We need answers.
Bari Weiss, the recently installed “Editor-in-Chief” at CBS News, has plunged the crown jewel of what was once called the “Tiffany network” into crisis. Brought in by the company’s new billionaire owner to make sure that CBS News stays on Trump’s good side, Weiss herself has become the story.
Just three hours before broadcast on Sunday, Weiss pulled a 60 Minutes investigation into Venezuelan men deported from the United States to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison. That’s unheard-of in network news. Advertisers want to know in advance the stories their ads will appear around; staff needs to lock the program for delivery to affiliate stations; the publicity folks have to cut promos for the NFL games; a new story needs to be carefully reviewed. The story about the Venezuelan men, from veteran 60 Minutes correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi and her team of top producers, had already been researched, reported, edited, screened, and cleared by the networks production, legal, and standards-and practices teams.
But Weiss herself was AWOL for most of that work. In my experience, on a big story like this one, top executives in the news division would be kept up on the investigation and the story as it develops. The best leaders I knew in my time at ABC News were always the best journalists and producers. They understood what makes great broadcast journalism, and they drove us to achieve that.
Bari Weiss—she skipped five different screenings of the 60 Minutes story as it was being written and cut.
Finally, last Thursday, Weiss watched a video of the segment and offered a few suggestions—which were integrated into the script. That’s important. Again: Thursday night, Weiss rendered her editorial judgment on the story and what she thought should be changed. The team complied. Then, Friday afternoon, the 60 Minutes team greenlighted promotion of their story.
Over the course of reporting their story, Alfonsi and her producers had reached out to the Trump White House and the Department of Homeland Security for interviews. They declined, though there are reports that the administration offered “comments” in response. What we do know is that 60 Minutes included a line in their story— “The Department of Homeland Security declined our request for an interview.”
At some point Friday, according to The New York Times, Weiss changed her tune. She began asking for more and more material to be added to the story, including an interview with Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff. She provided Miller’s personal contact info to the 60 Minutes team.
She also—and this is a small thing, but suspicious to me—challenged the use of the word “migrants” in the story, arguing that they should be identified as “deportees.” Both words are accurate; “deportees” is a narrower description, referring only to the men’s legal status. But—why didn't Weiss mention her disagreement with the term “migrant” after she screened the story Thursday night? And is changing “migrants” to “deportees” the kind of thing someone like Stephen Miller would demand?
As I’m sure you know, Sharon Alfonsi’s story has leaked. The network had already sent it out to a Canadian screening service that carries the program. You can watch it here. Judge for yourself if this story is inaccurate or unfair.
Sponsored Post with Ground News
As this year winds down, I keep thinking about how disorienting and disheartening the news has been. Disorienting because the same events are so often told in such wildly different ways. Some news sources take one angle and others present a very different version. And that’s disheartening because it makes ordinary conversation — the essential practice in any democracy — hard if not impossible across party lines.
Some stories saturated our feeds; others barely registered at all. That’s not an accident. Much of what we see now is shaped by algorithms and curated channels designed to give us more of what we already think.
As a reporter, I’ve spent my life trying to understand what’s really happening, not just what’s loudest. And I’ve tried to listen across all the divisions in our country. Not long ago, I found a great new-media tool called Ground News, a reader-supported app and website that compiles thousands of news stories in one place. One of the coolest and most useful features of Ground News is called Blindspot; it shows you the stories that are being overlooked across the political spectrum, and its headline comparisons make clear how narratives diverge, and why that matters. It’s a great way to step outside our echo chambers and think more critically about who is funding the stories we consume.
Real Patriotism is supported by readers like you, and many of you who are paid subscribers. And then there are like-minded organizations that can also help sustain this work. Ground News, I’ve decided, is one of them. Take a look; let me know what you think. And if you’d like to support Real Patriotism with Terry Moran (and maybe give a thoughtful holiday gift, as well) you can get 40% off Ground News’ Vantage plan by subscribing through my link here: www.groundnews.com/moran
Now we need answers. So:
Five Questions for Bari Weiss
What, exactly, changed between Thursday’s screening and the Sunday-afternoon decision to pull the segment just hours before air?This is the basic forensic question, because timing is what makes the decision look less like ordinary editing and more like a late-breaking veto coming in part from the Trump White House. A clean answer would name the specific new facts, new sourcing, or new internal standards concerns that emerged in that window—versus a shift in posture prompted by external pressure or internal politics.
Did you or anyone on your behalf communicate with the White House—or the company’s corporate leadership—between Thursday and Sunday about this segment? If so, whom did you contact, and what was said?To be clear: all reporters are must seek comment on their stories from anyone named in a piece. But the public issue here isn’t whether the administration was contacted; it’s whether contact became leverage. Sharyn Alfonsi argues that allowing an administration’s refusal-to-interview response to kill a story hands the government a “kill switch.” Your answer here should draw a bright line between legitimate outreach and back-channel influence.
Why was the “on-camera senior Trump official” requirement introduced so late, after repeated internal screenings and approvals?Wanting “principals on the record and on camera” is a respectable aspiration. The question is process: why that standard crystallized at the last minute, when the piece had been promoted and was already in the lineup—and what precedent does that set for future investigative work when officials stonewall?
What role—if any—did Paramount Skydance’s political and regulatory interests play in the decision-making environment around this segment?Reuters reports that Paramount Skydance—i.e., David Ellison, the guy who hired you—was issuing takedown orders for the leaked segment. Is that true? And let’s talk about the broader corporate context around ownership and politics; the AP and others describe internal concern that your appointment signaled a more Trump-friendly direction. You don’t have to accept that premise—but you do need to answer it. The question isn’t whether executives ordered a pull; it’s whether leadership created conditions where editors anticipate what the boss (or regulators, or the White House) “wants,” and pre-comply. 
What concrete steps will you take to restore trust inside the newsroom and with viewers—and how will you measure whether you’ve succeeded?This can’t be vibes. It’s policies: a clear standard for last-minute holds; a rule for when “additional reporting” is required; a commitment that refusal-to-interview is not a veto; and an internal structure that respects the institutional competence of a program like 60 Minutes. Without that, the lasting story here becomes “creeping Orbanism”: the muzzling of media not by jackboots and police truncheons, but through the corruption of soft power—ownership, access, and fear.
—Terry