Scott Pelley out at CBS
- Thread starter WDSMHawk
- Start date
I don't know how much more evidence you need but it's obvious you're just being a contrarian and only interested in hearing your own thoughts.
The "Ax List": During casual phone conversations, Ellison and White House officials reportedly discussed axing CNN hosts considered critical of Trump, including Erin Burnett and Brianna Keilar, alongside potential replacements.
Broader Shake-up: These discussions also reportedly included proposals to air CBS News programming (like 60 Minutes) on CNN. Trump publicly stated his preference for new ownership, calling it "imperative" that CNN be sold.
Larry Ellison discussed axing CNN hosts with White House in takeover bid talks
Exclusive: Senior officials indicated favorability toward Paramount Skydance acquiring Warner Bros Discoverywww.theguardian.com
Trump is remaking the US media in his own image – and smashing accountability with it
Continuing his war against what he calls “fake news”, the US president is hobbling journalists and media outlets he considers to be hostile to him.theconversation.com
Tapper: Trump call to fire CNN reporter ‘preposterous’
CNN anchor Jake Tapper defended his colleague Natasha Bertrand after President Trump called for her firing in response to her reporting on leaked intelligence relating to U.S. strikes on Iranian nu…thehill.com
not trying to be a contrarian. I read all of your attachments and I didn't see anywhere where anyone said that Trump or the government is actively involved in media programming...calling the media fake news, suggesting 60 minutes to CNN - heck a couple of us, not even knowing about that comment remarked about Pelley and 60 minutes going to another media outlet - calls for firing reporters, taking credit for things he didn't do ( now you have to admit that has been brought up on this board by folks who lean left as a trump deficiency) all those are there. But, if we're fair even Joe Biden remarked a couple of times about the media - not in positive terms.
Double A: I have a couple of comments on your post.
1. You used the term "ouisia," which I had never heard before, so I consulted my friend Google. It directed me to the word "ousia," which is "an Ancient Greek word (οὐσία) that translates to 'substance,' 'essence,' or 'being.' It is one of the most important concepts in Western philosophy and theology, used to describe the fundamental reality or true nature of something. " So, two gold stars for using a term that was new to me, but minus one gold star for (apparently) misspelling it.
2. If Ellison's purchase of Paramount (and with it, CBS) and his hiring of Weiss (and her hiring of Nick Bilton) was an isolated event, I would probably agree with your position. Ellison is a private citizen (albeit a multiple billionaire), and he is paying for the privilege of, among other things, deciding what kind of editorial viewpoint CBS television programs will reflect.
The problem with that assertion is that it is impossible to look at Ellison's purchase of Paramount/CBS, and the attendant muzzling of 60 Minutes , as an isolated event. It is part and parcel of an authoritarian play that can essentially be summed up as "If you don't like the message, kill the messenger." Other concurrent examples of that play include FTC Chairman Carr's repeated threats to non-renew ABC's broadcast license in order to effect the suspension/termination of Jimmy Kimmel, and the Paramount/CBS' termination of the Stephen Colbert show (the replacement for which is drawing abysmal ratings).
3. Ellison is both a multiple billionaire and a weasel whose actions and statements amply demonstrate both his contempt for average Americans and his focus on doing whatever it takes to further enrich himself. That obviously includes catering to Trump in order to ensure Trump's assistance or non-interference with his money making ventures. That currently includes Ellison's efforts to further enrich himself with his investments in articifial intelligence. Even if the muzzling of a quite popular TV/news show like 60 Minutes ends up costing Paramount/CBS some lost viewership and ad revenue (and has a negative impact on that corporation's stock), the much bigger economic reward (at least for Ellison) will likely come in the form of Trump Administration assistance with Ellison's other ventures, such as his AI investments. Jeff Bezos, another billionaire weasel, is pursuing the same strategy. He dropped, what, $70-80 million on that hilarious documentary about Melania Trump? There's a vanity project if ever there was one. Trump gets to spout about his wife being a movie star, and bragging about the documentary showing her wandering around the White House in various outfits being one of the "greatest movies ever." Meanwhile, Bezos is looking to put a bit of a muzzle on the WAPO as well. All this to ensure favorable treatment from Trump with respect to both his current ventures (e.g. Blue Origin) and his future investments.
