back by the– by the judges, by the liberal judges that were put in by Biden and by Obama. We’ve been held–
NORAH O’DONNELL: You’re okay with those tactics?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Yeah, because you have to get the people out. You know, you have to look at the people. Many of them are murderers. Many of them are people that were thrown outta their countries because they were, you know, criminals. Many of them are people from jails and prisons. Many of them are people from frankly mental institutions. I feel badly about that, but they’re released from insane asylums. You know why? Because they’re killers.
Note the question: she’s asking him about ICE (actually CBP) tear gassing residential neighborhoods and smashing car windows. And he says “they haven’t gone far enough.” He literally thinks he should be able to have the military attack Americans.
And he’s completely full of shit about targeting “criminals and murderers.” The vast, vast majority of them are not. Over 90% of those being grabbed have never been convicted of a violent crime. We already know that Trump’s advisor Stephen Miller has told immigration officials to just grab anyone they can and to ignore any efforts to target actual criminals (because Miller knows there just aren’t that many in reality—it was all a myth they fed Fox News to get Trump elected).
But Trump is so disconnected from reality he doesn’t know that.
And speaking of disconnected from reality: he still thinks migrants “seeking asylum” means they’re literally from mental institutions. He’s been making this claim for years. No one has corrected him. No reporter has asked him to clarify. The President of the United States genuinely appears to believe that foreign governments are emptying psych wards and shipping patients to America because they’re “seeking asylum.”
So let’s recap: in a single interview, the President (1) suggests CBS edit out his complaints about CBS editing while simultaneously claiming CBS’s past editing was corrupt enough to sue over, (2) admits he pardoned someone he’s never met on the advice of unnamed people who are most likely his sons who profit directly from that pardon—the exact scenario his own party claims invalidates Biden’s pardons, and (3) endorses escalating violence against American citizens in residential neighborhoods while lying about who’s being targeted and seemingly unable to comprehend who the violence is actually being used against.
We have a President so catastrophically disconnected from reality that he’ll pardon anyone his sons tell him to, endorse any level of violence his advisors suggest, and contradict himself in the same sentence without noticing. The people around him—his kids, his advisors, his handlers—do the things they’ve spent years accusing others of doing (except way worse), and Trump happily goes along with it because he either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care. They get away with it, and they do it again, more brazenly.
The media that’s supposed to be holding him accountable has instead hired a Trump-approved censor to monitor their coverage and installed an inexperienced right-wing propagandist to run their newsroom. So when Trump sits down for an interview and admits on camera that he’s doing exactly what he’s claiming others should be jailed for… they don’t follow up or ask any tough questions.
Bari Weiss walked into 60 Minutes and asked the staff: “Why does the country think you’re biased?”
The question stunned them into awkward silence. And it should have—not because it caught them off guard, but because it reveals everything wrong with what passes for journalistic sophistication in our moment.
Let’s be precise about what Weiss is doing. She’s not asking whether 60 Minutes is actually biased. She’s not evaluating their coverage against standards of accuracy, fairness, or adherence to facts. She’s asking why “the country” perceives bias—which treats that perception as fact requiring accommodation regardless of whether the perception corresponds to reality.
This is false balance perfected. The sophisticated move that treats “Trump and his allies say you’re biased” as equivalent evidence to actual journalistic practice. The epistemic surrender that makes public opinion—shaped by coordinated disinformation campaigns, algorithmic manipulation, and deliberate attacks on legitimate journalism—into the arbiter of what counts as fair coverage.
When the President calls judicial review “insurrection,” when his advisers threaten to ignore court rulings, when federal agents conduct warrantless mass detentions—60 Minutes covering these facts isn’t bias. It’s journalism. And when Trump and his allies attack that coverage as partisan, the proper response isn’t “how do we address these perceptions?” It’s “we report what’s happening.”
But Weiss has built a career on reframing accommodation as courage. Her brand rests on the premise that mainstream journalism, academia, and cultural institutions have been captured by the left and need correction toward “balance.” This framework treats asymmetric reality as if it were symmetric controversy—and what the New York Timesreports about her first weeks at CBS reveals how this plays out in practice.
