In looking around, trying to learn more about Sharyn Alfonsi, I came across a commencement address she delivered at the journalism school at the University of Mississippi. It is hilarious!
She offers an abundance of wit, mingled with great career advice for aspiring journalists.
You get insight into the character of the “60 Minutes” reporter who spoke out and stood up to her bosses when they censored her reporting about CECOT, the terrorist prison in El Salvador.
As Dan Rather said, Sharyn Alfonsi is “One Courageous Correspondent.”
Dan Rather, legendary newsman, spent decades at CBS. Now, in retirement, he continues to have good sources at the network. In his blog “Steady,” he explains the back story of the censorship of the “60 Minutes” expose of inhumane conditions at the prison in El Salvador to which the Trump administration sent alleged terrorists.
CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi is walking the walk.
What she has done for journalism in the last two days is about as important, and courageous as it gets. With her cherished journalistic institution threatened, and her career on the line, Alfonsi is sounding the alarm that “60 Minutes” is sliding further into an increasingly irretrievable and dark place.
The Steady team spoke to sources inside the broadcast today to find out exactly what happened when the new CBS News boss, Bari Weiss, spiked a highly promoted piece at the last minute.
On background, we learned that Alfonsi and producer Oriana Zill de Granados had for months been working on a story about the Trump administration’s illegal deportations of Venezuelan migrants to CECOT, a maximum-security prison in El Salvador.
They interviewed former inmates about the brutal and torturous conditions inside the notorious prison. This is the place where Trump sent hundreds of Venezuelans he alleged were terrorists with gang ties. Human Rights Watch found that the 252 men were subject to “arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance.”
As part of the reporting, they repeatedly asked the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, and the State Department for comment, but received no response. That is no surprise since this story would be another black mark on Trump’s draconian immigration agenda.
Last Thursday, after the story had been fully fact-checked and legally vetted by CBS lawyers and its Standards and Practices team, the piece was screened for a fifth and final time for CBS News executives. Weiss was supposed to attend but did not.
She did, however, screen the story several hours later. At 11:50 p.m. Thursday, Weiss emailed the broadcast’s executive producer, Tanya Simon, outlining a few issues she had with the piece that she called “incredibly powerful.”
On Friday morning, Alfonsi made several changes to the script to address Weiss’s concerns, believed it was ready for air, and recorded her in-studio introduction
The listing of Sunday night’s “60 Minutes” pieces was released, which included Alfonsi’s “Inside CECOT.” Promos began to air, including on social media. The “Inside CECOT” clip on Instagram quickly racked up 4 million views, significantly more than usual.
But by Saturday morning, something changed. In an unprecedented move, Weiss reached out to Simon again. Her biggest issue now was the lack of response from the Trump administration. It was the first time she raised this concern.
“I realize we’ve emailed the DHS spox, but we need to push much harder to get these principals on the record,” Weiss wrote. She even provided phone numbers for Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s immigration policies, and border czar Tom Homan.
Not long after, Weiss killed the story, though promos kept running and the piece was still listed as airing.
Late on Sunday afternoon, just three hours before air time, “60 Minutes” posted an editor’s note on social media: “The broadcast lineup for tonight’s edition of 60 Minutes has been updated. Our report ‘Inside CECOT’ will air in a future broadcast.”
Within two hours, Alfonsi sent an email to her fellow correspondents and the production team that worked on the piece. “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,” she wrote.
She continued, “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.”
Alfonsi then addressed Weiss’s issue with the administration’s decision not to respond. “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.”
Alfonsi is the definition of courage. Kudos to her for speaking truth to power. The hard-won reputation of America’s most trusted television news program, and a big-time money maker for Paramount, is suddenly on the line.
During the CBS News morning editorial call on Monday, Weiss defended her decision. “I held a ‘60 Minutes’ story because it was not ready… We need to be able to get the principals on the record and on camera.”
Nothing happens in a vacuum in Trump World. The killing of the CECOT piece is no exception.
In August, David Ellison, the scion of Oracle founder and Trump supporter Larry Ellison, purchased CBS parent company Paramount. The acquisition by Ellison’s Skydance needed administration approval, which Trump’s regulators signed off on to the deep-pocketed Ellisons.
They signed off only after CBS agreed to settle a specious lawsuit in which Trump accused the network of deceitfully editing a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris during the presidential campaign.
