Like I said there will be nothing left to defend.
-
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
‘ CBS 60 Minutes’ publicly releases transcripts of interview to the FCC
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
Here it is. Apparently it was in the transcript.
60 Minutes Edited Out Trump's Response to Questions About Crypto Corruption
"I'd rather not have you ask the question," Trump said in a deleted portion of the interview.
gizmodo.com
I've posted too many times about comparing the international stories about changes in government, overthrows and the like in Ecuador when I was there and had a news-talk station. A bunch of us, including regional correspondents for journals like Newsweek and for agencies like Reuters, would compare the way the rest of the world heard about us.
Each journalist reported on the "facts" they considered important. Some ignored things that were of consequence. Nearly none of the international services actually told what had really happened.
Facts are, often, a figment of perception.
Under the U.S. current system with its electoral college, the current U.S. president did lawfully win the election. Furthermore, in terms of the popular vote, he received more votes than his closest competitor and that is also true. However, in terms of percentages, the current U.S. president did *not* receive a majority of the popular vote. He received 49.8% of the vote versus his closest competitor's 48.2%. The remainder of the popular vote went to third-party candidates and write-ins. The result is that while the current U.S. President is lawfully the U.S. President, he did not receive a majority of the popular vote and therefore, at least morally, he could not claim that he received a popular mandate for his programs.
After reading your reply, I decided to look up the definition of the word "fact" on the web. Below is a link to what I found taken from the Merrian-Webster dictionary:
Definition of FACT
something that actually exists or occurs : an actual event, situation, etc. —often used in the phrase the fact that; information or a piece of information presented as true or accurate; the quality of being actual : actuality… See the full definition
How are journalists supposed to go about finding facts? Probably the best way is for written documentation, preferrably from more than one source and preferrably documents that were prepared independently from each other. The second best way is through interviews with individuals. Here, the goal is to get more than one person operating independently of each other to corroborate information.
What I am attempting to point out is that the current U.S. President, more than any other U.S. President in history, is trying with this "60 Minutes" interview and other means to dictate what the facts are. Even if you accept the idea that Dan Rather didn't have the right to "sass" President Nixon during the interview with the latter, it is quite appalling to observe the great lengths the current U.S. President is taking to insure that mass audiences will not see factual information that contradicts his own statements. He has, for example, using his own money and power, allowed CBS, the television network on which he was interviewed, to be purchased by an ally with that ally promising no less than the removal of those journalists who dare to question the President's suppositions. Not even Richard Nixon, the person with the closest personality and philosophy to the current U.S. President, attempted to do *that!* And I can think of few more dangerous assaults on the current U.S. government that are more effective than forcing the media to repeat, without criticism or fact-checking, the suppositions of the current U.S. leader, regardless of how many votes, both popular and electoral, he received to get in to the office.
It doesn't matter. There is nothing in the constitution that requires him to have a mandate. He has the job, so he's now using the tools of the job to serve his agenda, regardless of its popularity. He knows it's not popular. That's why he's sent the military to five cities, in order to quell protests. At the same time, he's using the FCC to intimidate the media, used the rescission power to defund CPB, and has created rules for press coverage at the pentagon and white house. So far nobody has stopped him. So this idea that an interviewer should correct or fact check this president during an interview ignores the power this president has over the media and over the government.
What he did was present his view of what the facts are, using his interpretation of the law. That's his right under the first amendment. It's not the job of the interviewer to tell him he's wrong. After he leaves, the media CAN and DID take his answers and show how he was wrong. I've seen countless stories on CNN, ABC, Washington Post, and NY Times listing all the factual mistakes he made. The facts are there for people who choose to see them. But it wasn't the job of Norah O'Donnell to educate this president, or argue with this president, about his views on the issues. She isn't a prosecutor, and he is not on trial. We've already seen how that works with this president. It's a waste of time. He doesn't care what the facts are. She didn't ask softball questions. She asked tough questions, and pursued him when he dodged on the answers. The people saw how he reacted and responded to pointed questions on the issues. It's up to the people to decide if he's right or not.
