How neutral is Catherine Herridge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That tweet on the unmasking was a perfect example. Why did she tweet it instead of report it? She didn’t follow even one tenet of basic journalism ethics when she did that. CBS should have fired her. But I am sure they feared backlash if they did.

This comment makes little sense. Why didn't she report it? What does that mean? Why didn't she go on tv with it? Maybe, because CBS does not give her the platform they should.

Or, maybe it was a nothingburger and not actually, you know, news? I am going with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On the second, the “unmasking” tweet was an end-run around editorial process. It was devoid of context, notably that these “unmasking” events are super common and there was nothing unusual about it. Yet she let it hang out there in a tweet to suggest scandal. Had she reported it for CBS, she would have been required to put it in proper context.

She was reporting a fact.

Please, you know you cannot find anything substantial or you would have posted it.

Again, stop with the sea lion trolling. Everyone knows she has no credibility and is just trying to replicate the way she worked at Fox. She isn’t as awful as Sharyl Attkisson, but she is getting there.

DP. She is one of the best investigative journalists out there. You just don't like her because she is reporting on the unraveling of the Russia collusion investigation. She also worked for ABC prior to Fox.

https://www.viacomcbspressexpress.com/cbs-news/shows/cbs-news/bios?id=catherine-herridge

She really isn’t. I understand that she is a right-wing media darling because people expect she will continue to carry water for their causes, but that doesn’t make her neutral.

That tweet on the unmasking was a perfect example. Why did she tweet it instead of report it? She didn’t follow even one tenet of basic journalism ethics when she did that. CBS should have fired her. But I am sure they feared backlash if they did.

She did report on it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-flynn-unmasking-list-richard-grenell/
Byline: STEFAN BECKET
Catherine Herridge, Bo Erickson, Olivia Gazis and Stephen Sanchez contributed to this report.

No, she contributed to that report. I wouldn’t have an objection if she tweeted the story but that isn’t what she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On the second, the “unmasking” tweet was an end-run around editorial process. It was devoid of context, notably that these “unmasking” events are super common and there was nothing unusual about it. Yet she let it hang out there in a tweet to suggest scandal. Had she reported it for CBS, she would have been required to put it in proper context.

She was reporting a fact.

Please, you know you cannot find anything substantial or you would have posted it.

Again, stop with the sea lion trolling. Everyone knows she has no credibility and is just trying to replicate the way she worked at Fox. She isn’t as awful as Sharyl Attkisson, but she is getting there.

DP. She is one of the best investigative journalists out there. You just don't like her because she is reporting on the unraveling of the Russia collusion investigation. She also worked for ABC prior to Fox.

https://www.viacomcbspressexpress.com/cbs-news/shows/cbs-news/bios?id=catherine-herridge

She really isn’t. I understand that she is a right-wing media darling because people expect she will continue to carry water for their causes, but that doesn’t make her neutral.

That tweet on the unmasking was a perfect example. Why did she tweet it instead of report it? She didn’t follow even one tenet of basic journalism ethics when she did that. CBS should have fired her. But I am sure they feared backlash if they did.

She did report on it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-flynn-unmasking-list-richard-grenell/
Byline: STEFAN BECKET
Catherine Herridge, Bo Erickson, Olivia Gazis and Stephen Sanchez contributed to this report.

No, she contributed to that report. I wouldn’t have an objection if she tweeted the story but that isn’t what she did. [/quote

Face it - you would have an objection to whatever she writes. Seems you may have an aversion to the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On the second, the “unmasking” tweet was an end-run around editorial process. It was devoid of context, notably that these “unmasking” events are super common and there was nothing unusual about it. Yet she let it hang out there in a tweet to suggest scandal. Had she reported it for CBS, she would have been required to put it in proper context.

She was reporting a fact.

Please, you know you cannot find anything substantial or you would have posted it.

Again, stop with the sea lion trolling. Everyone knows she has no credibility and is just trying to replicate the way she worked at Fox. She isn’t as awful as Sharyl Attkisson, but she is getting there.

