How X And Joe Rogan Broke The Back of 60 Minutes

Todayville

Published

3 weeks ago

9 minute read

TOP LINE:

Super consumers of news are flocking to X and other platforms that support independent journalism, diverse voices and embrace transparency. The post election TV ratings abyss is driven both by technology and by the public’s loss of trust in Mainstream media.

DEEP DIVE:

To buy MSNBC or not to buy?

This week’s headline that Comcast will spin off its cable channels underscores the tectonic shift in the media marketplace and how technology is providing the exit ramp for competing platforms.

When my job as a senior investigative correspondent at CBS News was terminated in February, I took a few months to educate myself about the marketplace because so much had changed since I left Fox in 2019. What I found was genuinely surprising, a little frightening and, oddly, re-assuring for the strength of our democracy.

You can’t argue with the data. It is compelling. On Election Day, according to @Xdata, the platform boasted record usage of 942 million posts worldwide and 2.2 million hours of watch or listen time over approximately 160k live events. The X data crushed engagement numbers for the mainstream media (MSM.)

Data@XData

X dominated the global conversation on the U.S. election, hitting all-time record highs.

7:11 PM • Nov 7, 2024

1.58K Likes 278 Retweets

109 Replies

By example, a Tucker Carlson interview on X has 35 million engagements. The CBS Evening News has 4.5 million viewers. If I had to choose, I’d take 30 million engagements on X because it represents explosive growth.

Tucker Carlson@TuckerCarlson

Ep. 12 Part 1. Devon Archer

6:00 PM • Aug 2, 2023

159K Likes 46.5K Retweets

6.4K Replies

The new super consumers of news are flocking to X and other platforms that support independent journalism, diverse voices, and embrace transparency which can strengthen democracy. This is nothing short of an industrial revolution driven both by technology and by loss of trust in corporate media.

In 2023, Human Rights lawyer Jacob Mchangama wrote about the upheaval and resulting, “elite panic.”

“Elite panic is this recurring phenomenon throughout the history of free speech, where whenever the public sphere is expanded, either through new communications technology, or to segments of the population that were previously marginalized, the traditional gatekeepers, the elites who control access to information, tend to fret about the dangers of allowing the unwashed mob — who are too fickle, too unsophisticated, too unlearned — unmediated access to information. They need information to be filtered through the responsible gatekeepers and it may be even more dangerous to allow them to speak without adult supervision. That’s a phenomenon that we see again and again. And we’re seeing it play out now on social media. … [Elite panic is] one contributing factor to the free speech recession.”

Free speech: Why it’s under attack and what can be done to promote diverse viewpoints

Human rights lawyer Jacob Mchangama discusses threats to freedom of expression across the globe — and why it’s important to protect this bedrock of democracy.

www.aamc.org/news/free-speech-why-it-s-under-attack-and-what-can-be-done-promote-diverse-viewpoints

If you asked me four years ago, if a presidential candidate could skip a 60 Minutes interview, I would have been skeptical. Four years later, candidate Trump bypassed the legacy news magazine and instead, sat down with Joe Rogan. As of this writing, the marathon sit-down viewership reached 51 million views.

There is no doubt Rogan is a skilled interviewer who can draw out his subjects and deliver huge audiences. Compared to heavily edited network TV reports, the raw, unedited format reveals much about the subject. In politics, the podcast is perfectly suited for the “beer question” which measures a candidate’s authenticity and likability.

The progressive Harris campaign took a more traditional media approach and came up short. Neither celebrity endorsements which feel less relevant nor a 60 Minutes interview seemed to move the needle. The combined audience of the 60 Minutes Kamala Harris interview and its views on YouTube landed at about 10 million, far less than what Rogan and X delivered.

The legacy of the Kamala Harris 60 Minutes interview is not her responses but the lingering controversy over the CBS’ interview edit. And that is where the public’s loss of trust in the media comes in. I believe this is another driver of the audience exodus.

CBS aired two different answers from the Vice President to the same question from correspondent Bill Whitaker about the Israeli Prime Minister apparently ignoring the Biden Administration.

