• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

"Newsroom culture clash" at CBS News

Kent said:
He's around 70.
Click to expand...
Pelley will turn 69 on July 28.
Kent said:
He can ride off into the sunset if he wants.
Click to expand...
I suspect he will have no trouble finding future employment if he chooses to do so.
Kent said:
His is another name I remember as I saw him on WFAA in the 80's.
Click to expand...
Glory days of WFAA News 8 under the legendary Marty Haag.
Kent said:
I suspect a lawsuit will be filed soon.
Click to expand...
As sure as the sun rises in the east tomorrow morning.

Meanwhile Leslie Stahl is 84 and has been at CBS for 55 years. Wonder if she will decide enough is enough and close the book on an outstanding career.
 
Last edited:
Mediafrog+ said:
Pelley will turn 69 on July 28.

I suspect he will have no trouble finding future employment if he chooses to do so.

Glory days of WFAA News 8 under the legendary Marty Haag.

As sure as the sun rises in the east tomorrow morning.

Meanwhile Leslie Stahl is 84 and has been at CBS for 55 years. Wonder if she will decide enough is enough and close the book on an outstanding career.

I’m still waiting for the inevitable posts from members of the Cult of the Orange Narcissist.
Click to expand...
Just pointing out that I've endured temporary bans for posting things far less political than that last line.

Regarding Pelley, he literally told off his new boss in front of a large group of other employees.
Virtually anyone who does that in any industry is going to get fired. Perhaps he wanted to get fired.
He was only going to have friction with the new management going forward, and as you rightly pointed out I don't
think he'll have much trouble getting offers. Plus getting fired will make him a hero to some a la Stephen Colbert.

Nobody is irreplaceable. CBS News had to fire Dan Rather, and at the time he was the literal
avatar of their news division.
 
umfan said:
Sure, if they no longer want to draw a CBS Paycheck. Better yet, resign and then rip away.
Click to expand...
Better yet, don’t roll over and let an institution be destroyed quietly, which he didn’t.

And let’s not pretend that “average Joe” rules always apply to everyone everywhere. Right, wrong or anywhere in between, there is not one standard. Conduct that would get many people dismissed is routinely accepted by elected officials, up to and including the president. If the president is just “telling it like it is,” as is often the defense, so, too, is Scott.

Pelley defended with passion an institution he cares about. He’s also absolutely correct about the qualifications of the people being handed the sledgehammer to destroy the institution. If he wants to make a lot of noise on the way out, much respect to him.
 
AbrahamJSimpson said:
Better yet, don’t roll over and let an institution be destroyed quietly, which he didn’t.
Click to expand...
He's a diva. He's not the modern incarnation of Ed Murrow and not the savior of the brand. The brand has, and will continue to evolve.

nypost.com

Self-righteous mutiny at ‘60 Minutes’ isn’t about saving the show — it’s about sabotage and being a martyr for the rotting left

Disagreements, especially at an institution that once featured a “Murderers’ Row” of journalists, aren’t unusual. But the disrespectful airing of dirty laundry should be dis…
nypost.com nypost.com

This sums it up well, "Passionate disagreements, especially within an institution that once featured a “Murderers’ Row” of journalists, aren’t out of the ordinary. Yet the disrespectful airing of dirty laundry — grievances not really meant for Pelley’s bosses, but to throw more red meat to Weiss’ critics — should be disqualifying diva behavior."

Pelley may not be so loved among the staff.

nypost.com

Exclusive | What CBS staffers are really saying about Scott Pelley’s brazen attack on new ‘60 Minutes’ boss

“What did he accomplish?,” one CBS source said of Pelley’s explosive clash. “He embarassed the company and the leadership.”
nypost.com nypost.com

"
“This was a set-up. This was Scott going off for show,” the insider opined. “This was just a show. He wants to stand up for journalism and maybe get fired but what does it change?”

A second source agreed that Pelley’s tactics were “problematic,” noting that the correspondent should have met with Weiss or Bilton to at least hear them out.

“That grandstanding thing is insane. It’s third-grade, playground bullying stuff,” the source said. “This is not the way you conduct yourself.”

“You’re not taking down a dictator or someone who has committed war crimes,” the source added. “You’re not interviewing Saddam Hussein. It was a little bit overkill.”"

And Pelley now is echoing Brian Williams. In combat?!? Please.
nypost.com

Fired ‘60 Minutes’ star Scott Pelley roasted for claiming he was ‘in combat’ in Iraq and Afghanistan: ‘Low-rent Brian Williams’

Pelley’s remarks also sparked widespread mockery on social media, where critics derided what they viewed as his self-importance.
nypost.com nypost.com

"Pelley’s remarks sparked widespread mockery on social media, where critics derided what they viewed as his self-importance and rejected comparisons between journalists and military personnel."

"Nevertheless, his comments drew an immediate rebuke from conservative commentator Mollie Hemingway, who accused the veteran journalist of inflating his role in war zones.

“Woke up this morning and remembered this propaganda clown falsely claimed to have served in combat in multiple theaters because he read TV lines near real soldiers,” Hemingway wrote on X.

“Low-rent Brian Williams behavior.”"

