media

CBS News Admits They Lost the Plot. Can They Fix Themselves?

We are big consumers of various media here at the Daily Citizen. We must be, to stay in touch with what’s going on in the world. That means we are required to be discerning in determining truth from falsehood as we read and watch the news widely.

It is crystal clear that much of the legacy media has done a truly horrible job of informing audiences about what is happening in the world. They are supposed to be attuned to what is actually going on, but too often, they live in their own progressive bubble, failing to appreciate how truly tone-deaf they are.

It is why public trust in media has fallen to embarrassingly low levels. Just this past October, Gallup reported that trust has been declining steadily since the late 1970s and has now hit an all-time low of only 28% of Americans who hold a “fair amount” of trust in media. That trust remains highest among those 65 and older, but even there, it has been declining. Pew has reported the same sharp declines.

But some legacy media seem to be aware of this problem and appear to want to do better.

Tony Dokoupil, the incoming newsreader for CBS evening news, released a video statement on New Year’s Day copping to how bad legacy media has been.

Dokoupil confessed to the world, “People do not trust us like they used to, and it’s not just us, it’s all of legacy media, and I get it.” He admitted that in so many instances “the press has missed the story” because they have been talking to the wrong people, sources like “advocates” and “academics or elites.”

He confessed he has lost confidence in legacy media himself, feeling “like what I was seeing and hearing on the news didn’t reflect what I was seeing and hearing in my own life.”

Dokoupil resolved the following to America,

So, here’s my promise to you today, and every time you see me in this chair, you come first. Not advertisers, not politicians, not corporate interests. And yes, that does include the corporate owners of CBS. I report for you, which means I tell you what I know, when I know it, and how I know it, and when I get it wrong, I’ll tell you that too.

Dokoupil ended his remarks saying that “I think telling the truth” is a timeless commitment that should never change. In the final line of commentary, he invited all of us to, “Hold me to it.”

Such an observation and admission from a major network news anchor is no small thing. Of course, the question is how CBS will deliver on this new promise. We should all pay very close attention to the announcement of this change of direction and see how they do in fulfilling their new promise.

To that end, it is worth nothing that the very good, stalwart folks at the Media Research Center (MRC) recently reported that while each of the big three television networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) mentioned the massive welfare fraud taking place in Minnesota, “CBS was the only network to have aired even a single full-length report about the scandal, and as of this study’s publishing [on Dec. 30th], ABC hasn’t touched the story outside of a single offhand mention.”

MRC adds,

CBS far outperformed its counterparts, granting more than eight minutes of airtime (496 seconds) to the scandal, including three full-length reports on December 3, December 11, and December 29. CBS remains the only of the three networks to report on the sheer extent of the fraud, which investigators estimated at $9,000,000,000.

MRC also notes, “ABC’s vicarious outrage on behalf of Somali immigrants outpaced their coverage of the widespread fraud by almost five to one (122 seconds vs 25 seconds).” 

They observe, “CBS deserves credit for consistently giving this story its due” adding, “In fact, [CBS] correspondent Jonah Kaplan is the only broadcast reporter who appears to have done real investigative work on this topic.”

Of course, Nick Shirley is not a broadcast reporter, but he is the 23-year-old freelance reporter who has garnered over a 100 million views for his dogged reporting on the Minneapolis fraud. Vice President JD Vance wrote on X, “This dude has done far more useful journalism than any of the winners of the 2024 @pulitzercenter prizes.”

Shirley has done more reporting on this explosive story than the three major networks combined. It is sad thing indeed when, as MRC has reported, “ABC’s World News Tonight has done no journalistic work on this scandal whatsoever,” but a local ABC affiliates used Shirley’s own reporting in its news story.

We should hope for the best from CBS news but remember that actions speak louder than words. Dogged, truthful reporting of important stories is the hallmark of good journalism. Let us watch and see what comes of CBS’s new resolve.

Photo from YouTube.

MSNBC Backlash: Outlet Changes Title Sympathizing with Laken Riley’s Killer

MSNBC changed the title of one of its opinion articles late last week after readers accused the network of sympathizing with Laken Riley’s killer. The controversy bodes ill for the floundering outlet, which Comcast has announced it will spin off into a different company.

A Georgia judge convicted Jose Ibarra Wednesday for the murder of 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley, finding Ibarra guilty of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault with intent to rape, aggravated battery, hindering a 911 call and tampering with evidence.

Ibarra was subsequently sentenced to life without parole.

In response, MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos penned an opinion piece entitled, “Laken Riley’s killer never stood a chance — For all the political controversy surrounding Jose Ibarra, the outcome of this trial was never in doubt.”

Readers subsequently accused the defense lawyer of implying Ibarra had been railroaded.

The backlash was warranted. Cevallos’ use of the phrase “never stood a chance” suggests Ibarra was unfairly deprived of the chance to be acquitted. His assertion that “the outcome of this trial was never in doubt” likewise implies Judge Patrick Haggard found Ibarra guilty before hearing the evidence.

This insinuation is not based in fact. The prosecution presented nigh irrefutable evidence tying Ibarra to Riley’s brutal murder, including,

  • Ibarra’s fingerprints on Riley’s phone, presumably from when he ended her call to 911.
  • Ibarra’s DNA under Riley’s fingernails, corresponding to scratches on Ibarra’s hands, arms and neck.
  • Surveillance footage showing Ibarra throw a jacket in a dumpster. Investigators found Riley’s hair and blood on the jacket.
  • Surveillance footage showing Ibarra trying to break into another student’s apartment just two hours before he attacked Riley.

MSNBC found Cevallos’ original title similarly indefensible. It quickly replaced it with, “The guilt of Laken Riley’s killer was never in doubt — For all the controversy surrounding Jose Ibarra, the case against him was always a simple one.”