Ellison and Bezos have other billionaire companions in this endeavor. In 2018, Patrick Soon-Shiong, a South African billionaire of Chinese descent who is now a naturalized American citizen, bought the L.A. Times and thereafter laid a heavy hand on the Times' editorial board, insisting that the Time's editorial position should incorporate more conservative views, and promising to make the Times' news reportage and editorial position more "fair and balanced." This, after Soon-Shiong had med with President-elect Trump in January 2017 as he sought a position in Trump's cabinet.
4. The fourth estate and its independence are critical to the continued functioning of our democracy. This drive to limit the independence of media outlets like CBS and the WAPO is distinctly authoritarian and non-democratic. And word is that the Ellisons are now angling to purchase CNN as well. So I can't just wave the muzzling of 60 Minutes off as a wealthy investor exercising his right to do as he pleases with his money.
Last edited:
Who knows if Pelley sues? The specific terms of his contract will likely decide that. There may be a raft of early termination provisions in it, exercisable by one or both parties. There could be a "no cause" early termination provision that allows CBS to terminate Pelly and provides for some kind of payout as a consequence of CBS electing to do so. Or, there could be a ton of verbiage describing what constitutes "cause" in the event of a claimed "for cause" termination. (One thing for sure. Pelley did not pull his punches in criticizing Weiss and Bilton, and did so in front of other CBS employees. I would normally regard that as ample cause for termination.)
Or, Pelley could elect to sue even if his contract contains some of the above mentioned verbiage, alleging that his termination was both "wrongful" and in violation of "public policy," so that the claimed "for cause" termination was nonetheless improper or illegal. I think that kind of claim by Pelley would be a stretch, but it may well be that CBS would be willing to pay out some money just in order to avoid the whole discovery process, during which process some potentially embarrassing e-mails, texts, or testimony could conceivably become public information.
Last edited:
1. You got me on the spell check. I learned the word - and it’s a really good one — reading a little bit of Pelikan’s theological history around the trinity.
2. Trust me, I get that “oligarchs” are selling this particular asset to get other assets (real and intangible), and I’m certainly not cheering them on. I do tend to think of them as oligarchs though rather than as mere minions. I’m not much on conspiracies generally, but especially when the putative conspirators are themselves egomaniacs.
3. Again though it is hardly the first or last time these kinds of leverage plays existed.
4. I have no resistance to the fourth estate and appreciate its role, other than the fact that most national participants in it aspire more to be columnists rather than reporters. (Note my reference to my local guy — there are people that do great work, and the 60 minutes gang have been among them.). I continue to believe that, especially in an online world, it’s pretty much impossible to control distribution of information. X begets bluesky, etc.
Just relax. About 2.5 more years of ****, but it could be as little as 5 months.
Blowing random dudes behind the dumpster of the Ann Arbor Olive Garden is "caring about Americans?" Who knew?! You go, Hermy.
The word in question is Greek, so I should probably have cut you more slack on the spelling. For all I know, there may be an alternative spelling. FWIW, your usage was spot on.
I understand that there have been and will be more attempts at these (to employ your term) "leverage plays." The current president is obviously very susceptible to them, so if you are a billionaire and your prime (sole?) directive is further enriching yourself, why not do so?
I just happen to believe that media companies fall within the narrow class of corporations that are "affected with a public interest." (Where have we attorneys heard that term before?) There is no way the Ellisons should be allowed to purchase any stake, much less a controlling one, in CNN. And where was FCC Commissioner Carr with respect to the Ellisons' purchase of CBS via merger with Paramount? Oh yeah, Trump told him to give it the thumbs up in exchange for CBS agreeing to write Trump a big settlement check. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, Double A.
So you admit you blow random dude behind the dumpster of the Ann Arbor Olive Garden.
Kind of gross, but hey, you do you fatso.
sorry, just don't see all the negatives you do. CBS news will go on as will all the other news related media. They will continue to negatively report on trump and all will continue in the worldI give up
I think the exasperation (I'm feeling it, at least) is you seem to think Biden mettled inappropriately with social media but that the Trump administration threatening to revoke broadcast licenses is within bounds.
bear, everything is yet to be seen about the Ellison venture and the media.
But on the Washington post..have you read that paper recently? if they've been limited in their criticism of Trump and the administration, I haven't seen it....
