It didn't take Bari Weiss decades. It's a different time. A company can grow to be worth a trillion dollars in a few years.
-
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
"If I were the boss at CBS...."
- Thread starter Mark Roberts
- Start date
It didn't take Bari Weiss decades. It's a different time. A company can grow to be worth a trillion dollars in a few years.
As I said, not exactly replicable. And if someone wanted to take a run at The Free Press in the early years, they could easily have exhausted her resources to fight a legal battle as well.
I have blocked you and unblocked you more than a few times over the years, BigA, but if you're going to be so naive as to suggest that thousands of journalists should just hang a shingle and start their own things, and everything will be okay because someday they'll be able to fight the bad guys, I'm gonna block you again, and it won't be temporary.
Last edited:
I was no fan of Sumner Redstone, and I wonder how much backbone he would have had to support his journalists had he still been alive. But Sumner was a cantankerous old coot, so it's possible he'd have fought Trump to the gates of hell just to spite him.
Shari, his daughter, fought hard to inherit and control his National Amusements holding company, which itself was controlling shareholder of Paramount/CBS until recently, when the Ellisons got their mitts on it. But...
What's not as well-known is that, amid all this sturm and drang, Shari has been battling cancer. (
Edit: I double-checked, and apparently it is thyroid cancer. She had to have the entire thyroid removed. Again, the particular type of cancer is less relevant to this discussion, but some cancers are worse than others.
Contrasting opinion for BigA: you and I have argued, disagreed and occasionally even agreed over the years, but I have never blocked you.
I am much more likely to consider blocking the "nonsense" posters here than people whose opinion is different from mine. I value your posts, even when I disagree.
For the group:
I'm not blocking over disagreement, I'm blocking over a gross naivete' and a staggering waste of time.
And I blocked David (or would have if the software would allow me to block a moderator) not because of disagreement, but, as I very clearly stated at the time, because of repeated and insistent bad-faith arguments.
I'm not blocking over disagreement, I'm blocking over a gross naivete' and a staggering waste of time.
And I blocked David (or would have if the software would allow me to block a moderator) not because of disagreement, but, as I very clearly stated at the time, because of repeated and insistent bad-faith arguments.
It’s hard for me to resist the pull of historical knowledge about the J-school. I’ll try to limit that as I try to add some context. If I’m reading your timeline correctly, you got there before Roy Fisher arrived as dean and set about to revamp the practice-oriented parts of the curriculum. Before that, news-editorial ruled and broadcast wasn’t treated as the priority it would become later. In particular, the University milked KOMU for all the cash it was worth; KBIA didn’t exist yet, with radio news practice being done through KFRU. There also seemed to be less of a split between academic-oriented faculty and practice-oriented faculty. I saw more of a split during my time. In recent years, looking at it very much as an outsider, I think there’s less of a split now, and definitely much less hostility between those favoring the academic perspective and those favoring the practice-oriented approach.
Woelfel’s thought experiment seems a bit of a throwback to me, as it combines both approaches. I think he’s pretty clear that he doesn’t expect much of anything he suggested to actually happen. But that’s not the point. The point is to get people to think.
To be candid, I find this statement hard to understand. Particularly in a time when governmental functions are increasingly politicized, how can you not cover politics? The history of journalism in the United States is rooted in politics. Somebody’s got to be out there to challenge politicians on their horseshit, regardless of political orientation.
I don’t like to get involved in meta discussions but I’ll make an exception.
I usually don’t block over disagreements. I usually block over overt attention-getting behavior or poor etiquette. An example of the latter is what I call “lazy quoting”, where someone replying to a post copies the entire post and then has just one or two lines at the bottom that don’t even address the thing they were quoting. I won’t name names.
There are posters here who try their hardest to have the last word. They won’t let go of a discussion. I don’t suffer from that kind of insecurity. If I see a thread that I’m involved in where the discussion starts chasing its own tail, I’ll bail out if I feel I’ve made my points sufficiently. I might step back in if there’s a factual point that needs clarification or correction but otherwise I don’t need to have the last word.
