WSJ, NYT, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, MS Now *ugg*. They are picking up everyone walking away from WaPo and other once formidable journalistic institutions to continue doing good journalism.
So odd about WSJ included in that, but I agree. (although part of me thinks Murdoch is trying to force a "health incident" to usher Vance in mid-term - but that's just my wild imagination)
WSJ still has good reporting. The editorial page is what it is, but does not affect the news reporting too much (so I have been told), All of wall street an most of the moneyed people in the world subscribe to the WSJ for the fact based news side of it. If they turned it into Fox News or The NY Post wearing a nice suit, they'd lose their credibility with a good portion of those subscribers.
As the reporter said in her internal email, the story went through layers of fact-checking and lawyers and all of that. 60 Minutes and its owners have the money and resources to do all of that, and they have liability insurance covering them if they're sued for libel or something. Someone starting a Substack has none of those things.
Let's say Mike Wallace wasn't at 60 Minutes but was some independent journalist when the Westmoreland story was published. He'd have been screwed. But because he worked for CBS, he and 60 Minutes had very good attorneys that were able to protect both him and the company from ruin.
Libel concerns have nothing to do with this 11th-hour "editorial" decision.
If a source—even the government—declines to comment when given abundant opportunity to do so, real journalists and editors report that fact along with all the other facts of the story.
Real journalists don't allow uncooperative sources to control what's reported.
Reporters are going to have to form co-ops anyway, so they may as well do it now. I make my donation to coffeezilla, Pablo Torres, and propublica. Rather reporters just realize the right wing media is cooked but the market demand for quality reporting is at an all time
High. Time for a new era of muck rackers.
It saddens me that all of the replies to this suggest corporate outlets (with the exception of The Atlantic, but they’ve moved further right given their funding sources). This country will always be screwed as long as publicly-funded media is seen as secondary to outlets that just want to make the most money for their owners.
What’s wrong with them going out on their own? With a Substack and YouTube channel? If a few quit together they can make an independent outlet?
I’m not a journalist (sorry, I’m lurking), but is this a naive take? They’re well known personalities with a good reputation. Why can’t they make that happen?
Edit: What's with people downvoting an earnest and well intentioned question?
Consider the economics of what you just proposed: We were mostly still getting CBS for free, but now there’s say 10 people trying to charge $5 a month each just to recreate their portion of this formerly free show.
Are you going to pay $50 a month for that? If each of us just pick one, then they’re looking at just 1/10th of their audience following.
Now it’s 10 substacks with no pooled resources or help, trying to put out five times the content they used to in order to justify their $5, and 9 of those 10 are going to be doing it at extremely reduced rates.
It’s not impossible, and some can succeed at it, but there’s just not enough individual attention and dollars to go around. Mass advertising on TV creates a lot of financial scaling, which in turn allows for huge resource efficiencies, and all of that would not exist for these newly independents.
Look at Alfonsi's response. These stories go through teams of lawyers, fact checkers and standards groups before they are approved. It's extremely unlikley someone on substack has resources that deep.
Images are far more powerful than words, which is why 60 minutes has been such an impactful program for decades, they have both excellent writing and go to the story. Someone on substack is unlikley to get access to prisons in far off lands.
60 Minutes-esque reporting requires a lot of resources and support. Not just editors, but lawyers, researchers, etc. Just having the backing of a major news outlet is important in terms of getting access and convincing sources to talk. It's also helpful when you're going up against very powerful people, not just for legal reasons but in terms of public support.
There's a lot of value to Substack and YouTube, but they can't replace traditional media entirely.
For instance, Ryan Lizza, former Politico reporter and former fiance of Olivia Nuzzi, has a Substack where he's been sharing his side of the love triangle with Nuzzi and RFK Jr. Lizza's history is a little spotty--he was let go from the New Yorker under unclear circumstances that had to do with the MeToo movement--but he was known to be a solid reporter. His Substack series on the Nuzzi stuff has become a running joke: It's eight parts so far, and while the first three or maybe four were pretty engaging, the last few have been so self-involved as to be nearly unreadable. There's this extended metaphor about bamboo that is just awful. He's a great example of how even good reporters need editors to help them.
It's extremely hard to make a publication sustainable, and for this story all the reporting they've done is almost certainly still owned by CBS, who will be able to crush them with lawsuits to prevent them from publishing.
