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.
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.
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.
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, the lawsuit was utterly baseless, and tramples the First Amendment, editorial discretion, and common sense.
CBS/Paramount is 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.
Academics and free speech experts were quick to point out that Carr was radically abusing government power in unprecedented ways, ironically after years of Carr hypocritically claiming that any FCC consumer protection actions against shitty telecom monopolies were “radical overreach.”
Carr is trying to claim that the minor edits done by CBS violate a longstanding “Broadcast News Distortion” policy that’s almost never enforced by the agency, which has largely given up on media regulations under both parties. The policy in question says violations must involve clear distortion of “a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect of the news report.”
That means hard proof of something like a bribe by a company or politicians to change news coverage, and that clearly doesn’t apply here. Trumpism is just making baseless accusations against CBS, knowing that even if CBS isn’t actually found guilty of anything, it allows the vast GOP propaganda machine to generate entire news cycles suggesting that 60 Minutes did something nefarious.
But even Conservative groups have come out against Carr’s weaponization of government. Several groups traditionally allied with the GOP (and GOP loyal sectors like big telecom) including The Center for Individual Freedom, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance have collectively urged Carr to drop his sham inquiry, calling it “regulatory overreach”:
Many of these “taxpayer” nomenclature groups are traditionally used as lobbying tools by industry (and the GOP) to pretend there’s broad support for what are usually unpopular policies (like say approving a shitty merger, attacking community broadband, or killing net neutrality). Most of these groups receive donations from corporate giants (like AT&T) while pretending to be objectively independent.
In their letter, the organizations first prop up the bad faith Conservative pseudo-“censorship” victimization complex, but then suggest a better path would be to eliminate the (again, barely enforced) “Broadcast News Distortion” rule entirely. These orgs (alongside many other “free market libertarian think tank” brethren) generally like their captured regulators to be blindly feckless to corporate power without all the extra, unpredictable authoritarian zealotry.
A company like AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast is too chickenshit to criticize Trumpism directly (lest they have their merger approvals rejected or face new sham inquiries for not being racist enough), but the fact their policy puppet organizations are publicly complaining here is notable all the same.
Last October, Donald 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, the lawsuit tramples the First Amendment and editorial discretion.
At the same time, Trump FCC boss Brendan Carr has been abusing government authority to leverage approval of Paramount (CBS)’s planned $8 billion merger with Skydance to bully the company into even greater feckless compliance.
After some early indications that CBS was poised to settle the lawsuit, we noted last week that there were some signs of life from CBS lawyers, who began taking aim at obvious Trump judge shopping. They also were clearly starting to fling various legal arguments against the wall, including (pretty shaky) claims that Trumplings can’t sue CBS because it violates the company’s binding arbitration fine print.
But this week Oliver Darcy (whose media newsletter is worth a follow) revealed that incoming CBS President Jeff Shell has been applying relentless pressure on company underlings to settle with King Donald, release the full “60 Minutes” transcript, and trample all over the firewall between management and editorial:
“Shell requested that McMahon and Owens comply with Trump’s demand and release the transcript, according to people familiar with the matter. Shell’s involvement in the editorial matter immediately set off alarm bells. McMahon and Owens later told associates they were disturbed that Shell was inserting himself into the newsroom’s decision-making, given that Paramount’s merger with Skydance has yet to close and that corporate interference in journalistic matters is traditionally anathema. Even more troubling, Shell seemed to believe CBS News should have simply appeased Trump, despite the dangerous precedent it would set.”
Media executives were broadly bullish on Trump because they knew that, in addition to a huge tax cut for doing nothing, he’d rubber stamp all manner of potentially problematic consolidation in an already highly-consolidated media industry.
Darcy notes that CBS News chief Wendy McMahon and “60 Minutes” boss Bill Owens apparently initially convinced Shell that trampling journalistic integrity to get a big shitty merger approved wasn’t a good look, but Darcy notes that pressure by Shell has only ramped up in the months since.