Face The Nation@FaceTheNation

MONDAY: On a @60Minutes election special, Bill Whitaker asks Vice President Kamala Harris if the U.S. lacks influence over American ally Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Watch a preview:

2:59 PM • Oct 6, 2024

599 Likes 185 Retweets

316 Replies

Since, a credible complaint has been filed at the FCC alleging “news distortion” at the network with a reasonable demand that the full, unedited Kamala Harris transcript be released. CBS News has said “it fairly presented the interview to inform the viewing audience and not to mislead it.”

In the October newsletter, I explained that releasing the full, unedited transcript would resolve these questions. There is ample precedent.

60 Minutes@60Minutes

With just 29 days until Election Day, Bill Whitaker sits down with Vice President Kamala Harris. One year after Hamas’ terror attack on Israel, Whitaker starts by asking Harris what the U.S. can do to prevent an all-out regional war in the Middle East. cbsn.ws/3U1BTmj

12:09 AM • Oct 8, 2024

422 Likes 175 Retweets

117 Replies

As a senior investigative correspondent at CBS News, I interviewed President Trump at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. I advocated for and CBS News published the full, unedited transcript.

The CBS News Trump interview was not a special case. The full, unedited transcript from Attorney General Bill Barr’s 2019 interview with CBS chief legal affairs correspondent Jan Crawford was also shared by the network. And more recently, 60 Minutes released the full unedited transcript of its interview with Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

If the current trend continues, in the 2028 election cycle, the broadcast networks will firmly take a back seat to podcasts, town halls, and investigative journalism on X. For independent journalists and small digital newsrooms, the challenge is developing revenue streams that are viable.

In February, I was not comforted by the analogy that losing my corporate reporting job was like getting pushed off the Titanic when there were still seats in the lifeboats. In retrospect, I wonder if it may turn out to be more accurate than I initially thought.

After turning down job offers for which I remain grateful, I began building the Catherine Herridge Reports brand on X and in the newsletter marketplace. These platforms are the new media beachheads. Content is King.

I’ll have more to say about the future of journalism and why journalism is called a profession for a reason. Look for exclusive new content on media accountability in the coming days!

Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter and supporting independent investigative journalism!

Up Next

‘Explore Every Action Necessary’: Here’s How Trump Admin, GOP May Change Fight Against Mexican Cartels

Don't Miss

Texas officers apprehend special interest illegal border crossers, save children

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Rand Paul Releases Report Detailing $1,000,000,000,000 In Gov’t Waste. Here Are The Worst Offenders

armed forces / 9 hours ago

Canadian military deployed ‘gender advisors’ to Ukraine, Haiti  at taxpayers’ expense

Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 12 hours ago

Christmas: As Canadian as Hockey and Maple Syrup

Catherine Herridge

Whistleblowers: Best Way to Bury Government Misconduct Is To Call In The Inspector General

Published on December 16, 2024

Todayville

TOP LINE

I’ve heard complaints from many whistleblowers who allege the “best way to bury government misconduct is to call in the Inspector General.”

This week’s report from the Justice Department’s internal watchdog delivers exhaustive detail, but it is light on accountability.

The Justice Department misled federal courts with no significant consequences.

DEEP DIVE

The new Justice Department Inspector General report suggests the federal courts rubber stamped DOJ subpoenas for phone records of congressional investigators – with no significant consequences to date.

In last week’s newsletter, I was among the first to predict the Justice Department IG would soon release its findings into government overreach, specifically the abuse of compulsory process (including subpoenas) to obtain phone and email records.

DOJ OIG Releases Report on DOJ Obtaining Records of Members of Congress, Congressional Staffers, and Members of the News Media using Compulsory Process

oig.justice.gov/news/doj-oig-releases-report-doj-obtaining-records-members-congress-congressional-staffers-and

This is NOT the first time that FBI and DOJ officials have misled the federal courts to obtain evidence for criminal investigations. The FBI and Justice Department improperly used unsubstantiated claims, and news reports, to secure surveillance warrants for Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

A former FBI agent who has personally drafted FISA warrants told me he had never seen surveillance applications that cited news stories.

FBI VAULT – FISA Surveillance Warrant Cites Media Reports

I have reviewed the Inspector General’s report and singled out one of the most important findings on page 4. It found Justice Department officials obfuscated the true identity of their targets and the construct for their leak investigations which probed media outlets and congress.

