December 22, 2025 • 18 mins
Veteran 60 minutes correspondent Sharon Alfonsi wrote a private email to her colleagues about why she believes her segment on deplorable conditions for deported migrants was pulled at the 11th hour by new CBS Editor-In-Chief Bari Weiss. That email has now been made public, and in it, Alfonsi says her story was vetted, promoted and ready for air, when Weiss pulled it for so called “editorial” reasons. Alfonsi isn’t buying it, saying the network’s decision is a “betrayal of the most basic tenet of journalism.”
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey, the folks sit is Monday, December twenty second, and
just hours before sixty Minutes was set the area yesterday,
we got an alert that one of the segments was
being pulled. The correspondent on that segment says this was
a political move by her network, and with that, welcome
(00:23):
to this episode of Amy and TJ. We should check
to see if she's still employed.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Sharon Alfonsi is her name. I've actually known her for years.
We crossed paths at ABC. She's a lovely, wonderful reporter.
But you know what I'm I don't know that's courageous.
You can speak to this.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
To be to guess. It was a private email, but
she had to.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Know what was going to get out, To speak out
against your company that you work for and say, hey,
this wasn't editorial, this was political.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
That takes that's an act of courage.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
That was an act of publicly taking on your boss.
We can say courage if we want, but this was
a very long, detailed internal email in which she absolutely
went after the head of CBS News, which is Barry
Weis's newly installed only been there a couple of months. Roes.
(01:18):
Let's start off the top here with at least what
this segment was supposed to be about. It was supposed
to be looking at and this is if you don't
respect sixty minutes. These folks been doing this a long
time and ain't do it better than anybody. But this
was supposed to be a look into the brutal conditions
of the prison in El Salvador. That the story's been
going on for a while. President Trump wants to get
(01:39):
certain folks out of the country to port some of
they end up in some prisons. This is one of them.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Yes, And her reporting, she said she talked to several
men who risked their lives. They have since been released
from this notorious prison, but talked about abuse by our government,
talked about the deplorable conditions. Obviously, this does not look
good for the Trump administration to have these men come
out and talk about basically being tortured at the hands
(02:02):
of Americans.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
So that segment has been promoted, promoted for several days
leading up into Sunday. When sixty minutes airs now, remind
me Romes, is it's eight o'clock or seven? What time
is sixty minutes here?
Speaker 2 (02:15):
I thought it. I don't know if it's seven or
eight pm.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Okay, it was a matter of hours.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
Three hours, I believe.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Yeah, before that segment, just a plan alert said this
segment about that prison is now going to air at
a later date. And that's all we got from CBS.
We got a whole lot more when the email from
Sharon Alphonsie did get leaked. Now, Rose, this is a
long email. She wrote it to her colleagues, apparently over
(02:43):
there at CBS, but it's come out, and I guess
if we take her at her word and some other
reporting by some other outlets, it's kind of head scratching,
at least for us as journalists for a long long time.
The reasons being given for why.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
It was pulled, Yes, the reasons being given are that
Barry Weisse believed that more reporting was needed, that they
needed to hear from a government official, from someone within
the Department of Homeland Security, someone who could speak to
the other side, or at least give another version of
(03:19):
what we're hearing from these men. The problem is, obviously,
Sharon Alfonsi and Sixty Minutes reached out to the government,
reached out and tried to get a reaction or a
response or even a statement, and they were met with silence,
and silence can be deafening. Silence is a statement in
and of itself. But now to say, wait, we're going
(03:40):
to get you a government official to talk to before
you can air these or this story seems.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
Manipulative because they were already afforded the.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Opportunity and the government chose to say nothing, do nothing,
and not speak about it. So a story can't go
forward because the government refuses to speak.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
That doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
We would never get stories on the air if it
was never or that simple. And folks, that we're not
giving you some great insight into newsrooms. You owe anybody
knows and sees this, because how many times do you
read a story or you see a story on the
air and at the end it says we reached out
for comment to so and so on they said no,
(04:25):
or they didn't get back to us, or whatever it is.
