‘ CBS 60 Minutes’ publicly releases transcripts of interview to the FCC

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

CBS News submits records of Kamala Harris' '60 Minutes' spot to FCC amid distortion probe

Donald Trump's FCC chair Brendan Carr reopened a complaint against CBS over Kamala Harris' '60 Minutes' interview. The network turned in the records.

www.usatoday.com

60 Minutes publishes transcripts, video requested by FCC

60 Minutes is today posting these transcripts of our interview with Vice President Kamala Harris and have provided them to the FCC.

www.cbsnews.com

'60 Minutes' publicly releases transcripts of interview at heart of its dispute with Trump

The network's editing of that interview last October is the centerpiece of CBS' dispute with President Trump, who sued the network for $10 billion, contending that it was done to make Harris look good.

apnews.com

Here we go again. We been down this road before and in previous cases it was not warranted. This is going down the list of grievances.

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/fcc-reinstates-complaints-over-abc-presidential-debate-harris-tv-appearances-2025-01-22/

 

[leethalweapon]

Something says to me (legacy) media with their money tied up in licences (TV/Radio), is afraid of having them revoked.

 

[TheBigA]

Something says to me (legacy) media with there money tied up in licences (TV/Radio), is afraid of having them revoked.

The question is did they really do anything wrong, or is the government abusing its power? There were many examples of the latter during the Nixon administration. So government abuse isn't unprecedented. Is that OK? CBS has posted all of the content for the public. You can decide for yourself.

Was the president harmed in some way by the interview. Because that's core to his lawsuit. They were about to settle the lawsuit. That's when he changed tactics. Why?

 

[Weiserguy]

Was the president harmed in some way by the interview. Because that's core to his lawsuit. They were about to settle the lawsuit. That's when he changed tactics. Why?

Seems like he's figured out that he's in a great position to shake down big media companies for personal monetary gain, as well as intimidating them from challenging his power through their journalism. Must have seemed like a win-win for him. (As in, he wins, and he wins even more.) Welcome to the Matrix.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

The question is did they really do anything wrong, or is the government abusing its power?

That’s not a serious question in light of all we’ve seen.

There were many examples of the latter during the Nixon administration. So government abuse isn't unprecedented.

The scope of the past few weeks is entirely unprecedented in this country.

Was the president harmed in some way by the interview. Because that's core to his lawsuit. They were about to settle the lawsuit. That's when he changed tactics. Why?

Because he’s a petty, sociopathic imbecile?

 

[TheBigA]

The other part of this story is Kamala Harris. She is as much a target of this as CBS and 60 Minutes. The Trump campaign continually said that she was avoiding interviews or press conferences. They said she was bad at interviews, so she didn't do them. This gives them access to the raw interview so they can revive that attack on her.

107 days: Kamala Harris has yet to do formal press conference since emerging as Democratic nominee

Vice President Kamala Harris hasn’t held a formal press conference with reporters since she became the presumptive and now official Democratic nominee.

www.foxnews.com

The fact is she instead did lots of informal press conferences at campaign stops, often with the local media, as well as regular "gaggles" with the traveling press. She also spoke with Fox News towards the end of the campaign.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

The other part of this story is Kamala Harris. She is as much a target of this as CBS and 60 Minutes. The Trump campaign continually said that she was avoiding interviews or press conferences.

They lied.

They said she was bad at interviews, so she didn't do them.

They lied with a straight face while their guy rambled without the ability to express a cogent thought.

This gives them access to the raw interview so they can revive that attack on her.

Almost like a banana republic.

The fact

Stop right there. They don’t traffic in facts.

 

[leethalweapon]

The other part of this story is Kamala Harris. She is as much a target of this as CBS and 60 Minutes.

I would have thought that someone with Kamala's knowledge and experience of the law, would know where the line in the sand is. The unknown quanity in this is, the US Justice Department, in it's present state, and their handling of any complaints.

 

[TheBigA]

Apparently the FCC isn't happy with the conduct of CBS:

FCC chair calls CBS News' conduct 'hard to explain' following release of Kamala Harris interview transcript

Federal Communication Commission Chairman Brendan Carr told Fox News Digital he's perplexed by CBS News' handling of the transcript of its "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris.

www.foxnews.com

MSN

Now that they have the full interview, they're nit-piking the editing decisions. It sounds to me like their problem isn't that the editing was deceptive, but that it didn't show her in a negative way.

 

[IM42A]

Without staking out a place one way or another in the political aspect of the discussion, I would say that it falls under a broadcaster's First Amendment rights to edit raw content in any way they see fit, except for libel or slander issues that don't seem to be the case here. In fact, they might choose to edit such an interview precisely to dodge such issues.

 

[kevtronics]

I predict we're not too far away from schoolchildren being ordered to rip pages out of their history textbooks, just like my mom did when she was a kid in Soviet-controlled Czechoslovakia (presumably the part about Stalin, due to "de-Stalinization" in the late '50s).

