Excellent: “The danger isn’t that journalists become propagandists overnight—it’s that they internalize propaganda’s logic while believing they’re protecting neutrality.”
Bari Weiss's career is based upon her insistence that she alone is the only "neutral journalist" alive, and deserving of applaud for that. If she's called out with evidence that she is biased on a matter, she attacks, and claims victimhood for herself. Her current views toward Israel are extremely partisan and show in her reporting; and toward corporate media, she aligns with faux "news" that those media are left-wing cesspools. She believes she is a libertarian, fighting for the truth. She does not; she fights for getting a place at the power table; and now she thinks she has it.
Spot on. I would just like to add a couple points.
One is that there is too much focus on bias, which is endemic to an inherently subjective activity like journalism and therefore ineradicable, and not enough focus on accuracy. Every outlet has spin, but audiences can still rely on some to present reliable facts. Bias shouldn't be treated as automatically discrediting an outlet's reporting.
Second, other than not incurring Trump's wrath (and his SLAPP lawsuits and regulatory threats), I don't understand the business logic behind Skydance spending $150M to buy TFP and install Weiss at CBS News. Weiss could turn the place into Fox 2.0, and it still won't win over any actual Fox viewers. There is no appeasing those folks, convinced as they are by the 55-year propaganda war you've described, and no persuading them that CBS and other supposedly lefty media outlets are redeemable. Besides, why watch Fox Lite when you can watch Fox? More broadly, the network business model has been failing for years, for reasons beyond perceived partisan bias, with cord-cutting rampant among all age groups. (Weiss herself, a 41-year-old millennial, reportedly doesn't own a TV. Which makes her question to the staff that much more disingenuous.) The best Weiss will be able to do is either manage the decline or accelerate the inevitable conversion to a fully online operation with much less revenue (lower ad rates, no cable carriage fees). That might actually not be the worst thing; these legacy media institutions are stodgy and have been slow to embrace the way news is actually consumed these days. But that sclerotic, institutional resistance to change, beneficial or not, will also keep Weiss from having much impact on CBS News's methodology or brand/reputation. Take some small comfort in that.
▶︎ I would like to believe that I am well-read in a wide spectrum of non-fiction and fiction literature.
▶︎ I would like to believe that my vocabulary is in the upper 5%.
But I know that when I read many of the commentaries beautifully written by Mike and many of the comments made by readers, I am often wondering, "what ever happened to speaking to the masses, and not to the eclectic few?"
Here's what I mean. I have watched the slow changes in almost all the TV mainstream media go from (a) reporting, to (b) normalizing, to (c) rationalizing, to sometimes (d) identifying and rarely to (e) opining..... about what has and is occurring in the Age of Trumpism.
When current events take a major detour into the realm of threatening the ethics of society, the truths that most of us we live by, and the fabric of values that a humanistic and caring people would hopefully be living by (the good, the beautiful and the true),
would you not believe it is far time for news "reporters" to go from (a) and stop meandering in b, and c, and move quickly to d & ultimately e?
And we watched, bore witness, to how Trump and the Republican Congress dealt with the 2020 election and the hoped for peaceful transfer of political office. We saw how this absurd claim of a rigged election has been maintained by Trump and so many Republicans. We saw how Trump and many Republicans facilitated the vicious attack on Capitol police and the destructive nature of their "protest." And we see how Trump and Republicans and their TV mouthpiece Fox News called the latest No Kings a "hate America" protest.
Every reporter of any moral fiber should be rendering far more than simply reporting. They should be chicken littles, but with legitimate alarms that the sky is indeed falling,
Democracy is falling,
Fascism is calling.
I do not need what we called in the olden days "vocabulary giants" to tell me what I am seeing and hearing.
Fox News is like being in Moscow. They should rename themselves Tass Media, or Putin's Corner.
