On March 5, FMC filed the following with the FCC:
In the matter of MB Docket No. 25-73 pertaining to the news distortion complaint involving CBS Broadcasting Inc., Licensee of WCBS, New York, N.Y., it is a privilege to provide you with the following statement.
First, let me express my support for an FCC that brings media issues to the attention of the American people. These issues impact their right to know, as well as how much they know. For far too long, the FCC has functioned behind the scenes. Thank you for bringing FCC regulations and policies into the spotlight.
By way of introduction, please know: For more than 20 years, I have served as the CEO and Executive Director of the Fair Media Council, a 501c3 nonprofit, nonpartisan organization advocating for quality news and working to create a media-savvy society. The organization has steadfastly served the public interest since its founding in 1979. I am a former journalist, editor and media executive. Today, I am regarded as one of the country’s leading scholars on American media.
Let’s start with a historical perspective.
The Great Moon Hoax of 1835 was a series published by the Sun in New York. An author using a fake name penned a fictitious tale of pixie-like creatures living on the Moon. The Sun claimed it to be true.
This is an example of news distortion, perhaps the most notable in American history.
Now let’s turn our attention to CBS and the “60 Minutes” episode in question.
I have thoroughly reviewed the full transcript and video, along with the edited versions.
Before we look at the editing – which is at the heart of the issue — let’s focus on the statements. The unedited version of the transcript provides a vague answer by Ms. Harris to Mr. Whitaker’s question. The edited version? Succinctly vague. Neither version offered a substantive answer.
A read of the entire transcript illustrates Mr. Whitaker’s attempt to get Ms. Harris to define her candidacy. Throughout the transcript, the candidate failed to provide concise answers, which are the type that broadcasters appreciate, as it makes editing for time an easier task. Ms. Harris’ approach to answering the questions was nuanced and layered, much more appropriate for a sit down with a print reporter than for a broadcast report.
In regard to the editing process, it is a standard practice for broadcasters to edit content for timing and clarity. (In fact, in the early days of cable, it became commonplace for one interview to be taped and then edited for very distinct purposes: For instance, one version as a news report and another version as a feature story.) As discussed above, clarity remained elusive. Could the editing have been done better? Arguably, yes. Did the editing distort the interview and mislead the public? No.
It’s also important to study the questioning of Mr. Whitaker. If the intent of the network was to distort the truth or somehow paint the interviewee in a different or perhaps more favorable light, it would be quite easy to achieve by changing the phrasing of the questions. A trained journalist understands the importance of phrasing a question so that it does not lead the interviewee down a predetermined path. Mr. Whitaker, to his credit, proves to be a highly skilled professional throughout the course of the interview.
Further, if the argument is that the editing made Ms. Harris a stronger candidate and was done to tip the scales in her favor, the outcome of the election proves otherwise.
Overall, the one question that needs to be asked is this: Should the American people trust these journalists to tell their stories? That’s the litmus test for quality journalism.
Our stories are the most important thing we own. I can’t speak on behalf of all Americans, but knowing what I know, I would indeed trust these journalists to tell my story.
Based on the above, it’s clear that CBS did not engage in news distortion. In fact, the transcript proves quite the contrary.
An allegation of news distortion, even such an erroneous one that illustrates no understanding of standard journalism practices, takes us down a dangerous path, which is why it’s imperative to understand what’s on the horizon and adjust this course now.
Ultimately, it must be noted that to curtail, chill, pressure or outlaw freedom of speech or of the press at any one particular network or outlet, or simply attempt to, will result in a trickle-down effect throughout all American media outlets, regardless of platform or channel: CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, PBS, CW, NewsMax, NewsNation, One America News Network and the Christian Broadcasting Network, to name but a few, will be directly and irrevocably impacted.
Weakening the First Amendment rights at over-the-air broadcast outlets will ultimately weaken even the stronger First Amendment rights enjoyed by cable and satellite outlets.
Eventually, the trickle down will restrict what every American can say or express.
There are many ways to improve America’s media. For all the reasons illustrated above, this is not the way.
Respectfully yours,
Jaci Clement, CEO & Executive Director
Sign up to receive FMC’s weekly newsletter below
To the FCC: In the Matter of CBS Broadcasting
To the FCC: In the Matter of CBS Broadcasting
On March 5, FMC filed the following with the FCC:
In the matter of MB Docket No. 25-73 pertaining to the news distortion complaint involving CBS Broadcasting Inc., Licensee of WCBS, New York, N.Y., it is a privilege to provide you with the following statement.