As per usual, Trump’s warm and fuzzy feelings toward his sycophants was fleeting.
“For those people that think I am close with the new owners of CBS, please understand that 60 Minutes has treated me far worse since the so-called ‘takeover,’ than they have ever treated me before,” Trump posted on social media last week.
Friday night, at a rally in North Carolina, Trump said, “I love the new owners of CBS. Something happens to them, though. ‘60 Minutes’ has treated me worse under the new ownership… they just keep hitting me, it’s crazy.”
How Trump feels about the Ellisons is especially important right now as Paramount Skydance attempts a hostile takeover of another media giant, Warner Bros. Discovery. And once again, the Ellisons, who have been major donors to Trump, need governmental approval.
The president’s hatred of the revered news magazine seems to have been rekindled by a recent Lesley Stahl interview with the president’s newest nemesis, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Right after that interview aired, he posted, “THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP. Since they bought it, 60 Minutes has actually gotten WORSE!”
Not coincidentally, “Bari Weiss got personally involved,” with stories about politics after the Greene interview, a “60 Minutes” insider told CNN.
This brings us back to Alfonsi’s piece, which had the unfortunate luck of being scheduled to air the evening before David Ellison upped his bid for Warner Bros. Discovery. Staying in Trump’s good graces is, well, paramount at the moment.
The day Skydance bought Paramount was a dark day for CBS News and journalism as a whole. When Weiss, with no television reporting or news production experience, was installed as CBS News editor-in-chief, my heart sank again.
If the Trump administration doesn’t want to comment, they won’t, and didn’t. It happens dozens of times a day, every day to every journalist trying to cover this facts-adverse administration. No amount of wishing, or asking, or begging will make it happen. Weiss’s knee-jerk reaction was just an excuse.
The day has been filled with talk of journalists walking away from “60 Minutes.” As one insider told us, we have got nothing left but our integrity.
What happened to Alfonsi’s piece is no less hard to take even though anyone could see it coming. The barbarians are no longer at the gate. They have breached the walls and are now running the show.
Disney announced that it was bringing back the Jimmy Kimmel show, starting tomorrow.
He was suspended for saying that the killer of Charlie Kirk was a MAGA adherent. He was wrong. No one knows the motive of Tyler Robinson, who had not been identified or arrested when Kimmel spoke.
If everyone who made a mistake was suspended from the screen, not many people would be left. The news could be announced by robots using AI. Comedians would disappear.
Disney released this statement:
“Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country,” the Walt Disney Company, ABC’s parent company, said in a statement.
“It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive,” the statement said. “We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday.”
The outcry against Kimmel’s suspension was so loud that Disney backed down. His removal was seen as a test of the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Public protest mattered!!
Now what about the teachers, members of the military, and others who have been suspended or fired for not saying the “right” words about the murder of Charlie Kirk? The suppression of speech has been widespread and over-the-top, based on political passions and prejudice.
There was a time long ago when the FCC would block the merger of two major television networks. Too much consolidation is not healthy for democracy. But under Brendan Carr, the prospect of a megabillionaire buying two networks is possible because he’s a friend of Trump.
The most stunning revelation occurs in the last paragraph.
Inside the halls of Hudson Yards, and across CNN’s bureaus worldwide, staffers have been anxiously whispering about the suddenly real possibility of yet another corporate takeover. The network, which has already changed ownership twice in the past decade and weathered multiple leadership shakeups, may soon be thrust into another period of upheaval as the Ellison family prepares a bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, the David Zaslav–led conglomerate that owns CNN.
An Ellison takeover would be unlike anything CNN has seen in its 45-year history. Since acquiring Paramount, David Ellisonhas sought to steer CBS News into more Donald Trump-friendly waters, installing a MAGA-leaning ombudsman to review complaints of bias and moving to acquire Bari Weiss’ The Free Press with plans to install her as editor in chief, or something close to it. WBD already dialed back CNN’s aggressive, Jeff Zucker-led Trump reporting when it took over the network as its parent company in 2022, but an Ellison regime could go much further. In such a scenario, it’s likely that the anti-woke, anti-D.E.I. Weiss, who has spent years bashing the mainstream press, would not only wield influence at CBS News, but would ultimately be handed editorial authority at CNN itself.