All the critics seem to forget that while all these media outlets are providing news they are all businesses and a basic tenants of a business is to make money. If your paper, for example, only deals in trump criticism and left leaning biases, the owners are forgoing some % of potential customers. That's not a sound business practice.
On a different note, Pelley didn't like the direction the management was taking CBS and 60 minutes. That's his prerogative. But if this is the only time in history where an employee who didn't want to change claimed that the management was wrong, and that everything was going to h-ll in a hand basket, there might be a point. History is full of instances where people who didn't want to change with the new direction left and somehow the organization continue on and flourish. I'd wager, this isn't the only change we see in a new paramount takeover.
I've neve been to Ann Arbor, much less an Olive Garden. You, on the other hand, admit both to living in the vicinity of Ann Arbor, and to frequenting its Olive Garden. I trust you bring your knee pads and an ample supply of Handi-Wipes and Binaca each time you visit that Olive Garden.
So you admit you blow random dudes at the Olive Garden in Lafayette, CA?
Cool story bro. Take it a gay web site where you can turn it into reality.
1. The word you were looking for, unsuccessfully, was "tenets," not "tenants."
2. So you haven't seen any changes at the WAPO since Jeff Bezos bought it. Well, you have your anecdotal observation, and then there is reality. Here is what Google has to say about the subject:
Yes, Jeff Bezos has made sweeping changes to both the management and editorial policies of The Washington Post. [1, 2]
Management and Staffing Changes
- Opinion Editor Resignation: Opinions Editor David Shipley resigned in February 2025 after clashing with Bezos over a drastic shift in the section's ideological focus. [1, 2]
- Mass Layoffs: Amidst severe financial losses, the Post underwent two major rounds of voluntary buyouts and layoffs in 2023 and early 2026. These workforce reductions shrank the newsroom from over 1,000 staffers to under 800. [1, 2]
- Ideological Overhaul: Bezos announced that the opinion section will now focus strictly on two pillars: "personal liberties and free markets". He stated that viewpoints actively opposing these ideas will no longer be published. [1, 2, 3]
- End of Presidential Endorsements: The paper broke decades of tradition by ending presidential endorsements entirely, a decision that notably resulted in tens of thousands of canceled digital subscriptions.
no I don't think either is acceptable. But, it's a fact that Biden admin worked to censor info on COVID on meta and x. yet, somehow we seem to have muddled through. I personally haven't seen the same level of direct interaction with the trump administration and the media that apparently dpic has. Lots of bluster, more lawsuits by trump, FCC comments, but not direct intervention on programming. Trump ran in 2016 on fake news, he had his comments with Acosta and others. But so have other administrations, not as out in the open, but I can't recall a president that didn't have a love/dislike/hate/uncomfortable relationship with media.
Trump is waaay out front , much more so than any other. I'm just not a conspiracy guy. You show me a direct relationship between trump telling Bari Weiss or Ellison to do something about 60 minutes and I'll believe it.
That puts me at odds with a lot of you I know. But on the one hand we talk about all the crazy things trump says, and the TACO, and how he doesn't follow through (all accurate) but when he says something that supports our biased belief, we accept it as 100% true.
Like I said, our government can complain all they want about the media, the coverage, the reporting and reporters..all that is fair game. But telling media execs what to show or what to report should be off limits.
I'm getting exasperated with this but let me ask you one question. If Kamala had won instead of Trump, would Colbert still be on the air, would ABC have been threatened with having their license pulled, would 60 Minutes have lost their executive producer, her assistant and three top level correspondents? You know the answer but I guarantee you won't admit it.
Lets simplify this. Scott Pelley is a stone cold loser who lucked into the position due to his liberal insanity and he probably also kisses the lib ass_ too. Well his commie utopia at 60 minutes is history. They are now running a legitimate news show thats centrist instead of far left so he threw a big bitch_ fit and got canned for insubordination. Youre welcome guys.
The most successful news broadcast for 52 years running, always in the top ten of all shows and your backwards maga *** thinks it needed fixing? Let me tell ya something Growls, corrupting it so it will appeal to more people like you, will not make it more successful.
Hey, if 83-year-old Leslie Stahl is still wearing opened-toed shoes with 1987 pantyhose, then
