“Varied Ideological Perspectives”: a new goal promised for CBS under Skydance

[gr8oldies]

If you want a stronger party, you have to be visible all the time just like President Trump is now

There is A lot wrong with the feckless Democratic Party at this point, but yes.

 

[JJSPC]

How about instead of hundreds of posts on this, the folks on this board whether on the left or right just admit that ALL media today is biased in one way or another and be done with it.

 

[TheBigA]

How about instead of hundreds of posts on this, the folks on this board whether on the left or right just admit that ALL media today is biased in one way or another and be done with it.

Once again: There is no requirement that any news, from any source, at any time was ever unbiased.

There is no fairness doctrine. When there was, the courts ruled that it was unconstitutional.

Journalists have the right to use their own discretion in deciding how to report stories.

 

[michael hagerty]

How about instead of hundreds of posts on this, the folks on this board whether on the left or right just admit that ALL media today is biased in one way or another and be done with it.

How about we discuss, learn and understand that there's nuance depending on circumstance and outlet?

 

[michael hagerty]

Once again: There is no requirement that any news, from any source, at any time was ever unbiased.

There is no fairness doctrine. When there was, the courts ruled that it was unconstitutional.

Journalists have the right to use their own discretion in deciding how to report stories.

Minor correction: In 1985, Reagan's FCC chairman, Mark Fowler said it "violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment" even though the Supreme Court had upheld its constitutionality (Red Lion Broadcasting vs the FCC, 1969).

https://www.nytimes.com/1985/08/08/arts/fairness-doctrine-assailed-by-fcc.html

Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)

Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC: It is permissible under the First Amendment to require media outlets to make broadcast time available for responses to personal attacks.

supreme.justia.com

The Heritage Foundation was among the movers and shakers pushing for Fowler to follow through and kill the doctrine:

Why The Fairness Doctrine Is Anything But Fair

This key research from 1993 has been updated in James Gattuso's new paper "Back to Muzak? Congress and the Un-Fairness Doctrine" http://www.heritage.org/Research/regulation/wm1472.cfm

www.heritage.org

 

[michael hagerty]

Putting a laugh emoji on a serious post about a serious topic is telling everyone you have a room-temperature IQ.

Doing it more than once tells everyone it's a very chilly room.

 

[Rusty Muck]

How about instead of hundreds of posts on this, the folks on this board whether on the left or right just admit that ALL media today is biased in one way or another and be done with it.

Then that either makes Carr's inflammatory statements impossible to accomplish or a new intrusive government policy that will affect all of broadcasting.

For everyone's sake you better hope it's the former.

 

[TheBigA]

The Heritage Foundation was among the movers and shakers pushing for Fowler to follow through and kill the doctrine:

Once again: They don't want unbiased reporting. That is a fake thing.

 

[michael hagerty]

Put on a sweater, @101tm ---maybe even a parka.

 

[michael hagerty]

Let's chill out. Broaden our horizons. Maybe read some journalism from a faraway country, as one does.

I know! Scotland. What's in the news there? Kilts? Haggis? Golf?




Kinda puts the whole "unbiased reporting" thing in perspective, doesn't it?

I mean, there are no fact errors in the headline or the subhead, and the thing at the bottom is clearly labeled "Advertisement", so...

 

[michael hagerty]

The universe has given us a perfect example.

Donald Trump, unable to fire Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chairman, without cause, has been focusing on alleged cost overruns for renovations of the Fed headquarters.

Today, in front of cameras, Trump said "new numbers" "just came out" and Powell pointed out that Trump had added the cost of a building finished five years ago into the math:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/24/politics/trump-powell-federal-reserve-visit-renovation

And here's how FOX News' Sean Hannity covered that moment (the file is too large to load, and FOX hasn't posted it to YouTube yet, so I'll post Aaron Rupar's Bluesky post and you can find the video:



You will starve waiting for the White House to protest that FOX News didn't cover that fairly, completely or in an unbiased manner.

 

[only1moore]

One has to wonder if DJT has Alzheimer’s, just saying.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Paramount co-CEOs Chris McCarthy, Brian Robbins to leave amid Skydance merger

A pair of Paramount executives who helped operate the company as part of its co-CEO structure are expected to leave in the next few weeks.

thedesk.net

Here is an update on the Paramount/Skydance deal Chris McCarthy and Brian Robbins are to leave Paramount as soon as Skydance management takes over.

Chris McCarthy, a 22-year veteran of Paramount and CBS who recently served as the lead executive in charge of the company’s cable networks (except Nickelodeon), will depart the company immediately following its merger with Skydance Media, which is expected to close in August. Brian Robbins, the President of Nickelodeon and Paramount Pictures, is also slated to leave, according to trade publication reports that first surfaced last year.