According to nearly a dozen current employees and people familiar with the mood inside CNN, that prospect has unnerved network staffers, who harbor deep unease at the idea of reporting to Weiss. The fears have only deepened by the expectation that Ellison would pursue cuts if he merges CBS News and CNN—which I understand would be the plan should he acquire WBD—to eliminate redundancies.
Mark Thompson, CNN’s chief executive, has certainly picked up on the palpable fear in his newsroom, and has spent the past week attempting to steady the ship. I’m told that he has spoken privately with senior staff and on Monday phoned into the company-wide morning editorial meeting from London, urging calm and focus. When the Ellison family’s plan leaked to the press last week, Thompson also addressed the matter in an all-staff memo, signaling the seriousness in which CNN’s leadership is digesting the situation.
“News about potential consolidation and where our broader sector is headed is an everyday part of our industry,” Thompson said in the memo, obtained by Status. “I therefore suggest that you take this story and any subsequent similar ones with a sense of proportion. The best way we can safeguard CNN’s future as an outstanding independent global news provider is to take our own destiny in our hands and execute our own strategy as energetically and successfully as we can. Our predecessors never let speculation about changes of parent company ownership–and there were more than a few–distract them from the task of building a successful CNN and I don’t think we should either.”
Still, Thompson’s reassurances have hardly erased the anxiety, given that an Ellison takeover would be no ordinary change of corporate hands, a la AT&T’s purchase of the WarnerMediaassets. Many staffers were already worried by WBD’s existing plan to spin off CNN and other linear networks into a separate company by early next year, which would be led by notorious cost-cutter Gunnar Wiedenfels. “Keep calm and carry on doesn’t cut it in this context,” one staffer told me this week. “People are very worried,” said another, noting that Weiss “seems to have a lot of preconceived and incorrect notions about CNN.” A third added bluntly, “No one knows what the hell to expect.”
“It’s quite something for an organization that has constantly been on pins and needles for several years now, wondering what new change will come next,” that staffer continued, underscoring the constant uncertainty.
There’s also a strong sense of déjà vu. CNN is preparing to launch its second standalone streamer next month, as we previously reported, just three years after Zaslav pulled the plug on CNN+ following the WBD takeover. Thompson stressed in his memo last week that CNN’s streamer will launch “on time and on budget,” no matter the speculation swirling around the company. “Indeed, we plan to double down on the whole digital plan and execute it as soon as we can,” he told staff in his memo. But if Ellison gains control, the fate of CNN’s digital strategy could be rewritten, just as it was when Zaslav gained the keys to the castle.
Of course, the necessary caveats do apply. The Ellison family may be preparing a bid, but they have yet to submit a formal offer. It also goes without saying that if the family does make a play for WBD, corporate transactions take time to shake out. And even if the WBD board immediately accepts an offer, it would still take several months to close and then more time for the Ellison family to determine next steps for the company’s pile of assets. Nevertheless, WBD’s board may not ultimately have much of a say in the matter, given its members have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. If they receive a good offer, it’s difficult to see how they’d reject it.
In truth, CNN’s future may soon be beyond the control of both Thompson and Zaslav. While Zaslav may hope to gin up interest from rival bidders, it’s hard to imagine there are other companies that would wish to swallow WBD’s entire portfolio of assets whole, never mind whether they have the ability or desire to outbid the Ellison family, which is said to be preparing a cash offer after seeing their wealth surge nearly $100 billion last week. For CNN staffers who never quite adjusted to WBD ownership and might still yearn for the Zucker years, the reality is sobering: yet another transformation may soon be on the horizon, one that could redefine the network’s identity in a much more significant way.
The Ellison family saw its wealth surge by nearly $100 billion in the last week. Think about it.
Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle, has recently been contending with Elon Musk for the title of world’s richest man. Both have wealth in the neighborhood of $350-400 billion. I mean, really, who cares? I can think of so many ways they could do something good for others with all that moola-boola, but no! They are on a power trip. Instead of feeding hungry children or endowing a hospital or funding wells in African villages, they buy self-aggrandizing toys.
Elon Musk wants to build a rocket to Mars and control the world’s satellite communications systems.
Larry Ellison bought CBS. He’s a friend of Donald Trump. CBS cancelled Stephen Colbert’s show. Colbert ridicules Trump. His show will be on the air until May so he has months in which to make jokes about Trump.