The great irony in all of this is that like so many media giants, CBS had already responded to authoritarianism by making its journalism gentler to Republican ideology years earlier, in response to the all-pervasive lie that the corporatist, center-right U.S. press has a rampant “liberal bias.”
A Trump rejection of the merger might not be good for Shell’s wallet, but it would likely be inadvertently of benefit to the public. Recent large U.S. media mergers (like the AT&T–>Time Warner–>Discovery super-union) have been cataclysmic messes, doing little more than generating massive layoffs, increasing consumer prices, and generally resulting in undeniably shittier products overall.
As we head into the election tomorrow, there has been some general talk about how many people think that Donald Trump is somehow better on things like free speech and the economy. It’s pretty clear that that is wrong. On the economy, it’s evident he has no clue what he’s talking about and his plan on both tariffs and deportations would tank the US economy massively.
Late last week, Donald Trump filed another one of his anti-free speech lawsuits, and this one is way crazier than the others. First of all, this one is directly with him as the plaintiff (some of the ones in the past have been on behalf of his campaign). But this one isn’t even about what a media property said about Donald Trump. No, he’s suing CBS claiming that the way it edited a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris violates that Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).
This action concerns CBS’s partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion calculated to (a) confuse, deceive, and mislead the public, and (b) attempt to tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party as the heated 2024 Presidential Election—which President Trump is leading— approaches its conclusion, in violation of Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 17.46(a), which subjects “[f]alse, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” to suit under Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code §17.50(a)(1). See Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (the “DTPA”), Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 17.41 et seq.
This is one of the most blatant attacks on free speech rights and the First Amendment I’ve seen in a while. It’s literally saying that he can sue a news organization if he doesn’t like how they edit a story. Editorial discretion is among the very clearly protected rights of a news organization under the First Amendment.
Trump’s entire argument is that when she appeared on 60 Minutes (which also invited Trump, though he skipped out on it after initially agreeing) they edited one of her answers to make it shorter. But, um, that’s what they always do? In an edited “magazine style” TV show, as Trump well knows having done a bunch of these, they talk to you for a much longer time than they have to air, and then they air only portions of both the questions and the answers.
Indeed, it’s easy to show that if anyone has benefited from the media’s willingness to take rambling, incoherent answers and make them sound normal, it’s Donald Trump. The media does this to him nearly every single day.
Anyway, if we’re talking about word salad, here’s Donald Trump last night appearing to practically fall asleep mid-sentence talking about how “a whistleblower released the information on the 18 on the 800,000 [pause] cobs plus [longer pause]. The whistleblower said, you know, there were not 800,000 and 18,000, you add ’em upissst, and then you add 100 and think of it. 112,000 jobs.”
Trump: "A whistleblower released the information on the 18 on the 800,000 cobs plus."
In the case of CBS, it aired the shorter, more concise version of Harris’s answer on 60 Minutes, leaving out some of the explanatory rambling before getting to the details. Earlier, on Face the Nation, they played a longer clip that included some explanatory language that wasn’t a “word salad” as the complaint argues (yes, the complaint directly calls it a “word salad”) but is perhaps not particularly eloquent.
In both versions of the Interview (the “October 5 Version” and the “October 6 Version”), Whitaker asks Kamala about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Whitaker says to Kamala: “But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.”
In the October 5 Version, aired on the CBS Sunday morning news show Face the Nation, Kamala replies to Whitaker with her typical word salad: “Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in several movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.”
In the October 6 Version, aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Kamala appears to reply to Whitaker with a completely different, more succinct answer: “We are not gonna [sic] stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”
Incredibly, the complaint itself includes Trump ranting about all of this, kinda highlighting how he is way more prone to “word salad” than his opponent.