I started out with Internet discussions on Usenet. The software used to read Usenet threads was more sophisticated and capable than the present-day types of bulletin boards. You could block on just about anything that could appear in a message header, including subject lines, poster IDs, etc. There was also a neat integration with email. We don’t have that here. So we have to learn how to manage the expenditure of our attention and participation in other ways.
I usually don’t block over disagreements. I usually block over overt attention-getting behavior or poor etiquette. An example of the latter is what I call “lazy quoting”, where someone replying to a post copies the entire post and then has just one or two lines at the bottom that don’t even address the thing they were quoting. I won’t name names.
There are posters here who try their hardest to have the last word. They won’t let go of a discussion. I don’t suffer from that kind of insecurity. If I see a thread that I’m involved in where the discussion starts chasing its own tail, I’ll bail out if I feel I’ve made my points sufficiently. I might step back in if there’s a factual point that needs clarification or correction but otherwise I don’t need to have the last word.
I started out with Internet discussions on Usenet. The software used to read Usenet threads was more sophisticated and capable than the present-day types of bulletin boards. You could block on just about anything that could appear in a message header, including subject lines, poster IDs, etc. There was also a neat integration with email. We don’t have that here. So we have to learn how to manage the expenditure of our attention and participation in other ways.
That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying we can't count on companies to stand up to this government. In the specific case of CBS, we'll see how this plays out. But my take is that journalists are going to be disappointed in how their companies handle this situation. I agree that doing it as individuals is expensive and won't succeed. What they need to do is organize and band together. I'll be following the BBC story closely too.
Let me add that I don't think "everything will be OK." I really expect things to get worse before they get better. Looking at the history, there's really no guarantee that anything anyone does will fix this situation. The people at the Washington Post thought they were OK when Bezos bought them. Then he surprised them. There is no benevolent dictator. That's a contradiction.
I don't feel my views are naive. I think they're realistic. People have to fight. As the president once told his supporters, if you don't fight, you won't have a country. That applies to the other side as well. So far the administration has only targeted companies. Not individuals. We'll see how that goes.
I don't feel my views are naive. I think they're realistic. People have to fight. As the president once told his supporters, if you don't fight, you won't have a country. That applies to the other side as well. So far the administration has only targeted companies. Not individuals. We'll see how that goes.
One thing I forgot to mention in my other reply….
I don’t know what happened to these newscasts or the justification for ending them.
At the local level, for a year or two, independent KPLR(TV) in St. Louis had hourly or near-hourly 5-minute newscasts throughout the day. I’m on vacation at the moment, so not where I can look up the details, but, as I recall, the brief newscasts were ultimately replaced by a half-hour newscast at 9:30 pm, which lasted for years. The newscasts on Channel 11 were mostly wire copy.
The networks actually used to have something like this. NBC, CBS, and ABC all had a five-minute newscast each weekday. Usually, Douglas Edwards anchored the CBS 5-minute cast; Marlene Sanders did the one for ABC.
I don’t know what happened to these newscasts or the justification for ending them.
At the local level, for a year or two, independent KPLR(TV) in St. Louis had hourly or near-hourly 5-minute newscasts throughout the day. I’m on vacation at the moment, so not where I can look up the details, but, as I recall, the brief newscasts were ultimately replaced by a half-hour newscast at 9:30 pm, which lasted for years. The newscasts on Channel 11 were mostly wire copy.
I think they were something the nets did before cable news. It's something that's usually done as a network service for affiliates. If affiliates would rather use the time for something local, such as more spots, then I can see them choosing at first not to run them. Then at some point it comes up during the network-affiliate conversation. Everybody is cutting staff. A short newscast requires staffing, and comes with maybe a 1 minute spot. You look at that, and it's probably a bad trade-off. I've heard these conversations about traffic reports in radio. You clear a 20 second traffic report with a 10 second spot. That ends up sounding like clutter, and someone says it's not worth doing.
As I recall, the 5-minute casts were usually at a time when local newsrooms were busy putting together their early evening newscasts. It wouldn’t have been convenient for most affiliates to pre-empt just for five minutes. Remember that turning a live camera on in those days required some planning; otherwise, you’d get a slide show with a voice over. So the network helped fill the gap, because who wanted to see a slide show? As I recall, CBS’s version came down the line at 10:55 am Central; ABC at 1:25 pm Central; NBC at 3:25 pm Central. These times may have shifted around from year to year. I do remember affiliates that didn’t carry them, usually because they weren’t carrying the adjacent network programming either. This might have been more notable in the Mountain time zone where schedules could get really weird. It’s worth looking into further.
