It is being reported that CBS News is entering negotiations with the F.C.C. because a settlement with the Trump administration is politically expedient.
Expedient for the parent organization, Paramount? Apparently.
As reported in the NY Times, “But in the wake of Mr. Trump’s election, CBS’s parent company, Paramount, has begun settlement discussions with representatives of Mr. Trump, according to several people with knowledge of the talks. Many executives at Paramount believe that settling the suit could help pave the way for the F.C.C. to approve Paramount’s planned multibillion-dollar merger with another company.”
Expedient also to avoiding any negative relations or a loss of access with the Trump White House? Perhaps true, but most likely a calculated decision based on fear of retribution from the press office.
The proposed settlement stems from a $10 billion lawsuit from President Trump over allegations of misleading editing in a CBS News 60 Minutes story from October 7, 2024.
Business settlements and political decisions based on real or imagined ramifications are one thing. But it is quite another for a major broadcaster to cave so willingly and early in the legal process. More alarming to veteran news people is the apparent surrender and kow tow to a personality.
If a story has been properly produced, vetted by experienced and senior editors, and scrubbed for accuracy, then the network should stand by the work. Stand by your reporters and editorial team. One presumes the experienced team at CBS 60 Minutes, the premier news magazine show on CBS, did their jobs properly and professionally. It would be a sad thing for risk-averse managers at the television network to scuttle the work and settle for the expedience of a new business deal.
CNN management told their top journalists not to editorialize or ‘express outrage’ during the inauguration coverage.
What’s MOST wrong with this?
CNN management had so little faith in the reporting skills of their journalists to be impartial observers and reporters that they needed to be muzzled by the bosses?
CNN’s stable of journalists is so unprofessional and unskilled expecting to wax poetic and share their opinions under the guise of news coverage, and they didn’t know that’s not their responsibility?
CNN ‘leaked’ their instructions from a presumably, professional and private meeting to curry favor with the new administration watchdogs, eager to pounce on any misstep or misdeed by a bona fide news organization?
From the NYPost story, “During the meeting, Thompson “made it clear that he did not want the coverage to relitigate the past,” according to Status reporter Oliver Darcy — an allusion to CNN’s historically hostile relationship with Trump.” (Italics mine)
What’s wrong with a historically hostile relationship between politics and the press? Did mean reporters hurt the feelings of the Trump 45? Did those nasties in the press room cause him a boo-boo for challenging his words and deeds?
And continuing from the Post, “Instead, he urged CNN staffers to focus on Trump’s second term and to be “open-minded” about the next four years.” Is that code for playing lovey-dovey or footsie from a corporate viewpoint?
It seems to me that a new cautiousness, perhaps a fear or threat of reprisal, and a growing timidity is setting the course for the next 4 years.
If the public prefers unchecked, unvarnished, unfiltered propaganda over the truth… that’s a dark choice.
Marshall McLuhan had a central idea he termed “media fallout.” He knew the only way to avoid the mind-manipulation of media was awareness of how these modes of consciousness envelopment work on our brains. In the absence of awareness, you have media fallout. He explained this to advertising and broadcast executives of the time — half a century ago. He said that he felt a lot like Louis Pasteur in 1860. He was aware of pervasive and invisible forces that caused disease and spread infection. But all around were individuals, doctors along with patients, oblivious to imperceptible but all-too-real microbes that were killing them.
To become conscious of how balkanized, corrupted, disinforming and ever-more-pathetic media are shaping our minds and behaviors requires a quantum leap in awareness of invisible forces. Sinclair Broadcasting and Fox News are the easiest of the “cavorting beasties” (as the inventor of the microscope termed single-cell organisms) to detect, and begin to disinfect. Social media, fragmented attention, cell phone dopamine addiction — these will take more time to elucidate and defang.
Our plight seems more fraught than simply entertaining ourselves to death. As McLuhan taught, what we’re not aware of will have its way with our delicate cerebra. A lot of what we’re dealing with now barely makes it to the cortex. This is the age of the medulla oblongata, the brain stem where fear and rage abide. While we are distracted, addicted, disinformed and terrorized, what hope is there that we’ll grok how this enveloping miasma operates?