DP. She is one of the best investigative journalists out there. You just don't like her because she is reporting on the unraveling of the Russia collusion investigation. She also worked for ABC prior to Fox.

https://www.viacomcbspressexpress.com/cbs-news/shows/cbs-news/bios?id=catherine-herridge

She really isn’t. I understand that she is a right-wing media darling because people expect she will continue to carry water for their causes, but that doesn’t make her neutral.

That tweet on the unmasking was a perfect example. Why did she tweet it instead of report it? She didn’t follow even one tenet of basic journalism ethics when she did that. CBS should have fired her. But I am sure they feared backlash if they did.

She did report on it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-flynn-unmasking-list-richard-grenell/
Byline: STEFAN BECKET
Catherine Herridge, Bo Erickson, Olivia Gazis and Stephen Sanchez contributed to this report.

No, she contributed to that report. I wouldn’t have an objection if she tweeted the story but that isn’t what she did. [/quote

Face it - you would have an objection to whatever she writes. Seems you may have an aversion to the truth.

No, I was an investigative journalist myself for 25 years and know bad journalism when I see it. She is not a good journalist.

To be sure, I think all journalists should refrain from speculation and stay off Twitter except to tweet their edited and published work. Nothing more.

[Anonymous]

Former Trump White House Attorney who hated leaks is representing Herridge for being leaked to in this weird case:

[Anonymous]

She seems too neutral. There is no room for neutrality in journalism today. She’s outdated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She seems too neutral. There is no room for neutrality in journalism today. She’s outdated.

Lol she is far from neutral. I am surprised she was able to find another job as a journalist after working for Fox. Definitely a right wing activist trying to get back to Fox. Good luck with that. Once you leave Fox you are done.

[Anonymous]

not neutral at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

not neutral at all.

CBS' loss. She was one of the only real reporters there.

[Anonymous]

Just putting this here for those in the back row...

I said from page one...not neutral, not credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just putting this here for those in the back row...

I said from page one...not neutral, not credible.

From the link:

A source within the the union, SAG-AFTRA, confirmed that it has raised this controversy with CBS and remains extremely concerned about the effect of this action on journalistic practices and source confidentiality. The union believes this is “very unusual” and goes far beyond this individual case. “It is a matter of principle,” a union spokesperson added. “It is a matter of serious concern. We are considering all of our options.”

For full disclosure, I was under contract twice with CBS as a legal analyst. I cherished my time at the network. I have also known Herridge for years in both legal and journalistic capacities.

CBS is one of the world’s premier news organizations, with a legendary history that includes figures from Murrow to Walter Cronkite to Roger Mudd. That is why the hiring of Herridge was so welcomed by many of us. The network was at risk of becoming part of the journalistic herd, an echo-chamber for Democratic and liberal narratives. It had been mired in third place for ages, and it was moving in the wrong direction by alienating half of the country.

Herridge had been a celebrated investigative reporter at Fox News. An old-school investigative journalist, she is viewed as a hard-driving, middle-of-the-road reporter cut from the same cloth as the network’s legendary figures.

The timing of Herridge’s termination immediately raised suspicions in Washington. She was pursuing stories that were unwelcomed by the Biden White House and many Democratic powerhouses, including the Hur report on Joe Biden’s diminished mental capacity, the Biden corruption scandal and the Hunter Biden laptop. She continued to pursue these stories despite reports of pushback from CBS executives, including CBS News President Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews.

Given the other layoffs and declining revenues, the inclusion of Herridge was defended by the network as a painful but necessary measure. But then something strange happened. The network grabbed Herridge’s notes and files and informed her that it would decide what, if anything, would be turned over to her. The files likely contain confidential material from both her stints at Fox and CBS. Those records, it suggests, are presumptively the property of CBS News.

For many of us who have worked in the media for decades, this action is nothing short of shocking. Journalists are generally allowed to leave with their files. Under the standard contract, including the one at CBS, journalists agree that they will make files available to the network if needed in future litigation. That presupposes that they will retain control of their files. Such files are crucial for reporters, who use past contacts and work in pursuing new stories with other outlets or who cap their careers with personal memoirs.