She’s reportedly personally booking Netanyahu, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff—architects of Trump’s Middle East policy—while urging executives to identify newsroom leakers. And she’s asking a newsroom that views itself as nonpartisan to justify why coordinated attacks on them have gained traction. She’s not asking whether Netanyahu’s government has committed actions worthy of critical coverage or whether Trump’s peace plan deserves scrutiny beyond its architects’ preferred framing—she’s ensuring powerful right-wing figures get platforms while shifting the burden from those making false claims to those reporting facts.
This matters because even journalists who genuinely believe they’re defending fairness can fall into this trap. The frame is seductive: “Both sides claim bias, therefore the truth must be somewhere in the middle.” But this only works when both sides operate in good faith. When one side systematically attacks any accountability journalism as partisan while the other tries to report accurately, splitting the difference doesn’t produce balance—it produces capitulation.
The question “why does the country think you’re biased?” does something structurally insidious regardless of Weiss’s intentions. It treats coordinated attacks on legitimate journalism as evidence requiring response rather than as bad-faith manipulation requiring exposure. It makes perceived bias—manufactured through deliberate campaigns—into a problem journalism must solve by changing coverage rather than a weapon journalism must resist by maintaining standards.
The danger isn’t that journalists become propagandists overnight—it’s that they internalize propaganda’s logic while believing they’re protecting neutrality.
This is precisely how authoritarian movements capture journalism without needing to shut it down. You don’t need to close newspapers when you can convince editors that “balance” means giving equal weight to demonstrable lies and documented facts. You don’t need to jail journalists when you can make them internalize the frame that reporting what’s actually happening is “partisan” if it makes one side look bad.
The 60 Minutes staff should have answered her question directly: “The country thinks we’re biased because a coordinated disinformation infrastructure has spent decades attacking any journalism that holds Republican power accountable as ‘liberal media bias,’ and you’re now amplifying that frame by treating their attacks as legitimate concerns requiring our accommodation rather than as bad-faith manipulation requiring our resistance.”
But they sat in stunned silence instead. Because Weiss is now their boss. And her early choices clarify what she values: access to powerful right-wing newsmakers, concern about perceptions shaped by those attacking journalism, and the sophisticated frame that treats “both sides say the other is biased” as evidence requiring split-the-difference coverage.
This is how journalism dies. Not through crude censorship but through sophisticated editors who convince themselves that accommodation of authoritarian narratives is “balance,” that platforming power without sufficient scrutiny is “access,” that treating coordinated attacks as legitimate criticism is “taking concerns seriously.”
Two plus two equals four. Federal agents conducting warrantless mass detentions violates the Fourth Amendment. Stephen Miller calling judicial review “insurrection” is authoritarian rejection of constitutional governance. Covering these facts is journalism. Treating coverage of these facts as evidence of bias is surrender.
Bari Weiss is editor-in-chief of CBS News. And her first major act was asking the network’s flagship program to justify why they’re perceived as biased for doing their jobs. That tells you everything about what she’ll demand they stop doing—and why her version of “balance” is just authoritarianism with better branding.
Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.
U.S. media mergers always follow the same trajectory. Pre-merger, executives promise all manner of amazing synergies and deal benefits. Post-merger, not only to those benefits generally never arrive, the debt from the acquisition spree usually results in significant layoffs, lower quality product, and higher rates for consumers. The Time Warner Discovery disaster was the poster child for this phenomenon.
“Major job cuts have been expected even before the Skydance Media-Paramount Global deal closed, as part of Ellison and his team’s goal of slashing upwards of $2 billion in costs. Previously, the company had been targeting layoffs by early November. The new round of cuts is expected to eliminate around 2,000 jobs in the U.S., with additional layoffs internationally.
I’m sure the longstanding employees at CBS and Paramount are particularly thrilled about the Ellisons overpaying for Bari Weiss’ blog, then promoting a woman with no real experience in journalism to be the new head of CBS News. As we’ve noted, that effort to bring even more right wing trolling and billionaire-ass kissing to a fairly saturated media market is likely to be a major headache.