You always reach out. You can always stop your reporting
if they could wait until two days, three days, four days,
two weeks to get back to you. Obviously you can't
operate like that, So that argument, it says, flies for me, at.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Least, it's not possible. To your point, you could not
be a journalist, You could not get any story on
the air. If the person who you're reporting about or
the institution you're reporting on, can kill a story or
at least delay a story by not responding, then everybody
who doesn't want a story to go out, or anybody
(05:03):
who's going to have something negative written or said about them,
is just going to refuse to comment, and then you
can just punt the story. That can't be the way
journalists operate.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
It's not the way journalists operate.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
You understand, there's just no way that that is a
business model for a journalist period.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
That we will give some space that we don't know
what went into the decision that Barry Weiss made. We
don't know exactly what she was doing, what she was thinking.
She hasn't come out and fully explained, but they did
at least say there were other factors other than just
that that further reporting, I think is what they said
she felt needed to be done. Look, these folks who
are in charge of these newsrooms have to make decisions
(05:46):
that I haven't had to from that type of standpoint,
So I will at least leave room to say we
don't know exactly. However, we are hearing from the correspondent
at least Robes, who was at least giving her in
about what exactly this was about it.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Yes, and it's interesting she sent it to several of
her colleagues. Internally it was a private email. But again,
Sharon Uplonzie knows if she puts this in writing, and
as accusatory as it was towards Barry Weiss, etc.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
She had to know that it was going to be
made public.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
And probably wanted to give herself some kind of cover
in putting this out. But you don't talk about your
boss such a high profile certainly boss right now, your
new boss in this way in an email, and not
expect I mean, possibly some repercussions, But how do you
You're trying to make some kind of a point.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
She's making a point, and I would say by writing
this email, she was willing to lose her job over it.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
Yes, and we might find out something about that later.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Yes, so her email, we can read it for you
now states this. I learned on Saturday that Barry Weiss
biked our story, which was supposed to air tonight. We
asked for a call to discuss her decision. She did
not afford us that courtesy opportunity.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Okay, we can stop right there with that one.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
That's significant.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Yeah, to throw She immediately in the first couple of
lines is making a point and drawing a lie in
the sand with her boss. Now, look at you, you
look she is taking made a decision now to not
respect the process. Now, as an employee, I know you,
you stand up and for what's right and whatnot. Go
in there, scream yell, beat down the door, wait at
(07:37):
the office for her to come until she meets with you.
This is as far as the employee employee relationship. That
that's tough. She's going after a boss like this.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Yes, that is tough.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
But I also would say, as a journalist, you should
be able to have some of these heated discussions face
to face, have a call every day, yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
And be able.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
We did this every day in a newsroom fighting for stories.
And look, I lost a lot of times and am
still frustrated by it.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
I'm sure you have two.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
It's part of it. And you fight with the same
people you end up the next day celebrating with and
the victories of your show is what happens. Now. Maybe
they don't have that relationship yet, but these two if
you're telling me she wrote this before talking to her boss. Esh,
I don't like that.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
All right.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
The email goes on to say, well, she was pissed, obviously,
I get it. Our story was screened five times and
cleared by both CBS attorneys and standards and practices. It
is factually correct in my view. Pulling it now after
every rigorous internal check has been met is not an
(08:44):
editorial decision. It is a political one.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
And you thought that first part was heavy.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Yeah, And you and I both know the toughest part
of getting a story on the air, especially one that's investigative,
and especially one that might point fingers at someone powerful,
i e.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
The government.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
The standards and practices sections of any broadcast newsroom are
intense and frustrating. You have I mean, how many times
have stories been rewritten, new information having to be resourced
or triple sourced.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
We've all jumped through these hoops.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
So once you make it through your own standards and
practices and attorneys, that's kind of like that's the hardest leap.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
It's the hardest hurdle to.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
Leap over lawyers and standards and practices. They're the ones
that kill.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Stories every day.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
They're the ones that recommend to the presidents of networks,
you should kill this story, correct and they have to listen.
It's and not used to it going this direct.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
I've never seen it go in the other direction.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Say something this heavy standards in practice. We sit there nervously.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
It's the worst.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
So you get that all clear. We hit in the air.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Base exactly so just for people to know how it
works in networks. That is the biggest hurdle to overcome,
is to get through your own lawyers and statters and practices.