The heavy-handed approach to the files left many wondering if it was the result of the past reported tension over stories.

Regardless of motive, the company is dead wrong.


There is the issue.... She was pursuing stories that pissed off this administration and the media that walks in lock-step with it.

[Anonymous]

Uh, have you not been paying attention? She was acting a megaphone for unsavory actors from Russia via the GOP. She is part of the problem because she wasn't acting as a journalist, but rather amplifying without question the BS coming from the right.

That isn't investigative journalism, or journalism at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is the same as Sean Hannity or Rush. It is disappointing she is employed for a major media outlet. Must mean there are some sleeper cells of Fox News in other news organizations. Should not be hard to expose who hired her.

What are you smoking PP? Hannity and Limbaugh are opinion and Herridge is a true journalist with a deep rolodex in the intelligence space.

+1
Some people don't like journalists who do due diligence like Herridge.

What journalism she has done in recent months which is not be a mouthpiece for Trump admin? Just "retweeting" (whatever the reporting term for it is in news word) Trump admin's statements is not journalism. That's called amplifying a particular (and in this case mostly propaganda) POV.

MAGAs have no idea what real journalism is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just putting this here for those in the back row...

I said from page one...not neutral, not credible.

From the link:

A source within the the union, SAG-AFTRA, confirmed that it has raised this controversy with CBS and remains extremely concerned about the effect of this action on journalistic practices and source confidentiality. The union believes this is “very unusual” and goes far beyond this individual case. “It is a matter of principle,” a union spokesperson added. “It is a matter of serious concern. We are considering all of our options.”

For full disclosure, I was under contract twice with CBS as a legal analyst. I cherished my time at the network. I have also known Herridge for years in both legal and journalistic capacities.

CBS is one of the world’s premier news organizations, with a legendary history that includes figures from Murrow to Walter Cronkite to Roger Mudd. That is why the hiring of Herridge was so welcomed by many of us. The network was at risk of becoming part of the journalistic herd, an echo-chamber for Democratic and liberal narratives. It had been mired in third place for ages, and it was moving in the wrong direction by alienating half of the country.

Herridge had been a celebrated investigative reporter at Fox News. An old-school investigative journalist, she is viewed as a hard-driving, middle-of-the-road reporter cut from the same cloth as the network’s legendary figures.

The timing of Herridge’s termination immediately raised suspicions in Washington. She was pursuing stories that were unwelcomed by the Biden White House and many Democratic powerhouses, including the Hur report on Joe Biden’s diminished mental capacity, the Biden corruption scandal and the Hunter Biden laptop. She continued to pursue these stories despite reports of pushback from CBS executives, including CBS News President Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews.

Given the other layoffs and declining revenues, the inclusion of Herridge was defended by the network as a painful but necessary measure. But then something strange happened. The network grabbed Herridge’s notes and files and informed her that it would decide what, if anything, would be turned over to her. The files likely contain confidential material from both her stints at Fox and CBS. Those records, it suggests, are presumptively the property of CBS News.

For many of us who have worked in the media for decades, this action is nothing short of shocking. Journalists are generally allowed to leave with their files. Under the standard contract, including the one at CBS, journalists agree that they will make files available to the network if needed in future litigation. That presupposes that they will retain control of their files. Such files are crucial for reporters, who use past contacts and work in pursuing new stories with other outlets or who cap their careers with personal memoirs.

The heavy-handed approach to the files left many wondering if it was the result of the past reported tension over stories.

Regardless of motive, the company is dead wrong.


There is the issue.... She was pursuing stories that pissed off this administration and the media that walks in lock-step with it.

Or maybe it has to do with the Russian they just arrested who lied to the FBI about Hunter. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s an investigation and a lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

+1

When politicians and "journalists" are uncriticially adding voice to Russian disinformation, there needs to be accountability.

If these people did it unknowingly, then they weren't doing the research that their profession requires. If they did it knowingly, then that makes them accomplices.