George Cheeks, the last of the three co-CEOs and the lead executive in charge of CBS, will remain with Paramount once the Skydance merger is completed, though he is expected to serve in a lesser role with the company. Skydance has already settled on former NBC Universal CEO Jeffrey Shell as the new president of Paramount once the merger closes.

As co-CEOs, McCarthy, Robbins and Cheeks were tasked with navigating Paramount through turbulent financial and regulatory conditions as the Skydance deal faced delays. In a bid to stabilize the company’s bottom line, they carried out multiple rounds of layoffs and organizational restructuring in recent months and agreed to key concessions with President Donald Trump and members of his administration to secure approval for the merger.

 

[Don CT]

Paramount co-CEOs Chris McCarthy, Brian Robbins to leave amid Skydance merger

A pair of Paramount executives who helped operate the company as part of its co-CEO structure are expected to leave in the next few weeks.

thedesk.net

Here is an update on the Paramount/Skydance deal Chris McCarthy and Brian Robbins are to leave Paramount as soon as Skydance management takes over.

I’m sure most of the Paramount execs will be out.

 

[ted chittenden]

I’m sure most of the Paramount execs will be out.

I agree. While the article describes the deal as a "merger", it is really Skydance taking over the running of Paramount. And that makes business sense as it was the owner of Skydance who purchased Paramount.

 

[gr8oldies]

One has to wonder if DJT has Alzheimer’s, just saying.

I was assured he was the epitome of youth and fitness.

 

[michael hagerty]

I agree. While the article describes the deal as a "merger", it is really Skydance taking over the running of Paramount. And that makes business sense as it was the owner of Skydance who purchased Paramount.

The Mercedes-Benz/Chrysler deal was described by the companies as "a merger of equals".

From $35bn to $7.4bn in nine years: the Daimler-Chrysler merger

(This is a link)

www.theguardian.com

You can't buy PR at face value. Public relations, while journalism-adjacent, is the opposite of journalism. It seeks to tell one story, the client's.

Which brings us back to the topic.

This administration, when it decries biased journalism, isn't asking for diverse views (in fact, they've made it clear they don't want to hear the word "diverse"). Their view of bias is to present anything other than the story they want told.

It is the antithesis of "both sides of the story."

Even harmless stories seem problematic for them. Did we really need to erase the historic contributions of Blacks and women and LGBTQ people in government agencies?

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/19/nx-s1-5317567/federal-websites-lgbtq-diversity-erased

There is a current edict from the administration for our National Parks to remove any plaques or literature that call into question our treatment of Native Americans or that reference slavery as a bad thing.

Park Service Forced to Report Information on Slavery, Climate Change, For Potential Erasure from National Parks

If some of these changes are made, visitors may miss out on the full picture of history and nature that they deserve at our parks. Americans count on our parks to tell truthful stories and accurate information.

www.npca.org

As with "mergers", you cannot take the administration's definition of "biased coverage" at face value.

 

[TheBigA]

This administration, when it decries biased journalism, isn't asking for diverse views (in fact, they've made it clear they don't want to hear the word "diverse"). Their view of bias is to present anything other than the story they want told.

The other part is to damage credibility. That's really what the goal is here.

When they say something is biased, they usually provide no proof. In the case of NPR, they gave a list of stories they say proves bias. What they didn't show is any context to that list, such as what percentage of stories dealt with subjects they didn't like. Also, that is the basis for bias: Stories they don't like. The list itself came from a biased source. So the biased person is claiming bias. What does that tell you?

So now my questions about CBS News are: Now that the FCC Chairman has said they promised to present unbiased news, does that mean moving forward, they will accept that all CBS News is unbiased? Who judges what is biased? The government? Or someone in editorial? And what is the penalty if someone in government says they're biased?

 

[michael hagerty]

So now my questions about CBS News are: Now that the FCC Chairman has said they promised to present unbiased news, does that mean moving forward, they will accept that all CBS News is unbiased? Who judges what is biased? The government? Or someone in editorial? And what is the penalty if someone in government says they're biased?

And I have your answer:

How many people have made a deal with Donald Trump and found themselves being attacked by him within weeks?

Unless Ellison requires script approval on every single piece of copy of every single CBS News broadcast, Trump will be slamming him on social media and Karoline Leavitt will be taking shots from the pressroom podium.

And I suspect Ellison knows that and doesn't care, as long as the heat doesn't scare off potential buyers of CBS. Ellison just wants movies and streaming.

 

[michael hagerty]

The universe keeps handing us raw material for this thread. A great piece yesterday from Press Watch, with a very salient pull-quote:

"The leaders of our top newsrooms are pathologically afraid of being accused of partisanship. So only if people on “both sides” agree does the media consider something a real scandal.

That effectively gives the right veto power over what the media cares about. If the right presents a united front, the coverage — even of threats to American democracy, or to the planet — will be listless and sporadic. Which it is."

Why can’t journalists cover democracy like they cover Epstein? | Press Watch

Trump's Second Term

presswatchers.org