So in your telling of the story, Jeff Bezos suddenly had a philosophical awakening and wanted his publication to pull a 180 editorially, even though that 180 overlaps some with his business interests. Lol ok
In what way is my opinion contradictory? More of a case doesn't mean you have a legally sound case.
CBS wasn't fined for any malpractice lol. There wasn't even any malpractice alleged in the lawsuit that was settled.
I can't know precisely why they did exactly what they did but it looks like party of the capitulation Trump demanded.
Pretty relevant here so I won't answer more of your questions until you address that.
It shows how you can only get away with what Trump did when you have the leverage of the Oval Office.
Concession accepted.
This is a "shakedown" to you. SMH. The only thing that changed was CBS agreed it would be more responsible in disseminating information to the public by not selectively, deceptively editing interviews out of a partisan bias, and to you, this is some mafia-like gangsterland transaction.
There it is, Mick's catchall response for when he realizes he's in over his head.
It's a shakedown to me and most credible 1A and media scholars and jurists I've seen comment on it. Do you know of any 1A scholars who think Trump's case was viable and in good faith?
Or rather it simply acknowledged your implicit concession that, yes, you assumed what you assumed without evidence.
How are things working out for you in imaginary-theoretical world? Let me guess: you imagine they're going well.
Capitulation? Stop it.
It has been answered several times, by more than just me. We're not talking about a question AND answer that were both committed for time purposes. We are talking about changing the ANSWER to a question that with the purpose of making Kamala more coherent during a time where she was criticized for not doing any interviews and having word salad responses to anything she was asked. You can agree, disagree, or ignore entirely. You will not be getting an answer to this again.
Or CBS could have just not compromised their journalistic integrity to boost their preferred candidate during an election.
Nope. What I asked you was if they had ever edited a Presidential candidates answer to a question as a way to make them look better. You gave an example from an Obama interview where the question AND the answer were removed entirely. It's not the same thing, and I won't be explaining this to you again either,
"Out of the ordinary." Great. Nobody cares. It happened and CBS is now paying out the ass.
That's what it is. Same with Zuckerberg settling the Trump lawsuit against Facebook.
So you think any editing of an answer is wrong and should be grounds for a lawsuit? Even though these edits have always been done and even if the party filing the suit was not a part of the interview?
Again if they wanted to keep viewers from seeing the incoherent answer why would they air that very same answer as the ad to the segment itself? Why was the interviewer's questions also edited? The narrative you're alleging is nonsensical and internally incoherent.
That's even worse, they avoided airing a tough question and the president's response. It's also an actual departure from journalistic standards as in general when editing the focus is on including as many questions and responses as possible even if it means shaving them down.
You don't care because you're a hack who will defend Trump reflexively. But others can see that you're unable to cite even a single case that uses this law in the manner Trump did and its because you know there isn't one and that this is indeed unprecedented and flagrantly in violation of the country norms surrounding free speech intended to silence criticism of Trump. Not just this case but the Facebook and Ann Seltzer cases too as well as his strongarming of law firms. All blatant uses of the office of the presidency to attack his perceived enemies.
They lost get over it
What did I assume without evidence?
That's nice, but what about this case? What's the First Amendment angle besides a blatant attempt to chill speech from adversarial media.
Show me the quid pro quo, or GTFO.
When did I bring up the First Amendment?
Can you keep track of which posters you're engaging?
You don't have to believe me that Bezos was at least partly motivated by financial interests, but that's the kind of gullibility a child who believes in Santa Clause has.
You didn't, which is why I pointed out you are glossing over a clear attempt to chill 1A rights by Trump and sympathetic conservatives like yourself.
Here's you claiming that CBS engaged in journalistic malpractice, followed by a laughable attempt to talk about about anything but what bad journalism CBS engaged in.
So again, what bad journalism did CBS engage in?
Are you serious? Obviously it was changing an answer to a question in an interview, in an attempt to protect their preferred Presidential candidate from looking like the retard she is.
So CBS, in a bid go boost Harris, put the longer less eurodite response in the commercial for the interview, even though commercials are seen by more viewers than the actual segment?
He's the same kind of NPC like the blue name coward who always said "nothing wrong with Biden".
Yes.
Who at CBS was pulling fof Harris?? Give me their names and titles.