Not only are they trying to uphold journalism standards, but
they're also trying to make sure they don't get sued.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Two things, you have been legally and journalistically cleared if
you are by these two people.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
Perfect way to put it all right. Go ahead, perfect
way to put it all right.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
We requested responses to questions and or interviews with DHS,
the White House and the State Department. Government silence is
a statement, not a veto. Their refusal to be interviewed
is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story. If
the administration's refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to
(10:38):
spike a story, we have effectively handed them a kill
switch for any reporting they find inconvenient. If the standard
for airing a story becomes the government must agree to
be interviewed, then the government effectively gains control over the
sixty minutes broadcast. We go from investigative powerhouse to a
(11:00):
stenographer for the state.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Yeah. I like that line. Wow, I actually do like
that line.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
This is well written.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Yes, she wasn't mad as she was writing it right.
This took thought right, It wasn't necessarily angry. She hit
all the points she wanted. This is well written by
somebody from sixty minutes.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Yes, I mean, you can see why she has her position.
She is a wonderful journalist. This actually sounds legal like
she has. This is like she's making an argument to
the jury, and these are her opening statements.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
I mean, and she's doing a great job.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
And every journalist on the planet agrees with what she
just said. You cannot give somebody that power. All you
gotta do is say, nope, you didn't talk to the
other side, so we can't do the story. Now the
other side refuses to talk to us, and they refuse
to talk to us in a timely way, they will
not have to do an interfuse in a statement, do
what you want now, she's this is one oh one
(11:50):
for us in journalism.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
And here, yes, agreed. What this is how things work.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
And you can't give You can't give the people or
the entity you're talking about the power to kill your
story period. Therefore you then take away every single foundation
journalism stands on and is built upon. So this is
another big part of the story. Sharon Alfonsi goes on
to say this, These men risked their lives to talk
(12:18):
to speak with us. We have a moral and professional
obligation to the sources who entrusted us with their stories.
Abandoning them now is a betrayal of the most basic
tenet of journalism, giving voice to the voiceless.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
Wow, we have.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Been promoting the story on social media for days. Our
viewers are expecting it. When it fails to air without
a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as
corporate censorship. We are trading fifty years of gold standard
reputation for a single week of political quiet. I care
(12:56):
too much about this broadcast to watch it be dismantled
without a fight.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
Okay, she's got to say her piece. I wonder what
is coming next, because something's coming. You can't speak on
your boss this way, no matter what who you think
you're right, and I understand, yes you are right. And everybody,
everybody's picked sides for a fight, and all that CBS
has gone through lately. Your heart breaks for that newsroom
(13:24):
because we know good folks who are working in that newsroom.
But folks, with all this going on, you really didn't
think we were going to get through this controversy about
CBS News, did you? Without talking about Trump? Yes, he
also is playing smack dab into the middle of this
latest sixty minutes controversy. Stay here, all right, folks, we
(13:54):
continue here on Amy and TJ. Sixty minutes just cannot robes.
I don't know are they trying to write the ship?
How long ago was it the EP gave that job
up right, This is not a job you walk away from,
but he walked away.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
From earlier this year.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Is the best I can give you of that show.
The turmoil they've gone through with the lawsuit over there
over Kamala Harris interview and the company paid sixteen million,
and then they got the new turnover with Paramount sky Dance.
Is the new company or sky Dance Paramount?
Speaker 3 (14:28):
Which way is it is Paramount's guidance?
Speaker 1 (14:30):
Okay, thank you Paramount. All this is going on, but
now here is another one. She's only been there two months.
Robes and a sixty minutes correspondent is calling out the
new boss, saying you made a political move by killing
my story. That's another headline they don't need. What is
it possible that how many years this show's been on
eighty years? That two years and a couple of controversies
(14:54):
could hurt its credibility that bad?
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Well, I think the actually hearing ALFONSI seeing people quit
actually to me, bolsters the credibility of the show.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
Up until now.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
But now that we know that Barry Weiss is now,
obviously she is in charge, so to speak. She's not
necessarily the president of CBS News. We know the president
of CBS News very well, Tom Sebrowski.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
But being the editor in.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Chief, she reports directly, you said to David Ellison, who
owns Paramount's guidance. So when you have folks who aren't
necessarily reporting to a newsman like Tom Sebrowski, who is
the CBS president, it puts into question the future of
the show if she can kill a story, if she can,
(15:41):
obviously as editor in chief, decide what they cover and
how they cover it, and it kind of goes outside
of the news division in a sense because if she's
reporting directly to a businessman who actually needs Trump right now,
it gets yes, it absolutely impacts the credibility of that
show as viewers. People go to that show, they trust
(16:03):
the reporters and the investigations that they do to hold
our government accountable, to hold people accountable.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
And they have done so.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
That is their history, that is the foundation of their show.