 

[TheBigA]

Watching the raw interview, the one thing that stands out is that she's not as good on TV as the other guy. If we were electing the better TV star, she wouldn't win. Her answers are rambling and sometimes incoherent. If it was up to me to edit this interview, I'd edit out all of the babble. Keep all of the fun stuff. Yes it's supposed to be news, but 60 Minutes has always had a part that's entertainment. So as I said, they're apparently unhappy because CBS didn't show all the rambling stuff and cut to the actual answer to the question. But that's what editors do. It's prime time Sunday night, biggest TV night of the week, and they want to keep the audience no matter who the guest is. It's not PBS. If it was, they wouldn't like that either.

 

[kevtronics]

If we were electing the better TV star

"If"?

 

[Kemosabe]

Trump calls for an end to 60 Minutes after the release of the Harris interview transcript.

From The Hill: Trump: ’60 Minutes’ should be ‘immediately terminated’ after Harris transcript release

 

[IM42A]

Trump calls for an end to 60 Minutes after the release of the Harris interview transcript.

From The Hill: Trump: ’60 Minutes’ should be ‘immediately terminated’ after Harris transcript release

The government can't just take TV shows off the air.

In a worst-case scenario, the licenses of the CBS O&O stations could be challenged, but all together they only make up a fraction of total CBS viewership.

 

[gr8oldies]

Apparently the FCC isn't happy with the conduct of CBS:

FCC chair calls CBS News' conduct 'hard to explain' following release of Kamala Harris interview transcript

Federal Communication Commission Chairman Brendan Carr told Fox News Digital he's perplexed by CBS News' handling of the transcript of its "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris.

www.foxnews.com

MSN

Now that they have the full interview, they're nit-piking the editing decisions. It sounds to me like their problem isn't that the editing was deceptive, but that it didn't show her in a negative way.

Trump looked bad in the debate, so of course CBS needed to show VP Harris in a negative light, since Donald Trump is perfect.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Watching the raw interview, the one thing that stands out is that she's not as good on TV as the other guy.

Um, what? The other guy can’t speak in a complete sentence and has the vocabulary of a kindergartner, although that may be insulting to kindergartners. He’s an incoherent, illiterate imbecile who “speaks” while actually saying nothing.

If we were electing the better TV star, she wouldn't win. Her answers are rambling and sometimes incoherent.

🤔 Have you ever listened to the other guy? Like actually listened to the verbal vomit he perpetually spews?

If it was up to me to edit this interview, I'd edit out all of the babble. Keep all of the fun stuff. Yes it's supposed to be news, but 60 Minutes has always had a part that's entertainment. So as I said, they're apparently unhappy because CBS didn't show all the rambling stuff and cut to the actual answer to the question.

Oh, so she answered. That’s one point above what we ever saw from the other one.

But that's what editors do. It's prime time Sunday night, biggest TV night of the week, and they want to keep the audience no matter who the guest is. It's not PBS. If it was, they wouldn't like that either.

She could be the freaking second coming of Winston Churchill as an orator. It. Doesn’t. Matter. This is nothing but intimidation and government overreach to beat the press into even further submission.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

The government can't just take TV shows off the air.

They “can’t” do a lot of things according to the laws. Care to tell us who’s going to stop them? Pam Bondi’s DOJ? We’re past the point where norms and rules apply. Look critically at who is staffing these agencies.

Checks and balances only work when there are people willing to enforce them. I’m not sure how much bigger of a flashing neon sign we need to recognize the rules are now technicalities. Authoritarianism is here.

In a worst-case scenario, the licenses of the CBS O&O stations could be challenged,

With a hand-picked lackey in charge, yeah. And revoked just for the sheer heck of it.

but all together they only make up a fraction of total CBS viewership.

But a big chunk of money. That threat is enough to beat them into submission.

 

[gr8oldies]

Um, what? The other guy can’t speak in a complete sentence and has the vocabulary of a kindergartner, although that may be insulting to kindergartners. He’s an incoherent, illiterate imbecile who “speaks” while actually saying nothing.

🤔 Have you ever listened to the other guy? Like actually listened to the verbal vomit he perpetually spews?

Oh, so she answered. That’s one point above what we ever saw from the other one.

She could be the freaking second coming of Winston Churchill as an orator. It. Doesn’t. Matter. This is nothing but intimidation and government overreach to beat the press into even further submission.

We could talk about all the sanewashing of Trump when he would say completely deranged things, and the networks would edit it to sound quasi-normal. From October: Sanewashing? The banality of crazy? A decade into the Trump era, media hasn't figured him out

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

We certainly could. The parsing and paraphrasing of utterly 🦇 💩 crazy rantings as “policy proposals” or “ideas for modifying the structure of the government” or what have you.