Law CBS pays out (settles) for election interference

[Islam Imamate]

That means they changed it, bud. Playing word games is boring.

So you think unless they posted the full unedited interview it was tantamount to election interference? You do realize that they never air unedited interviews in their standard time slot right? That they're all edited in that way?

So, we're down to the lawsuit just being "unusual." Okay, you're free to feel that way.

Not just unusual but unprecedented and baseless.

If you think I'm wrong then feel free to cite similar lawsuits citing the same law Trump used in similar circumstances.

 

[Cherry Brigand]

So you think unless they posted the full unedited interview it was tantamount to election interference? You do realize that they never air unedited interviews in their standard time slot right? That they're all edited in that way?

Not just unusual but unprecedented and baseless.

If you think I'm wrong then feel free to cite similar lawsuits citing the same law Trump used in similar circumstances.

Part of the issue is that people were questioning Kamala's judgment and her ability to respond well under pressure. She proved time and again that her head is empty and she can't string sentences together. CBS clearly edited the footage to help her sound better. Then refused to release the transcript.

This on the heels of MSM propping up Biden should give you more pause irrespective of how biased you are.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Part of the issue is that people were questioning Kamala's judgment and her ability to respond well under pressure. She proved time and again that her head is empty and she can't string sentences together. CBS clearly edited the footage to help her sound better.

If that's the case why would they release the rambling answer in the ad for the segment?

Then refused to release the transcript.

Well they were under no legal obligation to do until the FCC requested them, after which they complied and then made the transcripts public.

This on the heels of MSM propping up Biden should give you more pause irrespective of how biased you are.

It's also on the heels of Trump engaging in a bunch of frivolous lawsuit to extort people he feels aggrieved by.

 

[avenue94]

LOL @"sourcing confidentiality" when the source is the President you're interviewing.

Bro spare me your butthurt jibber jabber about tea prices in China.

You misunderstand, which isn't surprising given your previous ignorance of journalism fundamentals.

It's not rare for off the record comments to occur during interviews, nor is it uncommon for a public figure to mention information from a private source.

How would you balance off the record comments with the release of transcripts?

 

[Islam Imamate]

You misunderstand, which isn't surprising given your previous ignorance of journalism fundamentals.

It's not rare for off the record comments to occur during interviews, nor is it uncommon for a public figure to mention information from a private source.

How would you balance off the record comments with the release of transcripts?

I wouldn't assume that rule applies to off the record comments, just the parts that are on record but edited out for the usual reasons.

 

[avenue94]

I wouldn't assume that rule applies to off the record comments, just the parts that are on record but edited out for the usual reasons.

Sure that's the obvious answer. But then the question is do you indicate that an off the record comment was made or not? (The default at most places today is no)

If this is only the case for "public interviews," again sure. But how do you define it and how do you separate it from the fact that most interviews you see in a profile or story are actually several interviews (you rarely only talk to the public figure being interviewed). Or that most interviews have mundane small talk at the start, it's not like you hit record and then everything instantly becomes interview mode and on topic.

It's just funny that the takeaway Mick has here is is "outlets should publish more transcripts" not "this is a really bad attack on the 1A from a president with a history of it." Talk about gaslighting.

 

[Madmick]

You misunderstand, which isn't surprising given your previous ignorance of journalism fundamentals.

It's not rare for off the record comments to occur during interviews, nor is it uncommon for a public figure to mention information from a private source.

How would you balance off the record comments with the release of transcripts?

I did not misunderstand, and it's not surprising that you attempt to conflate confidentiality of private sources with an interviewee. The person's identity (and information) they share with you isn't your source. So you do not owe that person the benefit of confidentiality under that ethic. If you decide to afford this person confidentiality, you do so only at your own elective discretion, and not according to any fundamental interpretation of this (already informal and entirely voluntary) ethic.

I'm mocking you because of shit like this. There isn't some great philosophical quagmire, here. Just release the full transcript.

