"Newsroom culture clash" at CBS News

[michael hagerty]

And more context. Essential pull-quote:

Their goal isn’t just to promote Trumpism –– this is a temporary necessity with a lot of obvious ideological overlap –– it’s to promote the Ellisons’ own agenda.
To do this, and do this swiftly, David Ellison’s foot soldiers within these organizations, with Weiss leading the way, are going to have to move fast, break journalism norms, and potentially wreck the old models and brands of trust and credibility –– ideally before Trump leaves office or other media competitors manage to win his favor first. Weiss and Ellison’s interference into “60 Minutes” creates a de facto state media, but their burgeoning empire is about consolidating top-down oligarchical control over legacy media brands that will endure long after Trump fades into irrelevance.

https://archive.ph/T5odu

 

[Mark Roberts]

Streisand Effect, anyone? Trying to squash this story is just bringing way more attention to it.

Weiss and those who hold her leash may well figure that there will be outrage, but that it will burn itself out, and next week there'll be a new thing to be outraged about that won't involve them. So they will ride out this week's controversy, possibly doing a little damage control along the way but ultimately not caring very much about how this all looks to anyone with a sense of history or fairness.

 

[michael hagerty]

Weiss and those who hold her leash may well figure that there will be outrage, but that it will burn itself out, and next week there'll be a new thing to be outraged about that won't involve them. So they will ride out this week's controversy, possibly doing a little damage control along the way but ultimately not caring very much about how this all looks to anyone with a sense of history or fairness.

They are also in a very low-awareness news week, with Christmas on Thursday. Likely the reason the Epstein releases today have been much more substantive and sensational than what we saw on Friday.

 

[spiritof67]

I wonder if she'll end up on Maher's show, and she and Bill can play the victim--holocaust, anti-woke, anti-Israel bias (take your pick), with Bill's typical boomer snark--which tends to always silence critics.

With all of that spin and distraction, the problems go on.

 

[TheBigA]

Weiss and those who hold her leash may well figure that there will be outrage, but that it will burn itself out, and next week there'll be a new thing to be outraged about that won't involve them. So they will ride out this week's controversy, possibly doing a little damage control along the way but ultimately not caring very much about how this all looks to anyone with a sense of history or fairness.

The last time there was a controversy about the show, Scott Pelley came on at the end and addressed it. I think that is what's warranted here. If they try to gloss over or ignore it, regular viewers will notice. Scott has already made comments about it:

‘60 Minutes’ correspondent says Bari Weiss needs to take her job ‘more seriously’

‘It’s not a part-time job,” Scott Pelley said during a Monday afternoon meeting.

www.independent.co.uk

 

[exbloguero]

This site has been hosting the broadcast-quality segment in one part, but without the subtitles. It's still up as of this time:

BREAKING: Here’s the 60 Minutes Segment Trump and CBS News Executives Don’t Want You to See

Hours before it was set to air last night, CBS News executives pulled the segment, but Canada’s Global TV app received it prior to broadcast.

www.thereset.news

The victim in the report honestly looks like a Mexican actor; there's a striking resemblance. What a coincidence.

 

[Mark Roberts]

The last time there was a controversy about the show, Scott Pelley came on at the end and addressed it. I think that is what's warranted here. If they try to gloss over or ignore it, regular viewers will notice. Scott has already made comments about it:

I think Weiss takes her job seriously. It's just that her job isn't what Scott Pelley thinks it is.

 

[TheBigA]

I think Weiss takes her job seriously. It's just that her job isn't what Scott Pelley thinks it is.

Once again, I expect him or someone to address this story in some way on the show this Sunday.

 

[yeoldeschool]

The CECOT report is still available on various places on the Internet. Appears CBS is trying to play whack-a-mole to take those down, but the video has gone viral. Some posts I’ve seen stated the video was successfully downloaded by numerous users, which means it may now be far out of CBS’ reach.

Here is a very high quality copy (2560x1600, 10517 kbit/s, 30 fps) now being seeded on bittorrent for those thusly equipped. It was captured from the Candian Global network's official streaming site while it was briefly available there, prior to CBS issuing the pull order. This is one copy that nobody will be able to censor.