What happened to calling a spade a spade, to the "This is Paul Harvey and now for the rest of the story". What happened to Newscasters with testicular fortitude (i.e., BALLS) like Walter Cronkite, Mike Wallace, and Peter Jennings?
Wake up America! You are living in a Fascist country. One more year of Trump and you can kiss any legitimate Midterm election adios. Soon, many of us will be the immigrants having one hell of a hard time immigrating to a country where individual human values are cherished.
If bias means to lean toward one direction but for legitimate reasons, then I am all for bias.
When I sit there, with my thumb up my ass and do nothing and say nothing, then my life and that of my children will turn to nothing.
I appreciate Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnell for speaking out as they do. I think Katy Tur is almost at that place too. But the rest of the so-called "radical left news media" has to stop wasting air time in normalizing and rationalizing what Trump, Johnson, Graham, and others say and do. If it looks like shit, smells like shit, feels like shit and even tastes like shit, then guess what?
What are you going to say when all is said and done under Trump? I suppose you might say, "Well, I am glad I didn't step in it."
I have no opinion on your bullet-points per se, but I certainly support your overall message. I don’t think Bari gets it. I also think she’s getting paid not to get it.
I think every city that hosts this kind of media should turn on them, as they assist in declaring war on us, and tear gas our neighborhoods and vulnerable communities.
Bari Weiss is Editor in Chief of CBS news because antidemocratic corporate CEO'S are paying her $150 mil to kill any and all bad news about you-know-who.
Essentially, the bigwigs at Paramount took Weiss's "media company" (The Free Press), off her hands with a fat paycheck and (no doubt) orders to turn the CBS News Department into FOX 2.0. No bias? Weiss has an independent brand? Gimme a break. Weiss is the worst kind of sell-out; One who actually believes that people believe her act. She's just another greedy liar willing to lie for the highest bidder, even if it means shitting on our 1st Amendment.
Like so many, she’s allowed her aversion to “woke” to throw herself into the arms of the far-right. Andreesen hasn’t poured money into her brand for truth or unbiased writing.
To be fair, woke was averse to her as a rare proIsrael voice at the NYT where a lot of mean girl and worse animus was directed her way. Other than that, she wasn’t so anti-woke but has sold out to totalitarianism masquerading as libertarianism. The economic coverage of the free press was abysmal.
Frankly I found her very anti-woke. So am I, in general. I take your point she may have been mean-girled by intersectional leftist colleagues, but forgive me if I don't think that's an excuse to choose pimping for the far-right. Ok, maybe "pimping" isn't the best word. Let's say I agree with Brock that she has no idea what good journalism is, she's never been a journalist, and has no understanding that truth should transcend personal bias.
I don’t watch CBS, ABC,Fox, NBC, TBS or any other bullshit Republican Channel. I never watch slanted Local Channel TV unless there is a tornado headed my way.
I haven’t for 5 years and don’t miss it a single bit. I stream PBS, Brit Box, Home Improvement shows and old 🍿 movies 🎥 Try it, you may like starving the Republican fascist Pigs as much as I do. I pay $70.00 per month for unlimited wifi service and can listen to all the music genre, I desire 25/7 for free. Why pay more, when you can get it basically free?
Mike, Have you ever asked yourself why the media bias chart is bent towards some version of selective reporting or even outright lying selective whether of left or right?
Think about it for a moment.. .
There is no actual media source showing both fair and factual reporting on either side.
That is why centrists are sick of both left and rignt.
Consider, unfortunately, thst this is enough for many in the middle to vote for Trump. (Yes, I know....)
There is this sense of "we are only being nice" and by the way you have no option but to agree......because one has a cudgel in ones hand...
If one believes BS on the right or BS on the left l, its probably because one hasn't done the job of being critical enough of ones own side.
This is not to suport Bari, in particular, but to elevate discourse in any way we can.
