#14 All true.

Wanna try again?

#31 Flag: Gaslighting

#36 Flag: Gaslighting

#47 You make --- up, too, bell boi, ** to wit:

And it wasn't cancelled. It was delayed until it meets journalistic standards.

And this is 60 Minutes. We need to be able to get the principals on the record and on camera. - Bari Weiss

#54 So is your "journalist standard", bell boi.

#54

As readers can presumably tell from our sarcastic tone, Weiss' explanation does not pass the smell test. It is the height of ivory-tower elitism to claim that if the New York Times has covered a story, there's nothing more to be said. A Times story might reach a million people or so (10% of the subscriber base is a GREAT success); 60 Minutes averages 8 million viewers. And that is before we talk about the differences between reading a story (maybe with pictures) and seeing it in video form. Even if the 60 Minutes piece covered only well-worn territory (dubious), it did so in a different way, and for a different audience. It most certainly would have "advance(d) the ball."

It is also not remotely believable that the White House was not asked to comment, or to have someone sit for an interview. There is no doubt that if Donald Trump, or Steven Miller, or DHS Secretary Kristi Noem had been made available, the 60 Minutes staff would have been on that like white on rice. (Z) worked for a newspaper for many years, and the moment he heard Weiss' claims, he had absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the White House refused requests for comment. It is Journalism 101 that you ask, and it is Journalism 101 that the answer is often "no." That is, itself, a form of comment (and keep reading).

Finally, 60 Minutes is CBS' flagship news program. In fact, it might be THE flagship news program of American television (the only real competitor, we would say, is Meet the Press). Was Weiss, the so-called editor-in-chief of CBS News, really in the dark about the rundown of this week's show until just a couple of hours before airtime? If so, she's incompetent. But if incompetence was all that was going on, then she probably wouldn't have known until after the broadcast. No, the timeline comports a lot better with something like this: Weiss learned of the story when the promo was uploaded to the website on Friday (if not before), she gave a heads-up to the Ellisons on Saturday, and the Ellisons ordered her to kill it. That is what we suspect really happened.

A much better "speculation" than your so-called "journalist standard," bell boi.

#54

We are not the only ones who are not buying what Weiss is selling. The lead reporter on the CECOT piece is Sharyn Alfonsi, who sent out a memo to the 60 Minutes staff yesterday:

News Team,

Thank you for the notes and texts. I apologize for not reaching out earlier.

I learned on Saturday that Bari Weiss spiked our story, INSIDE CECOT, which was supposed to air tonight. We (Ori and I) asked for a call to discuss her decision. She did not afford us that courtesy/opportunity.

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 editorial decision, it is a political one.

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 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 60 Minutes broadcast. We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state.

These men risked their lives 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.

CBS spiked the Jeffrey Wigand interview due to legal concerns, nearly destroying the credibility of this broadcast. It took years to recover from that "low point." By pulling this story to shield an administration, we are repeating that history, but for political optics rather than legal ones.

We have been promoting this 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 50 years of "Gold Standard" reputation for a single week of political quiet.

I care too much about this broadcast to watch it be dismantled without a fight.

...

#54 ...

Alfonsi clearly knows her stuff, and clearly has a steel spine. Whether she will still have a job a week from now is a different question.

Meanwhile, note again what we wrote at the top of this item: "The Ellisons' investment paid dividends this weekend"sort of." It is true that the story was killed, and may well never reach CBS' airwaves, at least in the United States. However, nobody believes Weiss is calling journalistic balls and strikes, and the credibility of 60 Minutes and of CBS News has taken a giant hit, from which it will certainly not recover as long as she's on the payroll. If the goal is to create a mainstream propaganda operation"a highly dubious proposition"then that effort is clearly failing.