The new title is marginally better, but still bizarrely ambiguous. It could imply that the prosecution’s evidence was insurmountable. It could also imply what the original title did — that Jose Ibarra did not receive a fair trial. 

Cevallos’ equivocation clouds an otherwise simple piece. He posits that the defense waived Ibarra’s right to a jury trial because the case couldn’t be won. At times, Cevallos seems to acknowledge that the evidence against Ibarra made the case unwinnable. He addresses Laken Riley as a victim. He commends the defense for conserving the state’s resources.

But he also includes several comments seeming to impugn Judge Haggard’s decision to sentence Ibarra to life in prison.

Acknowledging the defense’s case had little chance against a jury, Cevallos wrote, “But apparently [the case] had no chance with the judge, either, since he was convicted anyway.” This sentence implies, as the original title did, that Haggard had decided to convict Ibarra before he analyzed the evidence.

If Cevallos had agreed with the sentencing, he wouldn’t have included a comment about Haggard “cutting [Ibarra] no breaks.” Similarly, if Cevallos believed the judge was on the up-and-up, he wouldn’t have started a description of Haggard’s narrow sentencing options with, “In fairness” — a phrase that signals a coming counterargument to an initially negative assessment.

It bears repeating — Cevallos’ veiled insinuations are not based in fact. The prosecution presented a preponderance of evidence tying Ibarra to Riley’s murder. The brutality of the crime and Ibarra’s criminal record and gang affiliations explain Haggard’s sentencing choices.

Cevallos is certainly entitled to his point of view, but journalistic outlets generally don’t platform unsupported opinions — or hire their writers as legal analysts.

Regardless, MSNBC can’t afford another controversy following Comcast’s decision to spin them into a new company, along with USA Network, CNBC, Oxygen, E!, SYFY and the Golf Channel. Comcast maintains the move will allow the ousted networks more room to grow, but staffers aren’t so sure. The spin off effectively de-links MSNBC from NBC, giving showrunners freedom to change the network’s editorial direction.

Comcast has not yet announced how NBC’s resources will be split among the departing affiliates. Nor has the cable juggernaut signaled willingness to sell MSNBC, despite high-profile offers from billionaires like Elon Musk.

MSNBC’s fate may be up in the air, but one thing’s for sure — sympathizing with a convicted killer won’t win them any public support. The network must seriously evaluate the analysis it chooses to platform, or risk losing the platform altogether.

Additional Articles and Resources

Laken Riley Murdered After Killer Took Taxpayer-Funded Flight

Violent Gang Takes Advantage of American Immigration Policy

Debate Over Immigration Labels Obscures Seriousness of Laken Riley’s Death

Illegal Immigrant to Appear in Court for Death of Texas Teen, Illustrates Violent Trend

Illegal Immigrant Arrested in Murder of Maryland Mom

Laken Riley Act Introduced in Senate

Talking to Your Kids About Illegal Immigration

Familial DNA Testing on the Southern Border Shouldn’t Have Ended

The Border Crisis and the Deafening Silence of Women’s Groups

LA Times to Platform Conservative and Centrist Opinion Writers

The Los Angeles Times will undergo a post-election makeover to increase reader’s trust, says owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong — starting with the editorial board.

“If we were honest with ourselves, our current board of opinion writers veered very left, which is fine,” the biomedical tycoon told CNN earlier this week. “But I think in order to have balance you also need to have somebody who would trend right, and more importantly somebody that would trend in the middle.”

He plans to identify and elevate opinion writers “that speak to all Americans” and better highlight the difference between opinion and news pieces.

The overhaul follows Soon-Shiong’s controversial decision to stop the Times’ from publishing a unilateral endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris for president.

“The Editorial Board was provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the positive and negative policies by each candidate during their tenures at the White House … and provide their understanding of the policies and plans enunciated by the candidates during this campaign,” Soon-Shiong explained on X.

“Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision.”

The outlet faced stiff reprisals. Editorials editor Maria Garza resigned outright, taking two veteran opinion writers with her, and thousands of readers cancelled their subscriptions in protest. But the backlash hasn’t changed the businessman’s mind.

“I think endorsements should be based on factual analysis and really transparent exposure of the basis of the endorsement,” he told CNN, “rather than … group think.”

When asked whether he considered the loss of subscribers a “disaster,” Soon-Shiong revealed,

I don’t think of it as a disaster at all. I think of it as an inflection point in which the trust of newspapers has to be restored.

Amazon creator Jeff Bezos made similar comments after barring his paper, The Washington Post, from endorsing a candidate.

“No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, ‘I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement,’” Bezos leveled enraged readers and staffers. “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence.”

Soon-Shiong and Bezos’ perspectives reflect a Gallup poll showing people across the political spectrum trust media less than ever before. This growing disconnect further explains why pollsters and mainstream media outlets overwhelmingly failed to predict and interpret voters’ overwhelming conservative shift.

Media outlets that don’t understand, or even demean, their readers don’t flourish. Legacy media will continue to flounder until attitudes like Bezos’ and Soon-Shiong’s become normal, not exceptional.

Additional Articles

Jeff Bezos: WashPo Isn’t Endorsing Candidates Because ‘Americans Don’t Trust Media’

Gallup Shows Public Confidence in Elite Media Hits Another All-Time Low

Revealing the Liberal Bias of the American Media

NYU Releases Study Claiming there is No Censorship of Conservative Voices on Social Media. It’s Wrong.

New Study Finds Mainstream Media Covers President Trump 150 Times More Negatively Than Joe Biden

American’s Trust in the Mainstream Media Continues to Fall

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Government-Backed Social Media Censorship

Reality Check — Media Skews Christians’ Grasp of Truth