"If I were the boss at CBS...."

[Steel Nerves]

I graduated from the University of Missouri School of Journalism more than a decade before Stacey Woelfel arrived there. I can attest there were dreams like his floating around the Broadcast program even before I got there. (The idea for an hour-long nightly newscast probably goes back to September 1963, when CBS pioneered the 30-minute nightly newscast.) My wish list would be entirely different.

I agree with crainbelo that a long-form newscast would probably work better in the late-night slot. My revolutionary idea is to end the 30-minute early evening newscast and replace it with 5-minute headlines (or single stories that last five minutes depending on the day's news) throughout the day. Local stations could integrate those directly into their midday and afternoon newscasts.

Cut the early news into two distinct programs - a 30-minute newscast and 30-minute entertainment/lifestyle/features program with different anchors/hosts, rotating through the morning (updating the news) to serve different time zones.

For God's sake, leave 60 Minutes alone. It may be a lightning road for critics, but it's the least of CBS' problems.

Finally, and I can't emphasize this enough, the only way to end accusations of bias in network news is to end coverage of political issues. Any news organization that bends every time a President criticizes it is going to end up with watered down coverage that neither informs the viewers nor pleases the critics. You don't need to bring in an executive editor or ombudsman to second-guess every story.

 

[ted chittenden]

But is it good enough?

No, because the functioning of a government like that of the U.S. from the local to the national depends on the accurate knowledge of voters on any given issue. If the mass media cannot provide that information in an accurate and timely manner, then voters will not have the necessary information to make good judgments at the ballot box.

 

[radiofan2023]

Cut the early news into two distinct programs - a 30-minute newscast and 30-minute entertainment/lifestyle/features program with different anchors/hosts, rotating through the morning (updating the news) to serve different time zones.

But a lot of the local affiliates already have early news programs from 4:30-7 (KCTV does).

 

[michael hagerty]

No, because the functioning of a government like that of the U.S. from the local to the national depends on the accurate knowledge of voters on any given issue. If the mass media cannot provide that information in an accurate and timely manner, then voters will not have the necessary information to make good judgments at the ballot box.

Exactly.

And in its most critical functions, those candidates who become electeds make decisions about American kids going to war.

What I just said up there---that used to be the whole argument I'd used in my teens and 20s when someone would ask why I cared about politics.

But now---as we're seeing---it's also about whose rights currently considered "settled law" can be revoked. It's about who will get enough food to eat, it's about how much money you'll pay for health insurance if you're not covered by an employer and whether that money can be allowed to nearly double in one move.

It's about whether a government, minus evidence and in a big hurry, can accuse a common over-the-counter headache remedy of causing autism.

It's----incredibly---about whether the goverment, using agents without identification and with their faces covered---can arrest and detain you without cause or evidence.

The role of journalism in covering politics and government has never been more essential.

 

[Mediafrog+]

And in its most critical functions, those candidates who become electeds make decisions about American kids going to war.

What I just said up there---that used to be the whole argument I'd used in my teens and 20s when someone would ask why I cared about politics.

AFAICT you and I are about the same age, so I think we share a lot of the same perspective.

The entire time I was in junior and senior high school (late 1960s-early 1970s) I was constantly worried that when I hit my 18th birthday I would be drafted into the military, shipped 10,000 miles away, and be killed in Vietnam, a war that had dragged on for years and appeared to have no end.

Hell yeah, that sure made me care about politics. When the government has the power to kill you, then you pay attention to what the politicians are doing.

 

[TheBigA]

The role of journalism in covering politics and government has never been more essential.

Agreed,

What to do when the companies that housed and paid those journalists are under assault by the very government they're supposed to cover?

 

[michael hagerty]

AFAICT you and I are about the same age, so I think we share a lot of the same perspective.

The entire time I was in junior and senior high school (late 1960s-early 1970s) I was constantly worried that when I hit my 18th birthday I would be drafted into the military, shipped 10,000 miles away, and be killed in Vietnam, a war that had dragged on for years and appeared to have no end.

I'll be 70 in March. High school class of 1973. They stopped pulling draft numbers uncomfortably close to hitting mine.