As President Trump stated, and as made crystal clear in the video he referenced and attached, “A giant Fake News Scam by CBS & 60 Minutes. Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better. A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE. Election Interference. She is a Moron, and the Fake News Media wants to hide that fact. An UNPRECEDENTED SCANDAL!!! The Dems got them to do this and should be forced to concede the Election? WOW!”). See President Donald J. Trump, TRUTH SOCIAL (Oct. 10, 2024)
Yes, somehow Trump’s lawyers think this makes him look good. They also seem to think that referring to Trump as “President Trump” but referring to Vice President Harris as “Kamala” makes this look like a serious case.
It is not. It is clearly an attack on basic First Amendment rights and free speech law. It is an attack on the editorial discretion of CBS, the very same editorial discretion that Trump regularly benefits from.
He is attacking the First Amendment and free speech by using bogus lawsuits to challenge those in the media who don’t portray things the way he wants them portrayed. That is a fundamental attack on free speech.
And, as Eugene Volokh explains, these issues have been covered before in court, in the context of “false” statements. This case isn’t even about false statements, just Trump not liking how an interview was edited.
That said, Trump filed this case in the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, guaranteeing that Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk will hear it. Kacsmaryk is considered one of a small group of “the worst judges in America” as someone in a single judge division who is known as the go-to judge for Trumpists looking to “rubber-stamp their looniest ideas.”
There is no reason for this case to be in Texas, as Trump is a Florida resident, and the two CBS organizations he is suing are based in New York and Delaware. By any sane measure, the case would be tossed on jurisdiction alone.
I’ve also seen some people argue that RFK Jr.’s embrace by Trump is again about “free speech,” but that is similarly nonsense.
So, if you’re following RFK Jr.’s logic, it’s an obvious First Amendment violation that Facebook blocked his anti-vax statements which violated their own policies, because the White House also agreed that RFK’s anti-vax claims were dangerous. But it’s not a First Amendment violation for Donald Trump to “pull CBS’s license” for how it edited an interview?
The only “principle” here is “it’s not okay if it happens to me, but it’s totally okay if we do it when we’re in power.”
That’s not about principled free speech.
And that’s not even getting into how little either Trump or RFK Jr. understand how this works. CBS doesn’t have “a license” to pull. Affiliate stations have broadcast spectrum licenses, and the government isn’t supposed to punish them based on what they cover or how. Yes, CBS has a small number (15 across the country) of affiliates that are “owned and operated” by the company, but the vast majority (236) are owned by other entities. So even the idea of “pulling CBS’s license” makes no logical sense.
But, either way, as we head into election day, the idea that Donald Trump is a free speech supporter is literally backwards. He’s spent years suing people for their speech, and now he’s even doing it in response to editorial discretion he dislikes. Donald Trump has no conception of free speech. He only supports speech he likes, and he is eager to punish any speech he dislikes.
I have a browser open with about a dozen different bad and wrong takes on Section 230 that one day I may write about, but on Sunday night, 60 Minutes jumped to the head of the line with an utterly ridiculous moral panic filled with false information on Section 230. The only saving grace of the program was that at least they spoke with Jeff Kosseff, author of the book on Section 230 (which is an excellent read). However, you can tell from the way they used Jeff that someone in the editorial meeting decided “huh, we should probably find someone to be the “other” side of this debate, so we can pretend we’re even-handed” and then sprinkled in Jeff to explain the basics of the law (which they would then ignore in the rest of the report).
It’s almost difficult to describe just how bad the 60 Minutes segment is. It is, quite simply, blatant disinformation. I guess somewhat ironically, much of the attack on 230 talks about how that law is responsible for disinformation. Which is not true. Other than, perhaps, this very report that is itself pure disinformation.
What’s most astounding about the piece is that almost everything it discusses has nothing to do with Section 230. As with so many 230 stories, 60 Minutes producers actually seem upset about the 1st Amendment and various failures by law enforcement. And somehow… that’s the fault of Section 230. It’s somewhat insane to see a news organization like 60 Minutes basically go on an all-out assault on the 1st Amendment.