Most of the professional journalists I once read (sorry broadcast has never been my jam) are now on Substack where I follow them. Some even do live video. Many do work together on occasion. However, they do not have the resources, as has been mentioned, to the kind of work say Propublica does.
But then I don’t eat at a highbrow restaurant every day either. I find a varied diet to work best for my needs whether food or news.
I'm just hoping this doesn't get picked up as a "women can't lead" type thing instead of stooges for politicians should not be in editorial power of the press.
I kind of wonder if part of the reason Bari Weiss was able to extract such a huge payday is that there's an understanding that CBS will be asking her to be the face of decisions that will make it very difficult for her to work in journalism at any point in the future. As horrible as our current state of affairs is, I really don't think it's forever, and she's going to be tainted by her choices for a long time.
She is in control of an obscenely large and important part of the American conservative ecosystem. Look forward to seeing her as a large player in the post-Trump era of American right.
Bari Weiss will never be out of work and will die a multi-millionaire. I'd be less mad about it if she had even an ounce of talent.
She made her name on whinging about liberals and SJWs.
"LIBERALS want to BAN banh mi from schools" and then you look into it and it's literally a single student complaining to the school newspaper about the shitty banh mi.
Well Stefanik is leaving because selling out finally caught up to her and she realized no one wants her around. MTG sees the writing on the wall, and Bongino, who built his career on the Epstein files but then disappeared when he had to go on TV and lie about them being nothing. Dude’s only like 50, he needs to find a way to keep getting paid
CBS is owned by Paramount, which is owned by a MAGA supporter. With the recent move from Paramount to buy Warner Bros, pushed by Trump, the intent is to create a right wing propaganda machine and change the overall culture to a conservative Christian one. They want her to make the decisions she is making, and they could not care less about her and what that will entail for her personally or professionally if it ever comes to an end. These people have no empathy.
No, I think it's more they're just actively choosing to concern themselves with the short term. It's not that they think it'll never end, it's just that they're concerned with maximizing the today.
Please, she's being terrible the entire time, and she keeps failing upward, her blog had an almost inexistent reach and yet was sold for big money. The system is completely broken, unsalvageable, she will face no consequences at all for anything, ever, she will probably get an even more prestigious position.
Considering how she's never actually done journalistic work, she's probably fine with getting labelled as a bad journalist. Her whole career has been writing mediocre op-eds that told rich assholes exactly what they wanted to hear.
She’s there to wreck it. Just like Bezos used William Lewis to wreck the Washington Post. They can’t just close it down, so they bring in some grifter stooge to make it shitty and irrelevant.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Bari thought her irreverence was cool when she bounced from the NYT and tried to capitalize on going against the grain. But the mask is off, and now people are seeing her for the insufferable boor that she is. It'll be sad to see, but I hope CBS burns to the ground for sacrificing journalistic integrity. They deserve it.
The house has a serious cockroach infestation and Bari Weiss refused to call pest control. She loves to live with them because she’s the biggest roach of them all.
She’s hoping everyone quits or gets fired and she can install Jerry Seinfeld’s 20-something daughter (who works for The Free Press) as head of 60 Minutes, I bet.
Almost everyone is in agreement that she has been a disaster for many reasons.
She was specifically brought in to break up the mono block of political leanings at CBS.
What would it take for her to lose for job?
CBS would fire every single employee at 60 Minutes before firing Bari Weiss. The whole point is that 95% of Journalists are dedicated Progressives which has harmed the institutional reputation of the organization.
It’s not exactly difficult to find replacements to slot in as the dedicated Progressive on staff.
Bringing back viewers from the “other half” of the country that thinks 60 Minutes is “fake news” is the difficult task and she does seem to be making progress on that front regardless of toddlers in the news room throwing temper tantrums (which likely lends her credibility with centrists and conservatives).
Is it reasonable to delay a story because one party hasn't commented? Absolutely.
Will they use this principle to try to manipulate you? Yes, 100%.
What's more important, journalistic integrity or getting manipulated by the Trump any administration? Doesn't sound like a hard choice, but you fucked it.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
The reporters who developed this story should quite and go to a place where their work is respected.
Where would that be?
ProPublica
ProPublica may not have money to pay them. My $8 a month can only go so far.
