• 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

"Newsroom culture clash" at CBS News

And that is the opinion of a competitor of the Murdoch family of papers, known for its views that we would call "liberal" in America (although the meaning of that word varies by country). So anything that fits whatever the Murdochs endorse is pretty automatically dismissed by the Scott Trust administrators, editors and publishers.

Newspapers have done endorsements since shortly after Gutenberg invented movable type. Long ago, most responsible papers segregated opinion onto a separate "Editorial Page" so that it was clear that it was just that: opinion.

So you should have said that instead of saying this:

Screenshot 2026-02-01 at 7.21.21 PM.jpeg



The WaPo made a selection of "the less bad of two bad candidates" when they endorsed Trump.

Tell me you didn't read the piece I posted and that you're referencing without saying those words.

Hell, David, tell me you didn't even read the HEADLINE:



Their wording of the accompanying statement pretty much says exactly that but in slightly more diplomatic language.

It says no such thing. The post made no endorsement of Trump in its pages.
 
That's correct, they do. We all have the same rights, regardless of our expertise.

Sean Hannity has absolutely no expertise in politics. He's never held office. Never studied the subject. But he's qualified to express his opinions on the radio. Every day. Whether he's right or not. A lot of people listen and believe what he says.
After the "experts" told us Saddam had no WMDs, Hillary was a shoo-in, and Afghanistan was a winning cause, that's no loss to me. But, I simply think advanced insight would be a better use of non-experts (an insight into poverty or maybe someone with thought provoking observations into where society needs to change, per instance.)
 
Correct. The Supreme Court gave him immunity.

Just as Richard Nixon said to David Frost: If the president does it, that means it's not illegal.
Have you (or anybody) ever wondered if the premise behind Being John Malkovich might be true, and if Richard Nixon is actually living rent-free inside Trump's noggin, whispering sweet nothings to him about new and unique ways to cheat and steal while president?
 
It says no such thing. The post made no endorsement of Trump in its pages.
It said it could not endorse Harris. That seems to leave only one choice. You have one perspective, I have another. But the fact is that the WaPo could not bring itself to endorse the Democratic candidate so the game was, in my book, called by default.

To me, that was a de facto endorsemetn of the only other viable candidate. OK, by default as I just said, but it was the same as an endorsement.
 
It said it could not endorse Harris. That seems to leave only one choice. You have one perspective, I have another. But the fact is that the WaPo could not bring itself to endorse the Democratic candidate so the game was, in my book, called by default.

To me, that was a de facto endorsemetn of the only other viable candidate. OK, by default as I just said, but it was the same as an endorsement.
No, damn it David, no it wasn't. You can believe anything you want, but here are the facts: WaPo was on the verge of endorsing Harris. The editorial was written, it was scheduled to run on a certain date, a few weeks preceding Election Day, there was buy-in from everyone who needed to buy into it. Then, at nearly the last minute, Bezos's new publisher, at Bezos's direction, pulled the plug on running the endorsement. The reporting was that Bezos was on Trump's bandwagon, financially supporting the Trump campaign, and if his own newspaper wasn't going to endorse his candidate, then by God they weren't going to endorse anyone else (which effectively meant Harris). Everything else was a fig leaf to cover the uncomfortable fact that the Big Boss had overruled everyone else.

You can believe anything you want, but Do Not Try To Gaslight Us.
 
No, damn it David, no it wasn't. You can believe anything you want, but here are the facts: WaPo was on the verge of endorsing Harris. The editorial was written, it was scheduled to run on a certain date, a few weeks preceding Election Day, there was buy-in from everyone who needed to buy into it. Then, at nearly the last minute, Bezos's new publisher, at Bezos's direction, pulled the plug on running the endorsement. The reporting was that Bezos was on Trump's bandwagon, financially supporting the Trump campaign, and if his own newspaper wasn't going to endorse his candidate, then by God they weren't going to endorse anyone else (which effectively meant Harris). Everything else was a fig leaf to cover the uncomfortable fact that the Big Boss had overruled everyone else.