You're describing the problem I'm trying to solve, not refuting my argument. Yes, the media landscape is fractured. Yes, "centrists" feel like both sides are lying. But your diagnosis—that this proves both sides are equally unreliable—is precisely the false equivalence that enables authoritarian capture of journalism.
When federal agents conduct warrantless mass detentions, when the President's adviser calls judicial review "insurrection," when ICE gets deployed to cultural events as ethnic intimidation—covering these facts isn't "left bias." It's journalism. And when one side systematically attacks any accountability coverage as partisan, the problem isn't that journalism needs to "balance" by softening that coverage. The problem is that coordinated attacks on legitimate reporting have successfully created the perception you're describing: that covering what's actually happening is just another form of bias.
The "middle" you're describing isn't balance—it's the paralysis authoritarians need you to feel. When you can't distinguish reporting from propaganda, when everything looks equally unreliable, when frustrated confusion feels like sophistication—you've lost the capacity for democratic judgment. And that's not an accident. It's the outcome.
“When federal agents conduct warrantless mass detentions, when the President's adviser calls judicial review "insurrection," when ICE gets deployed to cultural events as ethnic intimidation—covering these facts isn't "left bias." It's journalism.”
It annoys me to see commenters describing US media as having left or right bias. Considering that the Democrats are far right, Democrat-biased media, while being closer to the so-called "center" than MAGA-biased media, is still far right-biased. Any media that is "leftist" or "left-biased" operates outside of the USA and is not the topic of discussion here. That so-called public broadcasting can be captured by right-biased journalism is a reflection of how skewed to the right the Overton window is in the USA. That's why people consider their own biases to be unbiased when it's all absolutely corrupted by this political tilt to the far right, such that anything that is remotely right or centrist (let alone left or far left) is considered radical bias.
I think the Democrat message may be steering away from “woke” concepts, trying to distance themselves from the far-left. Would you say that’s moving to the right?
Given that Democrat messaging was already far right, distancing themselves from "woke" concepts is already a move to the farthest right. The problem here is both parties are far right and Democrats simply hide their cruelty, while MAGA Republicans do not hide their amoral cruelty and fealty to money. "Woke" was always lip service in Democratic mouths. An entire shift in the status quo to neuter the rentier class and claim back power by the people for the people is needed, not the current power for the owner class, as has been perpetrated for the last half century. The media successfully hides the need for this class war by formenting culture wars.
Alternatively, it might be the case that CBS is indeed biased, that the average person is noticing it, and that Bari Weiss is asking CBS journalists to consider whether there's some truth to it and perhaps de-bias their reporting for the greater good of CBS' future and journalism in general. The hypothesis presented in this blog is about Bari Weiss' "surrender dressed as sophistication". Consider the alternative hypothesis that she may be onto something and this blog piece is "denial dressed as sophistication".
You're offering a hypothesis: CBS is biased, people notice, Weiss is helping them de-bias. Fine. Let's test it.
What would constitute evidence of CBS bias? Specifically: covering things that are factually true but make one side look bad doesn't constitute bias—that's journalism encountering asymmetric reality. So what's the actual bias you're claiming exists?
When federal agents conduct warrantless mass detentions, when Stephen Miller calls judicial review "insurrection," when ICE gets deployed to cultural events as ethnic intimidation—is covering these facts evidence of bias? Or is the bias claim itself a coordinated attack designed to make accountability journalism seem partisan?
Here's the test: If CBS were genuinely biased rather than covering asymmetric reality, you should be able to point to factual errors, fabricated stories, or systematic failure to cover legitimate news that reflects poorly on Democrats. Can you?
Because what I see is the pattern I describe: one side systematically attacks any accountability coverage as "biased" while the other attempts to report what's happening. When Weiss asks "why does the country think you're biased?" without first asking whether that perception corresponds to reality, she's treating coordinated attacks as legitimate criticism requiring accommodation.