Hell yeah, that sure made me care about politics. When the government has the power to kill you, then you pay attention to what the politicians are doing.

And the government always has the power to kill you...on purpose or by mistake. Our job is to sort these guys out and lower the odds (now for our grandchildren) as much as possible.

 

[michael hagerty]

Agreed,

What to do when the companies that housed and paid those journalists are under assault by the very government they're supposed to cover?

My answer? Double down.

There was an old saying that as a politician, you never wanted to pick a fight with a guy who buys ink by the barrelful.

Half of media's trust problem is that there's a potential for them to cave. If the government has a point, make them prove it in court.

Meantime, if the bad guys are being bad guys on the public dime, expose them on the air every single night. There are worse things than being perceived by the public as being the underdog in a fight with the feds. Just ask Jimmy Kimmel.

 

[TheBigA]

If the government has a point, make them prove it in court.

What if your employer chooses not to pursue a court case, and instead settles? As was the case with CBS News.

Their decision makes it appear that the government was right, and the journalists caved.

 

[michael hagerty]

What if your employer chooses not to pursue a court case, and instead settles? As was the case with CBS News.

Their decision makes it appear that the government was right, and the journalists caved.

Exactly. That's what they shouldn't have done. I personally don't believe that case would have even made it to trial, much less to a judgement.

 

[TheBigA]

Exactly. That's what they shouldn't have done. I personally don't believe that case would have even made it to trial, much less to a judgement.

My point is the journalists have no control over what their companies do.

For example, the president is threatening to sue the BBC. Not the specific people who produced a documentary.

Trump threatens legal action, BBC apologizes for speech edit after top execs quit

A BBC spokesperson said Monday it would "respond directly in due course" after the president sent a letter threatening to seek $1 billion in damages from Britain's public broadcaster.

www.nbcnews.com

He's holding the company responsible for the actions of its journalists. If the BBC settles, the president claims victory.

 

[michael hagerty]

My point is the journalists have no control over what their companies do.

Yeah, but individual journalists aren't what we're talking about here. They are assigned stories by the companies they work for. Their work is edited, usually at several levels, by other people employed by the same company. Those companies, when there's an issue, employ attorneys to defend the work of those journalists or to settle.

The company gives the journalist the tools and resources he, she or they need to tell a story. That story is subjected to rigorous fact-checking and editing (and often legal review) before it makes air.

The decision to put a story on the air should carry with it the decision that if the story is challenged, it will be stood behind all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. This in fact has happened.

When a company puts a story on the air, is challenged, finds no fault with the reporting, editing, fact-checking and legal review that went with it, but settles to avoid trouble, that's journalistic malpractice.

 

[ted chittenden]

What if your employer chooses not to pursue a court case, and instead settles? As was the case with CBS News.

Their decision makes it appear that the government was right, and the journalists caved.

What this administration is doing with regard to the media (as well as others) is finding the owners' weak spots and then pressing as hard as he can. The weak spot at CBS wasn't the journalists who were properly doing their jobs; rather, it was with the desire of the owner to sell the network and the greed of a buyer, an ally of the current U.S. President, who wanted to control as much of the U.S. media as possible, even though it was possible that it meant violations of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust laws.

Yes, I'm aware of the view expressed by some members of the public that the journalists caved, and you are correct to point out that it was their employers who caved, not the journalists. The only real response is for those journalists who were laid off for standing up to the current commander-in-chief to tell their stories both online and to that part of the U.S., and now world, media that remains free from his influence. I wish I had a better answer...

 

[TheBigA]

When a company puts a story on the air, is challenged, finds no fault with the reporting, editing, fact-checking and legal review that went with it, but settles to avoid trouble, that's journalistic malpractice.

So now, CBS News has put in place an editor who has the power to influence how that reporting is done and presented.

That way, the company doesn't get sued, but the journalism is compromised. What happens now? Do journalists have recourse?

 

[michael hagerty]

So now, CBS News has put in place an editor who has the power to influence how that reporting is done and presented.