I think he did CBS a favor by providing them a reason to dump him for cause.
 
AbrahamJSimpson said:
And let’s not pretend that “average Joe” rules always apply to everyone everywhere. Right, wrong or anywhere in between, there is not one standard. Conduct that would get many people dismissed is routinely accepted by elected officials, up to and including the president. If the president is just “telling it like it is,” as is often the defense, so, too, is Scott.
Click to expand...
One other thing to point out is the news business can be unlike other businesses, with a mix of mission and passion that is found in few other places. That's not to say that standard corporate imperatives...such as the one to make money...are unimportant. But there's more to it than that. That causes friction.

AbrahamJSimpson said:
Pelley defended with passion an institution he cares about. He’s also absolutely correct about the qualifications of the people being handed the sledgehammer to destroy the institution. If he wants to make a lot of noise on the way out, much respect to him.
Click to expand...
My take on it is that Pelley decided he had plenty of reputational capital to spend, and he decided to spend it to defend those on the staff who were far less able to deal with the consequences of speaking up for themselves. It wouldn't surprise me if he knew full well what the consequences would be. It was an act of altruism and solidarity. No wonder people aligned with Trump fail to understand it.

I wish Pelley had provided more specifics in his statement last night...though the reference to 19 minutes before air time stood out...but those may be matters for the inevitable lawsuit or lawsuits. And a book or two.

CBS News has been through upheavals before, and it's renowned for being a somewhat raw environment at times, but each new conflict manages to be worse than the previous one.
 
The New York Times has a fuller account of what went down yesterday than I've seen elsewhere:


And Bari Weiss has now spoken:


Quote:
“I’m only interested in working in a newsroom that is built on trust and mutual respect; we cannot do our work without it,” Ms. Weiss said on a 9 a.m. editorial call, according to a recording that was obtained by The New York Times.

“That foundation was broken on Monday,” she continued, referring to the explosive “60 Minutes” staff meeting where Mr. Pelley said that Ms. Weiss was “murdering ‘60 Minutes’” and asserted that Nick Bilton, the tech journalist hired to run the show, would “never be welcome.”

“Despite our attempts to engage with Scott Pelley and to find a way back, unfortunately we weren’t able to do so, and so we had to part ways,” Ms. Weiss said. “We did not want that to happen, but that’s the path that he chose.”
(end quote)

Pelley is quoted as disputing Weiss' characterization:

“There was no effort of any kind to ‘find a way back,’” he said.

Mr. Pelley met on Tuesday with Ms. Weiss, Mr. Bilton, and Tom Cibrowski, the CBS News president. He said the meeting turned hostile and that he believed the network had little interest in engaging with his concerns about the future of “60 Minutes.”
(end quote)

I'm sure this is not the end of it.
 
Mark Roberts said:
The New York Times has a fuller account of what went down yesterday than I've seen elsewhere:


And Bari Weiss has now spoken:


Quote:
“I’m only interested in working in a newsroom that is built on trust and mutual respect; we cannot do our work without it,” Ms. Weiss said on a 9 a.m. editorial call, according to a recording that was obtained by The New York Times.

“That foundation was broken on Monday,” she continued, referring to the explosive “60 Minutes” staff meeting where Mr. Pelley said that Ms. Weiss was “murdering ‘60 Minutes’” and asserted that Nick Bilton, the tech journalist hired to run the show, would “never be welcome.”

“Despite our attempts to engage with Scott Pelley and to find a way back, unfortunately we weren’t able to do so, and so we had to part ways,” Ms. Weiss said. “We did not want that to happen, but that’s the path that he chose.”
(end quote)

Pelley is quoted as disputing Weiss' characterization:

“There was no effort of any kind to ‘find a way back,’” he said.

Mr. Pelley met on Tuesday with Ms. Weiss, Mr. Bilton, and Tom Cibrowski, the CBS News president. He said the meeting turned hostile and that he believed the network had little interest in engaging with his concerns about the future of “60 Minutes.”
(end quote)

I'm sure this is not the end of it.
Click to expand...
www.usatoday.com

Sharyn Alfonsi, Cecilia Vega back Scott Pelley after '60 Minutes' firing

Scott Pelley said "60 Minutes" leadership "is no longer recognizable" after his firing.
www.usatoday.com

Here is more Cecila Vega and Sharyn Alfonsi backs the claims of Scott Pelley right after they were fired for the same stuff at CBS News related to the way Bari Weiss, David Ellison and Nick Bilton over the same concerns Pelley brought up in that meeting.

substack.com

Sharyn Alfonsi (@sharynalfonsi)

One day before the “bloodbath” at 60 Minutes, I issued this public statement. I did not want to be right. Statement 5.27.2026 Over the weekend, my contract with CBS News expired, drawing to a close nearly twenty years with the network, including more than a decade at 60 Minutes...
substack.com substack.com

Sharyn Alfonsi is back this time as a writer on Substack.

 
Mark Roberts said:
CBS News has been through upheavals before, and it's renowned for being a somewhat raw environment at times, but each new conflict manages to be worse than the previous one.
Click to expand...

Some may forget that Murrow himself was forced to leave CBS News after his TV battle with McCarthy. He left the business and went to run USIA.