Most IG reports pass with limited media attention, but this one titled “A Review of the Department of Justice’s Issuance of Compulsory Process to Obtain Records of Members of Congress, Congressional Staffers, and Members of the News Media,” drew attention across the board.

Two Factors: the report impacts reporter records, and it found that the FBI and DOJ collected phone records on then GOP-congressional staffer Kash Patel who is now nominated by President Trump to lead the FBI.

Pg. 8 Inspector General Report — DOJ/FBI Records Requests

What’s clear from the findings is that the Justice Department relied on “boilerplate” language in its Non-Disclosure Order applications to the court. NDOs can block reporters and congress, as the report notes, from “learning about the use of compulsory process” to seek their records. That delays, and in some cases prevents, the subjects from challenging the process in the federal judiciary.

The courts did not have the full picture from the Justice Department, and the blame squarely falls on the DOJ. The DOJ was not transparent about its efforts to secure records from members of Congress and their investigators who were probing the origins of the FBI’s probe into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

On its face, the DOJ’s withholding of information from the courts appears to be an act of commission. If the courts had known the FBI and DOJ were seeking records from congressional investigators, the federal judges might have pushed back requiring immediate notification to the parties.

Patel seemed a prime target. Because of his extensive experience at the Justice Department, he understood and could expose defects in the surveillance (FISA) warrants for Trump campaign aide Carter Page, among other irregularities in the FBI/DOJ case.

According to Kash Patel’s 2023 lawsuit against Justice Department officials and FBI Director Wray, he didn’t learn about the subpoena for his google records until several years after the fact.

As I reported in last week’s newsletter, I faced severe push back, including the threat of attacks on my journalistic integrity from a justice department official when I reported allegations that in 2018 then Deputy Attorney Rosenstein threatened to subpoena Patel and others.

While the FBI and DOJ officials disputed the characterization of the 2018 clash between these two branches of government, this week’s report confirms that Justice Department had already sought the records for Patel and others months earlier.

Buried at the back of the report on page 81 are the top line recommendations. The first recommendation calls for the expansion of protections and internal review protocols for obtaining records from the news media. The second and third recommendations call for greater transparency when the DOJ investigates Congress which has oversight for the Justice Department.

Summary Recommendations

WHEN KASH PATEL GOT THE CBS NEWS TREATMENT

Kash Patel has always been a political lightning rod.

When I arrived at CBS News in November 2019, a senior executive told me that I brought a “fresh dimension” to the Network’s news gathering because I had deep contacts on both sides of the aisle.

We interviewed Kash Patel for a story in December 2019. CBS News titled the report, “White House staffer Kash Patel denies he was back channel to Trump on Ukraine.”

The interview was roundly rejected by the CBS broadcast shows. A senior producer on the CBS Evening News told me the interview wasn’t “newsy enough” to qualify for their broadcast.

The story was eventually posted to the CBS News website. At the time, I was taken aback by what seemed internal resistance to presenting all points of view on the Impeachment story.

At CBS News, I was surprised and disappointed to find a culture where many colleagues seemed content to confirm the reporting of other networks, rather than break news first. There were exceptions, but when it came to politics, I experienced a “follow the pack” mentality.

I’ll have more to say about the blowback over the Kash Patel reporting.

While this content is free, consider becoming a monthly subscriber to support our independent journalism and access future content.

Thank you for the consideration and, most of all, for supporting our work!

Best, Catherine

Upgrade

Catherine Herridge

Kash Patel Reporting Most Media Missed

Published on December 9, 2024

Todayville

TOPLINE:

With Kash Patel’s nomination to lead the FBI, an independent watchdog may soon bring needed transparency to allegations of government overreach targeting GOP congressional investigators, including Patel, probing the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe, “Crossfire Hurricane.”

The findings may tell us a lot about the power of Washington’s unelected bureaucracy.

DEEP DIVE:

There are some stories you don’t forget because of the pressure that is brought to bear on you by the government bureaucracy to walk away from the reporting.

One of those stories came in 2018, when a review of congressional emails revealed a senior justice department official Rod Rosenstein had allegedly threatened staffers on the House intelligence committee, among them Kash Patel.