Your alternative hypothesis requires believing that CBS covering constitutional violations is bias, while treating those violations as deserving presumed benevolence is objectivity. That's not a hypothesis worth considering—it's the frame authoritarians need journalists to internalize.
So: what specific bias are you claiming CBS exhibits, beyond covering facts that make Trump look bad?
Only peripherally related, but it amazes me that people don't see the connection between Trump's constant and unrelenting demand for our attention and the amount of negative press he gets: you can't scream “Look at me! Look at me!” all day and then complain when people report what you're doing…
Media Bias/Fact Check rates CBS News as "Left-Center biased" with a bias rating of –3.3 on their scale. This is a few years ago, but a peer-reviewed study (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2023.102360) found that ABC, CBS and NBC News tend to report slightly more critical of the Republicans. The show Face the Nation (on CBS) was rated by Ad Fontes Media as having a bias score of –6.50, where a negative side equals left
... for example.
This, IMO, is sufficient evidence for Bari Weiss to ask this question from her staff: "why does the country thing you're biased?". An editor-in-chief doing her job, basically. I don't see what the fuzz is about.
So I stand by my hypothesis (CBS is actually biased, the country has picked up on it, and Bari Weiss is putting her finger on it) and I stand by my conclusion: this blog piece was "denial dressed as sophistication". Sorry, I see you're very smart, but your pieces are clearly activism, albeit in a very articulate form.
Not being an American myself, it is a fascinating phenomenon what your country has gone through in the last 10-15 years: you (all?) got freakin' nuts, left and right, and I would watch the show with popcorn were it not for the fact that what your country does has an effect on the rest of the world. Keep polarizing, please, and soon we'll see the planet go in flames. Yes, you too are a co-responsible of that craziness, it's not all Trump's fault.
Maybe consider that truth has a liberal “bias” because Republicans are so allergic to it. Reporting facts without spin can seemed biased when one side is the one always needing to manipulate people in order for the world to seem fair.
Maybe. Note, though, that I'm pretty sure there are plenty of Republicans that will make the same argument, just changing the side on which truth is. It will be as obvious to them as the opposite is obvious to you.
My own opinion: both parties have their share of common sense people and their equal share of crazies. And sympathetic media to both parties mix accurate reporting (sometimes) with some degree of truth-stretching (sometimes), if not blatant manipulation (sometimes). Anyone who doesn't notice that is perhaps the one manipulated by his/her favourite media.
Yes, and regular media such as CBS can be biased, even if not as extreme as partisan outlets. That’s why Media Bias/Fact Check rates CBS at -3.3, i.e. centre-left, roughly halfway between being fully neutral and MSNBC’s -6.4 score
Thank you, Mike, for opening the door to more awakening! As I understand this, corporate media are befuddled about their role in life. They are stuck in reporting semblances rather than unpacking substance. The actual news we need to know is what's happening to people across the heartland, and how our fellow citizens are responding to it. That will encompass what's relevant about MAGA madness, and it's the proper focus.
We can't expect "the news" to do any investigative reporting, but whoever does should be laser-focused on the apparatus dismantling our country, the permission structures for malignant corporations and oligarchs, the institutional corruption and orchestrated public mental health decline, the discredited nature of a privatized economy.
Hi Mike, Thank you. See my comment to "The coming clash of civilisations".
We may be violently on the same page now I realise where you are coming from and agree where the dangers lie. I fear there is a still a lack of realisation among many who think the "nice" people on their side can take over and all will be well.
News organisations have been falling into this trap for a long time. Smoking? Climate change? Doesn't matter how clear the facts are, you have to present both sides and give them equal time or you're "biased".
Excellent: “The danger isn’t that journalists become propagandists overnight—it’s that they internalize propaganda’s logic while believing they’re protecting neutrality.”
Performative balance *is* bias.
