"Newsroom culture clash" at CBS News

[TheBigA]

CBS may be looking at no longer being third place among Democrats and being the only OTA network. for Republicans.

Yet CBS News does stories that are critical of the administration:

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei calls White House's actions "retaliatory and punitive"

Hours before Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's interview, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth deemed the AI company a "supply chain risk to national security," which restricts military contractors from doing business with Anthropic.

www.cbsnews.com

Federal judges who've ruled against Trump administration denounce threats against themselves, their families

Federal judges say criticism from President Trump can put their safety at risk. The White House says the president "understands the dangers of political violence."

www.cbsnews.com

Perhaps they're in third place because they're just not as good as the others.

 

[davideduardo]

Yet CBS News does stories that are critical of the administration:

Perhaps they're in third place because they're just not as good as the others.

But they are obviously in a state of transformation and realignment.

It may be that a centrist position that reviews, analyzes and even criticizes both sides, if found appropriate, could also be successful. That would capture my attention if well done.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Being a “mouthpiece’ for either party is just that. CBS may be looking at no longer being third place among Democrats and being the only OTA network. for Republicans.

That seems logical and prudent in our two-party system.

I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[vchimpanzee]

But they are obviously in a state of transformation and realignment.

It may be that a centrist position that reviews, analyzes and even criticizes both sides, if found appropriate, could also be successful. That would capture my attention if well done.

This could be good too.

 

[kevtronics]

It may be that a centrist position that reviews, analyzes and even criticizes both sides, if found appropriate, could also be successful. That would capture my attention if well done.

Prior to this "realignment", that's what they were doing.

 

[tall_guy1]

This could be good too.

But if "corporate strategy" changes once again viewers like @davideduardo other conservatives would be betrayed. This is why the media has such poor trust. If overhead says the word, they'll say, "You know what we've been saying? Forget all that." At least Fox has (mostly) been consistent in the eyes of its viewers.

 

[davideduardo]

Prior to this "realignment", that's what they were doing.

I wonder how these were selected. I do not know of or recognize close to half of them.

For real research, each source should be weighted based on its reach, circulation of some other usage metric. Considering the Christian Science Monitor at the same importance level as AP, Reuters and the NYT is disingenuous and deceptive.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

CNN Staffers are Panicking and they have Every Right to Do So — FTVLive

This is likely to get very ugly and the hit to Journalism will be massive….

www.ftvlive.com

Here is more this time from CNN and how they have to respond to Bari Weiss in the event the Paramount WB deal is finalized.

 

[kevtronics]

I wonder how these were selected. I do not know of or recognize close to half of them.

For real research, each source should be weighted based on its reach, circulation of some other usage metric. Considering the Christian Science Monitor at the same importance level as AP, Reuters and the NYT is disingenuous and deceptive.

"Importance" is subjective. But facts can be checked, and the amount of facts vs. opinion in the reporting can be quantified. That's what the media bias chart is meant to do, not to proclaim which news source is "most important".

 

[Mark Roberts]

The argument that CBS could find renewed success by appealing to a right-wing audience doesn't seem consistent with marketplace realities: that corner of the market is already crowded. The one thing CBS would have that the others don't have is over-the-air, linear distribution, which supposedly is in decline regardless of purported ideological orientation. Why watch a media outlet trying to imitate Fox News or Newsmax when you can easily see the real thing?

The argument of "they have to do something" also isn't persuasive. Sometimes the best thing you can do is nothing. I realize that's not likely to happen in this case, given the financial situation and the amount of debt the Ellisons are going into, so what we're likely to witness will be impatience and management dysfunction leading to a train wreck, resulting in diminished newsgathering abilities and a reliance instead upon opinion, which is cheap by comparison.

 

[tall_guy1]

The argument that CBS could find renewed success by appealing to a right-wing audience doesn't seem consistent with marketplace realities: that corner of the market is already crowded. The one thing CBS would have that the others don't have is over-the-air, linear distribution, which supposedly is in decline regardless of purported ideological orientation. Why watch a media outlet trying to imitate Fox News or Newsmax when you can easily see the real thing?

The argument of "they have to do something" also isn't persuasive. Sometimes the best thing you can do is nothing. I realize that's not likely to happen in this case, given the financial situation and the amount of debt the Ellisons are going into, so what we're likely to witness will be impatience and management dysfunction leading to a train wreck, resulting in diminished newsgathering abilities and a reliance instead upon opinion, which is cheap by comparison.

They will potentially (I'm skeptical if the deal actually goes through) have CNN too. This would accelerate their new "brand" and people can decide whether they like it or not. So, they won't be the "underdog" anymore, but with that comes more scrutiny.

 

[TheBigA]

The argument that CBS could find renewed success by appealing to a right-wing audience doesn't seem consistent with marketplace realities:

It also doesn't fit with the reporting they're doing. They really haven't done anything to appeal to the right wing.

And they're still in last place. So if they think changing the narrative will help ratings, it isn't.

 

[vchimpanzee]

The one thing CBS would have that the others don't have is over-the-air, linear distribution, which supposedly is in decline regardless of purported ideological orientation. Why watch a media outlet trying to imitate Fox News or Newsmax when you can easily see the real thing?

Cord cutters?