Larry Ellison is already a major stakeholder in CBS and Paramount. Now CNN, HBO and a major share of TikTok are in his sights. If all goes as anticipated, this tech billionaire, already one of the richest men in the world and a founder of Oracle, is poised, at 81, to become one of the most powerful media and entertainment moguls America has ever seen.
For the rest of us, the effect of Mr. Ellison’s gambit could be every bit as consequential, if not more so, than what happened a generation ago when Rupert Murdoch brought his brand of Down Under snark and cynicism to create what has become Fox News, intensifying our political polarization.
Mr. Ellison’s expected incursion into Hollywood and Big Media, if successful, could also go well beyond what other tech moguls like Jeff Bezos and Marc Benioff have attempted through their acquisitions of The Washington Post and Time magazine, respectively. For those men, the acquisitions were more like expensive hobbies.
Mr. Ellison is up to something very different: transforming himself into a media magnate. Along with his son, David, he could soon end up controlling a powerful social media platform, an iconic Hollywood movie studio and one of the largest content streaming services, as well as two of the country’s largest news organizations. Given Mr. Ellison’s friendship with, and affinity for, Donald Trump, an increasingly emboldened president could be getting an extraordinarily powerful media ally — in other words, the very last thing our country needs right now.
This consolidation of the news media is not good for democracy. What will freedom of the press mean if billionaires control the news?
Oliver Darcy, media journalist, wrote in his blog Status about the events leading ABC to indefinitely cancel Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show. If you care about the state of our democracy, it’s a scary story. Who will be silenced next?
The concept of free speech, enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, is in jeopardy. The Trump administration celebrates every triumph in their ongoing campaign to censor speech that they don’t like. They have made clear that they would like to stifle all criticism and dissent.
Trump issued an executive order on his first day in office, January 20, 2025, ordering the protection of free speech and an end to federal government censorship. The order was titled “Restoring Freedom Of Speech And Ending Federal Censorship.” Hahaha. The joke’s on us.
The point of guaranteeing freedom of speech is not to protect uncontroversial speech. Such speech needs no protection. It’s to protect speech that offends someone, speech that is unpopular, speech that is despised by the powerful.
Please join me and write to the chairman of Disney, which owns ABC: Robert.Iger@Disney.com
Darcy writes:
Inside ABC, emergency meetings were convened after the FCC chair’s Jimmy Kimmel threat, with the late-night host ready to respond on-air—but Disney brass ultimately decided to bench the marquee talent instead.
On Wednesday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr dropped in via webcam for an appearance on far-right personality Benny Johnson’s program. That the FCC chairman would sit down with Johnson at all was remarkable in itself. Johnson has built his brand trafficking in MAGA memes, misinformation, and cultural outrage; not typically the type of programming a government official would want to lend their credibility to. In any case, it wasn’t the venue alone that raised eyebrows. It was what Carr said once the program started taping.
Speaking to Johnson’s audience, Carr lashed out at ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a remark the comedian made during his Monday monologue. Kimmel had said, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” The day after Kimmel’s comment, authorities released the suspected killer’s messages, which showed he held disdain for the “hate” Kirk espoused. Notably, Kimmel never stated that the suspect was on the right, but that is how many interpreted the remarks.
Indeed, Carr took significant issue with the comment, first dismissing Kimmel as “frankly talentless” on Johnson’s show. He then went further, delivering a naked threat aimed at Disney, ABC’s parent company: “This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney,” he said. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” It was an extraordinary moment: a sitting FCC chairman openly pressuring a network to silence one of its marquee talents.
Carr’s appearance set off an immediate cascade of events inside ABC. According to people familiar with the matter, the network held a series of emergency meetings to discuss how to respond. Kimmel wanted to address the situation on his program Wednesday night. In fact, I’m told that he had even written a script about how he could respond to the controversy—but ultimately Disney brass wasn’t comfortable with it. Amid the meetings, Nexstar, the largest owner of local television stations in the country, decided it would decline to air “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” for the “foreseeable future.” Ultimately, Disney boss Bob Iger and Disney Entertainment chief Dana Walden, among others, made the decision to pull the program from the network while it determined next steps.
ABC then issued a seven-word statement: “‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ will be preempted indefinitely,” a spokesperson said, declining to elaborate on the shock decision. For an acclaimed late-night show long considered a staple of the network’s entertainment offerings, the sudden removal was stunning, even though I’m told the hope is that Kimmel will eventually return.