The central stories in the piece involve people who (tragically!) have been harassed online. One case involves a woman that was falsely blamed by some nutjob conspiracy theorists of having brought COVID-19 to the United States. Because of that, she and her family received death threats, which is absolutely terrible, but has nothing to do with Section 230. 60 Minutes points out that law enforcement didn’t care and said that the death threats weren’t enough of a crime. But… uh… then shouldn’t 60 Minutes be focused on the failures of law enforcement to deal with threats (which actually can be a crime if they fall into the category of “true threats”)? Instead, somehow this is Section 230’s fault? How?
And it gets worse. 60 Minutes trots out the bogeyman of “anonymous internet trolls,” even though this comes right after 60 Minutes shows that the nutjob conspiracy theorist who started this has a name and is well known (as a nutjob conspiracy theorist). The whole setup here is bizarre. The death threats are awful, and if they are criminal, then the problem is with the police and the FBI who the show says did nothing. If they’re not criminal, then they’re not breaking the law. So, the reason there’s “no one to sue” is not because of Section 230, but because no laws were broken. But that’s not how 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley frames it.
Right about now you might be thinking, they should sue. But that’s the problem. They can’t file hundreds of lawsuits against internet trolls hiding behind aliases. And they can’t sue the internet platforms because of that law known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Written before Facebook or Google were invented, Section 230 says, in just 26 words, that internet platforms are not liable for what their users post.
Over and over again, the report blames Section 230 for all of this. Incredibly, at the end of the report, they admit that the video from that nutjob conspiracy theorist was taken down from YouTube after people complained about it. In other words Section 230 did exactly what it was supposed to do in enabling YouTube to pull down videos like that. But, of course, unless you watch the entire 60 Minutes segment, you’ll miss that, and still think that 230 is somehow to blame.
The second half is basically more of the same. It talks about two more unfortunate stories that actually suggest Section 230 is working correctly. The first involves Lenny Pozner, who has been fighting back against insane conspiracy theorists who have gone after him since his son was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012. But, again, Pozner’s story shows that Section 230… works? After going on for a few moments about how legitimately awful Pozner’s situation is, Pelley reveals that Facebook, YouTube and others have been super responsive to Pozner and are quick to pull down information that he, and a non-profit he set up, flag as problematic. The segment talks about how Pelley sent an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, and then admits that since then Facebook has been super responsive:
After the letter, a Facebook manager called Pozner.
Lenny Pozner: It began a relationship with Facebook that helped them learn about the material that is being posted on their platform and how it is abusive, defamatory
Scott Pelley: Have you seen a difference, a practical difference in Facebook?
Lenny Pozner: Yes, it’s almost all gone.
So, um, why are we blaming Section 230 again? It sounds like the system is working. The same is true in the next story. Andy Parker, the father of the tragically murdered Alison Parker — a reporter who was murdered by a fired co-worker live on air in the middle of an interview. Parker has wanted those videos off of social media. And… that’s basically what happened.
Lenny Pozner flagged Alison Parker videos for YouTube to remove.
YouTube wrote us, “There is no place on YouTube for content that exploits this horrendous act, and we’ve spent the last several years investing in tools and policies to quickly remove it.” YouTube told us it now prioritizes all requests from Pozner’s HONR Network.
But 60 Minutes says this is proof that the platforms moderation doesn’t work?
Andy Parker: I really expected them to do the right thing. their motto was, “Don’t be evil.” And for a while, they did a pretty good job of it. But now, they are the personification of evil.
Huh? What? But…?
That’s when the report finally admits that the first couple profiled, falsely blamed for bringing COVID-19 to the US, also were successful in getting the video pulled down. And… then they still blame Section 230 — the same Section 230 that enables YouTube to pull down those videos:
Scott Pelley: Based on what you’ve had to learn about all of these things, what do you think the solution could be?
Matt Benassi: This is really, really hard, right? ‘Cause Section 230. When that was written, it was probably done with the intent that social media companies would police themselves in some manner. And social media companies haven’t done that very well.
Except… the segment shows they did police themselves.
