There was a thread months ago just on newspaper self-censorship, but it’s more than that.
60 Minutes Abruptly Yanks Segment on Prisoners Sent By Trump to El Salvador Mega-Prison
Britain not America, but there is a lot of speculation that Diana Morgan BBC Christmas special was just cancelled because of jokes about Trump, in the wake of the lawsuit…
More on CBS pulling the story on the El Salvador terror prison:
“60 Minutes” may have pulled the segment (for now) but also for now, it’s been bouncing around the Internet. Here’s a link, at least for the time being. Viewer discretion advised.
Holy shit! Thanks for posting that video link. It proves that the cruelty is the point.
I don’t normally deal in conspiracy theories but I’m suspicious that maybe CBS made a big show of pulling the story off 60 Minutes but then allowed it to be leaked to the internet. Then there will be an “internal investigation” which will be unable to find the person(s) who leaked it.
I will be proven wrong if Sharyn Alfonsi loses her job over this.
If anything is bouncing around the internet at any point, it’s bouncing around the internet forever. Once it’s out there, you can never completely get rid of it.
The best explanation I have seen in Reddit and Fark is that the dummkopf executives and censors forgot to tell the outlets in Canada to also remove it early on, they did so but later. Allowing then a few hours for others to record and circulate the “tapes”.
Media is censoring constantly, for some definition of censorship. You choose which stories to cover and which not to; you choose which sources to believe and which not to; etc. A tabloid paper is - again, by a certain definition - simply the least censored since they’ll report pretty well anything any seemingly crazy person comes in to tell them.
A person on the far left might go to a slaughterhouse and, there, take footage of the people treating the animals like objects - destroying them, maiming them, hanging their bodies up and then casually drink beer under their corpses. And, while that’s all factual and true, the presentation that this is something nefarious or even newsworthy is questionable. Saying that it’s not fit for air time isn’t necessarily bowing to Big Cow-Murder; it’s coming into it with a non-crazy mindset and analyzing what’s actually there and what actually needs to go on air, relative to what other thing.
So, yes, the news could be censoring in order to avoid political retribution. But they could also be moving back to the center, and reasonability, because otherwise you alienate half the country and they don’t believe you when you report things that are actually important.
Ultimately, we’ll have to wait and see. The proof will be in the pudding.
It aired in Canada normally.
What was unreasonable about that censored report about CECOT?
Presumably, we would need to see the notes that were sent from the review team to the production team, and the current version, before we could make a determination.
Let’s say, for example, that the Federal administration claims that these are all “real real bad people”. The reporters might view that as irrelevant because the conditions in the jail are, in their view, inhumane. You put Ed Gein in CECOT and, so far as they’re concerned (in our hypothetical), that’s still a travesty.
But, the administration is saying they’re “real real bad” in the belief that their political base would be amenable to locking people like Ed Gein in a place like CECOT without losing a single moment of sleep. If you say that these are people who deserve it and CBS hasn’t spent a moment checking what crimes these people have committed, then you’ve just got two groups of people who are talking past each other.
If you want to make a convincing and complete report then you need to have investigated how bad these people are. You need to check that, when they say that they’re being treated badly, that you have some way past their say-so that it’s true. If you can’t, then you should have narration that clarifies this to be the case.
The delay could be, as accused, to give time to remove content. That could be content that’s removed because the evidence doesn’t support it strongly enough or because they’re bowing to pressure. They could be revising content to ensure that the strongest possible argument is made that would convince MAGAs, not just the choir.
We don’t and may never know which it is.
So why judge it to be unreasonable before seeing the notes then?
Human Rights Watch did it and 60 minutes checked the data. Close to half had no criminal record and only about 8% were found to have committed serious crimes.
Uh, now that is not reasonable, MAGAs are not convinced by evidence. What the MAGAs in power do know is that the independents out there should not see evidence that can change their minds.
I would and did recommend against. If you read otherwise then I’d advise that you re-read.
Unless one works at CBS that would be useful, as it turned out the information available is that yes, almost half of the Venezuelans send to CECOT had no proper due process made. And likely more.
When I wrote the thread title, I was trying to condense this idea:
U.S. Media Self-Censorship to Address What the Trump Administration Calls Fake News
Bari Weiss really does want both sides reported on issues where one side is pro-democracy and the other side is what I’d call pro-dictatorship. She bragged that a third of the staff at her substack favored Trump, a third Harris, and a third neither. That’s not what it takes to get my patronage, but it’s defensible as an exercise of free speech.
Weiss was NOT hired by CBS because the new owners think about politics as Weiss does. They bought her substack, and hired her as editor, because Trump harshly criticized CBS News, and elevating Weiss moves the focus of Trump’s license-pulling threats, for now, to other networks. A similar editorial decision at her old substack would be old fashioned right wing free speech, but at CBS it is self-censorship to address business needs.
If this distinction sounds a little artitrary on my part, it is partly because Bari Weiss is a transitional figure. CBS likely will either go back to being highly critical of MAGA, or move to being pure pro-MAGA. I suspect that the 2028 election results will decide this. And regardless of which way it goes, Weiss will leave CBS.
If we go back to pure democracy, CBS no longer needs her, but she can safely stay a right wing gadfly. If we go the other way, history tells me such centrism will not be good enough for MAGA. In dictatorships people like her eventually are locked up. Others here may jump in with leopard face-eating comments, but I take no joy in it.
The difference between a censor and an editor is somewhat notional.
Re last post, a legitimate editor wants to make what you discovered clearer to readers (or viewers), while the censor wants to obscure your findings.
I’d expect that there’s a fairly big overlap between the people who think that the 10 Commandments and the Bill of Rights are both heaven sent and people who are MAGA.
Which do you think is more likely to change the status quo, telling people that bad hombres are, indeed, getting what came to them or that the President ordered soldiers to violate Posse Commitatus, violate the sanctity of state sovereignty, and violate the Bill of Rights?
Personally, I’ve found the general lack of concern for the Constitution, being more concerned about the Jan 11 rioters than the false electors scheme, etc. among the general media and the left to be relatively disconcerting.
In the battle between whether the Fire Marshall should work to save the rich people on the North side of the river, or the poor people on the South side of the river, the only real acceptable answer is that he works his best to save everyone. All other answers are BS and everyone arguing them is participating in sports, not civic duty.
Uh, I wonder where that was, I have seen that among the ones that what I would call the left, both Jan 11 rioters and the false electors’ scheme were seen as very concerning by the left.