News organizations make mistakes, as we all do. When that happens, the best way to restore credibility is to admit error, apologize for it, and endeavor not to repeat the actions that might have damaged the brand. Bret Baier did this in miniature by acknowledging that Kamala Harris was correct in her criticism that Fox News played the wrong clip of Donald Trump during their interview and publicly apologizing to Harris for the mistake.
CBS News chose ... another path.
Two weeks ago, 60 Minutes aired a recorded and edited interview with Kamala Harris, which they had heavily promoted over the preceding weekend. In Twitter/X ads, CBS played a clip of Harris answering a question from Bill Whitaker on Israel that was all but incomprehensible. But when the interview aired, 60 Minutes replaced that answer with another one from Harris, without any explanation for the switch:
Remember Kamala’s word salad answer about Israel on 60 Minutes? It’s gone.
— MAZE (@mazemoore) October 8, 2024
This is what many Americans will now see. pic.twitter.com/H4w7btDv6x
Bear in mind that CBS and 60 Minutes thought that first answer was newsworthy enough to include in its advertising. However, it created all sorts of ridicule over Harris' lack of substance in the answer, along with her tremulous voice at the start of the response. Sometime between deciding that was a highlight and the air date, someone at either 60 Minutes or CBS News bowdlerized Harris' answer to remove the part that made her look like an idiot and replaced it with something that sounded more responsive to Whitaker's question.
After two weeks of criticism -- during which CBS News has refused to release the transcript of the full interview -- the network has finally published a response from 60 Minutes. Did they choose the Baier path of transparency? Not exactly; they blamed Donald Trump for noticing their three-card Monty.
Former President Donald Trump is accusing 60 Minutes of deceitful editing of our Oct. 7 interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. That is false.
60 Minutes gave an excerpt of our interview to Face the Nation that used a longer section of her answer than that on 60 Minutes. Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response. When we edit any interview, whether a politician, an athlete, or movie star, we strive to be clear, accurate and on point. The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21-minute-long segment.
Remember, Mr. Trump pulled out of his interview with 60 Minutes and the vice president participated.
So ... Trump refused to do an interview, and 60 Minutes got revenge by editing his opponent's responses to make her sound (marginally) smarter? Is that how journalism works? Because that's how this reads.
On the same topic of journalism, it's not the media outlet's job to make a candidate "more succinct." That's the job of the candidate. The job of the news agency is to report on what the candidate said, and in interviews to air the entire response. Also, why would time be an issue, when 60 Minutes runs for an hour? Did Harris speak for longer than that? Almost certainly not, but even if so, CBS could have just given it more air time. But if the interview needed to be edited down for time, then 60 Minutes should have removed question/answer pairs rather than edit Harris' responses to make her sound "more succinct."
That's what campaigns do. Not news agencies. Unless the news agency has decided to become part of the campaign.
With 60 Minutes now acknowledging that they change answers on recorded interviews to suit their own motives, the last part of the statement is a hilarious exercise in total non-self-awareness:
Our long-standing invitation to former President Trump remains open. If he would like to discuss the issues facing the nation and the Harris interview, we would be happy to have him on 60 Minutes.
Trump refused to appear on 60 Minutes because Leslie Stahl sandbagged him with false information the last time he appeared. He demanded an apology for that first, which 60 Minutes refused to offer. Why would any Republican appear on 60 Minutes for a prerecorded interview now, after this admission of political hackery? That question is especially pertinent after CBS News cut several minutes out of Speaker Mike Johnson's interview a few days later to remove the context of his answer on election integrity:
I recently traveled to NC and victims of Hurricane Helene told me nearly two weeks after landfall, the Biden-Harris Administration had STILL not provided them with all the resources they desperately needed.
— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) October 15, 2024
But CBS selectively edited OUT ENTIRELY this first-hand perspective. pic.twitter.com/ZjO5LWdtsM
CBS hasn't just put a thumb on the partisan scale. They're putting their elbow on it.
Finally, the refusal to release the transcript of the full and unedited interview looms large over this response from CBS News and 60 Minutes. Even if one buys the notion that they swapped Harris' answer out in the interest of time, why not release the full and unedited remarks in text form? There's no issue with air time or the need to be "succinct." That would allow people to read Harris' full responses for themselves to judge whether 60 Minutes edited the interview fairly.
Which is why we will never see the transcript, at least not under current ownership. Until we do, CBS and 60 Minutes has no credibility whatsoever, and should be considered an arm of the Democrat Party.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member