You can believe anything you want, but Do Not Try To Gaslight Us.
In both your case and mine, we were not there.

Yes, Bezos gave a small amount for the inauguration. So did Altman and Zuckerberg. That was after the campaign and election.
 
Meanwhile (essential pull-quote):

"In the latest trove of Epstein emails released Friday, Attia appears chummy with the late, convicted sex offender, making crude jokes, offering to help Epstein live longer “for the ladies,” and gushing about Epstein’s “outrageous” lifestyle. Attia’s name appears more than 1,700 times in the trove of 3 million emails, including many personal email exchanges with Epstein.

In one 2015 email, Attia wrote: the “worst part about being your friend is that the life you lead is so outrageous, and yet I can’t tell a soul…”

 
We interrupt the recurring spat for something that, miraculously, is on topic.

the lede:

Paramount-owned CBS News is expected to ‌cut ties with new contributor Peter ‌Attia over his dealings with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, the Wrap reported on Monday, citing an individual with knowledge of the parent company's thinking.

Attia's name appeared more than 1,700 times ‍in the trove of 3 million emails released as part of the Epstein files by the U.S. Department of Justice on Friday, the report ⁠said.


 
We interrupt the recurring spat for something that, miraculously, is on topic.

the lede:

Paramount-owned CBS News is expected to ‌cut ties with new contributor Peter ‌Attia over his dealings with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, the Wrap reported on Monday, citing an individual with knowledge of the parent company's thinking.

Attia's name appeared more than 1,700 times ‍in the trove of 3 million emails released as part of the Epstein files by the U.S. Department of Justice on Friday, the report ⁠said.



I interrupted what isn't a spat but an insistence on a moderator, if he's going to abuse the moderator role, not gaslighting the board members, two minutes earlier than you did with the same story.

(scroll up)
 
two minutes earlier than you did with the same story.

(scroll up)
We were probably both typing at the same time. I paused because I was looking for a good closing line, couldn't think of one, and decided to rearrange the post instead. Then I was hit with the problem that's occasionally happening, where it appears that the post is timing out without posting when in reality it has posted. When I refreshed the browser to see the actual outcome, I saw your post, but by then my post had succeeded as well. The board software seems to be failing to send an acknowledgment of successful posting to the browser but the post actually succeeds.

As for the rest, it's a discussion that's happened a thousand times before. For my own part, I'm trying to reduce time spent here, which is time that doesn't seem particularly productive, and as such, am avoiding getting sucked into tit-for-tat situations.

Besides, the weirdness at CBS News is likely to continue.
 
Have you (or anybody) ever wondered if the premise behind Being John Malkovich might be true, and if Richard Nixon is actually living rent-free inside Trump's noggin, whispering sweet nothings to him about new and unique ways to cheat and steal while president?
Well at the risk of derailing this in another direction...

It's a helluva thing, but if anything, Trump has made me look more...fondly?...on Richard M. Nixon. Yes, he was a corrupt as all get out, did some terrible things, and was racist to boot, but (and this is my hypothesis) he did everything he did - including Watergate - because he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing for the country. Nixon spent his entire life (up until his resignation) in public service. I remember watching his resignation speech on TV and thinking "is he gonna cry?" Being forced to resign hurt him deeply. Years later I saw an interview with him (not long before he died) and was surprised by how "plugged in" he was to the world affairs of the time. He knew all the players, and had his own ideas on how to fix things. Almost like he was still getting briefings. It was as if he was saying "put me in coach...I can still play."

