XPost: talk.politics.guns, tn.general, talk.politics.misc   
   XPost: alt.abortion, sac.politics   
   From: X@Y.com   
      
   >As we recently outlined, it has been a damaging, credibility-harming few   
   >weeks for CBS News.  The network violated its own debate rules with a   
   >disputed-to-misleading 'fact check' of JD Vance at the Vice Presidential   
   >debate, then cut off his microphone as he calmly picked apart their   
   >assertion.  Their morning show was thrown into chaos when some employees   
   >melted down over an anchor asking pointed, tough questions of an anti-   
   >Israel zealot, resulting in angry recriminations, tears, and a series of   
   >embarrassing leaks.  Then there was the curious 60 Minutes edit of Kamala   
   >Harris' answer regarding US-Israeli relations, which looked completely   
   >different in a teaser clip, compared to what aired on the broadcast   
   >itself.  As a refresher, here's the side-by-side juxtaposition:   
   >   
   >What 60 Minutes viewers saw was more succinct and far less rambling and   
   >vacuous than the answer that was released ahead of the broadcast.  It is   
   >true that news organizations will sometimes cut down longer answers due to   
   >time constraints. But snipping out her word salad, which had been   
   >ridiculed online, was a suspicious choice to some people.  The best way to   
   >examine and determine whether the second, 'for-air' CBS edit was   
   >journalistically defensible is to look at the full exchange, then consider   
   >how the program cut it down.  If the full video isn't forthcoming, for   
   >whatever reason, then the unedited and un-redacted transcript would   
   >suffice.  But for reasons that are inexplicable to me, 60 Minutes has been   
   >withholding the transcript for more than two weeks.  As former CBS   
   >correspondent Catherine Herridge keeps pointing out, publishing entire   
   >transcripts of major or significant interviews has been a common practice,   
   >including in her own experience:   
   >   
   >Releasing the full unedited transcript is consistent with journalistic   
   >transparency and it stands behind the integrity of the entire Kamala   
   >Harris edit, not just the clips under scrutiny. CBS has the ability to   
   >immediately settle these questions and address merits of FCC complaint   
   >alleging “news distortion.” There is ample precedent at CBS News for   
   >releasing full, unedited transcripts. 2019 interview, Attorney General   
   >Bill Barr [with Jan Crawford].  2020 interview, President Trump [with   
   >Herridge].  60 Minutes released its full interview transcript with Fed   
   >Chair Jerome Powell.   
   >   
   >Recommended   
   >   
   >Is This the Anti-Trump Story Getting Shopped Around? It's Laughably False.   
   >Matt Vespa   
   >On Sunday, the program released a statement addressing the controversy.   
   >Remaining silent would have been better than this deeper-hole-digging   
   >exercise, in my view:   
   >   
   >Former President Donald Trump is accusing 60 Minutes of deceitful editing   
   >of our Oct. 7 interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. That is false.   
   >60 Minutes gave an excerpt of our interview to Face the Nation that used a   
   >longer section of her answer than that on 60 Minutes. Same question. Same   
   >answer. But a different portion of the response. When we edit any   
   >interview, whether a politician, an athlete, or movie star, we strive to   
   >be clear, accurate and on point. The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes   
   >was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging   
   >21-minute-long segment. Remember, Mr. Trump pulled out of his interview   
   >with 60 Minutes and the vice president participated. Our long-standing   
   >invitation to former President Trump remains open. If he would like to   
   >discuss the issues facing the nation and the Harris interview, we would be   
   >happy to have him on 60 Minutes.   
   >   
   >They are pushing back against accusations from Trump, which are fueled by   
   >their own opacity. If their edits are ethical and representative,   
   >transparency would vindicate them and put and end to all of this. Their   
   >continued refusal to just show America the complete transcript is   
   >suspicious. They only aired a fraction of what was reportedly a 45-minute   
   >interview. It would be a massive scandal if 60 Minutes were hiding   
   >something, in order to help their preferred candidate. I'm not alleging   
   >that's what is happening here, but as I said on Fox, the longer they play   
   >these games and decline to clear things up by publishing the video or   
   >transcript, the worse it looks for them:   
   >   
   >There is no acceptable rationale against letting the public at least read   
   >the full interview between a CBS News journalist and one of the two people   
   >who will be the next President of the United States. By the way, here's a   
   >reminder of why Trump eschewed tradition and nixed his 60 Minutes sit-   
   >down:   
   >   
   >During the interview [with Trump] — which aired on Oct. 25, the week   
   >before the 2020 election, and garnered nearly 17 million views — longtime   
   >anchor [Leslie Stahl] flat-out denied that the Biden family was under any   
   >sort of scandal at all. The interview was so combative that the Trump   
   >campaign released the full raw footage before network publication. “He’s   
   >in the midst of a scandal,” Trump said in reference to emails from the   
   >laptop revealing Joe Biden was lying about involvement with Hunter’s   
   >overseas business ventures. “He’s not,” Stahl said, interrupting the   
   >president to outright dismiss the criticism. “He’s not, no.” Stahl went on   
   >to deny that then-Vice President Joe Biden spied on the Trump campaign in   
   >2016, and claimed Hunter Biden’s laptop couldn’t be verified.   
   >   
   >I think it would have still been a good idea for Trump to have done the   
   >CBS interview, but it's clear that he felt like 60 Minutes had wrongly put   
   >its finger on the 'misinformation' scale in helping to cover up the Hunter   
   >Biden laptop saga. The supression of that accurate prior to a major   
   >election was disgraceful, and involved a shocking array of collusion.   
   >Whether or not Trump just wanted an excuse to bypass 60 Minutes, it's not   
   >unreasonable for someone to demand some measure of accountability for how   
   >the Big Tech/'news' alliance handled that situation.  Why reward outlets   
   >that haven't earned trust?  I'll leave you with another news   
   >organization's attempt to 'fact check' Donald Trump's trolling over   
   >whether Kamala Harris ever worked at McDonald's:   
   >   
   >I have no idea what's true about Harris' employment history with the fast   
   >food giant, but it does seem odd that there's no proof of it whatsoever   
   >beyond the say so of her campaign and some vague recollections of one   
   >friend.  It's also strange that she apparently never mentioned this   
   >relatable biographical detail in her public life or political career   
   >before she started running for president in 2019.  Regardless, Trump's   
   >stint at the Golden Arches over the weekend was a political masterstroke   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)