Right wing Bari Weiss given control of CBS with a mandate for 'balanced and fact-based' news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other media outlet can run it for her? Will Bari let someone else take it for their network? (Big of her, and big of me to ask)

Seriously? The whole point is to keep the public from seeing it. Why would she give it to another outlet?

Maybe she wanted a more balanced story? It's quite possible that the story on CECOT was well-researched, factual, etc... but still negative against it. I know it's a hard concept to fathom, but journalism used to be far more neutral than it is today.

I miss Walter Cronkite, who maintained that journalists must adhere to high ethical standards, including fairness, balance, and accountability. He understood that trust is built through consistent, honest reporting and that journalists must earn the public's confidence by being transparent and reliable. Today's "news" is anything but that anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other media outlet can run it for her? Will Bari let someone else take it for their network? (Big of her, and big of me to ask)

Seriously? The whole point is to keep the public from seeing it. Why would she give it to another outlet?

Maybe she wanted a more balanced story? It's quite possible that the story on CECOT was well-researched, factual, etc... but still negative against it. I know it's a hard concept to fathom, but journalism used to be far more neutral than it is today.

I miss Walter Cronkite, who maintained that journalists must adhere to high ethical standards, including fairness, balance, and accountability. He understood that trust is built through consistent, honest reporting and that journalists must earn the public's confidence by being transparent and reliable. Today's "news" is anything but that anymore.

Re the bolded - what?

Walter Cronkite is rolling in his grave because of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other media outlet can run it for her? Will Bari let someone else take it for their network? (Big of her, and big of me to ask)

Seriously? The whole point is to keep the public from seeing it. Why would she give it to another outlet?

Maybe she wanted a more balanced story? It's quite possible that the story on CECOT was well-researched, factual, etc... but still negative against it. I know it's a hard concept to fathom, but journalism used to be far more neutral than it is today.

I miss Walter Cronkite, who maintained that journalists must adhere to high ethical standards, including fairness, balance, and accountability. He understood that trust is built through consistent, honest reporting and that journalists must earn the public's confidence by being transparent and reliable. Today's "news" is anything but that anymore.

That isn't how journalism works. What you are describing is called propaganda, which is where the USA is now.

Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other media outlet can run it for her? Will Bari let someone else take it for their network? (Big of her, and big of me to ask)

Seriously? The whole point is to keep the public from seeing it. Why would she give it to another outlet?

Maybe she wanted a more balanced story? It's quite possible that the story on CECOT was well-researched, factual, etc... but still negative against it. I know it's a hard concept to fathom, but journalism used to be far more neutral than it is today.

I miss Walter Cronkite, who maintained that journalists must adhere to high ethical standards, including fairness, balance, and accountability. He understood that trust is built through consistent, honest reporting and that journalists must earn the public's confidence by being transparent and reliable. Today's "news" is anything but that anymore.

I say this respectfully, but what would be the “positive” spin on the sending of US detainees to CECOT? The prison had been flagged for human rights violations way before US detainees were sent there.

[Anonymous]

U.S. journalism is an absolute dumpster fire and at this point Bari Weiss is complicit, along with people like the Ellisons driving it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other media outlet can run it for her? Will Bari let someone else take it for their network? (Big of her, and big of me to ask)

Seriously? The whole point is to keep the public from seeing it. Why would she give it to another outlet?

Maybe she wanted a more balanced story? It's quite possible that the story on CECOT was well-researched, factual, etc... but still negative against it. I know it's a hard concept to fathom, but journalism used to be far more neutral than it is today.

I miss Walter Cronkite, who maintained that journalists must adhere to high ethical standards, including fairness, balance, and accountability. He understood that trust is built through consistent, honest reporting and that journalists must earn the public's confidence by being transparent and reliable. Today's "news" is anything but that anymore.

You're wondering if an article about CECOT might have been ... "negative against it."

No, honey. You and Bari are more concerned there's nothing positive to say FOR it.

I wonder how many Free Press articles were published after the subjects refused to comment.

She's a rank amateur and partisan and has no business neutering a once-trustworthy news source. Shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other media outlet can run it for her? Will Bari let someone else take it for their network? (Big of her, and big of me to ask)

Seriously? The whole point is to keep the public from seeing it. Why would she give it to another outlet?

Maybe she wanted a more balanced story? It's quite possible that the story on CECOT was well-researched, factual, etc... but still negative against it. I know it's a hard concept to fathom, but journalism used to be far more neutral than it is today.

I miss Walter Cronkite, who maintained that journalists must adhere to high ethical standards, including fairness, balance, and accountability. He understood that trust is built through consistent, honest reporting and that journalists must earn the public's confidence by being transparent and reliable. Today's "news" is anything but that anymore.

Please don't seek to associate yourself with Walter Cronkite. He'd have ripped you a new one for what you said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other media outlet can run it for her? Will Bari let someone else take it for their network? (Big of her, and big of me to ask)

Seriously? The whole point is to keep the public from seeing it. Why would she give it to another outlet?

Maybe she wanted a more balanced story? It's quite possible that the story on CECOT was well-researched, factual, etc... but still negative against it. I know it's a hard concept to fathom, but journalism used to be far more neutral than it is today.

I miss Walter Cronkite, who maintained that journalists must adhere to high ethical standards, including fairness, balance, and accountability. He understood that trust is built through consistent, honest reporting and that journalists must earn the public's confidence by being transparent and reliable. Today's "news" is anything but that anymore.