Not in the USA
I got a pretty good street corner I yell from sometimes, always happy to share
Pro Publica or the AP
WSJ, NYT, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, MS Now *ugg*. They are picking up everyone walking away from WaPo and other once formidable journalistic institutions to continue doing good journalism.
ProPublica
ProPublica and The Guardian.
Literally all billionaire owned media.
What isn't?
So odd about WSJ included in that, but I agree. (although part of me thinks Murdoch is trying to force a "health incident" to usher Vance in mid-term - but that's just my wild imagination)
WSJ still has good reporting. The editorial page is what it is, but does not affect the news reporting too much (so I have been told), All of wall street an most of the moneyed people in the world subscribe to the WSJ for the fact based news side of it. If they turned it into Fox News or The NY Post wearing a nice suit, they'd lose their credibility with a good portion of those subscribers.
that 'is what it is' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
The WSJ editorial page is worse than garbage, it's fever swamps.
I remember when it was just a garbage editorial page in the good old pre-Murdoch days.
Lol, yeah that did happen. And they kept saying no influence, no influence.
It is worth reading to know what kind of arguments that side of the aisle will be making.
yes platforming the most extreme right wing points of view has great value
Um I’m talking about reading it so you know what it is, how is that “platforming?” But you keep your head in that sand all you want.
The era when we could pretend those subscribers were actually smart is beyond over. The market doesn't even value the truth anymore
The WSJ is hot garbage; I stopped reading it 15+ years ago. The Financial Times and The Economist are light-years better
You're absolutely right. I appreciate you putting it in that context.
I agree, but to be fair, WSJ has put out more Trump-critical stuff lately.
The system works
Yes an no. They are destroying an instituition, which Bezos has also just recently done.
It takes decades to build these sorts of places, and sadly a year or less to destroy.
The New Left Review.
Zeteo
I don’t know, but it’s 1997 there.
Substack just like Bari did
As the reporter said in her internal email, the story went through layers of fact-checking and lawyers and all of that. 60 Minutes and its owners have the money and resources to do all of that, and they have liability insurance covering them if they're sued for libel or something. Someone starting a Substack has none of those things.
Let's say Mike Wallace wasn't at 60 Minutes but was some independent journalist when the Westmoreland story was published. He'd have been screwed. But because he worked for CBS, he and 60 Minutes had very good attorneys that were able to protect both him and the company from ruin.
Libel concerns have nothing to do with this 11th-hour "editorial" decision.
If a source—even the government—declines to comment when given abundant opportunity to do so, real journalists and editors report that fact along with all the other facts of the story.
Real journalists don't allow uncooperative sources to control what's reported.
Reporters are going to have to form co-ops anyway, so they may as well do it now. I make my donation to coffeezilla, Pablo Torres, and propublica. Rather reporters just realize the right wing media is cooked but the market demand for quality reporting is at an all time High. Time for a new era of muck rackers.
I wish it was this simple.
It saddens me that all of the replies to this suggest corporate outlets (with the exception of The Atlantic, but they’ve moved further right given their funding sources). This country will always be screwed as long as publicly-funded media is seen as secondary to outlets that just want to make the most money for their owners.
There is literally a movie about this.
Propublica is a good one.
That would mean bari won. The smartest thing they can do is continue to make real journalism and be loud when that real journalism is suppressed.
What’s wrong with them going out on their own? With a Substack and YouTube channel? If a few quit together they can make an independent outlet?
I’m not a journalist (sorry, I’m lurking), but is this a naive take? They’re well known personalities with a good reputation. Why can’t they make that happen?
Edit: What's with people downvoting an earnest and well intentioned question?
Consider the economics of what you just proposed: We were mostly still getting CBS for free, but now there’s say 10 people trying to charge $5 a month each just to recreate their portion of this formerly free show.
Are you going to pay $50 a month for that? If each of us just pick one, then they’re looking at just 1/10th of their audience following.
Now it’s 10 substacks with no pooled resources or help, trying to put out five times the content they used to in order to justify their $5, and 9 of those 10 are going to be doing it at extremely reduced rates.
It’s not impossible, and some can succeed at it, but there’s just not enough individual attention and dollars to go around. Mass advertising on TV creates a lot of financial scaling, which in turn allows for huge resource efficiencies, and all of that would not exist for these newly independents.