 

[avenue94]

I did not misunderstand, and it's not surprising that you attempt to conflate confidentiality of private sources with an interviewee. The person's identity (and information) they share with you isn't your source. So you do not owe that person the benefit of confidentiality under that ethic. If you decide to afford this person confidentiality, you do so only at your own elective discretion, and not according to any fundamental interpretation of this (already informal and entirely voluntary) ethic.

Interviews with a mix of on the record and off the record comments are quite common, and even agreed to ahead of time. For example, an interview with a senator to discuss their legislation and how it's doing, and the senator provides off the record insight into the legislation's actual prospects and who the roadblocks are. Do you indicate that an off the record comment was made or eliminate time stamps?

Again, I can't understate how hilarious it is that you're clamoring for the importance of interview transcripts in a thread where everyone has been provided one and all the Trumpers are still claiming it was a coverup. If only all centrists could be as enlightened as you.

 

[Madmick]

Interviews with a mix of on the record and off the record comments are quite common, and even agreed to ahead of time. For example, an interview with a senator to discuss their legislation and how it's doing, and the senator provides off the record insight into the legislation's actual prospects and who the roadblocks are. Do you indicate that an off the record comment was made or eliminate time stamps?

Again, I can't understate how hilarious it is that you're clamoring for the importance of interview transcripts in a thread where everyone has been provided one and all the Trumpers are still claiming it was a coverup. If only all centrists could be as enlightened as you.

To me it would seem this could rather simply be resolved by declaring that "off the record" comments aren't considered part of the full, official record transcribing the interview, but frankly, I don't care, because again, quite simply, you're desperately attempting to create some complex philosophical conundrum where none exists. Because if CBS decides their policy is to share a verbatim dialogue that includes every comment even if it has nothing to do with the interview (ex. "Hey, Talia, what time is lunch tomorrow?"; "What's that? You need me to move to the left a little to stay in the shot? The...the lighting isn't right? Scoot this way? My left? Your left?"; "Okay, hey, could you grab me a water from over there?"), then all they should do would be to inform the person they are interviewing of this policy before conducting the interview. Then the person being interviewed would know they can't make any off the record remarks, and could simply refrain.

BTW, has CBS indicated they intend to print "off the record" comments as part of their full transcripts? Or are you inventing this hypothetical purely out of your own butthurt that CBS got humbled by Trump for bad journalism?

Concession accepted on your abuse of "confidentiality of sourcing". LOL, don't think I would let you weasel away without slapping you again for that. Ignorant nitwit.

 

[avenue94]

To me it would seem this could rather simply be resolved by declaring that "off the record" comments aren't considered part of the full, official record transcribing the interview, but frankly, I don't care, because again, quite simply, you're desperately attempting to create some complex philosophical conundrum where none exists.

That is a solution to it, which means your policy would only appeal to some interviews. Which is fine on paper, but would still lead to all the Trumper conspiracies. It's impossible for a media outlet to functino without confidentiality and off the record provisions.

BTW, has CBS indicated they intend to print "off the record" comments as part of their full transcripts? Or are you inventing this hypothetical purely out of your own butthurt that CBS got humbled by Trump for bad journalism?

No, I'm pointing out the obvious challenge in your original statement that (presumably only aired) interviews should always have full transcripts released to the public.

Concession accepted on your abuse of "confidentiality of sourcing". LOL, don't think I would let you weasel away without slapping you again for that. Ignorant nitwit.

I know you've never actually been a journalist, which is why I mentioned yes, interviews routinely contain a mix of on the record and off the record comments.

BTW, has CBS indicated they intend to print "off the record" comments as part of their full transcripts? Or are you inventing this hypothetical purely out of your own butthurt that CBS got humbled by Trump for bad journalism?

What bad journalism did CBS participate in? I see you're completely dropping the mask here and going full Trumper.

 

[Madmick]

That is a solution to it, which means your policy would only appeal to some interviews. Which is fine on paper, but would still lead to all the Trumper conspiracies. It's impossible for a media outlet to functino without confidentiality and off the record provisions.

No, I'm pointing out the obvious challenge in your original statement that (presumably only aired) interviews should always have full transcripts released to the public.