Bari Weiss's career is based upon her insistence that she alone is the only "neutral journalist" alive, and deserving of applaud for that. If she's called out with evidence that she is biased on a matter, she attacks, and claims victimhood for herself. Her current views toward Israel are extremely partisan and show in her reporting; and toward corporate media, she aligns with faux "news" that those media are left-wing cesspools. She believes she is a libertarian, fighting for the truth. She does not; she fights for getting a place at the power table; and now she thinks she has it.
Aka “have you stopped beating your wife?”
Spot on. I would just like to add a couple points.
One is that there is too much focus on bias, which is endemic to an inherently subjective activity like journalism and therefore ineradicable, and not enough focus on accuracy. Every outlet has spin, but audiences can still rely on some to present reliable facts. Bias shouldn't be treated as automatically discrediting an outlet's reporting.
Second, other than not incurring Trump's wrath (and his SLAPP lawsuits and regulatory threats), I don't understand the business logic behind Skydance spending $150M to buy TFP and install Weiss at CBS News. Weiss could turn the place into Fox 2.0, and it still won't win over any actual Fox viewers. There is no appeasing those folks, convinced as they are by the 55-year propaganda war you've described, and no persuading them that CBS and other supposedly lefty media outlets are redeemable. Besides, why watch Fox Lite when you can watch Fox? More broadly, the network business model has been failing for years, for reasons beyond perceived partisan bias, with cord-cutting rampant among all age groups. (Weiss herself, a 41-year-old millennial, reportedly doesn't own a TV. Which makes her question to the staff that much more disingenuous.) The best Weiss will be able to do is either manage the decline or accelerate the inevitable conversion to a fully online operation with much less revenue (lower ad rates, no cable carriage fees). That might actually not be the worst thing; these legacy media institutions are stodgy and have been slow to embrace the way news is actually consumed these days. But that sclerotic, institutional resistance to change, beneficial or not, will also keep Weiss from having much impact on CBS News's methodology or brand/reputation. Take some small comfort in that.
With what Bari has allowed TFP to become, I can only imagine what CBS will become now.
You’d think she and the TFP might’ve gazed at the commentary cesspool they created and reflected a bit.
▶︎ I would like to believe that I am well-read in a wide spectrum of non-fiction and fiction literature.
▶︎ I would like to believe that my vocabulary is in the upper 5%.
But I know that when I read many of the commentaries beautifully written by Mike and many of the comments made by readers, I am often wondering, "what ever happened to speaking to the masses, and not to the eclectic few?"
Here's what I mean. I have watched the slow changes in almost all the TV mainstream media go from (a) reporting, to (b) normalizing, to (c) rationalizing, to sometimes (d) identifying and rarely to (e) opining..... about what has and is occurring in the Age of Trumpism.
When current events take a major detour into the realm of threatening the ethics of society, the truths that most of us we live by, and the fabric of values that a humanistic and caring people would hopefully be living by (the good, the beautiful and the true),
would you not believe it is far time for news "reporters" to go from (a) and stop meandering in b, and c, and move quickly to d & ultimately e?
And we watched, bore witness, to how Trump and the Republican Congress dealt with the 2020 election and the hoped for peaceful transfer of political office. We saw how this absurd claim of a rigged election has been maintained by Trump and so many Republicans. We saw how Trump and many Republicans facilitated the vicious attack on Capitol police and the destructive nature of their "protest." And we see how Trump and Republicans and their TV mouthpiece Fox News called the latest No Kings a "hate America" protest.
Every reporter of any moral fiber should be rendering far more than simply reporting. They should be chicken littles, but with legitimate alarms that the sky is indeed falling,
Democracy is falling,
Fascism is calling.
I do not need what we called in the olden days "vocabulary giants" to tell me what I am seeing and hearing.
Fox News is like being in Moscow. They should rename themselves Tass Media, or Putin's Corner.
What happened to calling a spade a spade, to the "This is Paul Harvey and now for the rest of the story". What happened to Newscasters with testicular fortitude (i.e., BALLS) like Walter Cronkite, Mike Wallace, and Peter Jennings?