So if that is called into question, what is the
future of sixty minutes again?
Speaker 1 (16:18):
This might be you know what, this might I don't know. No, no, no, no,
this is I was going to say, this is the
timing of it is a bump. That's kind of it
just goes in line with some of the others. But
this is not no, no, no, no, I'll scratch all of that.
This is absolutely a problem. This is a problem because
it's the appearance that it was something other than a
journalistic standard used to make a decision about a story airing,
(16:42):
And given Trump's connection to this news division at this point,
that's worrisome for sixty minutes? Or is it? Do they
want to change the show? I know for the journalists,
you know, I'll stop for a second. Wait minute, Maybe
Barry Wise has another idea for sixty minutes? Does she?
Speaker 2 (17:00):
We will find out soon enough, I imagine, But there
are several people media insiders who say that there is
now a potential mass exodus that sixty minute staff is
are claiming they're going to quit over this. And it's
not just this, it's a series of things that we've
just been discussing. So this could be the straw that
broke the camel's back. But it'll be very interesting to
(17:23):
see what happens in the days and weeks, and maybe
a lot of people will go home for the holidays
and have a real gut check and ask themselves, do
I want to keep working here as a journalist? Do
I feel good as a journalist being a part of
this organization and a part of this broadcast, or maybe
they think they need to stay there to hold a
standard as high as they can, But you can't.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
I mean, you know, that's a losing battle.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
And again, I don't know what's going to happen to
her now after reading this, but that's not going to
be received very well by Barry Weiss at all. And
what was the right thing to do journalistically, What's the
right thing to do as an employee? This is all
just kind of a mess over that CBS News at times,
and I hated for him. We've been in newsrooms that
have been in turmoil. It is plenty of times over.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
The years they have they have been in turmoil. But
this is a whole other level that I have never
seen before in my years as a journalist. I have
never seen this occur, and I don't think anybody has well.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
Folks will keep an eye on us again, CBS News,
we will see, but they will be saying something about this,
I'm sure, and folks, when they do, we certainly hop
on and let you know. But for now, I'm TJ.
Holmes On behalf of Amy Robot. We'll talk to you
also
Hey, the folks sit is Monday, December twenty second, and
just hours before sixty Minutes was set the area yesterday,
we got an alert that one of the segments was
being pulled. The correspondent on that segment says this was
a political move by her network, and with that, welcome
(00:23):
to this episode of Amy and TJ. We should check
to see if she's still employed.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Sharon Alfonsi is her name. I've actually known her for years.
We crossed paths at ABC. She's a lovely, wonderful reporter.
But you know what I'm I don't know that's courageous.
You can speak to this.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
To be to guess. It was a private email, but
she had to.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Know what was going to get out, To speak out
against your company that you work for and say, hey,
this wasn't editorial, this was political.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
That takes that's an act of courage.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
That was an act of publicly taking on your boss.
We can say courage if we want, but this was
a very long, detailed internal email in which she absolutely
went after the head of CBS News, which is Barry
Weis's newly installed only been there a couple of months. Roes.
(01:18):
Let's start off the top here with at least what
this segment was supposed to be about. It was supposed
to be looking at and this is if you don't
respect sixty minutes. These folks been doing this a long
time and ain't do it better than anybody. But this
was supposed to be a look into the brutal conditions
of the prison in El Salvador. That the story's been
going on for a while. President Trump wants to get
(01:39):
certain folks out of the country to port some of
they end up in some prisons. This is one of them.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Yes, And her reporting, she said she talked to several
men who risked their lives. They have since been released
from this notorious prison, but talked about abuse by our government,
talked about the deplorable conditions. Obviously, this does not look
good for the Trump administration to have these men come
out and talk about basically being tortured at the hands
(02:02):
of Americans.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
So that segment has been promoted, promoted for several days
leading up into Sunday. When sixty minutes airs now, remind
me Romes, is it's eight o'clock or seven? What time
is sixty minutes here?
