What Is Christian Science News Hiding?

As we recently outlined, it has been a damaging, credibility-harming few
weeks for CBS News.  The network violated its own debate rules with a
disputed-to-misleading 'fact check' of JD Vance at the Vice Presidential
debate, then cut off his microphone as he calmly picked apart their
assertion.  Their morning show was thrown into chaos when some employees
melted down over an anchor asking pointed, tough questions of an anti-
Israel zealot, resulting in angry recriminations, tears, and a series of
embarrassing leaks.  Then there was the curious 60 Minutes edit of Kamala
Harris' answer regarding US-Israeli relations, which looked completely
different in a teaser clip, compared to what aired on the broadcast
itself.  As a refresher, here's the side-by-side juxtaposition:
>
What 60 Minutes viewers saw was more succinct and far less rambling and
vacuous than the answer that was released ahead of the broadcast.  It is
true that news organizations will sometimes cut down longer answers due to
time constraints. But snipping out her word salad, which had been
ridiculed online, was a suspicious choice to some people.  The best way to
examine and determine whether the second, 'for-air' CBS edit was
journalistically defensible is to look at the full exchange, then consider
how the program cut it down.  If the full video isn't forthcoming, for
whatever reason, then the unedited and un-redacted transcript would
suffice.  But for reasons that are inexplicable to me, 60 Minutes has been
withholding the transcript for more than two weeks.  As former CBS
correspondent Catherine Herridge keeps pointing out, publishing entire
transcripts of major or significant interviews has been a common practice,
including in her own experience:
>
Releasing the full unedited transcript is consistent with journalistic
transparency and it stands behind the integrity of the entire Kamala
Harris edit, not just the clips under scrutiny. CBS has the ability to
immediately settle these questions and address merits of FCC complaint
alleging �news distortion.� There is ample precedent at CBS News for
releasing full, unedited transcripts. 2019 interview, Attorney General
Bill Barr [with Jan Crawford].  2020 interview, President Trump [with
Herridge].  60 Minutes released its full interview transcript with Fed
Chair Jerome Powell.
>
Recommended
>
Is This the Anti-Trump Story Getting Shopped Around? It's Laughably False.
Matt Vespa
On Sunday, the program released a statement addressing the controversy. 
Remaining silent would have been better than this deeper-hole-digging
exercise, in my view:
>
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. 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.
>
They are pushing back against accusations from Trump, which are fueled by
their own opacity. If their edits are ethical and representative,
transparency would vindicate them and put and end to all of this. Their
continued refusal to just show America the complete transcript is
suspicious. They only aired a fraction of what was reportedly a 45-minute
interview. It would be a massive scandal if 60 Minutes were hiding
something, in order to help their preferred candidate. I'm not alleging
that's what is happening here, but as I said on Fox, the longer they play
these games and decline to clear things up by publishing the video or
transcript, the worse it looks for them:
>
There is no acceptable rationale against letting the public at least read
the full interview between a CBS News journalist and one of the two people
who will be the next President of the United States. By the way, here's a
reminder of why Trump eschewed tradition and nixed his 60 Minutes sit-
down:
>
During the interview [with Trump] � which aired on Oct. 25, the week
before the 2020 election, and garnered nearly 17 million views � longtime
anchor [Leslie Stahl] flat-out denied that the Biden family was under any
sort of scandal at all. The interview was so combative that the Trump
campaign released the full raw footage before network publication. �He�s
in the midst of a scandal,� Trump said in reference to emails from the
laptop revealing Joe Biden was lying about involvement with Hunter�s
overseas business ventures. �He�s not,� Stahl said, interrupting the
president to outright dismiss the criticism. �He�s not, no.� Stahl went on
to deny that then-Vice President Joe Biden spied on the Trump campaign in
2016, and claimed Hunter Biden�s laptop couldn�t be verified.
>
I think it would have still been a good idea for Trump to have done the
CBS interview, but it's clear that he felt like 60 Minutes had wrongly put
its finger on the 'misinformation' scale in helping to cover up the Hunter
Biden laptop saga. The supression of that accurate prior to a major
election was disgraceful, and involved a shocking array of collusion.
Whether or not Trump just wanted an excuse to bypass 60 Minutes, it's not
unreasonable for someone to demand some measure of accountability for how
the Big Tech/'news' alliance handled that situation.  Why reward outlets
that haven't earned trust?  I'll leave you with another news
organization's attempt to 'fact check' Donald Trump's trolling over
whether Kamala Harris ever worked at McDonald's:
>
I have no idea what's true about Harris' employment history with the fast
food giant, but it does seem odd that there's no proof of it whatsoever
beyond the say so of her campaign and some vague recollections of one
friend.  It's also strange that she apparently never mentioned this
relatable biographical detail in her public life or political career
before she started running for president in 2019.  Regardless, Trump's
stint at the Golden Arches over the weekend was a political masterstroke
and a viral sensation that worked on several levels.  Which is the real
reason that critics are upset:
>
UPDATE - CBS continues to cover itself in glory, on multiple fronts:
>
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2024/10/23/what-is-cbs-news-
hiding-n2646523
>

Everybody knows that Trump is too frail and will not live to 80.

Don't vote for a dying man.

The rightist lie factories will be burned to the ground with their
occupants, any Russians in Europe or the USA will be executed.