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Who is telling her to "refrain from sharing her opinion?" Show me.

Spare us. She should be grateful huh? Yeah, no one can find any example in history where that is essentially “sit down and shut up and be grateful for what you got.” You know precisely what you meant with that line.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Being a “mouthpiece’ for either party is just that.

That’s what words mean, yes.

CBS may be looking at no longer being third place among Democrats and being the only OTA network. for Republicans.

A yet again the tired told trope that by not kissing the ring, they were “for” the other side, a tiresome lie.’

That seems logical and prudent in our two-party system.

A news department not doing news is prudent. Seems on brand.

 

[TheBigA]

Spare us. She should be grateful huh?

I didn't say "grateful."

You know precisely what you meant with that line.

I didn't use that line. How many people in broadcasting do you know who were able to stay at the same place for 46 years? That's what I meant.

 

[michael hagerty]

"Importance" is subjective. But facts can be checked, and the amount of facts vs. opinion in the reporting can be quantified. That's what the media bias chart is meant to do, not to proclaim which news source is "most important".

Exactly. Reach and size are irrelevant to the chart, which has exactly TWO axes, clearly marked---overall source reliability and political bias.

 

[davideduardo]

The argument that CBS could find renewed success by appealing to a right-wing audience doesn't seem consistent with marketplace realities: that corner of the market is already crowded.

But if we narrow that corner to OTA real time TV nets, there are only three in English, and all three have leaned Democat / Liberal for decades.

The one thing CBS would have that the others don't have is over-the-air, linear distribution, which supposedly is in decline regardless of purported ideological orientation. Why watch a media outlet trying to imitate Fox News or Newsmax when you can easily see the real thing?

Fox News is really an opinion and commentary cable channel. All-news cable died several decades ago when CNN started to do commentary and opinion shows. Newsmax is not on many cable systems (including mine) and is very secondary... at best

The argument of "they have to do something" also isn't persuasive. Sometimes the best thing you can do is nothing. I realize that's not likely to happen in this case, given the financial situation and the amount of debt the Ellisons are going into, so what we're likely to witness will be impatience and management dysfunction leading to a train wreck, resulting in diminished newsgathering abilities and a reliance instead upon opinion, which is cheap by comparison.

This opens the door to a lot of dissident opinions on how AI has changed how news should be gathered. Colleges, on the other hand, teach traditional writing rather than street reporting. The writing can be done by AI once the reporters bring in the details. AI can collect tips and sources, and reporters should report, not write.

Read https://archive.is/EkWyk about how a college journalism grad turned down a job because she had been taught "AI = Bad. Journalism Grads writing and not covering = Good"

The whole coverage of news is changing. The resistance of the Washington Post staff to adapt to reader needs and new technology has lost them about a half billion dollars since Bezos bought it. Yet the journalists there called a strike because they were not being allowed to do things just the way that had cost them $500 million so far.

My point is that journalism is changing. The internet, social media and AI all make it possible to reach more people and to discover more information than ever.

 

[TheBigA]

The internet, social media and AI all make it possible to reach more people and to discover more information than ever.

And also discover more DIS-information and MIS-information than ever. So we end up with more people who know less than ever.

 

[Mark Roberts]

all three {TV networks} have leaned Democat / Liberal for decades.

You're baldly stating that as fact when you should be stating it as your opinion. There is never absolute neutrality, but I believe the traditional networks make an effort to be impartial and fair and succeed most of the time. If anything, their weak point is their desire for access. That's why Trump gets better coverage than he otherwise would...and definitely better coverage than Biden ever got...because, for all his complaints about the media, he gives lots of interviews.

Fox News is really an opinion and commentary cable channel.

Fox claims there is a separation between its news programming and its opinion programming, though its news programming has a particular slant, often evidenced by choosing to ignore stories or events that the traditional networks are covering.

All-news cable died several decades ago when CNN started to do commentary and opinion shows.

Then it shouldn't be used as a criterion.

(Edit: This assertion also doesn't take into account the 24/7 online services of NBC, CBS, or ABC; available on YouTube TV and similar subscription services.)

Newsmax is not on many cable systems (including mine) and is very secondary... at best

You're not taking online outlets into account. For someone who says "journalism is changing" (see below), that's a substantial omission.

This opens the door to a lot of dissident opinions on how AI has changed how news should be gathered. Colleges, on the other hand, teach traditional writing rather than street reporting.

I know the program I went through had plenty of street reporting (I know, I had to do it); in that program's current form, reporting not only continues to be emphasized, but the previous silos separating print and broadcast have been removed, and new media such as podcasts and TikTok are used in addition to traditional media.

My point is that journalism is changing. The internet, social media and AI all make it possible to reach more people and to discover more information than ever.

The reliability of that information, though, is increasingly questionable. The reader, listener, or viewer has a heavier burden now, and many of them are not equipped to meet that challenge. Along with more information comes more disinformation. That's how, for example, we get measles outbreaks thanks to disinformation coming from political appointees in the current administration. When people lie, or say things that are flat out wrong, they should be called out on it.

Journalism may be changing as far as the way it's delivered is concerned, but that doesn't mean standards should be thrown out the window. The CBS News staff who are pushing back against Bari Weiss may be arguing from a weakened position, but they've got a point.