That way, the company doesn't get sued, but the journalism is compromised. What happens now? Do journalists have recourse?

The only recourse they have is to try to find employment with another outlet that will stand by their work. Or to create one of their own, though they lose the reach of a CBS News.

The point is, it was unnecessary. As Ted says, it was driven by Shari's desire to get the sale done quickly. If CBS had been in the hands of an owner who had no intention to sell, there would have been every incentive to stand by the story and let Trump get laughed out of court.

 

[TheBigA]

The point is, it was unnecessary. As Ted says, it was driven by Shari's desire to get the sale done quickly. If CBS had been in the hands of an owner who had no intention to sell, there would have been every incentive to stand by the story and let Trump get laughed out of court.

Consider Bari Weiss. What company gave her the power she had to form Free Press, and use it to publish the Uri Berliner article?

Perhaps journalists should recognize that the power of a free press is not in the company, but in the reporting.

But that means that THEY have to defend themselves, and not expect it to come from the company. Because the company looks out for itself.

 

[michael hagerty]

Consider Bari Weiss. What company gave her the power she had to form Free Press, and use it to publish the Uri Berliner article?

Weiss resigned under both a cloud and a spotlight from The New York Times and started a Substack. She caught a wave of (largely) conservative support and made $800,000 in the first year from 14,000 paid subscribers. By year two, that was 280,000 paid subscribers and 16 million in revenue.

She surrendered reach for (personal) revenue. The Times has 11.88 million paid subscribers. But she got two paydays---one from charging 57 bucks a year to read her site and two, from selling it four years later to CBS for $150 million and a job as editor-in-chief of CBS News.

It's not exactly replicable for every journalist doing good work who wants to strike out on their own.

Perhaps journalists should recognize that the power of a free press is not in the company, but in the reporting.

But that means that THEY have to defend themselves, and not expect it to come from the company. Because the company looks out for itself.

Do you have ANY idea what the legal costs involved are? Individual journalists could be bankrupted in round one. It's a recipe for getting every writer to settle every suit out of court.

You need the scale and resources of a major media organization to take the litigation to its logical conclusion and then make the loser pay court costs.

 

[TheBigA]

It's not exactly replicable for every journalist doing good work who wants to strike out on their own.

What I'm saying is the old bastions of journalism are under attack. Just because CBS News has immense heritage doesn't guarantee it will remain what it once was, or even that what it has been these last 25 years measures up to what it was 50 years ago. Journalists have to recognize that.

Today, everyone has ACCESS to the same audience. How they reach credibility with that audience is in the product. Not in the name of the company.

What I'm saying is that journalists need to form new companies that will be dedicated to their goals, not the goals of stockholders. Because the old companies aren't going to defend them.

You need the scale and resources of a major media organization to take the litigation to its logical conclusion and then make the loser pay court costs.

Yep, that's why they have to start now, in order to build that news organization to the point where it CAN handle that kind of challenge.

 

[davideduardo]

You need the scale and resources of a major media organization to take the litigation to its logical conclusion and then make the loser pay court costs.

And in an increasing number of jurisdictions, there is regulation or legislation where those who file "nonsense" suits have to pay the legal fees of the ones they sued gratuitously.

The fear and concern here is: who determines that a lawsuit is nonsense or gratuitous?

So, people with what might be a legitimate claim fear that if they get the wrong judge or jury they might end up further damaged by the court making them responsible for the other party's costs.

 

[michael hagerty]

What I'm saying is the old bastions of journalism are under attack. Just because CBS News has immense heritage doesn't guarantee it will remain what it once was, or even that what it has been these last 25 years measures up to what it was 50 years ago. Journalists have to recognize that.

Today, everyone has ACCESS to the same audience. How they reach credibility with that audience is in the product. Not in the name of the company.

What I'm saying is that journalists need to form new companies that will be dedicated to their goals, not the goals of stockholders. Because the old companies aren't going to defend them.



Yep, that's why they have to start now, in order to build that news organization to the point where it CAN handle that kind of challenge.

That takes years---decades. The attacks won't wait until they're ready. The attacks are happening now.