I say this respectfully, but what would be the “positive” spin on the sending of US detainees to CECOT? The prison had been flagged for human rights violations way before US detainees were sent there.

The organizations flagging CECOT aren't exactly unbiased. Then again, if you're worried about CECOT, feel free to help find another country where people can be deported. They can't stay here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other media outlet can run it for her? Will Bari let someone else take it for their network? (Big of her, and big of me to ask)

Seriously? The whole point is to keep the public from seeing it. Why would she give it to another outlet?

Maybe she wanted a more balanced story? It's quite possible that the story on CECOT was well-researched, factual, etc... but still negative against it. I know it's a hard concept to fathom, but journalism used to be far more neutral than it is today.

I miss Walter Cronkite, who maintained that journalists must adhere to high ethical standards, including fairness, balance, and accountability. He understood that trust is built through consistent, honest reporting and that journalists must earn the public's confidence by being transparent and reliable. Today's "news" is anything but that anymore.

Please don't seek to associate yourself with Walter Cronkite. He'd have ripped you a new one for what you said.

So you speak for Cronkite? He would be sadly disappointed in what passes for "news" today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:U.S. journalism is an absolute dumpster fire and at this point Bari Weiss is complicit, along with people like the Ellisons driving it.

The problem isn't "journalism" it is the corporate owned media. The oligarchs bought up the news outlets and are destroying them one by one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other media outlet can run it for her? Will Bari let someone else take it for their network? (Big of her, and big of me to ask)

Seriously? The whole point is to keep the public from seeing it. Why would she give it to another outlet?

Maybe she wanted a more balanced story? It's quite possible that the story on CECOT was well-researched, factual, etc... but still negative against it. I know it's a hard concept to fathom, but journalism used to be far more neutral than it is today.

I miss Walter Cronkite, who maintained that journalists must adhere to high ethical standards, including fairness, balance, and accountability. He understood that trust is built through consistent, honest reporting and that journalists must earn the public's confidence by being transparent and reliable. Today's "news" is anything but that anymore.

You're wondering if an article about CECOT might have been ... "negative against it."

No, honey. You and Bari are more concerned there's nothing positive to say FOR it.

I wonder how many Free Press articles were published after the subjects refused to comment.

She's a rank amateur and partisan and has no business neutering a once-trustworthy news source. Shame.

Trustworthy to provide biased news - and even CBS's management acknowledged this when it hired Bari in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Once you ostentatiously limit free press in a country, that country is in serious trouble. Any history student knows this. If you support Trump, this one factor should give you pause. It's tangible proof that our country is no longer free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other media outlet can run it for her? Will Bari let someone else take it for their network? (Big of her, and big of me to ask)

Seriously? The whole point is to keep the public from seeing it. Why would she give it to another outlet?

Maybe she wanted a more balanced story? It's quite possible that the story on CECOT was well-researched, factual, etc... but still negative against it. I know it's a hard concept to fathom, but journalism used to be far more neutral than it is today.

I miss Walter Cronkite, who maintained that journalists must adhere to high ethical standards, including fairness, balance, and accountability. He understood that trust is built through consistent, honest reporting and that journalists must earn the public's confidence by being transparent and reliable. Today's "news" is anything but that anymore.

That isn't how journalism works. What you are describing is called propaganda, which is where the USA is now.

Sad.

Glad we agree - on both what Cronkite stood for and that today's news is propaganda. Nice self-own there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other media outlet can run it for her? Will Bari let someone else take it for their network? (Big of her, and big of me to ask)

Seriously? The whole point is to keep the public from seeing it. Why would she give it to another outlet?

Maybe she wanted a more balanced story? It's quite possible that the story on CECOT was well-researched, factual, etc... but still negative against it. I know it's a hard concept to fathom, but journalism used to be far more neutral than it is today.

I miss Walter Cronkite, who maintained that journalists must adhere to high ethical standards, including fairness, balance, and accountability. He understood that trust is built through consistent, honest reporting and that journalists must earn the public's confidence by being transparent and reliable. Today's "news" is anything but that anymore.

I say this respectfully, but what would be the “positive” spin on the sending of US detainees to CECOT? The prison had been flagged for human rights violations way before US detainees were sent there.

The organizations flagging CECOT aren't exactly unbiased. Then again, if you're worried about CECOT, feel free to help find another country where people can be deported. They can't stay here.

Everyone should be “unbiased” about sending people, some of whom were here legally and had done nothing wrong, to a torture camp in another country on the basis of their tattoos with zero due process and in violation of a U.S. court order. The administration was asked for comment and declined their chance to defend this practice. That is their side of the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:U.S. journalism is an absolute dumpster fire and at this point Bari Weiss is complicit, along with people like the Ellisons driving it.

US journalism is not yet a “dumpster fire” but this incident is definitely one huge red flag. 60 Minutes isn’t just any old program. It’s been a seminal institution in the world of investigative journalism. I’m in my 60s and have relied on it my whole adult life to bring important stories to my attention that I may not have otherwise known about, including political stories. I’m not sure whether MAGA knows this or remembers, but 60 minutes has aired unflattering stories about Democrats—not just GOP pols—including Biden, Obama, and the Clintons. I’m happy to share examples if anyone’s interested. It is precisely because they follow the facts that it has such credibility.