Another teaching gives me hope. A peerless penetrator of the loom of passions and persuasions, Friedrich Nietzsche, taught, “Understanding stops action.” When you comprehend how something triggers you, when you grasp the roots of your convictions, there’s no heat, no drive to act. There is only a tranquility that passeth manipulation.
So spread the word: Cavorting beasties are abroad in the land. We cannot see or sense this stuff til we surface the mechanisms by which they reach into us. By slowly becoming aware of how these forces massage our senses, impact our feeling and thinking, we can disabuse ourselves of thralldom and become, truly and at last, free.
In the contemporary era of “fake” news, alternative facts, and presumed media bias, what constitutes news to you?
How do you define newsworthy? Is it primarily what affirms or echoes your defined set of beliefs? What or whoever endorses your accepted truths? What boosts your self-esteem and opinions?
For some, traditionally, what’s considered news includes large and catastrophic events; proclamations of elected officials; wars and civil strife; as well as the work, decisions, or actions by anyone (or thing) that consequentially affect our lives, families, and communities, whether for good or bad. We note those who influence our lives, both positively and negatively.
Admittedly for some with a more limited scope, the only news they consume is whatever is positive and non-threatening in a world which increasingly seems so negative and beyond their control or effect.
The cliché of news being a first draft of history is also a truism. Equally true is the role of obituaries for and appreciation of people who played a role, even accidentally or tangentially, in history
I believe the most impactful stores are always about people – first and foremost. We best relate to those of our species. (Perhaps our pets second). Who’s interesting, perhaps entertaining, provocative, intriguing, or offensive?
Our most frequent triggers: who (and what) do we fear or make us angry?
Let’s take a deeper look at something which, on first blush, you may not consider newsworthy.
I pose this question: Can anything about the 1962 execution of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann be newsworthy, or even interesting today?
Consider this:
An elderly man named Shalom Nagar died last month. His death received scant attention. It was reported in the Israeli press, on the BBC, in the New York Times… but little mention appeared elsewhere. Most news gatekeepers determined that a story featuring a bit player in a global event 6-decades ago would generate or even deserve interest today. No buzz. Few clicks. The story was too old, or too difficult to tell briefly, and few remember or much care.
Who was he?
Shalom Nagar was the reluctant 23-year-old Israeli guard who hanged Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Shanghaied by the authorities and press-ganged onto the execution team, Nagar’s job was to release the trap door on the gallows.
Nagar’s story and Nazi Adolf Eichmann’s are intractably entwined in history. It is ironic that such a notorious war criminal who caused such suffering for the living and who, even after his death, still haunted and caused lifelong dismay – he scarred even his executioner.
A simple guy – a prison guard of no particular rank – a schlub selected against his will to do a job that no one else would accept… Nagar did that job as assigned. He was, to use the phrase, “just following orders” too.
He was the little story in the larger event, the small story in the big one. But can’t we all relate to something similar in our own life’s journey?
According to the NYTimes obit by Sam Roberts (Dec.5, 24), “Eichmann’s face was white as chalk, his eyes were bulging and his tongue was dangling out,” Mr. Nagar told Mishpacha magazine in 2005. “The rope rubbed the skin off his neck, and so his tongue and chest were covered with blood.” He added: “I didn’t know that when a person is strangled all the air remains in his stomach, and when I lifted him, all the air that was inside came up and the most horrifying sound was released from his mouth — ‘baaaaa!’ I felt the Angel of Death had come to take me, too.”
Continuing from Roberts’ obit, “In discussing the execution with Mishpacha magazine, Mr. Nagar invoked Amalek, the biblical archenemy nation of ancient Israel, to justify his task. In spite of the trauma, he said, he appreciated the value of his experience: God “commands us to wipe out Amalek, to ‘erase his memory from under the sky’ and ‘not to forget.’ I have fulfilled both.”