Speaker 2 (02:15):
I thought it. I don't know if it's seven or
eight pm.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Okay, it was a matter of hours.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
Three hours, I believe.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Yeah, before that segment, just a plan alert said this
segment about that prison is now going to air at
a later date. And that's all we got from CBS.
We got a whole lot more when the email from
Sharon Alphonsie did get leaked. Now, Rose, this is a
long email. She wrote it to her colleagues, apparently over
(02:43):
there at CBS, but it's come out, and I guess
if we take her at her word and some other
reporting by some other outlets, it's kind of head scratching,
at least for us as journalists for a long long time.
The reasons being given for why.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
It was pulled, Yes, the reasons being given are that
Barry Weisse believed that more reporting was needed, that they
needed to hear from a government official, from someone within
the Department of Homeland Security, someone who could speak to
the other side, or at least give another version of
(03:19):
what we're hearing from these men. The problem is, obviously,
Sharon Alfonsi and Sixty Minutes reached out to the government,
reached out and tried to get a reaction or a
response or even a statement, and they were met with silence,
and silence can be deafening. Silence is a statement in
and of itself. But now to say, wait, we're going
(03:40):
to get you a government official to talk to before
you can air these or this story seems.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
Manipulative because they were already afforded the.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Opportunity and the government chose to say nothing, do nothing,
and not speak about it. So a story can't go
forward because the government refuses to speak.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
That doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
We would never get stories on the air if it
was never or that simple. And folks, that we're not
giving you some great insight into newsrooms. You owe anybody
knows and sees this, because how many times do you
read a story or you see a story on the
air and at the end it says we reached out
for comment to so and so on they said no,
(04:25):
or they didn't get back to us, or whatever it is.
You always reach out. You can always stop your reporting
if they could wait until two days, three days, four days,
two weeks to get back to you. Obviously you can't
operate like that, So that argument, it says, flies for me, at.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Least, it's not possible. To your point, you could not
be a journalist, You could not get any story on
the air. If the person who you're reporting about or
the institution you're reporting on, can kill a story or
at least delay a story by not responding, then everybody
who doesn't want a story to go out, or anybody
(05:03):
who's going to have something negative written or said about them,
is just going to refuse to comment, and then you
can just punt the story. That can't be the way
journalists operate.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
It's not the way journalists operate.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
You understand, there's just no way that that is a
business model for a journalist period.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
That we will give some space that we don't know
what went into the decision that Barry Weiss made. We
don't know exactly what she was doing, what she was thinking.
She hasn't come out and fully explained, but they did
at least say there were other factors other than just
that that further reporting, I think is what they said
she felt needed to be done. Look, these folks who
are in charge of these newsrooms have to make decisions
(05:46):
that I haven't had to from that type of standpoint,
So I will at least leave room to say we
don't know exactly. However, we are hearing from the correspondent
at least Robes, who was at least giving her in
about what exactly this was about it.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Yes, and it's interesting she sent it to several of
her colleagues. Internally it was a private email. But again,
Sharon Uplonzie knows if she puts this in writing, and
as accusatory as it was towards Barry Weiss, etc.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
She had to know that it was going to be
made public.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
And probably wanted to give herself some kind of cover
in putting this out. But you don't talk about your
boss such a high profile certainly boss right now, your
new boss in this way in an email, and not
expect I mean, possibly some repercussions, But how do you
You're trying to make some kind of a point.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
She's making a point, and I would say by writing
this email, she was willing to lose her job over it.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
Yes, and we might find out something about that later.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Yes, so her email, we can read it for you
now states this. I learned on Saturday that Barry Weiss
biked our story, which was supposed to air tonight. We
asked for a call to discuss her decision. She did
not afford us that courtesy opportunity.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Okay, we can stop right there with that one.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
That's significant.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Yeah, to throw She immediately in the first couple of
lines is making a point and drawing a lie in
the sand with her boss. Now, look at you, you
look she is taking made a decision now to not
respect the process. Now, as an employee, I know you,
you stand up and for what's right and whatnot. Go
in there, scream yell, beat down the door, wait at
(07:37):
the office for her to come until she meets with you.
This is as far as the employee employee relationship. That
that's tough. She's going after a boss like this.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Yes, that is tough.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
But I also would say, as a journalist, you should
be able to have some of these heated discussions face
to face, have a call every day, yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
And be able.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
We did this every day in a newsroom fighting for stories.
