Bulwark Takes - Can “60 Minutes” Survive Bari Weiss? (w/ Max Tani)

Episode Date: December 23, 2025

Bari Weiss just spiked a "60 Minutes" story on the CECOT scandal, sparking outrage inside CBS and across the media world. Sam Stein and JVL are joined by Semafor’s Max Tani to break down what happened, why Weiss made the call, and how Trump’s shadow looms over CBS News. Read more in Morning Shots: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/trump-and-co-cant-keep-their-lies-straight-epstein-files-bondie-doj-weiss-cecot-cbs

Hey Ontario, come on down to BetMGM Casino and check out our newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. Don't miss out. Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show. Only at BetMGM. Access to the Price is right fortune pick is only available at BetMGM Casino. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

please contact Connix Ontario at 1866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Hey, everyone. It's me. Sam Stein, managing editor at the Bullwork. I am joined by JVL and Max Tani of Semaphore, frequent guest, friend of the program, I should say. We're going to be talking about Barry Weiss in this highly controversial decision that she made to, for the time being, spike a 60-minute story on Seacott and what was happening there, specifically the torture of Venezuelans who were brought there. This is basically all people in the journalism world are talking about right now, but not just the journalism world. People like us are kind of. kind of obsessing over this for what it says about the future of 60 Minutes and Barry Weiss. JVL, before we get to Max's reporting, I just want your top line thoughts. I mean, she's doing what she was hired to do. So Barry Weiss was hired to help make the merger go through with Skydance and Paramount. And this is happening within hours of Larry Ellison saying that he will personally backstop $40 billion in the attempted hostile takeover of

Warner Brothers, by Paramount, what's funny is the Ellison's care about the movie studios and the intellectual property and the platforms, but in order to get the deals, they need the government and the government to buy in. And what the government cares about is they care about CBS News, not even broader CBS, but just CBS News and CNN. And so the Ellisons are trying to demonstrate that they will make sure that CBS News and then by extension, CNN, should they win this hostile takeover bid that they'll be good soldiers for Trump and that Barry Weiss is reliable to be friendly to the administration. And she is who we thought she was. Max, how did this go down? As I saw it last night, basically out of nowhere, the CBS 60 Minutes Twitter account posts that they're going to be

preempting a story that had been set to run. The explanation was it wasn't, you know, air later. And then we started getting more and more explanations. Well, Barry Weiss didn't think. it was reported out enough. We get some more stuff from her today about they didn't get anyone on camera from the administration to talk about it. Another explanation was that New York Times had written about this topic, so they weren't moving the ball for it enough. I'm going to get to the point by point, but I just want you're reporting about what

happened. Yeah. I mean, all of those things are true. Those are things that Barry had raised internally. But my understanding here, from talking to some people close to. this, is that Barry, this piece had been in the works for a while and had been undergoing its standard kind of reviews and the kind of reporting process. And, you know, they were kind of putting the finishing touches on it to get it ready to go on the air. Barry, my understanding is

watched this, I believe, on Thursday evening and subsequently raised some concerns about it. Now, there was like a gap here between when she raised her concerns and when they decided to pull it, I believe, was on Sunday, or either late Saturday or early Sunday. So there was a period of time in which she wanted some of these changes possibly to be made. But basically, what my understanding is that Barry watched it on Thursday and had the concerns that you mentioned, and that was the thing that ended up holding up the piece because as soon as those concerns were raised, essentially, the correspondent who reported out the piece was, was not pleased with it. And we can get into the details of this. This is a

nuanced situation, but there are there, and there are some things that I would be curious to discuss with you guys about it. But at the same time, like obviously, of course, all of this is happening, as JVL mentioned, with the backdrop of Trump trying to put pressure on the Ellison's, the Ellison saying, we'll make some, and hinting and suggesting, we'll make some changes, you know, should we acquire Warner Brothers Discovery to CNN? So it's a, it's a whole big mess. Well, it's not just that. Ten days ago, Trump tweeted his displeasure with 60 Minutes. Yeah, right.