All the focus on Pelley takes the attention away from Bilton & Weiss, who now have to build something neither know anything about. They'll do it working for an owner who also knows nothing about broadcasting, networks, or news. Call it "reality TV TV," where people who don't have any experience win a talent contest, and are thrust into prominence, having never paid any dues or worked the 10,000 hours that it once took to get to that level. This is what it's come to.

Part of me wonders what the folks at Sunday Morning are thinking. So far, they've been left alone. I'm sure that will change soon.
 
FreddyE1977 said:
...Regarding Pelley, he literally told off his new boss in front of a large group of other employees.
Virtually anyone who does that in any industry is going to get fired...CBS News had to fire Dan Rather, and at the time he was the literal
avatar of their news division...
Click to expand...

I retired over a year ago, but when I was still working, if I had told off the new boss in front of a large group of other employees, I probably would have been fired, too.

I, too, recall the Dan Rather incident. I know he later filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS that was eventually dismissed.
 
Mark Roberts said:
My take on it is that Pelley decided he had plenty of reputational capital to spend, and he decided to spend it to defend those on the staff who were far less able to deal with the consequences of speaking up for themselves.
Click to expand...

I agree. Reading all the back & forth, I'm reminded of what I see here on this board all the time. We have posters who bring up their resumes with years of experience to people who have none. But in the reality TV world, in the social media world, none of it matters. Everyone is on the same level, regardless of how many years of experience you have, regardless of the heritage you may represent, regardless of the success you may have experienced. None of it matters. They're in charge, and you're not. That can be frustrating, and some of what I heard was that frustration.

What Pelley said on Monday wasn't new. He's been a vocal critic of the new regime for a long time. He wrote an opinion piece last year about it. In some lines of work, people with his background get promoted to management. Or they become an "advisor." But this is a reminder to all talent that you're still just talent. You're not the people in charge. They get to make the decisions. They're the ones who determine what the future looks like. Pelley wanted to shape or influence that future in some way. He got to have his free speech, and then it was time for those in charge to move on.
 
TheBigA said:
All the focus on Pelley takes the attention away from Bilton & Weiss, who now have to build something neither know anything about. They'll do it working for an owner who also knows nothing about broadcasting, networks, or news. Call it "reality TV TV," where people who don't have any experience win a talent contest, and are thrust into prominence, having never paid any dues or worked the 10,000 hours that it once took to get to that level. This is what it's come to.
Click to expand...

Speculation had already been building that 60 Minutes wouldn't be back in time for its next season. During the summer when the show is in reruns, production for the next season usually goes into overdrive. Most segments on 60 Minutes are roughly 13 minutes long, and getting new material of that length takes a lot of time and work.

Now, the show has lost more than half of its veteran correspondents, and, as you mention, two people with no real experience with the show have to hire almost an entire team of correspondents while also producing new material. It really looks like a herculean task.

If I'm ABC, I have no rights to football on Sundays aside from, possibly, the playoffs and no compelling programming to offer on Sunday evenings. Hiring some of these veteran correspondents and making a competitor to 60 Minutes would sound tempting. I'm sure producing a long-form news program like 60 Minutes is expensive, but betting on CBS not being ready for the new season looks like a better than 50/50 gamble. It's probably a high-risk proposition, but, if it works, it's high reward.
 
Kent said:
Hiring some of these veteran correspondents and making a competitor to 60 Minutes would sound tempting.
Click to expand...

To some, maybe. Let's remember how ABC dealt with Nightline after Ted Koppel. Have you seen the show lately? It's more like Entertainment Tonight.

ABC tried to do their own version of 60 Minutes. They called it 20/20. It wasn't as deep or as serious, even from the start, and it never won.

At it's heart, ABC is still owned by Disney, and Disney isn't big on creating confrontation. It's a small world after all, as the song goes.

But yes, I agree with your first sentence, that 60 Minutes as we all knew it is over. The next incarnation may look more like "West 57th."

The criticism of that 60 Minutes spinoff was it was big on image and short on depth. That's where this is going.
 
At least West 57th and the original premise behind 48 Hours had credibility behind them. Maybe the style roiled some people. Great. So be it. But they weren’t trying to, as Pelley noted, trying to inject falsehoods and agendas.

It’s one thing to jettison a style - not a good thing in many cases, but still far different than what’s happening here. The problem with propaganda is not the packaging, it’s the propaganda in the first place.
 
AbrahamJSimpson said:
At least West 57th and the original premise behind 48 Hours had credibility behind them. Maybe the style roiled some people. Great. So be it. But they weren’t trying to, as Pelley noted, trying to inject falsehoods and agendas.

It’s one thing to jettison a style - not a good thing in many cases, but still far different than what’s happening here. The problem with propaganda is not the packaging, it’s the propaganda in the first place.
Click to expand...
People who watch Fox News don’t want to think for themselves. They love the propaganda. People who watch 60 Minutes are deep thinkers who want to be told the truth. The long time viewers will see through what the show will become and will be gone. The Fox News viewer will never tune in no matter how much they might try to cater the show to them.
 


Back
Top Bottom