And look, I lost a lot of times and am
still frustrated by it.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
I'm sure you have two.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
It's part of it. And you fight with the same
people you end up the next day celebrating with and
the victories of your show is what happens. Now. Maybe
they don't have that relationship yet, but these two if
you're telling me she wrote this before talking to her boss. Esh,
I don't like that.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
All right.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
The email goes on to say, well, she was pissed, obviously,
I get it. Our story was screened five times and
cleared by both CBS attorneys and standards and practices. It
is factually correct in my view. Pulling it now after
every rigorous internal check has been met is not an
(08:44):
editorial decision. It is a political one.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
And you thought that first part was heavy.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Yeah, And you and I both know the toughest part
of getting a story on the air, especially one that's investigative,
and especially one that might point fingers at someone powerful,
i e.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
The government.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
The standards and practices sections of any broadcast newsroom are
intense and frustrating. You have I mean, how many times
have stories been rewritten, new information having to be resourced
or triple sourced.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
We've all jumped through these hoops.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
So once you make it through your own standards and
practices and attorneys, that's kind of like that's the hardest leap.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
It's the hardest hurdle to.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
Leap over lawyers and standards and practices. They're the ones
that kill.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Stories every day.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
They're the ones that recommend to the presidents of networks,
you should kill this story, correct and they have to listen.
It's and not used to it going this direct.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
I've never seen it go in the other direction.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Say something this heavy standards in practice. We sit there nervously.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
It's the worst.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
So you get that all clear. We hit in the air.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Base exactly so just for people to know how it
works in networks. That is the biggest hurdle to overcome,
is to get through your own lawyers and statters and practices.
Not only are they trying to uphold journalism standards, but
they're also trying to make sure they don't get sued.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Two things, you have been legally and journalistically cleared if
you are by these two people.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
Perfect way to put it all right. Go ahead, perfect
way to put it all right.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
We requested responses to questions and or interviews with DHS,
the White House and the State Department. Government silence is
a statement, not a veto. Their refusal to be interviewed
is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story. If
the administration's refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to
(10:38):
spike a story, we have effectively handed them a kill
switch for any reporting they find inconvenient. If the standard
for airing a story becomes the government must agree to
be interviewed, then the government effectively gains control over the
sixty minutes broadcast. We go from investigative powerhouse to a
(11:00):
stenographer for the state.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Yeah. I like that line. Wow, I actually do like
that line.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
This is well written.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Yes, she wasn't mad as she was writing it right.
This took thought right, It wasn't necessarily angry. She hit
all the points she wanted. This is well written by
somebody from sixty minutes.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Yes, I mean, you can see why she has her position.
She is a wonderful journalist. This actually sounds legal like
she has. This is like she's making an argument to
the jury, and these are her opening statements.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
I mean, and she's doing a great job.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
And every journalist on the planet agrees with what she
just said. You cannot give somebody that power. All you
gotta do is say, nope, you didn't talk to the
other side, so we can't do the story. Now the
other side refuses to talk to us, and they refuse
to talk to us in a timely way, they will
not have to do an interfuse in a statement, do
what you want now, she's this is one oh one
(11:50):
for us in journalism.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
And here, yes, agreed. What this is how things work.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
And you can't give You can't give the people or
the entity you're talking about the power to kill your
story period. Therefore you then take away every single foundation
journalism stands on and is built upon. So this is
another big part of the story. Sharon Alfonsi goes on
to say this, These men risked their lives to talk
(12:18):
to speak with us. We have a moral and professional
obligation to the sources who entrusted us with their stories.
Abandoning them now is a betrayal of the most basic
tenet of journalism, giving voice to the voiceless.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
Wow, we have.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Been promoting the story on social media for days. Our
viewers are expecting it. When it fails to air without
a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as
corporate censorship. We are trading fifty years of gold standard
reputation for a single week of political quiet. I care
(12:56):
too much about this broadcast to watch it be dismantled
without a fight.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
Okay, she's got to say her piece. I wonder what
is coming next, because something's coming. You can't speak on
your boss this way, no matter what who you think
you're right, and I understand, yes you are right. And everybody,
everybody's picked sides for a fight, and all that CBS
has gone through lately. Your heart breaks for that newsroom
(13:24):
because we know good folks who are working in that newsroom.