There is an irony here. I think that irony is what triggered media coverage; it is what caught my eye as a reporter/producer/editor/and teacher.
For executing someone convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the executioner too suffered mightily.
Nagar’s burden of taking a life became, apparently, a life-long cross for him to bear.
We presume Nagar found his peace, as is shared in Sam Roberts’ appreciation. That does add context to a larger story as it reveals little-known-till-now-nuggets of history. And in that is an irony.
More than a half century after Eichmann’s execution, I submit a backstory is still interesting and informative – offering new details, or a previously unknown perspective or consequence. It meets my working definition of being news-worthy, being interesting and informative, shedding new light on people and events in our worlds.
My definition expands: Newsworthy is something that makes me pause and think as I take note of the evolving history.
So, what do you think? Was the New York Times, the BBC and the few others right to consider this newsworthy for their audiences?
Would you have made the same decision, or not, and why?
What’s perhaps more surprising is how these racial or ethnic attacks have been perpetuated (and tolerated?) in this burgeoning era of “I hate anyone who doesn’t agree with or look like me.” When did Trump’s America become a battlecry for racial hate?
What prompts anyone to think they are doing a civilized act by randomly chasing another human being and beating them for their looks or a presumption of their inherent evil? Who gets to decide this? What sort of person animal has that chutzpah?
We can wring our hands over recent political diatribes glorifying vigilantism. We can decry bravado which promotes the superiority of some and the inferiority of others whom we dislike (or fear), but when did vigilantism become acceptable?
The media is the fall guy for a host of problems, real and manufactured. The media is allowing itself to be pilloried. The adults (owners, publishers, editors, statesmen) in the media must speak up as influencers, critically and urgently to set the record straight about the generally outstanding job being performed every day.
Audiences must not be allowed to randomly assume or equate cable talk-TV with responsible reporting; audiences must be corrected when they make assumptions or fall for a diet of propaganda; knowledge stems from bonafide news (sourced, double-checked, and most important of all: presented without emotion or adverbs). Noise is not to be confused with “news.”
At least that is what I believe and taught my students.
Once upon a time not so long ago, crime victims and their perpetrators were routinely headlined and included in the narrative of news stories.
Then, in a more sensitive and enlightened decision, many in the media decided not to name victims of sexual assault, or molestation, among other crimes to protect what might remain of their privacy. The same rule of not naming juveniles remains a standard.
So why is the perpetrator of the horrific crime in New Orleans being bantered about with his association with ISIS?
Isn’t that connection and publicity precisely what he was seeking? Isn’t that why he chose to attack a public place instead of harming his own family?
If the decision is not to name individuals to deprive them of their notoriety, an argument could be made to repeatedly or redundantly decline to trumpet ISIS in conjunction with the horrific events in New Orleans.
His association (no name needed as we all know the subject of this story can be found in a web search) is a legitimate fact worthy of being included for the record. Once, maybe twice. But I get a feeling of almost glee in the intonation of some anchors who nod soberly as they do more for propaganda than any soldiers of ISIS might ever hope for.
Just a thought… Moderation can be a good thing, and editorial judgment can be too.
A strain of social media appears to be legitimizing the NY insurance CEO’s assassin as a hero; he’s a Don Quixote character striking a revenge-blow against the establishment of big insurance.
But… free speech is great, of course, but do we now turn or subscribe to social media to affirm – as judge and jury – what price should be paid for a company’s conduct?
Is this legitimate media? Is this even civilized discourse? Is assassination in the street a new form of justice that should be considered, much less praised?
Social media has a value, but some of these posts more closely resemble the revenge-seeking, blood-thirsty crowd at the Roman coliseum signaling their cavalier preference for some one else’s life with a thumbs down.
When is enough babbling enough? I don’t see this as a blow to the insurance titans that will in some way compel them to review their policies to be more human. Is a slaughter in the streets in any way a more human approach to life…
This company might be horrible.. their leadership culture avaricious… but can you legitimately ascribe a multitude of business decisions to just one man?