Wake up America! You are living in a Fascist country. One more year of Trump and you can kiss any legitimate Midterm election adios. Soon, many of us will be the immigrants having one hell of a hard time immigrating to a country where individual human values are cherished.
If bias means to lean toward one direction but for legitimate reasons, then I am all for bias.
When I sit there, with my thumb up my ass and do nothing and say nothing, then my life and that of my children will turn to nothing.
I appreciate Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnell for speaking out as they do. I think Katy Tur is almost at that place too. But the rest of the so-called "radical left news media" has to stop wasting air time in normalizing and rationalizing what Trump, Johnson, Graham, and others say and do. If it looks like shit, smells like shit, feels like shit and even tastes like shit, then guess what?
What are you going to say when all is said and done under Trump? I suppose you might say, "Well, I am glad I didn't step in it."
I have no opinion on your bullet-points per se, but I certainly support your overall message. I don’t think Bari gets it. I also think she’s getting paid not to get it.
I think every city that hosts this kind of media should turn on them, as they assist in declaring war on us, and tear gas our neighborhoods and vulnerable communities.
Bari Weiss is Editor in Chief of CBS news because antidemocratic corporate CEO'S are paying her $150 mil to kill any and all bad news about you-know-who.
Essentially, the bigwigs at Paramount took Weiss's "media company" (The Free Press), off her hands with a fat paycheck and (no doubt) orders to turn the CBS News Department into FOX 2.0. No bias? Weiss has an independent brand? Gimme a break. Weiss is the worst kind of sell-out; One who actually believes that people believe her act. She's just another greedy liar willing to lie for the highest bidder, even if it means shitting on our 1st Amendment.
Like so many, she’s allowed her aversion to “woke” to throw herself into the arms of the far-right. Andreesen hasn’t poured money into her brand for truth or unbiased writing.
To be fair, woke was averse to her as a rare proIsrael voice at the NYT where a lot of mean girl and worse animus was directed her way. Other than that, she wasn’t so anti-woke but has sold out to totalitarianism masquerading as libertarianism. The economic coverage of the free press was abysmal.
Frankly I found her very anti-woke. So am I, in general. I take your point she may have been mean-girled by intersectional leftist colleagues, but forgive me if I don't think that's an excuse to choose pimping for the far-right. Ok, maybe "pimping" isn't the best word. Let's say I agree with Brock that she has no idea what good journalism is, she's never been a journalist, and has no understanding that truth should transcend personal bias.
I am not a fan of her, and I think she will present the world with a FOX clone that looks a little bit classier.
I don’t watch CBS, ABC,Fox, NBC, TBS or any other bullshit Republican Channel. I never watch slanted Local Channel TV unless there is a tornado headed my way.
I haven’t for 5 years and don’t miss it a single bit. I stream PBS, Brit Box, Home Improvement shows and old 🍿 movies 🎥 Try it, you may like starving the Republican fascist Pigs as much as I do. I pay $70.00 per month for unlimited wifi service and can listen to all the music genre, I desire 25/7 for free. Why pay more, when you can get it basically free?
Mike, Have you ever asked yourself why the media bias chart is bent towards some version of selective reporting or even outright lying selective whether of left or right?
Think about it for a moment.. .
There is no actual media source showing both fair and factual reporting on either side.
That is why centrists are sick of both left and rignt.
Consider, unfortunately, thst this is enough for many in the middle to vote for Trump. (Yes, I know....)
There is this sense of "we are only being nice" and by the way you have no option but to agree......because one has a cudgel in ones hand...
If one believes BS on the right or BS on the left l, its probably because one hasn't done the job of being critical enough of ones own side.
This is not to suport Bari, in particular, but to elevate discourse in any way we can.
You're describing the problem I'm trying to solve, not refuting my argument. Yes, the media landscape is fractured. Yes, "centrists" feel like both sides are lying. But your diagnosis—that this proves both sides are equally unreliable—is precisely the false equivalence that enables authoritarian capture of journalism.