Donald Trump was also quick to celebrate the announcement, writing on his social platform: “Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED. Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible.” The emboldened Trump also sent a clear message to Comcast and NBCUniversalbrass: “That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!!”
Carr, of course, was also delighted by the outcome. Reached by Status via text on Wednesday evening, he responded to a request for comment with a smiling emoji: “😀.” When pressed for words rather than symbols, Carr shot back that Status “has plenty of room for emojis.” He also singled out Nexstar on social media for praise, commending the company for “doing the right thing” by refusing to carry Kimmel’s program. The reaction would normally be considered inappropriate gloating from a regulator whose remarks had, in the span of hours, helped trigger the cancellation of one of network television’s best-known shows.
Nevertheless, the implications are seismic. Iger blinked, capitulating to political pressure from the Trump administration. The move sent shockwaves through the entertainment industry, where executives and talent agents privately expressed alarm about what it signaled for creatives moving forward. “Clients are texting me scared,” one prominent agent told me in the hours after the announcement, describing a climate of growing unease and concern over what could be next. “This one is really bad,” another media executive texted me, adding that it “feels like an inflection point.” Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic commissioner at the FCC, noted that the Trump administration “is increasingly using the weight of government power to suppress lawful expression.”
Of course, lurking beneath the surface are transactional calculations. Nexstar is working to merge with TEGNA, in a deal that requires FCC approval. Meanwhile, Disney’s decision comes as the company is working to complete a high-stakes deal with the NFL, one that is crucial to the future of ESPN. Securing those rights requires federal regulatory approval, and the company can hardly afford to pick a fight with Trump’s Washingtonwhile the deal hangs in the balance. By sidelining Kimmel, Iger may have protected Disney’s larger business interests. But the cost is a frightening message to the creative community and a major blow to free expression.
To a degree, what we’re also seeing is media executives reckoning with the reality that in 2025, with the country so polarized and in various information silos, there is no way to please everyone. Iger’s decision has sparked fierce backlash from the left and moderates, who are rightly outraged by Disney’s capitulation, even as Trump’s supporters cheer the move as a victory. Once upon a time, companies like Disney prided themselves on speaking to the whole country. That is no longer possible.
It goes without saying, but the Kimmel episode represents yet another example of a major media corporation bending the knee to Trump—and it comes at a time that the president appears more emboldened to target speech he dislikes. Earlier this week, Attorney General Pam Bondi bluntly threatened that the administration would “absolutely target” those engaging in what she described as “hate speech,” in the wake of Kirk’s killing. She quickly attempted to walk it back, but Trump himself then threatened ABC directly, singling out journalist Jonathan Karl as a possible target.
The irony, of course, can’t be missed. For years, Republicans cast themselves as the party of free speech, railing against what they derided as “cancel culture” from the left. Yet what we are witnessing now is a full-scale cancel campaign led from the right, with the force of federal government power behind it. The same voices that once claimed to defend open expression are now actively weaponizing regulatory threats to silence critics.
And Kimmel is hardly the only casualty. Paramount abruptly canceled Stephen Colbert’s program earlier this year, citing financial concerns, but the decision—coming against one of Trump’s sharpest critics—was obviously related to his politics. Now Disney has benched Kimmel. The result is a media landscape where critics of the president are vanishing from broadcast television one by one, not because audiences have turned away, but because executives fear government retribution. The message is chilling: in Trump’s America, even the most powerful media companies will silence their own talent if it keeps them in the administration’s good graces. It is a remarkable, and deeply alarming, moment for free speech.
The right-wing Sinclair Broadcast Group, the owner of dozens of ABC affiliates, issued a press release calling on Jimmy Kimmel to make a “direct apology” and donate to Charlie Kirk’s family and Turning Point USA. It also plans to air a “special in remembrance” of Kirk on Friday in the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” time slot. [BusinessWire]
The Writers Guild of America issued this statement:
WGA Statement on ABC’s Decision to
Pull Jimmy Kimmel Live!
The right to speak our minds and to disagree with each other – to disturb, even – is at the very heart of what it means to be a free people. It is not to be denied. Not by violence, not by the abuse of governmental power, nor by acts of corporate cowardice.
As a Guild, we stand united in opposition to anyone who uses their power and influence to silence the voices of writers, or anyone who speaks in dissent. If free speech applied only to ideas we like, we needn’t have bothered to write it into the Constitution. What we have signed on to – painful as it may be at times – is the freeing agreement to disagree.