On top of that, we continue to marvel that nobody in these right-wing circles seems to have heard of the Streisand Effect. Heck, at least three decades before there was a Streisand Effect, the Ronald Reagan administration knew that when 60 Minutes was going to do a critical piece, the best thing to do was to make sure it included some footage of Reagan looking dapper, to let the piece run, and then to wait for any negative effects to dissipate, which they tended to do quickly. Now, not only have Weiss and the Ellisons dealt a massive blow to their right-wing media project, they've also given this story vastly more exposure that it otherwise would have gotten, since every outlet is now writing about both CECOT and Weiss' lack of scruples. And it's not like they were even able to completely slay the segment. It ran on CBS outlets in Canada and in other nations, and can easily be found on multiple platforms.

In short, the Fourth Estate is more resilient than the Ellisons, and their highly paid ventriloquist dummy, realized. Maybe if the Ellison family had hired an actual journalist to be their lapdog, they would have gotten at least slightly better results. But probably not. (Z)

Right, bell boi liar?

#54 bell boi liar asks "Has anyone from the 60 Minutes team stated that they reached out to the administration for comment and were ghosted?"

Yeah, liar, as I just posted...

The lead reporter on the CECOT piece is Sharyn Alfonsi, who sent out a memo to the 60 Minutes staff yesterday:

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.

#63 Based on your citations, bell boi, perhaps you should get off of the Space Nazi's Nazi bar and spend more time in the real world.

For example, you wouldn't have been so stupid to actually ask if someone from 60 Minutes had reached out and gotten ghosted.

Not a good look for you, bell boi.

Now, what was it you were sanctimoniously talking about, something about journalistic standards?

#65 Gosh, bell boi, I didn't have to call 60 Minutes, either.

I just didn't rely on the Space Nazi's Nazi bar for information.

For example, I read the site I cited earlier, and knew on December 23rd that 60 Minutes had been ghosted.

Why didn't you know that, liar?

#65 Gosh, bell boi, can't you.read?

I cited my source.

The source quoted the actual memorandum from the 60 Minutes reporter to her staff.

Apparently, your devotion to the lies is more important than seeing what's in front of you, liar.

So, now you expect me to call the 60 Minutes staff? First off, I doubt they'd even take my call. Secondly, if they did, they probably wouldn't answer my question. You are the one making the allegation that they did reach out (you have ZERO proof of that) and are being ghosted. You call them, lazy-ass.

#68 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-01-14 09:06 PM

bell boi, your #68 is not a good look for you.

Hell, it isn't a good look for anyone.

#77 Plenty of time.

Certainly before it had been, and I quote, "Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices."

Your absurd implication, after being schooled on how stupid your "now you expect me to call the 60 Minutes staff?" comment was, is intended to produce a "See, they didn't give the WH, etc., enough time to respond" gotcha.

Won't work, bell boi.

60 Minutes understands journalist standards.

You do not.

"You are the one making the allegation that they did reach out (you have ZERO proof of that) and are being ghosted. You call them, lazy-ass."

You've been bested.

#80 Sycophant, it is clear that bell boi's idea of so-called "journalistic standards" comes from the James O'Keefe/Project Veritas/Joseph Goebbels School of Journalistic Standards and Practices Propaganda.

Well, if last night's little exercise taught us all anything it was this:

When ever bell boi gets all sanctimonious and tells us that we live in an information bubble, it is nothing but pure projection/confession on his part.

After spoon-feeding him proof - including links, that he clearly didn't bother to read - that the 60 Minutes crew did reach out for a comment from the White House, DHS, etc...

... his lame, final comment was "How long before the piece was set to air?" (#77).

As I told him last evening...

Your absurd implication, after being schooled on how stupid your "now you expect me to call the 60 Minutes staff?" comment was, is intended to produce a "See, they didn't give the WH, etc., enough time to respond" gotcha.

(Thanks to Sycophant, Corky, Lamp, Alex, Speak, Red, Snoofy, Truth, Hamburglar, AU, and Doc for their excellent follow-ups to bell boi the coward's impotent comments.)

Doc's #89 is spot-on target:

Their infantile behaviors are geared towards validation, which means they crave the soothing pablum of propaganda. Usually in the form of propaganda as group-comforting fables (lies).

#105 Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, bell boi.

Your integrity is shot, so whatever.

Blame it on someone else.

Not at all unexpected.