What I notice is that if you're at an O&O, the network anchor will do a :20 promo insert for the local cast. Perhaps at 6:20 for the 6:30 network show. He might pre-tape it earlier in the afternoon. Sometimes they're generic, sometimes they're localized, depending on the size of the market. They might also do it for the late night show. But a free standing newscast in the middle of the day that isn't in some way connected to something sounds like inefficient scheduling to me.
You mention Douglas Edwards, and he may have been riding out his contract this way. They may have also been connected to an anchor's radio network duties as well. Of course the networks don't have radio networks, so they don't have extra people hanging around to do this kind of thing.
Well, that’s what they did. It’ll pop up clear as day when you see old TV Guide or similar listings.
It could have been a holdover from when the major network newscasts were 15 minutes in length. A 5-minute newscast isn’t that much shorter than a 15, but seems much shorter than a 30.
My understanding is that it was a place to put Edwards after he had fallen out of favor due to Cronkite’s rise.
I wasn't suggesting news organizations not cover politics, I was saying that covering politics is going to annoy someone in power. It comes with the territory, on every beat from the local school board to the White House. If you can't take the criticism, then don't cover politics.
And Mark, I was at Mizzou from 1972-74. Roy Fisher came in as Dean in 1971. But there was still clearly a split between the old school practical faculty and the new guard. When I got there, KBIA was young but established, however print (in those days it was called "news-editorial") was definitely the big dog.
I think the way to do that is to strike the best you can...for example, when people canceled Hulu/Disney+, it got that company to listen.
Today: Bari Weiss considering shutting down CBS News' Standards and Practices Department:
www.independent.co.uk
The CBS News Standards and Practices manual has been updated many times over the years to account for changes in tech, but the fundamentals remain. This is the only complete manual I can find online, dating to 1976. It is essentially what I was given at my first television news job, the CBS affiliate in Reno, in 1981:
Bari Weiss wants to take down ‘too much power’ CBS News Standards unit: sources
EXCLUSIVE: Internal rumblings within the newsroom come after the S&P head resigned and the network disbanded its vaunted Race and Culture unit.
www.independent.co.uk
The CBS News Standards and Practices manual has been updated many times over the years to account for changes in tech, but the fundamentals remain. This is the only complete manual I can find online, dating to 1976. It is essentially what I was given at my first television news job, the CBS affiliate in Reno, in 1981:
Yep, let's eliminate all the guardrails and protections. It was standards & practices that shut down the Smothers Brothers show in the 60s because it was against the war. They told the Rolling Stones to change the words to Lets Spend the Night Together. Of course nobody remembers that.
Yes they have too much power. So does the person with the title editor in chief.
For anyone taking you seriously, CBS News Standards and Practices is a completely separate division from the CBS Entertainment S&P that oversaw Sullivan and the Smothers Brothers.
Today: Bari Weiss considering shutting down CBS News' Standards and Practices Department:
Bari Weiss wants to take down ‘too much power’ CBS News Standards unit: sources
EXCLUSIVE: Internal rumblings within the newsroom come after the S&P head resigned and the network disbanded its vaunted Race and Culture unit.
The CBS News Standards and Practices manual has been updated many times over the years to account for changes in tech, but the fundamentals remain. This is the only complete manual I can find online, dating to 1976. It is essentially what I was given at my first television news job, the CBS affiliate in Reno, in 1981:
Paramount sheds another 1,600 workers as David Ellison team digs in
Tech scion David Ellison marked his 96th day running Paramount by disclosing an upbeat financial outlook for next year and a plan to cut an additional 1,600 workers.
www.latimes.com
Whatever Bari Weiss is doing is being overshadowed by all the decisions David Ellison is making at the CEO seat at Paramount. Such as this one cut 1600 staff at Paramount. We shall see how many more people from CBS News will be removed because of both Ellison and Weiss are running the company into the era of the Ellisons.