Shame on those in government who forget this founding truth. As for our employers, our words have made you rich.
Oliver Darcy is a media insider who left CNN to write his own blog, Status. There he posts the scoop on what is happening behind the headlines.
Darcy writes that the latest discouraging developmentsat The Washington Post. Once a force for courageous and independent journalism, its owner Jeff Bezos is transforming it, and not in a good way. The exodus of its best journalists, editorial writers, and opinion writers has been sad.
It’s getting worse.
The Post’s slogan is: “Democracy dies in darkness.” The lights are going out in the newsroom.
Darcy reports:
Last month, as The Washington Post weathered an exodus of staffers opting for buyouts, Karen Attiah logged on to X with an observation: “So… officially, I’m the last Black staff columnist left in the Washington Post’s opinion section,” the award-winning journalist wrote. (Technically, Keith Richburg and Theodore Johnson remain as contributing columnists.) At the time, Attiah was still deciding whether to accept The Post’s voluntary exit package or remain at the embattled Jeff Bezos–owned newspaper.
Soon after, I’m told that Attiah sat down with Adam O’Neal, The Post’s newly installed opinion editor. As Status previously reported, O’Neal had been holding similar one-on-one meetings with columnists, delivering what sounded to many like a human resources–approved talking point: their work didn’t align with his vision for the section and they should consider taking the buyout.
O’Neal likely assumed Attiah would follow the path of most colleagues who heard the same pitch and head for the door. Attiah, for her part, may have been hoping for the opposite, that he’d affirm her value and express a desire to keep her. In any case, neither scenario materialized. The meeting, I’m told, was tense and went poorly, to put it mildly.
Ultimately, Attiah declined the buyout. Just last week, she published a column on how she gained 20 pounds of muscle, framing bodybuilding as a “deeply feminine act of self-consciousness.” Still, her future at The Post looks uncertain. As O’Neal indicated during their meeting, her work seems at odds with its emerging editorial direction, and it’s hard to imagine she’s long for his world.
Indeed, while O’Neal’s vision for the newspaper’s opinion arm has been remarkably opaque, this week delivered a few clues about the direction he seeks to take it. On Tuesday, O’Neal published two pieces from Trump administration officials. The first, by National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya, argued that the Health and Human Services decision to “wind down its mRNA vaccine development activities” was a “necessary” move—a stance that I’m told triggered reader blowback.
The second was more eyebrow-raising. Amid alarm over Donald Trump’s seizure of Washington, D.C.’s police force, O’Neal published an op-edfrom former Fox News host–turned–district attorney Jeanine Pirro, touting “the fight to make D.C. safe and beautiful.” The piece effectively justified Trump’s militarization of the capital and painted the city as a crime-infested area. While not quite as incendiary as Tom Cotton’s infamous New York Times op-ed calling to “send in the troops,” its timing and framing were jarring for a paper that still claims “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”
The Post’s own editorial board followed up with a curious piece that largely took Trump’s stated intentions at face value. It noted that crime in the city can’t be solved “from the Oval Office or by swarming the city’s streets with Humvees,” but offered no real condemnation of Trump’s power grab. Instead, it effectively argued that Trump’s action would not work as a permanent solution because it “will be temporary” and “long-term solutions will be needed.” Further, the piece framed Trump as merely delivering on a “law-and-order message” to voters—again, a tone in line with the posture O’Neal appears to favor.
“They are turning The Post into a mouthpiece for the Trump administration,” one former opinion editor commented to me Wednesday evening, adding that such editorials would not have been published under previous section chiefs.
Beyond the editorials, O’Neal’s internal standing is murky, according to people familiar with the matter. He’s pushed out much of the previous leadership and a number of marquee columnists, but the people familiar have told me that many of those remaining still view him with skepticism. The sentiment is unsurprising, given that during his brief stint at The Dispatch, his abrasive leadership style prompted staffers at the conservative magazine to complain within weeks of his appointment to management. In fact, I’ve since learned that he was instructed at The Dispatch to undergo leadership training to address concerns about his management style.
Of course, Bezos is unlikely to care how the existing staff responds to O’Neal, just as he hasn’t seemed bothered by how much disdain there is for publisher Will Lewis within the newspaper’s K Street halls. For now, staffers like Attiah now face a stark choice: adapt to O’Neal’s vision or risk their future in the opinion section. Either way, The Post’s opinion pages are headed for certain transformation.