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:A9BC9FC7114EB019C9B5AAB05CF6F9C07D9CB202&dn=60+Minutes+Pulled+Episode+WEB+SRCE+Inside+CECOT+Hidden+Human+Rights+Crisis+2025&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fp4p.arenabg.com%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F47.ip-51-68-199.eu%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.me%3A2780%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.to%3A2710%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.to%3A2730%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.to%3A2920%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.stealth.si%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopentracker.i2p.rocks%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cyberia.is%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.dler.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.internetwarriors.net%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.opentrackr.org%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.pirateparty.gr%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.tiny-vps.com%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.torrent.eu.org%3A451%2Fannounce

Here is the accompanying "NFO" file:

File Name: 60.Minutes.Pulled.Episode.Inside.CECOT.Humanitarian.Crisis.2025.1600P.WEB.h264-DiDa.mp4
Size: 1.01 GiB (1089156306 Bytes)
Info Hash: A9BC9FC7114EB019C9B5AAB05CF6F9C07D9CB202

60 Minutes CBS “Inside CECOT” December 21 2025

A compelling new episode of 60 Minutes airs Sunday, December 21, 2025,
at 7:30 PM ET / 7:00 PM PT on CBS and Paramount+, following NFL Football.
The broadcast features two impactful stories—one exposing troubling
conditions inside a Central American prison, the other celebrating the
resilience and pride of Nepal’s elite mountaineers. These segments
showcase the program’s signature blend of investigative journalism and
human storytelling. Inside CECOT: A Hidden Human Rights Crisis

The episode begins with Inside CECOT, a report that sheds light on a
little-known consequence of U.S. immigration policy. Earlier this year,
under the Trump administration, hundreds of Venezuelan migrants were
deported to El Salvador—many of them with no personal or familial
connection to the country. Branded as terrorists by the administration,
these individuals were sent to CECOT, a maximum-security prison in
El Salvador known for its harsh conditions and strict confinement.

Sharyn Alfonsi investigates the circumstances surrounding the
deportations and the disturbing silence from the U.S. government. Nine
months after the transfers, officials still have not released the full
list of names of those who were sent to the facility. Alfonsi speaks
directly with some of the now released individuals who describe in
chilling detail the torture and extreme conditions they faced behind
bars. Their testimony points to a broader question of accountability—
both in how these migrants were identified and in how they were
treated once removed from U.S. soil. The segment is produced by Oriana
Zill de Granados

Sample screen captures (taken myself after downloading it from the above URL):

https://files.catbox.moe/5zi2oe.jpg
https://files.catbox.moe/caec5s.jpg
https://files.catbox.moe/d795ln.jpg

 

[yeoldeschool]

Postscript: Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now!" deserves credit for the segment she did today on this 60 Minutes censorship incident. It covered not only the segment's censorship, but I found that it did an even better job of documenting the actual subject than 60 Minutes itself. Highly recommended, and given the revelations within, it becomes a little more clear why there was such pressure put on 60 Minutes to stay away from the subject entirely.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Once again, I expect him or someone to address this story in some way on the show this Sunday.

The best way of addressing the story is to run the damn thing. I think there's a low probability of that happening, but not a zero probability. Anything else would be weak tea.

There's also the matter of logistics since this is one of the biggest holiday weeks of the year.

I question whether any of the correspondents would be willing to do anything that would appear to give Bari Weiss a fig leaf to hide behind. It wouldn't surprise me if the general feeling there toward her was: you broke it, you fix it.

 

[spiritof67]

Postscript: Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now!" deserves credit for the segment she did today on this 60 Minutes censorship incident. It covered not only the segment's censorship, but I found that it did an even better job of documenting the actual subject than 60 Minutes itself. Highly recommended, and given the revelations within, it becomes a little more clear why there was such pressure put on 60 Minutes to stay away from the subject entirely.

Usually, Ms. Goodman and I don't agree, but I'm good with her on this.

 

[davideduardo]

Just like a radio format flip, you've got to give it at least a year before you start to see the real results.

I don't agree with this.

Perhaps there are some formats that take (or, in the current environment, "took") a long time to achieve their full potential. Here are some examples spanning multiple decades.

I can go back 60 years to when I put my second station on the air half-way through a ratings survey period. When the results were tabulated, the station was #1 in "C" income levels (out of A, B, and C) and a month later sold out.

In 1979 I changed a Beautiful Music station to all salsa. First survey of 30-station market began 25 days later, and station had a 22.5 share, beating #2, #3 and #4 combined. Sold out in its first month, which was the normally dry January!

Around 1982, switched a "dead" Top 40 to "all news" against a station doing that since the early 60's. Surveys were four times a year, and in the first one, nearly tied the 20-year-leader despite a really inferior signal.

In 1995, with Bill Tanner and Pio Ferro, flipped LA's KLVE from a bizarre "variety format" to mainstream AC. First book took it into top 5, second book it reached #1. No advertising... just word of mouth and increased TSL.

Around 1997, also with Tanner, flipped Miami's WAMR to a KLVE-like AC with heavy personality airshifts. Beat "the other" AC, WCMQ, which had dominated music listening for about 30 years, in first book.