Look at Alfonsi's response. These stories go through teams of lawyers, fact checkers and standards groups before they are approved. It's extremely unlikley someone on substack has resources that deep.
Images are far more powerful than words, which is why 60 minutes has been such an impactful program for decades, they have both excellent writing and go to the story. Someone on substack is unlikley to get access to prisons in far off lands.
It's a fair question!
60 Minutes-esque reporting requires a lot of resources and support. Not just editors, but lawyers, researchers, etc. Just having the backing of a major news outlet is important in terms of getting access and convincing sources to talk. It's also helpful when you're going up against very powerful people, not just for legal reasons but in terms of public support.
There's a lot of value to Substack and YouTube, but they can't replace traditional media entirely.
For instance, Ryan Lizza, former Politico reporter and former fiance of Olivia Nuzzi, has a Substack where he's been sharing his side of the love triangle with Nuzzi and RFK Jr. Lizza's history is a little spotty--he was let go from the New Yorker under unclear circumstances that had to do with the MeToo movement--but he was known to be a solid reporter. His Substack series on the Nuzzi stuff has become a running joke: It's eight parts so far, and while the first three or maybe four were pretty engaging, the last few have been so self-involved as to be nearly unreadable. There's this extended metaphor about bamboo that is just awful. He's a great example of how even good reporters need editors to help them.
It's extremely hard to make a publication sustainable, and for this story all the reporting they've done is almost certainly still owned by CBS, who will be able to crush them with lawsuits to prevent them from publishing.
Most of the professional journalists I once read (sorry broadcast has never been my jam) are now on Substack where I follow them. Some even do live video. Many do work together on occasion. However, they do not have the resources, as has been mentioned, to the kind of work say Propublica does.
But then I don’t eat at a highbrow restaurant every day either. I find a varied diet to work best for my needs whether food or news.
They can’t - anything they create under CBS as an employee belongs to CBS. I got in trouble for a personal blog/medium post bc it violated that.
I'm just hoping this doesn't get picked up as a "women can't lead" type thing instead of stooges for politicians should not be in editorial power of the press.
I kind of wonder if part of the reason Bari Weiss was able to extract such a huge payday is that there's an understanding that CBS will be asking her to be the face of decisions that will make it very difficult for her to work in journalism at any point in the future. As horrible as our current state of affairs is, I really don't think it's forever, and she's going to be tainted by her choices for a long time.
If her past performance didn’t I don’t see why this would
She is in control of an obscenely large and important part of the American conservative ecosystem. Look forward to seeing her as a large player in the post-Trump era of American right.
Bari Weiss will never be out of work and will die a multi-millionaire. I'd be less mad about it if she had even an ounce of talent.
She seems like a genuinely unimpressive person. A mediocrity that was luck enough to be born a rich girl.
She's a hack.
She made her name on whinging about liberals and SJWs.
"LIBERALS want to BAN banh mi from schools" and then you look into it and it's literally a single student complaining to the school newspaper about the shitty banh mi.
Unless her political allies get their way in which case the gay Jewish woman will likely not get to be rich.
She's already very wealthy.
Given Israel's influence over American politics, I don't think she has anything to be worried about.
She is the definition of someone failing upwards
[removed]
Exactly. She's a tool (literally).
I don’t think these people think about long term anymore. It’s all short term gains and hopeful lack of consequences.
The only ones who seem to be thinking long term are Stefanik, Green, and Bongino
I think there’s more to those stories we’ll find out later.
Well Stefanik is leaving because selling out finally caught up to her and she realized no one wants her around. MTG sees the writing on the wall, and Bongino, who built his career on the Epstein files but then disappeared when he had to go on TV and lie about them being nothing. Dude’s only like 50, he needs to find a way to keep getting paid
All of these people left because they’re probably going to get higher paying jobs on the right wing news networks and podcasts.
CBS is owned by Paramount, which is owned by a MAGA supporter. With the recent move from Paramount to buy Warner Bros, pushed by Trump, the intent is to create a right wing propaganda machine and change the overall culture to a conservative Christian one. They want her to make the decisions she is making, and they could not care less about her and what that will entail for her personally or professionally if it ever comes to an end. These people have no empathy.
They also dont expect it to end
No, I think it's more they're just actively choosing to concern themselves with the short term. It's not that they think it'll never end, it's just that they're concerned with maximizing the today.
