this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2025
194 points (97.5% liked)

politics

26843 readers
1730 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

CBS News editor-in-chief argues in memo that network’s priority was ‘comprehensive and fair’ coverage

In the memo sent to staff on Christmas Eve, Weiss said news organizations needed to do more to win back the trust of the American public and vowed that “no amount of outrage” would “derail us”.

“We are not out to score points with one side of the political spectrum or to win followers on social media,” according to the memo, signed by Weiss and other CBS News leadership and published in full by several media outlets. “We are out to inform the American public and to get the story right.”

The internal battle over the story exploded into public view after CBS announced the segment would not be a part of the show, despite extensive promotion. Weiss’s last-minute decision to hold the episode sparked outrage and charges of censorship amid Donald Trump’s second administration, though some conservative commentators generally aligned with the president have defended the move. In a private email sent to 60 Minutes correspondents that was subsequently made public, CBS correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi, who spent weeks reporting the episode, called the decision a “political one”.

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] regedit@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 hours ago

When they're named by the worst flavor of Leinekugel beer, you know they're gonna be gross people!

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 6 points 8 hours ago

Once we're rid of MAGA, we'll have no choice but to shut Paramount down. Willing collaborators with the oppressors don't deserve to keep making money.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 26 points 13 hours ago

Here are the two most important sentences from the entire article:

Weiss has said she was concerned about the episode airing without a sufficient response from the Trump administration.

“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,” Alfonsi wrote.

[–] lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone 85 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, well, it's out there. Go watch it. Go see what the fascists are trying to hide.

https://www.muellershewrote.com/p/watch-the-60-minutes-cecot-segment

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 44 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Honestly really basic stuff about CECOT that most people should already know. But since it's the USA I'm sure it's new to most people.

I wish they included some information on the new foreign torture prisons replacing CECOT after it become politically toxic. But for some reason no journalists seem to want to discuss those.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 10 points 19 hours ago

Supposedly that's Bari's reason for spiking it. Still, the firsthand account from the people detained isn't very common, and it's uniquely telling that the government is citing criminal acts for which the guy pleaded out of and is legally innocent over.

[–] TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.works 7 points 14 hours ago

Lying, fascist loving sycophant.

[–] apftwb@lemmy.world 11 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Nothing says "comprehensive" like less information.

Nothing says "fair" like being indefinitely detained in a foreign prison.

[–] Manjushri@piefed.social 56 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

“Such editorial decisions can cause a firestorm, particularly on a slow news week,” Weiss wrote

A slow news week? When was the last slow news week in the USA? I can't recall.

[–] bear@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 20 hours ago

If the compromised big media owners all strategically withhold news, then yeah...

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 13 points 17 hours ago

Say it with me, everybody!

Get fucked, fascist!

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 64 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

So she's not a centrist if she is looking to cover up the crimes of the current administration.

Take a look at her history. She isn't a centrist. She isn't a real journalist. She hasn't had success in any of her ventures. But she will cover up whatever the f*** the government asks.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 31 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

How are you informing by pulling good information?

You have exactly the information the government wanted to provide.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 29 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Friendly reminder that their bullshit excuse of not getting a comment from the White House is completely irrelevant. Respectable journalist outfits request comment but if declined or ignored, they proceed anyway.

That would otherwise suggest a corrupt White House could tank any story they disliked by just refusing to comment. Connect the touching dots.

Your ladder point is critical with a sycophant. She is going to kill any story if the White House is not willing to discuss it.

[–] MisterOwl@lemmy.world 43 points 22 hours ago

"Daddy trump told me to."

[–] chosensilence@pawb.social 10 points 18 hours ago

she should fear for her safety the rest of her hopefully short life.

[–] ynthrepic@lemmy.world 21 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I don't see any specific defense in her argument. No mention of anything in particular the episode might have gotten wrong.

I didn't expect anything of substance but I do like happy surprises. Sadly, I am not amused.