Context matters: At the time, Patel and his team were systematically dismantling the premise for the FBI’s 2016 “Crossfire Hurricane” probe that investigated alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Because Patel had deep experience at the Justice Department, he understood and could expose defects in the surveillance (FISA) warrants for Trump campaign aide Carter Page, among other irregularities in the FBI/DOJ case.

At the time, I was the chief intelligence correspondent for Fox News based in Washington D.C. The Fox story was headlined “(Rod) Rosenstein threatened to ‘subpoena’ GOP-led committee in ‘chilling’ clash over records, emails show”

It was straightforward, document driven reporting, but the response from the DOJ was severe and, in my experience, disproportionate. We had reviewed emails that memorialized a January 2018 closed-door meeting between senior FBI and DOJ officials and members of the House Intelligence committee.

The 2018 report read, “The DAG [Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein] criticized the Committee for sending our requests in writing and was further critical of the Committee’s request to have DOJ/FBI do the same when responding,” the committee’s then-senior counsel for counterterrorism Kash Patel wrote to the House Office of General Counsel.”

The report continued, “Going so far as to say that if the Committee likes being litigators, then ‘we [DOJ] too [are] litigators, and we will subpoena your records and your emails,’ referring to HPSCI [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and Congress overall.”

The pushback to the story was swift and severe. Reps for the FBI and DOJ disputed the email account. “The FBI disagrees with a number of characterizations of the meeting as described in the excerpts of a staffer’s emails provided to us by Fox News.”

“A DOJ official insisted Rosenstein ‘never threatened anyone in the room with a criminal investigation.’ The official added that department and bureau officials in the room ‘are all quite clear that the characterization of events laid out here is false,” adding that Rosenstein was responding to a threat of contempt.’’”

My understanding of the 2018 meeting would change when new claims were made public in a 2023 lawsuit brought by Patel against FBI Director Wray and former Justice Department officials.

At the time, I was working as a senior investigative correspondent for CBS News in Washington D.C. According to the 2023 lawsuit, a subpoena for Patel’s “personal information” had already been obtained before the confrontational 2018 meeting.

According to court records, “On November 20, 2017, while Mr. Patel was still in his role as Senior Counsel and Chief Investigator for the HPSCI (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence), the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) secretly sought a grand jury subpoena to compel Google to turn over Mr. Patel’s private email account data. They did so in complete contravention of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure.”

The lawsuit continued, “DOJ sought the subpoena for Mr. Patel’s private accounts without a legitimate basis in a chilling attempt to surveil the person leading the Legislative Branch’s investigation into the Department of Justice’s conduct during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. This was a blatant abuse and violation of the separation of powers by DOJ, a violation of Mr. Patel’s constitutional rights, and an attempt to find a way to silence an investigation into DOJ’s questionable conduct, as detailed below. DOJ couldn’t subpoena Mr. Patel’s official accounts without sparking a public, political and legal battle; thus, they went for his personal accounts, in a non-public and unconstitutional manner, seeking dirt on Mr. Patel.”

Timing matters: Based on the lawsuit, the DOJ sought Patel’s records BEFORE the 2018 meeting. The lawsuit described it as a “politically motivated investigation.”

According to the 2023 lawsuit, Patel learned about the subpoena several years later, in 2022, when Google notified him the DOJ had sought information related to his personal accounts.

The court records state, “Mr. Patel was wholly unaware of this subpoena until December 12, 2022, when, in line with its policy, Google notified Mr. Patel that DOJ issued it a subpoena for information related to his personal accounts.”

In September this year, a Memorandum Opinion from the court, said the defendants motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. Among the arguments, that these officials are “entitled to qualified immunity…”

A separate watchdog report may soon bring needed transparency to these allegations of government overreach. In this case, claims that some senior FBI and DOJ officials abused their authority to gather information on congressional investigators scrutinizing the origins of the FBI Russia collusion probe.

I will have more to say, in the future, about my experience reporting the story and the personal blowback from government officials.

While this content is free, consider becoming a monthly member to support independent journalism and access future content.

Thank you for the consideration and, most of all, for supporting our work!

Best, Catherine

Upgrade