The ratings for Sunday's 60 Minutes are in: 14 million viewers:
www.thewrap.com
Trump '60 Minutes' Interview Scores 14 Million Viewers, Biggest Audience Since 2021
Donald Trump's first "60 Minutes" interview since his $16 million settlement with CBS News boosted the show to its biggest audience since 2021
www.thewrap.com
But, let's say, a journalist covers a revolution or overthrow of a government ( I have witnessned no less than 5 of those in person in my career). The journalist arrives from elsewhere, as their journal or service or station has no local presence. They talk to a number of people... at least those that are still alive and willing to talk to the press. Many are the voices of the new government and they justify their overthrow by telling "the worst" about the old one.After reading your reply, I decided to look up the definition of the word "fact" on the web. Below is a link to what I found taken from the Merrian-Webster dictionary:
Definition of FACT
something that actually exists or occurs : an actual event, situation, etc. —often used in the phrase the fact that; information or a piece of information presented as true or accurate; the quality of being actual : actuality… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
How are journalists supposed to go about finding facts? Probably the best way is for written documentation, preferrably from more than one source and preferrably documents that were prepared independently from each other. The second best way is through interviews with individuals. Here, the goal is to get more than one person operating independently of each other to corroborate information.
They may talk to some other local journalists. Likely the ones at some news medium that already uses their news service or has some affiliation.
So they get the opinion of the victors and friends. All give their version of what happened. Facts... to them.
And then the journalist writes the story, obviously using his own analysis of the "facts" they have heard from the specific kinds of eye witnesses they could access.
And each such journalist ends up with a different and very factual version of the story. Because if the story is about humanity, specifically or in general, facts are a product of perception.
Trump won, with the results being HUUUUGGGE (buggy?). However CBS chose to edit the interview had absolutely no result in the election. It was a way for Trump to add to his ever-growing empire.
Regarding your last sentence, well...yes and no. Let's use an example of the weather in Phoenix, AZ at 5:45am on November 5, 2025. The airport temperature is 64 degrees F., and at my house, it's 62 degrees F. Those are statements of fact that can be verified with a thermometer. On the other hand, I don't wish to go outside, especially without long pants on. For me, it's cold and I feel cold going outside. Since I'm used to temperatures 80 degrees and above (I'm not sure i've ever gotten used to 115 degrees and above), this makes sense to me. The other side of the coin is if you come to Phoenix from, say, McGrath, AK, where the temperature is 32 degrees and below most of the year, you might feel very warm and willing to wear shorts in 62-degree weather.
So what we're talking about here are physical facts (the temperature reading being 62 degrees at my house) versus the perspectives of those covering those facts (me thinking it's cold and, let's say, SomeRadioGuy [I hope he doesn't mind] believing it's relatively warm).
Now let's put this to the example you cited of a successful revolt against a government. In this case, the fact is that a successful revolt has occurred ousting the previous government and replacing it with a new one. You note that journalists covering the event usually talk to the supporters of the revolt to get information. I would point out here that the primary reason that revolt supporters are spoken with first is because those who opposed the revolt are now in fear for their lives and livelihoods and prefer therefore to not talk. It has been duly noted that after the Allied powers overthrew the Third Reich in Germany in 1945 that everybody who reporters talked to was against Adolf Hitler all along. The outstanding question is if everybody was against Hitler in 1945, how was it that he was able to get popular support in 1932 when he won the election to become the next German ruler. The answer, of course, is that many who said they opposed Hitler in 1945 actually voted for him in 1932.
But getting back to perspectives, every story you will ever read is based on a perspective even though it contains facts. Sometimes it's the reporter's personal perspective, sometimes it's the editorial perspective of the publication/broadcaster the reporter works for, and sometimes it's a combination of the two. With a few exceptions, I think the vast majority of reporters start out with a humanist perspective with the idea of how many people are negatively affected by what is being covered versus how many people are positively being affected by the story being covered. There are other factors to be considered as well but the primary point is that there are physical facts being covered (a successful revolt against a government has taken place) with perspectives on the facts coming from both reporters and the publications they work for.
BIGLY, not “buggy”
What Trump actually says is "big-league", but he slurs the words together so it sounds like "bigly":
CNN, according to someone named Dean Withers, says Trump lied 18 times in the 28-minute version. That was posted by a Facebook friend.
Donald Trump Rails Against Paramount Leadership After Marjorie Taylor Greene ’60 Minutes’ Segment
The posts on Truth Social come just as Paramount hopes to gain traction with its hostile offer for Warner Bros. Discovery.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
Here we go again. The White House goes after 60 Minutes.