When federal agents conduct warrantless mass detentions, when the President's adviser calls judicial review "insurrection," when ICE gets deployed to cultural events as ethnic intimidation—covering these facts isn't "left bias." It's journalism. And when one side systematically attacks any accountability coverage as partisan, the problem isn't that journalism needs to "balance" by softening that coverage. The problem is that coordinated attacks on legitimate reporting have successfully created the perception you're describing: that covering what's actually happening is just another form of bias.
The "middle" you're describing isn't balance—it's the paralysis authoritarians need you to feel. When you can't distinguish reporting from propaganda, when everything looks equally unreliable, when frustrated confusion feels like sophistication—you've lost the capacity for democratic judgment. And that's not an accident. It's the outcome.
“When federal agents conduct warrantless mass detentions, when the President's adviser calls judicial review "insurrection," when ICE gets deployed to cultural events as ethnic intimidation—covering these facts isn't "left bias." It's journalism.”
One million thank-you’s for saying that 🎯
It annoys me to see commenters describing US media as having left or right bias. Considering that the Democrats are far right, Democrat-biased media, while being closer to the so-called "center" than MAGA-biased media, is still far right-biased. Any media that is "leftist" or "left-biased" operates outside of the USA and is not the topic of discussion here. That so-called public broadcasting can be captured by right-biased journalism is a reflection of how skewed to the right the Overton window is in the USA. That's why people consider their own biases to be unbiased when it's all absolutely corrupted by this political tilt to the far right, such that anything that is remotely right or centrist (let alone left or far left) is considered radical bias.
I think the Democrat message may be steering away from “woke” concepts, trying to distance themselves from the far-left. Would you say that’s moving to the right?
Given that Democrat messaging was already far right, distancing themselves from "woke" concepts is already a move to the farthest right. The problem here is both parties are far right and Democrats simply hide their cruelty, while MAGA Republicans do not hide their amoral cruelty and fealty to money. "Woke" was always lip service in Democratic mouths. An entire shift in the status quo to neuter the rentier class and claim back power by the people for the people is needed, not the current power for the owner class, as has been perpetrated for the last half century. The media successfully hides the need for this class war by formenting culture wars.
Alternatively, it might be the case that CBS is indeed biased, that the average person is noticing it, and that Bari Weiss is asking CBS journalists to consider whether there's some truth to it and perhaps de-bias their reporting for the greater good of CBS' future and journalism in general. The hypothesis presented in this blog is about Bari Weiss' "surrender dressed as sophistication". Consider the alternative hypothesis that she may be onto something and this blog piece is "denial dressed as sophistication".
You're offering a hypothesis: CBS is biased, people notice, Weiss is helping them de-bias. Fine. Let's test it.
What would constitute evidence of CBS bias? Specifically: covering things that are factually true but make one side look bad doesn't constitute bias—that's journalism encountering asymmetric reality. So what's the actual bias you're claiming exists?
When federal agents conduct warrantless mass detentions, when Stephen Miller calls judicial review "insurrection," when ICE gets deployed to cultural events as ethnic intimidation—is covering these facts evidence of bias? Or is the bias claim itself a coordinated attack designed to make accountability journalism seem partisan?
Here's the test: If CBS were genuinely biased rather than covering asymmetric reality, you should be able to point to factual errors, fabricated stories, or systematic failure to cover legitimate news that reflects poorly on Democrats. Can you?
Because what I see is the pattern I describe: one side systematically attacks any accountability coverage as "biased" while the other attempts to report what's happening. When Weiss asks "why does the country think you're biased?" without first asking whether that perception corresponds to reality, she's treating coordinated attacks as legitimate criticism requiring accommodation.