I’d remind these new media writers who seek to be opinion leaders to also consider that he was a husband, a father… he didn’t deserve to die like a dog in the gutter. How can any one accept this as legitimate media and not just decry it as malicious and unworthy gossip? At what point… do we decide that garnering clicks for saying outrageous things are just wrong?
Today’s decision by a Federal court judge ordering Oracle and Google to disclose who they paid to write about their “JAVA trial” poses interesting questions about corporate media management — who pays for what to be written and what extent does that have on influence within the industry? What would you expect that answer to be? All Things D’s filing Judge Orders Google and Oracle to Disclose Who They Paid to Write About Java Trial has the story quoting “Judge William Alsup, who presided over the case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, wrote in his order that he’s “concerned that the parties and/or counsel herein may have retained or paid print or Internet authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in this case.” We’ve seen purchased coverage before in terms of trade press, I’m thinking especially of the sychophants who write gushingly about the latest Apple release and who (masquerading as reporters) would leap to their feet to applaud Steve Jobs. Other companies (Cisco’s news site) commissions articles by well-known and reputable authors — though one might assume they are not (often) going to either write nor would Cisco (or others likely) post unflattering comments, reviews, analysis or criticisms. This is coverage purchased to put forth the issue in the most flattering light possible under the circumstances. It is corporate communications imitating news. It’s a lot like Sorkin’s The Newsroom imitating real news rooms. BP Oil was insidious in the way it aggregated media coverage during the gulf oil spill while inserting reports from its own commissioned reporters…. it did make a disclaimer but only in the tiniest of print. It was clever – in the midst of critical news it seemed unexpected to read glowing accounts of the importance of big oil to the community and their years of service and commitment to the economy and residents. I don’t argue that this is happening – I find it refreshing that a federal judge is concerned enough to demand a review into how pervasive it may have been during his trial. I find Judge Alsup’s order compelling. His full order can be found here .
The Justice Department admits it served $16 dollar muffins, $8 cups of coffee and cookies and brownies that cost $10 each at a 2009 meeting.
At a time when many Americans don’t have enough money for basic groceries this seems to be, well the word that comes to mind is excessive.
The story, appearing in Wednesday’s Los Angeles Times Justice Department’s $16 dollar muffins don’t sit well, quotes Justice Department officials, “We agree that excessive spending of the types identified in the OIG report should not occur,” adding that the department has taken steps “to ensure that these problems do not occur again.”
Good messaging. Good Crisis Management.
Maybe they might have thought about the ramifications of the decision to spend so much before they thought they were so entitled. But it proves the old media adage, you never get caught for the crime when you do it but always for the cover-up or the discover.
In what is a wise and I hope foresighted decision ABC is the first of the big 3 networks to say it won’t continue to pay licensing fees associated with securing major interviews.
In what is a wise and I hope foresighted decision ABC is the first of the big 3 networks to say it won’t continue to pay licensing fees associated with securing major interviews. ABC ends checkbook journalism, will no longer pay for interviews appearing on the Poynter website includes a quote that ABC News President Ben Sherwoood, “concluded that the cash-register approach to journalism was starting to tarnish the network’s credibility, even though the practice was relatively infrequent.”
That’s putting a good spin on it. Paying for access, paying large sums including $200,000 to Casey Anthony was just one in a series of stories that date back many years and include free travel, accommodations, gifts and more to secure prominent interviewees.
I’ve been critical calling the practice perverse and decrying the practice of raining money for some time.
Admittedly I have witnessed examples of this practice by all major broadcast and cable networks and been personally involved in such stories – and while I found the practice distasteful I admit that I too had involvement.
ABC deserves major kudos for breaking away from this practice. The audience is better served. The business of journalism is better for their decision. The network is at risk of losing some “exclusives” but in the world where that word has lost all meaning, relevance and importance, it is a courageous step and the network has earned acknowledgement.
petershaplenproductions.com 