Yes, Elon, seeking truth IS the most important goal of journalism
And giving a voice to vulnerable people matters, too
The famous saying is “never apologize, never explain.” I understand it’s supposed to promote keeping a stiff upper lip and being stoic, non-whiny and strong. But I’m not a fan of either part of that directive.
On the contrary, I think it’s wise to apologize when that’s warranted.
As for explaining, I’d like to do a little of that here. No apologies, though, in this case. So here we go:
My editor at the GuardianUS asked me last week to opine on the controversy about Bari Weiss — the new editor in chief at CBS News — and her startling decision to withhold a well-vetted 60 Minutes story just before it was to be broadcast. As you may know, the story was about a brutal prison in El Salvador where the Trump administration has been sending Venezuelan migrants without due process.
It’s a powerful, disturbing segment, and even though it aired only in Canada, not in the US, you can probably find and watch it, as I did. The story makes clear the inhumane conditions at the prison, and the cruelty of sending migrants there. It certainly doesn’t reflect well on the Trump administration.
My column was critical of Weiss, who I believe has been installed as editor to move CBS News to the right, as her corporate bosses clearly want. Her direct boss is the ultra-rich David Ellison, son of Larry Ellison, who is one of the richest people on earth and a friend of Trump’s. Notably, CBS’s parent company, Paramount Skydance, is trying to buy Warner Bros. Discovery (which owns CNN) — and they probably need help from Trump World to get it done.
Weiss has no previous broadcast TV experience and isn’t really a news person, though she founded a successful opinion-based site, The Free Press, and is a former opinion editor at the New York Times. The fact that she’s the top editor at one of the most storied newsrooms in the U.S. says a lot about media in this moment.
My conclusion was that Weiss’s decision to keep this segment off the air was within her rights as editor, but was an unwise decision — and in fact, a form of censorship by oligarch.
It was a tough column, and I stand by what I said. You can read it here.
Afterwards, I posted it on social media — both on X (formerly Twitter, and owned by Elon Musk, of course) and on BlueSky. And in both places, I used a line from the column to pique interest; in retrospect, I might have made the wrong choice.
I wrote in the social-media posts: “Journalism is supposed to ‘afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted,’ but Bari Weiss seems to have it backwards.”
Soon after, Elon Musk chimed in.
“No, Marge, you’re supposed to tell the truth,” Musk tweeted to his millions of followers.
The thing is, Musk and I are in total agreement on that. Journalism’s first responsibility is to the truth and to the facts. No argument there.
Later, Fox News emailed me, saying they were doing a story on the criticism of my column that had followed Musk’s tweet, and asking for my response. I gave them one; if they did do a story, I never saw it. It was, after all, the day after Christmas.
That old expression about comforting the afflicted is supposed to remind us that a part of the journalistic mission is to give a voice to the voiceless and to hold powerful people and institutions accountable.
Powerful, rich people and big corporations don’t have a lot of trouble getting their message out, or getting the best legal representation, or addressing wrongs visited upon them. But the vulnerable person, by contrast, often has no voice. That certainly includes the migrant who’s being treated as the worst kind of criminal — as an animal — and thrown in a mega-max prison with no recourse and no help.
The 60 Minutes segment on the prison seemed to have that understanding as its foundation. It said, in effect, “Hey, Americans, here’s something that your government is doing to your fellow human beings and you ought to know about it.”
Did the story tell the truth and stick to the facts? Certainly. The segment had been stringently fact-checked, vetted and approved by the CBS News standards department and its legal department. It had been screened internally multiple times, and Bari Weiss had every opportunity to review it much earlier in the process. The segment had been scheduled, promoted, and approved at every level.
But then she decided it lacked sufficient on-camera commentary from top Trump officials such as Stephen Miller. The reporters and producers said they had asked for a substantive response from those officials and didn’t get that.
So Weiss pulled the story. It didn’t air as scheduled and it’s unclear when or if it will ever see the light of day.
Sharyn Alfonsi, the correspondent on the story, charged that Weiss’s decision was driven by politics, and that a policy of pulling stories for lack of comment was like giving those under journalistic scrutiny a “kill switch.”
As I said in my column, Bari Weiss gets to make these kinds of calls. She is, after all, the editor. I can’t know what was in her head but it’s my opinion that Alfonsi’s read is correct. The story would certainly irritate Trump World, and the Paramount Skydance honchos really don’t want that right now. Did the Ellisons order her to do what she did? I doubt it. It’s not necessary; it’s understood.
Do editors sometimes pull stories back because they lack sufficient reporting? Of course they do, and rightly so. I did that kind of thing myself occasionally when I was the top editor of a daily newspaper for 12 years. Ben Bradlee famously did the same when his hotshot Watergate reporters at the Washington Post had failed to nail down a story sufficiently.
But I don’t believe that was the motivation here.
Readers, what’s your view? Have you seen the segment? Was withholding it a political decision? I’d love to hear your opinion.
Separately, happy new year to all. Here’s hoping for a year of good will and good journalism, less ugliness and more reason for hope.
And here’s a year-end treat — a gift link to Frank Bruni’s New York Times column in which he celebrates the best sentences of the past year. It’s delightful. Writers, prepare to feel jealous.
I very much enjoyed the comments last week in which many of you offered excellent advice to young journalists or student journalists. It’s worth revisiting last week’s comments if you have a chance to see those.
Thanks for being here on this wild ride as we enter 2026. I’m grateful for your support and interest. Here’s why one reader became a paid subscriber, and below that, some information about what I’m attempting here.
My background: I am a Lackawanna, NY native who started my career as a summer intern at the Buffalo News, my hometown daily. After years as a reporter and editor, I was named the paper’s first woman editor in chief in 1999, and ran the 200-person newsroom for almost 13 years. Starting in 2012, I served as the first woman “public editor” of the New York Times — an internal media critic and reader representative — and later was the media columnist for the Washington Post. These days, I write here on Substack, as well as for the Guardian US, and teach an ethics course at Columbia Journalism School. I’ve also written two books and won a few awards, including three for defending First Amendment principles.
The purpose of ‘American Crisis’: My aim is to use this newsletter (it started as a podcast in 2023) to push for the kind of journalism we need for our democracy to function — journalism that is accurate, fair, mission-driven and public-spirited. That means that I point out the media’s flaws and failures when necessary.
What I ask of you: Last fall, I removed the paywall so that everyone could read and comment. I thought it was important in this dire moment and might be helpful. If you are able to subscribe at $50 a year or $8 a month, or upgrade your unpaid subscription, that will help to support this venture — and keep it going for all. Thank you!
But 99 times out of 100, the truth WILL afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.
I think your analysis is spot on.
I also think it’s terrific that pioneer Chicago columnist Finley Peter Dunne’s century old words are still making waves.
Notably, the original, overall context of “afflict the comfortable…” was a bit different than folks imagine. It was more an observation on the immense power of newspapers in his day, than duty. The phrase itself was so powerful on a stand alone basis that it was almost immediately excised from its surroundings and given the meaning we use today.
Dunne was a quote machine. We’re still using lots of them!