Yes, he was a crook, but at the same time he was a patriot to his core. Trump has the first part, but not the second. He is only interested in the well-being of one person...himself. Nixon didn't try to rename The Kennedy Center after himself and shut it down after nobody would play along. Nixon didn't propose building an arch to himself in DC. Nixon delivered Laugh-In's famous "sock it to me" line with his own twist. Trump threatens to sue comedians who poke fun at him.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled beef...;)
 
Meanwhile (essential pull-quote):




And it gets worse (essential pull-quote):

"Weiss insists she does not want to cut ties with Attia over his links to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and sees it as giving in to the mob. Senior Paramount executives sees this as an HR matter and that Attia cannot be giving expert advice on a broadcast network.

“It’s Bari versus everyone right now on Attia,” said an individual with knowledge of the internal discussion. The sense inside Paramount is that CEO David Ellison will have to make this call.


 



Here's more on the events surrounding Bari Weiss in this roundup. This comes as Katie Couric comes forward to criticize Bari Weiss management at CBS News.
 



Here's more on the events surrounding Bari Weiss in this roundup. This comes as Katie Couric comes forward to criticize Bari Weiss management at CBS News.
The first one is paywalled. But think David Ellison is who people should be upset at, think Bari Weiss is just carrying out his orders.
 
No, damn it David, no it wasn't. You can believe anything you want, but here are the facts: WaPo was on the verge of endorsing Harris. The editorial was written, it was scheduled to run on a certain date, a few weeks preceding Election Day, there was buy-in from everyone who needed to buy into it. Then, at nearly the last minute, Bezos's new publisher, at Bezos's direction, pulled the plug on running the endorsement. The reporting was that Bezos was on Trump's bandwagon, financially supporting the Trump campaign, and if his own newspaper wasn't going to endorse his candidate, then by God they weren't going to endorse anyone else (which effectively meant Harris). Everything else was a fig leaf to cover the uncomfortable fact that the Big Boss had overruled everyone else.

You can believe anything you want, but Do Not Try To Gaslight Us.
I still can't precisely define in my mind what the term "gaslight" means, as it seems to have become a refuge word just like "fascist" when a person who opposes another has no actual facts or no cogent argument to make. It's sort of a "they are my marbles and I am taking them home" adapted to the 2020's.

The fact is that Bezos owns the newspaper. There is no greater authority except for laws and regulations that apply to everyone; there is no law against an owner of a newspaper saying, "I don't agree and I don't want to do that" and stopping an editorial from being published or an endorsement from being made... in his newspaper.

The correct way of writing what you said, "WaPo was on the verge of endorsing Harris," really means "the editorial staff of the WaPo wanted to endorse Harris but the owner of the newspaper disagreed and would not let them".

And, as far as I can tell, Bezos' only contribution to Trump was not to the campaign but to the inauguration (which occurred after the campaign and election were over).
 
David Ellison may be the puppet master, but the second and third stories, though clearly gossipy, suggest that he is *not* a good judge of character.
Let me tell you a little story, Ted. Oracle's official, legal corporate headquarters relocated to Texas, but the guts of the company is on a campus that's within 10 miles from me as the crow flies. I drive by it often enough. I know long time employees. (My wife was a short-time one.) And for awhile, I held a few shares of Oracle stock in my IRA. One year, I decided to attend their Annual Meeting, since it was going to be at their campus, a reasonably short drive away. Senior executives were present, as were a number of their board directors. And of course the chairman himself, Larry Ellison.

So Larry was surrounded by all these heavy hitters, but they were very much like the cabinet secretaries or military brass that Trump loves to surround himself with as he spouts gibberish. To be fair, Larry wasn't spouting gibberish, but it quickly became obvious that he loves to hear the sound of his voice. He interrupts everybody, taking over answering questions that the person(s) already answering them was doing an acceptable job at, talking over investors that asked a thoughtful question. Larry is one of those "delightful" malignant narcissists that you occasionally run across in life that give it a special meaning.

If David is half the man that daddy is, don't bother trying to tell him anything. Everybody else is a bit player in the great drama that is their fabulous life.
 


Back
Top Bottom