By John Q. Hosedrinker 
CBS News is facing challenges securing guests willing to criticize Donald Trump, particularly under the new leadership of Bari Weiss. A recent “60 Minutes” episode on Trump’s pardon of Changpeng Zhao, founder of Binance, highlighted this issue, as numerous individuals involved declined on-camera interviews due to fear of retribution. Former Justice Department officials, like Elizabeth Oyer, expressed concern over the use of presidential pardons, while CBS News faced criticism for its new editorial direction and a Trump-friendly CEO. This follows the controversial appointment of conservative commentator Bari Weiss and a recent interview with Trump.
Read the original article here
‘60 Minutes’ Left Scrambling After Guests Get Spooked by Trump is essentially the story of a once-venerable news program finding itself in a bind. The crux of the issue revolves around a reluctance, bordering on outright refusal, from potential interview subjects to appear on the show. The root cause? Fear of retribution from the Trump camp. This fear is a tangible thing, stemming from the former president’s history of publicly attacking and attempting to intimidate those who criticize him.
The article dives into the specifics of a recent ‘60 Minutes’ episode, focusing on Donald Trump’s pardon of Changpeng Zhao, the founder of the cryptocurrency giant Binance. Zhao, accused by the Justice Department of causing significant harm to U.S. national security, received a pardon. This pardon, in the eyes of many, is a classic example of corruption, especially given that Binance had struck a significant financial deal with the Trump family’s crypto venture. The fact that dozens of people involved in the story, despite providing information, declined to appear on camera speaks volumes.
The article highlights the case of Elizabeth Oyer, the former head of pardons at the Justice Department, who did appear and voiced her concerns about the future of the country. Her perspective is crucial, as she witnessed the inner workings of the pardon process and seems to have a clear understanding of Trump’s actions. The context of her firing for refusing to go along with restoring gun rights to Mel Gibson underscores the perceived threat to ethical practices. It sets the stage for a discussion about the Trump administration’s apparent disregard for the sanctity of the presidential pardon power.
Adding another layer of complication is the shift at CBS News, particularly the appointment of Bari Weiss, a conservative commentator, as editor-in-chief. This move has been interpreted by some as a capitulation to the Trump-friendly wing. The implication is that this shift is influencing the kinds of stories and guests that ‘60 Minutes’ can secure. It further contributes to the overall narrative of a news organization grappling with its reputation and the evolving political landscape. This ties into the discussion about the show’s perceived bias and its struggle to secure guests willing to criticize Trump.
This all points to a larger problem of journalistic integrity and the challenges faced by news organizations in an era of intense political polarization. The fear of reprisal, be it social media attacks, legal threats, or other forms of intimidation, is a chilling reality for many who work in the media. This fear, ultimately, curtails the free flow of information and undermines the role of journalism in holding power accountable. The fact that ’60 Minutes’ of all programs, a show synonymous with serious journalism, is facing such difficulties is a serious indicator of the problem.
The situation seems especially acute. The comments reveal a general sense that the Trump era has fundamentally altered the rules of the game. The show and the people involved are worried about the ramifications of doing what they do, in the way they do it. The situation also brings up the subject of how money and influence intersect with media coverage. The comments point out the purchase of news organizations by Trump allies, and the implications of this. It suggests a possible reshaping of the media landscape to favor right-wing perspectives.
The article then mentions the show’s shift towards less controversial topics. The example of chess-boxing being featured suggests a desperate attempt to find content that won’t provoke backlash. This desperation reveals the extent to which the show is being forced to compromise its journalistic standards. It emphasizes the show’s predicament, which highlights its struggle to adapt in an environment of intimidation.
The discussion brings up the larger question of journalistic ethics and the importance of holding those in power accountable. It emphasizes how the first amendment is a very important part of democracy. The piece notes the importance of a free press and the need for journalists to fearlessly report on the truth, even when facing significant risks. The need for real journalists to do this job is highlighted and the fact that so many sources are afraid to appear on camera is a big indicator of how far the situation has come.
The article also touches on the potential for legal action and strikes as potential methods for countering the threats to democracy. Ultimately, the piece paints a picture of a news organization struggling to navigate a hostile environment, where the simple act of reporting the truth has become a dangerous undertaking.