And then the segment ends in the most bizarre fashion, trying to at least nod towards the point that Section 230 being revoked would completely change the internet, but… I mean… this is just word salad:
But making social media liable would also mean Facebook, Twitter, even Wikipedia and Yelp, couldn’t exist as we know them. President-elect Biden wants to revoke Section 230. The federal government is already suing to break up Facebook and Google. No one can say what social media 2.0 will look like or whether the innocent will ever be protected from a world wide web of lies.
What do the antitrust lawsuits have to do with Section 230? Why mention that? It’s a total non sequitur. And getting rid of Section 230 does not “protect the innocent from a world wide web of lies.” Because most lies are protected by the 1st Amendment, not 230. And in the rare cases they are not, that’s an issue for law enforcement, not Section 230.
It’s really becoming difficult to not believe that major media companies are, themselves, choosing to air blatant anti-internet propaganda. You may recall that one of the revelations from the Sony hack a few years back was that the big movie studios got together to plot out a strategy for undermining the internet, which included using media properties they own to run a smear campaign of reports and articles. Whether or not that’s the intention, it certainly has the same effect here. CBS provides no disclaimer about the fact that it is owned by Viacom, one of the companies who was involved in that plot.
Nor does 60 Minutes note that its own site is protected by Section 230. Nor does the segment point out that Section 230 protects free speech online and protects users themselves. The brief clip of Jeff Kosseff just gives a basic description of part of the law, but not any of the important nuance (that Jeff knows and explains literally every day).
It’s pure propaganda. And it’s an online piece that seems to be suggesting (falsely) that without 230, we’d no longer have misinformation online. It’s bonkers.
And, finally, it’s insane that a news organization like CBS, which has faced many defamation cases over the years, is more or less promoting more defamation cases. I’ve never quite seen anything like it. But CBS/Viacom and 60 Minutes should be ashamed of putting on this garbage. It’s not informing people. It’s misinforming them.
Over this past weekend, it was revealed that (1) the adult film actress Stormy Daniels (real name: Stephanie Clifford), who has claimed she had an affair with Donald Trump and then was given $130,000 to stay silent about it, is scheduled to appear on 60 Minutes next weekend and (2) President Trump’s lawyers are considering going to court to block CBS from airing it. This is silly, dumb and not actually allowed by the law.
Lawyers associated with President Donald Trump are considering legal action to stop 60 Minutes from airing an interview with Stephanie Clifford, the adult film performer and director who goes by Stormy Daniels, BuzzFeed News has learned.
?We understand from well-placed sources they are preparing to file for a legal injunction to prevent it from airing,? a person informed of the preparations told BuzzFeed News on Saturday evening.
Someone should send his lawyers the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Times v. United States, in which the Nixon White House tried (and failed) to block newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers, noting that it would be obvious prior restraint to block such a publication. As Justice Black noted in a concurring opinion:
Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.
In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.
If that’s too complicated, someone could just send them renowned legal scholar Walter Sobchak’s analysis of the issue of prior restraint. That might be more their speed:
Of course, even without it being blatantly unconstitutional, there’s the general Streisand Effect nature of trying to stifle the interview — which seems guaranteed to just make that many more people interested in what Clifford has to say about the President. One could argue that this was already going to get a ton of attention so perhaps it wouldn’t make that big a difference on that front, but don’t underestimate just how much free advertising this gets the interview… and how it makes more people wonder why the President is so focused on silencing Clifford.
The latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails have been revealed, and Trevor Timm, the Executive Director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, points us to a particularly interesting one, in which then State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley tells Clinton that the State Department has successfully “planted” questions for the show, 60 Minutes, to ask Assange.
Indeed, if you watch the interview, the reporter, Steve Kroft, regularly repeats State Department talking points — often prefaced with the sort of weak journalistic hedging “there are people who believe…”
Of course, this is not the first time 60 Minutes has been seen to be extra deferential to the government. You may recall the program’s infomercial for the NSA, done by a guy who immediately went to work for law enforcement week’s later.