These people all think in quarterly reports and short-term gains.
Yep, you can tell they've never read the playbook all the way to the end.
Faux Christian, you mean?
She’ll be able to find work, there’s always going to be rightwing media.
Please, she's being terrible the entire time, and she keeps failing upward, her blog had an almost inexistent reach and yet was sold for big money. The system is completely broken, unsalvageable, she will face no consequences at all for anything, ever, she will probably get an even more prestigious position.
Considering how she's never actually done journalistic work, she's probably fine with getting labelled as a bad journalist. Her whole career has been writing mediocre op-eds that told rich assholes exactly what they wanted to hear.
She’ll be fine as long as billionaires own everything.
She didn't work in journalism before she was handed CBS. She won't work in journalism when she is finished burying CBS News.
Calling any work she has done in the past journalism is inaccurate
She didn't work in journalism at any point in the past either
That greedy evil woman doesn’t care. She’s looking to cash in so she can buy more ding dongs or whatever.
How good are Streisand Effects.
CBS is such a propaganda network now. So glad I canceled Paramount Plus when they decided to pay the Don for protection.
She’s there to wreck it. Just like Bezos used William Lewis to wreck the Washington Post. They can’t just close it down, so they bring in some grifter stooge to make it shitty and irrelevant.
This is exactly what she was put there to do. This is not a surprise.
It is clear Weiss is way in over head and has no staff loyalty.
Your headline is misleading.
The story says a revolt COULD be coming.
Bari Weiss has failed upwards so spectacularly. She is such a tool.
It's important to remember that Bari Weiss has never actually done journalism and is not there to perform any such thing.
[removed]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
Bari thought her irreverence was cool when she bounced from the NYT and tried to capitalize on going against the grain. But the mask is off, and now people are seeing her for the insufferable boor that she is. It'll be sad to see, but I hope CBS burns to the ground for sacrificing journalistic integrity. They deserve it.
The house has a serious cockroach infestation and Bari Weiss refused to call pest control. She loves to live with them because she’s the biggest roach of them all.
I certainly will not watch cbs ever again.
She is bad at being intelligent.
She’s hoping everyone quits or gets fired and she can install Jerry Seinfeld’s 20-something daughter (who works for The Free Press) as head of 60 Minutes, I bet.
Almost everyone is in agreement that she has been a disaster for many reasons. What would it take for her to lose for job?
She was specifically brought in to break up the mono block of political leanings at CBS.
CBS would fire every single employee at 60 Minutes before firing Bari Weiss. The whole point is that 95% of Journalists are dedicated Progressives which has harmed the institutional reputation of the organization.
It’s not exactly difficult to find replacements to slot in as the dedicated Progressive on staff.
Bringing back viewers from the “other half” of the country that thinks 60 Minutes is “fake news” is the difficult task and she does seem to be making progress on that front regardless of toddlers in the news room throwing temper tantrums (which likely lends her credibility with centrists and conservatives).
I only trust the Associated Press now -- actual news wire journalists who are out on the ground, speaking to humans being human, doing human things.
I'm also a former journalist. Current, too.
I'm print though, so ... parchment and ink ...
I thought they were just supposed “to do the fucking news” - such a blow to a once great reputation.
Trumpster fire - there, fixed it
ellisons made the decision also, they just let the incompetent takes the blame.
[removed]
Weiss would have spiked Woodward & Bernstein.
Yeah but i see she found a way to keep you from concentrating on the epstein files.
Is it reasonable to delay a story because one party hasn't commented? Absolutely.
Will they use this principle to try to manipulate you? Yes, 100%.
What's more important, journalistic integrity or getting manipulated by
the Trumpany administration? Doesn't sound like a hard choice, but you fucked it.I think no one be happier than Weiss if that happened. She’d her her own people.
Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite are rolling in their graves at what’s happening to CBS News
[removed]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
[removed]
Do not use this community to engage in political discussions without a nexus to journalism.
r/Journalism focuses on the industry and practice of journalism. If you wish to promote a political campaign or cause unrelated to the topic of this subreddit, please look elsewhere.
I don’t have words to describe the snake-like mediocrity she gives as a person.
Anyone know 50 Cent? Maybe he can get this aired somewhere. /s