What a betrayal of the legacy of the Graham family, especially Kathryn Graham, who considered the Post a sacred trust and believed that Bezos would be a responsible steward of its integrity.
Dan Rather is a veteran of CBS News. He was understandably upset by the CBS payoff of $16 million to Trump in exchange for getting him to drop his $20 billion lawsuit against the network and “60 Minutes” for editing a tape of Kamala Harris during the 2024 campaign. It was a frivolous lawsuit, which Trump was likely to lose, but CBS chose to placate him because it needed FCC approval of a sale to Paramount for $8 billion. The Federal Conmunications Commission is headed by Trump ally, Brendan Carr, and is completely politicized, at the service of The Donald.
Dan Rather takes strong exception to CBS’s agreement to accept a “bias monitor” who reports to Trump. Be it noted that Columbia University also agreed to a “bias monitor” along with its $200 million payoff. Brown University agreed to accept Trump’s definition of gender, which means transgender does not exist at Brown.
Rather wrote:
As bad as it is that CBS’s parent company was extorted by Donald Trump for $16 million, that wasn’t the worst of it.
In the final merger deal, New Paramount has agreed to appoint a “bias monitor” who will report directly to Donald Trump, says the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This person will work with the company’s new president to review “any complaints of bias or other concerns.” In other words, Paramount is installing a censor at CBS News with a direct line to the president.
One would think that if a bias monitor is called for, there has been evidence of blatant bias. By definition, bias is unfair prejudice in favoring one side over the other. The far-right defines it as any story they don’t like.
Let’s be clear: By any sane or objective measure, CBS News is not a biased organization, no matter what the president and his FCC chair would have you think.
In addition to hiring a bias monitor, Paramount has promised that “news and entertainment programming embodies a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum,” while also eliminating all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Hard to do both, unless what you really mean is embodying only “conservative” (read: Trump’s) viewpoints.
CBS has a history of mega-wealthy owners, but no one as rich as Oracle founder Larry Ellison and his son David, whose estimated net worth is $300 billion. Both Ellisons are tight with Trump.
One wonders how deep will this go? Does “60 Minutes” now submit scripts for approval by a Trump toady? What about “The CBS Evening News?” Will its reporters have to give equal time to disinformation? And what will be the effect on other news outlets? The intended outcome is to foster fear.
Insiders at CBS already have a term for the censor: “hall monitor.” The credibility of the news organization that was my home for more than 40 years is suddenly threatened because of a bogus lawsuit and an FCC that is supposed to be independent but clearly is not. Donald Trump might as well be CEO of CBS.
We are now on the slipperiest of slopes. Who will be next? Trump could certainly make similar demands of other news organizations. The White House communications team is doing its damnedest to curve coverage to embellish their boss through lies, intimidation, and extortion.
Despite the questionable characterizations from the White House, not every story is left versus right. Most actually deal with the truth, or as near as journalists can get to the truth, versus what Trump & Co. want you to believe is the truth. They have a 10-year history of bald-faced lying.
According to The Washington Post, which tracked Trump’s (lack of) truthfulness during his first term, he lied an average of 21 times a day for four years, totalling 30,573 false or misleading claims. Respected historian David Brinkley called him a “serial liar.”
The argument that CBS and other legacy media outlets have a left-leaning bias and therefore need monitoring falls apart quickly when you realize the far-right doesn’t want unbiased reporting. They want Trump’s version of the story and his version of the truth. To them, it simply can’t be negative and true. If it goes against their agenda, it’s biased.
After all, it was Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway who coined the term “alternate facts.” That is just doublespeak for lies. The network of “alternative facts,” Fox “News,” was formed to combat perceived bias. We all know Fox “News” hits it right down the middle.
Trump supporters point to Americans’ declining trust in the news media as a reason for the need for his administration’s “monitoring” of the mass media. Clearly what they intend is not monitoring but censorship, led by a man who eschews the truth and whose constant spewing of propaganda has been a factor in the loss of trust in the media.
They are led by the most transparently thin-skinned person imaginable. In the space of a week, the prickly president has officially lashed out at several entertainment programs that have had the temerity to make fun of him.