In Y2K started the first all local rock format in a metro slightly bigger than NYC which had about 200 full signals and "zone" signals and neighborhood ones. Surveys were every month, and we ended our first month on the air with a #1 rank and over 16 share. No initial advertising, as we did not even know until mid-morning of the launch day that we were ready to do the format flip. (Former format was all AC music in English).

The longest one did take me a year. It was the country's first FM station, and did a Latin American Beautiful Music format. I did it for fun, not expecting to make money... I just wanted the first FM. Towards the end of the first year, so many friends and upscale business owners were insisting on buying ads, I started selling 'em. Sold out 24/7 in a week or two. Station was #2 in upper income listenership right after my Top 40 station. Sold 6 twenty-second spots an hour, one every three or four songs. But the only reason it took a year to become profitable was that I did not sell ads for 12 months.

Where I agree with you is on sales, but not audience. Generally, in a rated market it takes six months to a year for a successful station to generate the kind of revenue that is desired. That is because agencies don't buy based on the most recent book, but look at multiple books over longer periods. When we had just four books a year in bigger markets, they would look at two and even three book averages... 6 to 9 months. But in cases where a station "exploded" the sales could be immediate.

 

[ted chittenden]

The piece assumes CBS journalists will just roll over and do whatever they're told. It's up to them how they respond.

We all have a choice. We either do what we're told, or we say no. It's a choice we all have to make.

You're wrong! Human beings are social animals and they/we are well aware of who is feeding them/us and who isn't. If some CBS journalist goes astray and begins researching a story that could put the Trump administration in a critical light, the producer will kill it, knowing full well what Bari Weiss will do. And if the producer doesn't kill it, the editors will, both those she hires and those who stay on. And if the editors don't see fit to kill it, Miss Weiss will see fit to come in sooner to kill the story than she did last weekend.

This, of course, is not how a newsroom in a free country should operate. Yes, all of these markers should be there to kill a story if it isn't true but that's *not* why Bari Weiss is present at CBS! She is there to make sure that stories that shed current U.S. President Donald Trump in a bad light *never* see the light of day!

 

[TheBigA]

The best way of addressing the story is to run the damn thing.

Sure. They need to address this story on the show in some way. That would be one way.

I question whether any of the correspondents would be willing to do anything that would appear to give Bari Weiss a fig leaf to hide behind. It wouldn't surprise me if the general feeling there toward her was: you broke it, you fix it.

Silence is not the right way to handle this.

 

[ted chittenden]

Nah...too much journalism inside baseball.

I should have made an edit:

If CBS were smart and nimble ... big assumptions, I know ... they'd air it as a prime-time special this week and sell out all the availabilities.

Though not exactly the most uplifting holiday viewing, the shelf life of something like this is very short.

...and CBS lengthned that shelf life by cancelling the episode after promoting it. Brilliant move! (Not!)

 

[ted chittenden]

And more context. Essential pull-quote:

https://archive.ph/T5odu

NPR made the same statement about the Ellisons a few weeks back on All Things Considered.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Silence is not the right way to handle this.

I agree, but I'm not an oligarch or someone who's under the control of an oligarch.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Postscript: Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now!" deserves credit for the segment she did today on this 60 Minutes censorship incident. It covered not only the segment's censorship, but I found that it did an even better job of documenting the actual subject than 60 Minutes itself. Highly recommended, and given the revelations within, it becomes a little more clear why there was such pressure put on 60 Minutes to stay away from the subject entirely.

Accepting the limitation that there was only a single guest, still it provided valuable context. It also led me to believe that the 60 Minutes piece could actually have been harder-hitting than it was. The 60 Minutes piece was disturbing enough; what was shown on Democracy Now was even more disturbing. Alexa Koenig, the professor interviewed by both programs, did an excellent job (on Democracy Now) of walking through the process used by the Berkeley students to understand what was going on in CECOT and using that to corroborate the testimony of those incarcerated. Koenig did this without slipping into the usual bromides about journalism, instead making the process understandable to a general audience and relevant to the story.

I'm not an Amy Goodman fan, but she did a service today.

 

[TheBigA]

You're wrong!

No I'm not. We all have a choice.

]Human beings are social animals and they/we are well aware of who is feeding them/us and who isn't.

Regardless, we all have a choice. At one time I had a job working for a big company, making a big salary, and I walked away. I made a choice. I can find other ways to get fed. And I did. I was much happier.

Were you ever a journalist? Being a journalist for some is not like selling insurance or working retail. It's also a choice.

This, of course, is not how a newsroom in a free country should operate.

You're wrong! She didn't "kill" the story. She didn't "cancel" it. She postponed it. It will air. We can compare the new version with the producer's version. We will see if it was worth it. But none of that changes the fact that we all have a choice.