The Ellisons, in their bid to dominate U.S. media, also have their eye on acquiring whatever is left of Time Warner, which is expected to cost them somewhere around $60 billion. Historically these kinds of media domination plays never end well (just ask AT&T), so you can expect significantly more layoffs as this weird combination of fail-upward brunchlords and nepobabies try to navigate a tumultuous market they don’t really understand.
It used to be that companies planning for harmful, pointless mergers had to at least make a fleeting effort to justify the pointless consolidation. But during the Trump era all you have to do is kiss the idiot king’s ring and any and all pointless consolidation gets the green light. All of the costs of those harms will, of course, be borne by consumers and employees in the months and years to come.
And because we’ve let our journalism and media consolidate in the hands of just a few billionaires — the media’s coverage of itself generally doesn’t honestly reflect any of this, propping up billionaire efforts to keep making the same mistakes over and over again for some tax cuts and a temporary stock boost.
For more than fifty years the U.S. right wing has embraced a neat trick: by claiming that literally anything in factual opposition to their beliefs is “biased” and therefore must be discarded as unreliable, they’ve bullied U.S. media into becoming a feckless mess terrified of accusations of “liberal bias.”
Of course, if you ask the actual media academics who study U.S. media bias, they’ll quickly tell you that the U.S. media generally veers toward center-right corporatism because we’ve let it consolidate at the hands of center-right billionaires. The obvious result is a hot feckless mess that lacks the courage to speak truth to power, something that became obvious to even the most obtuse with the rise of U.S. authoritarianism.
Still, this idea that the U.S. media is “too woke” and “has a liberal bias” is central to the generational Republican mission of creating a press that only exists to make affluent Conservatives happy.
“The inquiry was met with stunned awkwardness, according to three people who recounted details from the private session in Midtown Manhattan. The staff of “60 Minutes,” the nation’s most-watched news program, view their coverage as firmly nonpartisan and reject criticism from President Trump and his allies who argue that it has a liberal slant.”
60 Minutes is fairly centrist and tame. But it’s the same old trick: if you say things Republicans or corporate power don’t like, you’ll be branded as foundationally untrustworthy. That, more than anything, results in a broader public distrust in U.S. journalism, which the modern, corporatist, brunchlord, far right alliance then exploits and insists can only be fixed by pushing news coverage even further to the right.
Neat trick, right?
It’s worth reiterating that Weiss has no experience in real journalism. She doesn’t own a television. Her tenure at the New York Times involved writing a few opinion columns and helping to turn the New York Times’ op-ed section into a rightward-lurching contrarian troll farm. She’s been hired to turn CBS into the same thing, with the help of a Trump-appointed right wing “ombudsman” providing a fake veneer of authority with some feigned furrowed-brow seriousness.
The goal isn’t objective journalism, it’s to help center-right billionaires further put their thumb on the scale of the consensus definition of objective journalism, shoveling us deeper down the rabbit hole of an anti-democratic state run by the whims of our richest sociopaths. And while it’s only been a week or two, Weiss’ goal here is really not subtle, especially as it pertains to validating Netanyahu:
“As a Middle East peace deal came into view, Ms. Weiss shared numerous pro-Israel opinion pieces from The Free Press, and an editorial that said Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, had failed ‘the Hamas test.'”
If you want to remain employed in a highly consolidated U.S. journalism industry owned by rich oligarchs, you’re supposed to pretend none of this is happening, or that it’s perfectly normal to put a right wing troll with no journalism experience in charge of one of the nation’s biggest news operations. At worst, you might be allowed by your editors to hint that Weiss is “controversial” and “unconventional.”
But make no mistake: Weiss is being used as a prop by the billionaire Ellison family to encourage U.S. media’s steady lurch rightward as a necessary anti-woke corrective to mainstream media’s non-existent liberal bias. The primary goal is to undermine the kind of academics, progressive reformers, scientists and marginalized communities that actually speak truth to consolidated wealth and power.
You’d like to think, at some point, the American media and public could awake from this generational con. But the only way to truly fix the U.S. media’s real bias is to untether it from consolidated billionaire ownership and the distorted incentives created by advertising engagement. But because that’s going to make billionaires less money and result in real journalism, it’s always deemed a bridge too far.