When Joy Behar of the morning talk show “The View” joked that Trump was jealous of President Obama’s swagger, a White House spokesperson told Entertainment Weekly, “Joy Behar is an irrelevant loser suffering from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome” who “should self-reflect on her own jealousy of President Trump’s historic popularity before her show is the next to be pulled off air.”
After the animated series “South Park” aired an episode that depicted a naked Trump hanging out with the devil, the White House said “no fourth-rate show can derail President Trump’s hot streak.” Meanwhile the creators of the cartoon just inked a $1.5 billion, five-year deal with Paramount. Yes, that Paramount. One wonders if the bias monitor will be script doctoring new “South Park” shows.
This comes after the questionably timed cancellation of “The Late Show,” whose host, Stephen Colbert, is an ardent critic of the president and the most popular host on late-night television.
Everyone interprets the world through their own prism. People are influenced by where they grew up, what their parents taught them, where they went to school, and the beliefs of the people they respect. Journalists included.
Journalists sometimes make mistakes. But the media is not a monolith driven by a collective desire to elect Democrats. The vast majority of people I worked with throughout my career were dedicated journalists, rock-solid reporters. They believed in objectivity and curiosity and in questioning authority and standing up to power, regardless of whom they voted for.
As details of the new deal at CBS News remind us, the need for independent journalism has never been greater — journalism that doesn’t need sign-off from a censor.
The good people and proven professionals of CBS News will do their best under their new circumstances. But they, and the rest of us, are left to ponder where this all leads.
Last night, I read the story in the Wall Street Journal that was breaking news. The WSJ, owned by Rupert Murdoch, had somehow obtained a leather-bound book presented to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday. In it was a “bawdy” note from Donald Trump that hinted at their common interests.
At a time when other media outlets are hesitating and capitulating, Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal just stood up to President Trumpand scooped one of the biggest political stories of the summer. The print headline on Page One today reads “Trump’s Bawdy Letter to Epstein Was in 50th Birthday Album.” It is, of course, the most-read article on the Journal’s website.
And yet… Murdoch’s Fox News has not mentioned the story once.So let me take a stab at answering all the questions I’m getting about the media mogul and his role.
Murdoch, age 94, wants to have it both ways. He wants to be a newsman (that’s how he sees himself) but also needs to be a businessman. He wants a muscular Journal breaking big stories but he also needs Fox News to keep printing money for his family and other shareholders.
It’s been readily apparent for years that Fox succeeds when it is The Trump Show. So Fox does what it does, ignores what it ignores. But Murdoch, who has always cared most of all about old-fashioned newspapers, derives satisfaction and a sense of power from the Journal.
We wrote all about the operatic relationship between Murdoch and Trump in this CNN.com story overnight. I think this quote is quite telling: “Rupert loves to poke the president in the eye once in a while,” an executive who has worked with him closely told me.
Trump: I’m going to ‘sue his ass off’
Trump is, of course, taking this very personally. “I told Rupert Murdoch it was a Scam, that he shouldn’t print this Fake Story. But he did, and now I’m going to sue his ass off, and that of his third rate newspaper,” he wrote on Truth Social.
Trump’s post confirmed rumors that had been swirling in political and media circles for two days: namely, that the White House was trying to kill a damaging WSJ story. Trump said he personally spoke with both Murdoch and WSJ editor Emma Tucker.
As for a lawsuit, well… we’ll see, but no suit will take this story off the internet. The timeline is worth revisiting here. The WSJ approached Trump for comment on Tuesday. Trump derided the Epstein scandal as a “hoax” on Wednesday.
As I said on “The Source with Kaitlan Collins” last night, his well-trodden “hoax” talking point was a direct response to his concern about the looming WSJ report. Trump uses the word “hoax” to shut down conversation and discourage critical thinking; to tell his supporters to just ignore something altogether. TBD on whether it’ll work this time.
>> Inside Dow Jones HQ: After the story landed, Journal staffers expressed pride in their colleagues and in the publication for running the report despite the president’s attempt to squash it. There’s a real sense that publishing was an act of bravery…
>> BTW, WSJ has no comment on the lawsuit threat. Trump seems empowered by his settlements with Paramount and other media companies…
****************************************
Not part of Stelter’s commentary:
The note from Donald to Jeffrey:
The typewritten note was an imaginary conversation between Donald and Jeffrey, inside the outline of a naked woman.
“Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,” the note began.
Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.
Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is.
Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.
Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.
Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?
Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.
Donald: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.
Diane Ravitch's blog 