Your alternative hypothesis requires believing that CBS covering constitutional violations is bias, while treating those violations as deserving presumed benevolence is objectivity. That's not a hypothesis worth considering—it's the frame authoritarians need journalists to internalize.
So: what specific bias are you claiming CBS exhibits, beyond covering facts that make Trump look bad?
Only peripherally related, but it amazes me that people don't see the connection between Trump's constant and unrelenting demand for our attention and the amount of negative press he gets: you can't scream “Look at me! Look at me!” all day and then complain when people report what you're doing…
Whats the evidence cbs is biased?
If you told me msnbc, I’d nod along of course. I’m just not seeing it for CBS
And MSNBC has a Republican ex-representative and G W Bush’s speechwriter fronting their flagship program…
Media Bias/Fact Check rates CBS News as "Left-Center biased" with a bias rating of –3.3 on their scale. This is a few years ago, but a peer-reviewed study (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2023.102360) found that ABC, CBS and NBC News tend to report slightly more critical of the Republicans. The show Face the Nation (on CBS) was rated by Ad Fontes Media as having a bias score of –6.50, where a negative side equals left
... for example.
This, IMO, is sufficient evidence for Bari Weiss to ask this question from her staff: "why does the country thing you're biased?". An editor-in-chief doing her job, basically. I don't see what the fuzz is about.
So I stand by my hypothesis (CBS is actually biased, the country has picked up on it, and Bari Weiss is putting her finger on it) and I stand by my conclusion: this blog piece was "denial dressed as sophistication". Sorry, I see you're very smart, but your pieces are clearly activism, albeit in a very articulate form.
Not being an American myself, it is a fascinating phenomenon what your country has gone through in the last 10-15 years: you (all?) got freakin' nuts, left and right, and I would watch the show with popcorn were it not for the fact that what your country does has an effect on the rest of the world. Keep polarizing, please, and soon we'll see the planet go in flames. Yes, you too are a co-responsible of that craziness, it's not all Trump's fault.
With love and concern :-)
Raúl
Maybe consider that truth has a liberal “bias” because Republicans are so allergic to it. Reporting facts without spin can seemed biased when one side is the one always needing to manipulate people in order for the world to seem fair.
Maybe. Note, though, that I'm pretty sure there are plenty of Republicans that will make the same argument, just changing the side on which truth is. It will be as obvious to them as the opposite is obvious to you.
My own opinion: both parties have their share of common sense people and their equal share of crazies. And sympathetic media to both parties mix accurate reporting (sometimes) with some degree of truth-stretching (sometimes), if not blatant manipulation (sometimes). Anyone who doesn't notice that is perhaps the one manipulated by his/her favourite media.
Just my perception from the outside :-)
We’re not talking about partisan media but the regular media like cbs.
Yes, and regular media such as CBS can be biased, even if not as extreme as partisan outlets. That’s why Media Bias/Fact Check rates CBS at -3.3, i.e. centre-left, roughly halfway between being fully neutral and MSNBC’s -6.4 score
Thank you, Mike, for opening the door to more awakening! As I understand this, corporate media are befuddled about their role in life. They are stuck in reporting semblances rather than unpacking substance. The actual news we need to know is what's happening to people across the heartland, and how our fellow citizens are responding to it. That will encompass what's relevant about MAGA madness, and it's the proper focus.
We can't expect "the news" to do any investigative reporting, but whoever does should be laser-focused on the apparatus dismantling our country, the permission structures for malignant corporations and oligarchs, the institutional corruption and orchestrated public mental health decline, the discredited nature of a privatized economy.
Hi Mike, Thank you. See my comment to "The coming clash of civilisations".
We may be violently on the same page now I realise where you are coming from and agree where the dangers lie. I fear there is a still a lack of realisation among many who think the "nice" people on their side can take over and all will be well.
News organisations have been falling into this trap for a long time. Smoking? Climate change? Doesn't matter how clear the facts are, you have to present both sides and give them equal time or you're "biased".