First, let me express my support for an FCC that brings media issues to the attention of the American people. These issues impact their right to know, as well as how much they know. For far too long, the FCC has functioned behind the scenes. Thank you for bringing FCC regulations and policies into the spotlight.
By way of introduction, please know: For more than 20 years, I have served as the CEO and Executive Director of the Fair Media Council, a 501c3 nonprofit, nonpartisan organization advocating for quality news and working to create a media-savvy society. The organization has steadfastly served the public interest since its founding in 1979. I am a former journalist, editor and media executive. Today, I am regarded as one of the country’s leading scholars on American media.
Let’s start with a historical perspective.
The Great Moon Hoax of 1835 was a series published by the Sun in New York. An author using a fake name penned a fictitious tale of pixie-like creatures living on the Moon. The Sun claimed it to be true.
This is an example of news distortion, perhaps the most notable in American history.
Now let’s turn our attention to CBS and the “60 Minutes” episode in question.
I have thoroughly reviewed the full transcript and video, along with the edited versions.
Before we look at the editing – which is at the heart of the issue — let’s focus on the statements. The unedited version of the transcript provides a vague answer by Ms. Harris to Mr. Whitaker’s question. The edited version? Succinctly vague. Neither version offered a substantive answer.
A read of the entire transcript illustrates Mr. Whitaker’s attempt to get Ms. Harris to define her candidacy. Throughout the transcript, the candidate failed to provide concise answers, which are the type that broadcasters appreciate, as it makes editing for time an easier task. Ms. Harris’ approach to answering the questions was nuanced and layered, much more appropriate for a sit down with a print reporter than for a broadcast report.
In regard to the editing process, it is a standard practice for broadcasters to edit content for timing and clarity. (In fact, in the early days of cable, it became commonplace for one interview to be taped and then edited for very distinct purposes: For instance, one version as a news report and another version as a feature story.) As discussed above, clarity remained elusive. Could the editing have been done better? Arguably, yes. Did the editing distort the interview and mislead the public? No.
It’s also important to study the questioning of Mr. Whitaker. If the intent of the network was to distort the truth or somehow paint the interviewee in a different or perhaps more favorable light, it would be quite easy to achieve by changing the phrasing of the questions. A trained journalist understands the importance of phrasing a question so that it does not lead the interviewee down a predetermined path. Mr. Whitaker, to his credit, proves to be a highly skilled professional throughout the course of the interview.
Further, if the argument is that the editing made Ms. Harris a stronger candidate and was done to tip the scales in her favor, the outcome of the election proves otherwise.
Overall, the one question that needs to be asked is this: Should the American people trust these journalists to tell their stories? That’s the litmus test for quality journalism.
Our stories are the most important thing we own. I can’t speak on behalf of all Americans, but knowing what I know, I would indeed trust these journalists to tell my story.
Based on the above, it’s clear that CBS did not engage in news distortion. In fact, the transcript proves quite the contrary.
An allegation of news distortion, even such an erroneous one that illustrates no understanding of standard journalism practices, takes us down a dangerous path, which is why it’s imperative to understand what’s on the horizon and adjust this course now.
Ultimately, it must be noted that to curtail, chill, pressure or outlaw freedom of speech or of the press at any one particular network or outlet, or simply attempt to, will result in a trickle-down effect throughout all American media outlets, regardless of platform or channel: CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, PBS, CW, NewsMax, NewsNation, One America News Network and the Christian Broadcasting Network, to name but a few, will be directly and irrevocably impacted.
Weakening the First Amendment rights at over-the-air broadcast outlets will ultimately weaken even the stronger First Amendment rights enjoyed by cable and satellite outlets.
Eventually, the trickle down will restrict what every American can say or express.
There are many ways to improve America’s media. For all the reasons illustrated above, this is not the way.
Respectfully yours,
Jaci Clement, CEO & Executive Director
Sign up to receive FMC’s weekly newsletter below
Search
Recent Posts
Fair Media Council Folio Awards: Best in Media Winners Announced
Announcing the 2025 Best in News Folio Award Winners
Messaging in a Time of Division: Summer Boot Camp + Live Media Pitch
Bridging the Divide: Saturated But Starving, Part IV
Truth Under Siege: Saturated But Starving, Part III
Before They Scroll: Saturated But Starving, Part II