But folks, with all this going on, you really didn't
think we were going to get through this controversy about
CBS News, did you? Without talking about Trump? Yes, he
also is playing smack dab into the middle of this
latest sixty minutes controversy. Stay here, all right, folks, we
(13:54):
continue here on Amy and TJ. Sixty minutes just cannot robes.
I don't know are they trying to write the ship?
How long ago was it the EP gave that job
up right, This is not a job you walk away from,
but he walked away.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
From earlier this year.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Is the best I can give you of that show.
The turmoil they've gone through with the lawsuit over there
over Kamala Harris interview and the company paid sixteen million,
and then they got the new turnover with Paramount sky Dance.
Is the new company or sky Dance Paramount?
Speaker 3 (14:28):
Which way is it is Paramount's guidance?
Speaker 1 (14:30):
Okay, thank you Paramount. All this is going on, but
now here is another one. She's only been there two months.
Robes and a sixty minutes correspondent is calling out the
new boss, saying you made a political move by killing
my story. That's another headline they don't need. What is
it possible that how many years this show's been on
eighty years? That two years and a couple of controversies
(14:54):
could hurt its credibility that bad?
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Well, I think the actually hearing ALFONSI seeing people quit
actually to me, bolsters the credibility of the show.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
Up until now.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
But now that we know that Barry Weiss is now,
obviously she is in charge, so to speak. She's not
necessarily the president of CBS News. We know the president
of CBS News very well, Tom Sebrowski.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
But being the editor in.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Chief, she reports directly, you said to David Ellison, who
owns Paramount's guidance. So when you have folks who aren't
necessarily reporting to a newsman like Tom Sebrowski, who is
the CBS president, it puts into question the future of
the show if she can kill a story, if she can,
(15:41):
obviously as editor in chief, decide what they cover and
how they cover it, and it kind of goes outside
of the news division in a sense because if she's
reporting directly to a businessman who actually needs Trump right now,
it gets yes, it absolutely impacts the credibility of that
show as viewers. People go to that show, they trust
(16:03):
the reporters and the investigations that they do to hold
our government accountable, to hold people accountable.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
And they have done so.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
That is their history, that is the foundation of their show.
So if that is called into question, what is the
future of sixty minutes again?
Speaker 1 (16:18):
This might be you know what, this might I don't know. No, no, no, no,
this is I was going to say, this is the
timing of it is a bump. That's kind of it
just goes in line with some of the others. But
this is not no, no, no, no, I'll scratch all of that.
This is absolutely a problem. This is a problem because
it's the appearance that it was something other than a
journalistic standard used to make a decision about a story airing,
(16:42):
And given Trump's connection to this news division at this point,
that's worrisome for sixty minutes? Or is it? Do they
want to change the show? I know for the journalists,
you know, I'll stop for a second. Wait minute, Maybe
Barry Wise has another idea for sixty minutes? Does she?
Speaker 2 (17:00):
We will find out soon enough, I imagine, But there
are several people media insiders who say that there is
now a potential mass exodus that sixty minute staff is
are claiming they're going to quit over this. And it's
not just this, it's a series of things that we've
just been discussing. So this could be the straw that
broke the camel's back. But it'll be very interesting to
(17:23):
see what happens in the days and weeks, and maybe
a lot of people will go home for the holidays
and have a real gut check and ask themselves, do
I want to keep working here as a journalist? Do
I feel good as a journalist being a part of
this organization and a part of this broadcast, or maybe
they think they need to stay there to hold a
standard as high as they can, But you can't.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
I mean, you know, that's a losing battle.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
And again, I don't know what's going to happen to
her now after reading this, but that's not going to
be received very well by Barry Weiss at all. And
what was the right thing to do journalistically, What's the
right thing to do as an employee? This is all
just kind of a mess over that CBS News at times,
and I hated for him. We've been in newsrooms that
have been in turmoil. It is plenty of times over.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
The years they have they have been in turmoil. But
this is a whole other level that I have never
seen before in my years as a journalist. I have
never seen this occur, and I don't think anybody has well.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
Folks will keep an eye on us again, CBS News,
we will see, but they will be saying something about this,
I'm sure, and folks, when they do, we certainly hop
on and let you know. But for now, I'm TJ.
Holmes On behalf of Amy Robot. We'll talk to you
also
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.