I know you've never actually been a journalist, which is why I mentioned yes, interviews routinely contain a mix of on the record and off the record comments.

You got bitchslapped for abusing "confidentiality of sources" as a journalistic ethic in this context. Congratulations on being a shitty journalist who didn't pay attention in class. I understood the limits of that ethic's scope from a 1-semester high school course. Yikes.

What bad journalism did CBS participate in? I see you're completely dropping the mask here and going full Trumper.

"Dropping the mask". LMFAO. God, you're really this dumb, aren't you? You genuinely think my anti-Trumpism is an act.

What is like to live in a world as infected with fear as the chambers of your own mind? You go outside and suddenly whip your head because-- you could have swore-- along the corner of your peripheral vision you saw a Nazi in that tree!

 

[avenue94]

You got bitchslapped for abusing "confidentiality of sources" as a journalistic ethic in this context. Congratulations on being a shitty journalist who didn't pay attention in class. I understood the limits of that ethic's scope from a 1-semester high school course. Yikes.

What are you even rambling on about? If an interviewee mentions off the record information or information from an off the record source, that is protected by confidentiality of sources. Period.

"Dropping the mask". LMFAO. God, you're really this dumb, aren't you? You genuinely think my anti-Trumpism is an act.

What is like to live in a world as infected with fear as the chambers of your own mind? You go outside and suddenly whip your head because-- you could have swore-- along the corner of your peripheral vision you saw a Nazi in that tree!

Who said anything about an act? You hold a lot of the same dangerously anti-democratic views that a Trumper holds, it's as simple as that. In this case, hostility toward an adversarial media and government suppression of it on baseless grounds.

Note that you just rambled again for two paragraphs instead of answering the simple question of "what bad journalism did CBS participate in here"

 

[Confucamus]

So you think unless they posted the full unedited interview it was tantamount to election interference? You do realize that they never air unedited interviews in their standard time slot right? That they're all edited in that way?

Why do you think CBS has changed their editorial process by making full un-edited videos available as a result of this?

Not just unusual but unprecedented and baseless.

If you think I'm wrong then feel free to cite similar lawsuits citing the same law Trump used in similar circumstances.

Who cares if nobody sued for this before? Just pointing out that it's unprecedented doesn't mean as much as you think it does.

 

[Madmick]

What are you even rambling on about? If an interviewee mentions off the record information or information from an off the record source, that is protected by confidentiality of sources. Period.

Who said anything about an act? You hold a lot of the same dangerously anti-democratic views that a Trumper holds, it's as simple as that. In this case, hostility toward an adversarial media and government suppression of it on baseless grounds.

Note that you just rambled again for two paragraphs instead of answering the simple question of "what bad journalism did CBS participate in here"

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!!! That's all I hear when I read your whining. You're such a baby. Nothing but hyperbole, always. It's like when you cried 'Death of the free press!' because the Washington Post rescinded its editorial endorsement of Harris of its own volition, but you caterwauled about Bezos going full Hearst. He didn't. Nobody cared. It didn't change a vote. The great fallout was the WaPo continues to have its foot to the floor printing far-left opinions in its editorial section to this very day. Nothing changed.

The same "anti-democratic views that a Trumper holds"....hmm, is that so? It's just the Trumpers, is it? I guess your too busy not knowing shit, like the parameters of journalistic ethics, to keep up with the news.

Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for $787M in defamation case over Trump call​

I've noticed a peculiar pattern with types like you. You're only loud and obnoxious with your concern about the suppression of "anti-democratic views" when it's people who share your opinion that are suffering consequences. Hm.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Sure that's the obvious answer. But then the question is do you indicate that an off the record comment was made or not? (The default at most places today is no)

I'm sure it'll depend on the context. There's a good interview from The New Yorker where the interviewee asks to go off the record and it's indicated.

If this is only the case for "public interviews," again sure. But how do you define it and how do you separate it from the fact that most interviews you see in a profile or story are actually several interviews (you rarely only talk to the public figure being interviewed). Or that most interviews have mundane small talk at the start, it's not like you hit record and then everything instantly becomes interview mode and on topic.