And, while Kroft seems to want to present the supposed legal case against Assange to Assange, it’s worth remembering that five years later and the DOJ stillhas not charged Assange with any crime, though apparently the grand jury investigation is still ongoing.
It also seems noteworthy that Crowley resigned from the State Department just a few weeks after this email, right after he publicly criticized the treatment of Chelsea Manning, who was being held in solitary confinement for leaking the State Department’s documents to Wikileaks. Crowley publicly said that such treatment was “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid” — and within days, he no longer had a job.
None of this is to say that 60 Minutes or any other journalism program shouldn’t be asking tough questions of Julian Assange or anyone else they interview. Of course they should. But the very idea that the government is “planting” one-sided or misleading and biased questions with journalists, to pin on a guy they’re trying (and failing) to charge with criminal activity for embarrassing those in power, certainly seems pretty sketchy. The media is supposed to be questioning those in power, not to be used as a tool by those in power to question those who are actually exposing corruption.
60 Minutes, which has been harshly criticized for running puff pieces for the NSA and FBI recently, is at it again. Last night, they ran two unrelated yet completely conflicting segments?one focusing on FBI Director Jim Comey, and the other on New York Times reporter James Risen?and the cognitive dissonance displayed in the back-to-back interviews was remarkable.
First up was 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley’s interview with FBI Director Jim Comey. 60 Minutes aired the first part of the interview last week, which ran 14 minutes and did not contain a single adversarial question. This time, Scott Pelley asked him at least asked a couple softballs about civil liberties, although the primary one Comey just refused to answer.
The main focus of the piece, however, was Comey’s supposed commitment to “the rule of law.” “That’s a principle over which James Comey is willing to sacrifice his career,” Pelley explains to the audience. He then proceeded to re-tell the infamous “hospital bed” scene from 2004 during the Bush administration, where Comey, then deputy attorney general, threatened to resign unless Bush altered the original NSA warrantless surveillance program. Bush relented a bit and so Comey stayed on as deputy attorney general for more than a year afterwards.
Comey is portrayed as the hero, who stopped illegal surveillance from going forward. What Comey did was certainly admirable, but this episode happened in March 2004 and only pertained to a small portion of the NSA’s illegal activities. The NSA’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program (as the public knew it) was first exposed more than eighteen months later in December 2005. 60 Minutes explains this in the very next segment but couldn’t apparently put two and two together: Jim Comey was presumably also responsible for signing off on the illegal program the New York Times exposed after his hospital bed protest.
During this segment, 60 Minutes interviewed James Risen about the Obama administration’s war on leaks and described the scoop he is most famous for: his Pulitzer Prize-winning story exposing that same warrantless wiretapping program.
Risen explains to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl that the NSA was not only gathering metadata without a warrant on Americans in 2005, but the content of phone conversations as well. And as Stahl herself points out?and as former NSA chief Michael Hayden basically admits in the segment?this was in direct violation of the 1978 law the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which required court orders to conduct such spying.
Critically, Risen’s first story in December 2005 makes it clear the warrantless wiretapping of Americans was ongoing at the time. And we learned just last year as part of the Snowden revelations that Comey’s hospital protest was over Internet metadata, not illegal eavesdropping on phone calls.
So to sum up: the government was breaking the law in December 2005. This is the program that Comey had presumably signed off on after the much-talked-about incident and he remained deputy attorney general. Yet Comey is still uncontroversially portrayed as a man dedicated to “the rule of law.”
This information was readily available to 60 Minutes, as it’s in the most well-known recounting of the hospital bed scene done by reporter Barton Gellman for the Washington Post and in his book The Angler in 2007. As Barton Gellman reported in 2007, Comey forced some changes with his potential resignation in 2004, but “much of the operation remained in place.”
“Imagine you’re doing ten things one day, and the next day you’re only doing eight of them,” an unnamed official told Gellman in The Angler. “That’s basically what happened here.”