I think that would be up to the media outlet in question. At the end of the day this is an internal policy by CBS isn't it?

It's just funny that the takeaway Mick has here is is "outlets should publish more transcripts" not "this is a really bad attack on the 1A from a president with a history of it." Talk about gaslighting.

I would agree with that, I don't see much of a silver lining in a sitting president extorting a media company for publishing something he didn't like during the campaign. Incredibly dangerous precedent but since the victim here is a news media corporation right wingers are willing to look the other way or even justify it as evidenced by the responses ITT.

 

[fingercuffs]

Funny that Fox Lose paid nearly a billion for lying about election fraud.

 

[Madmick]

Funny that Fox Lose paid nearly a billion for lying about election fraud.

But muh suppression of the free press!!! It's anti-democratic!!!

LOL, of course it's a good thing these corporate news outlets are finally being held accountable.

 

[fingercuffs]

But muh suppression of the free press!!! It's anti-democratic!!!

LOL, of course it's a good thing these corporate news outlets are finally being held accountable.

Princess Papaya Pussygrabber's even whining about Fox Lose so who is he actually corner fighting? Brietbart? NewsMax? Stormfront?

 

[avenue94]

I present to you, a melt down. Here's the question

What bad journalism did CBS participate in?

Here's the screed.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!!! That's all I hear when I read your whining. You're such a baby. Nothing but hyperbole, always. It's like when you cried 'Death of the free press!' because the Washington Post rescinded its editorial endorsement of Harris of its own volition, but you caterwauled about Bezos going full Hearst. He didn't. Nobody cared. It didn't change a vote. The great fallout was the WaPo continues to have its foot to the floor printing far-left opinions in its editorial section to this very day. Nothing changed.

The same "anti-democratic views that a Trumper holds"....hmm, is that so? It's just the Trumpers, is it? I guess your too busy not knowing shit, like the parameters of journalistic ethics, to keep up with the news.

And here's my comment from the thread where supposedly I was crying about the death of the free press.

...Further eroding civic institutions and reducing news output is extremely damaging in the long run for democracies. It's a dangerous precedent.

Gee whiz you're a drama llama.

Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for $787M in defamation case over Trump call

I've noticed a peculiar pattern with types like you. You're only loud and obnoxious with your concern about the suppression of "anti-democratic views" when it's people who share your opinion that are suffering consequences. Hm.

Newsom is suing for the headlines and clout. He has more of a case than most defamation lawsuits against the media, and I don't think it's healthy for the overall journalistic fabric of the country.

Are you tired of being wrong?

I've noticed a peculiar pattern with types like you. You're only loud and obnoxious with your concern about the suppression of "anti-democratic views" when it's people who share your opinion that are suffering consequences. Hm.

Feel free to point out all these cases where I opposed extending the same rights and courtesies to people who don't share my views.

 

[Madmick]

And here's my comment from the thread where supposedly I was crying about the death of the free press.

You forwarded the assertion that Bezos canned the editorial out of business interest with zero evidence towards the claim. Even behind the scenes reports of what transpired didn't mention his involvement at all. You never substantiated that, yet persisted in arguing this was "extremely damaging to democracies" because of the "erosion" to the "firewall" between business interests and the editorial board when no damage to democracy was done.

You claim not to be histrionic, and yet you spent dozens of posts attributing that action to Bezos without any evidence whatsoever he was involved. You had nothing but your own prejudiced assumption rooted in your biases. Yet nothing has changed at the WaPo. There is no indication of an "erosion" whatsoever. It continues to be a left-wing paper printing left-wing opinions. It continues to be anti-Trump. And there continues to be no evidence Bezos "spiked" the endorsement.

He has more of a case than most defamation lawsuits against the media, and I don't think it's healthy for the overall journalistic fabric of the country.

Is the mask coming off? Make sure to pad that with a contradictory opinion in the next clause so your bias doesn't show. After all, you just attributed this behavior to Trumpers. So maybe people won't notice you were just shown to be entirely wrong about that. The Democrats are doing it, too.