I mean, that's the backdrop, too. And the other thing that we now subsequently know, Washington Post is reporting the executive producer for 60 Minutes, the person who's actually in charge of the programming, not Barry Weiss, said that they felt like the piece was in a publishable state in that it was Weiss who overruled. So it is a very rare situation where the head of the news network is intervening in the news programming saying no that's not ready and then the and jvile i'm curious about your thoughts was

the other drama here that is also incredibly fascinating is the decision by the reporters to basically leak the discomfort and displeasure with it which is just not something you see every day where i mean they're yeah go ahead look this is sharing alfonzi so just go ahead the barry wice hire is maybe the most ludicrous hire i've ever seen in journalism she has never reported i think she reported one piece ever, and it was like, you know, she went to Australia and just wrote about like a travel diary. That's the extent of her reporting shops. She has no idea how reporting works. She's never run a large shop. I mean, the free press has like five people there. It's the size of the board, right? And she has no idea what broadcast journalism is.

She comes from the world of substack. The idea that you should take this woman with her credentials and put her in charge of a gigantic broadcast news operation is just absurd on its face. And so, you know, so why is she there? Again, she was there to sort of as signal that she was the most respectable person they could pick who would still be signal as Trump-friendly. You saw this when Trump went on 60 minutes after she was hired and he was like, yeah, and you have a very good, very strong, fair person now running this, right? You know, he got the message. And I just can't imagine. You're a journalist at 60 minutes. You've been there, you know, working in the in the salt mines for years, maybe decades. And this new suit comes in fresh off of her $150 million acquisition. And it's just like, oh, yeah, no, you're not moving the ball. Just say, just say what it is. Like, just say, no, we're not going to do this because we're, but again, Max has done more reporting to come on this, this, this, short podcast take than Barry has done in her entire career because she's not a reporter.

She's not an executive. She's nothing. She's just a person who goes around and finds rich suckers and fills, like, you know, fills a ideological need for them. I want to fact check a few things. One is we have more than five people here. Okay. Just give us a little credit.

Two is, yes, we are shit in this podcast, but we're elevated shit. We're not, you know, we've upped our shit game a little bit. Just want to make clear. I want to read the email that Sher and Afonzi sent. Again, Tim, I agree with 100% of what JVL said. And it's so clear that there is people on staff were just like, what, who is this person? Like, what is going on here? Like, this person has never reported.

Let's fucking do the news. Yeah, let's do the news. Remember that? That was, I want to read. Here's Alan Dershowitz. Here's Erica Kirk. That's me doing the news. Let me read this email because the subtext of this is just incredulity that this is happening.

She writes, I learned on Saturday that Barry Wiss spiked our story inside Sikot, which was supposed to air tonight. We asked for a call to discuss her decision. She did not afford us that courtesy opportunity. Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and standards and practices. It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now after every rigorous internal check has been met is not an editorial decision. It is a political one, a political one. We request your responses to questions or interviews with DHS, the White House, and the State Department.

Government silence is a statement, not a veto. Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story. This is the reporter putting out a note that everyone's going to consume directly attacking the head of the network. This is extraordinary stuff, Max. Yeah, I mean, it certainly is when you were my boss, I would have never dreamed of putting out a note such as this I would

that would be it would terrify me no but no but I do think no there's a few things going on here and I think that I I do think that there a few things can be true at once I do think like even if you take

you could take Barry at her word and you could say okay this is a re-this is a rehash of a story that the New York Times and Human Rights Watch did a few months back that CBS hasn't added anything to and you could

even, you know, make the argument like, sure, this would be a better piece of tape, you know, if we had this interview with Stephen Miller or with Tom Homan, where we, you know, confront them about or with Christy Nome, where we confront them about some of this stuff. But of course, it's really hard to take this stuff, you know, seriously. It's hard to, it's hard to trust. And I think this is the way that a lot of people inside CBS feel, even people who, you know, at various points have been rooting for, for success. When the Ellisons are out there, basically telegraphing, we are going to make changes to our news programs in order to get these big major mergers done. And when Trump is out there basically, you know, at various

points changing his mind saying, oh, you know, when this deal first went through, oh, CBS, we like them now. They're, you know, their, their, their owner has been very friendly to me. They got some new people. And then saying, oh, well, now they've let me down so much because 60 minutes ran, you know, whatever kind of very kind of down the middle segment it ran. So I think that, I mean, look, I think there's a world in which you think like maybe this could have, you, this could have benefited from, you know, another thing or two. But I think it's hard to take that stuff seriously and trust it when there is all of this, you know, these environmental factors, which, which make it, make it very hard to believe.

Name three stories ever to have run on the free press, which advanced the ball. I mean, it's just, it's an absurd standard. I'm not, I say that not to you, not to you, Max, to the world. I'm not challenging you. I'm just saying to the world. The idea that it's about like advancing the ball is, and that's the only thing that can ever be of value. And I, you know, Andrew Pukop went and dug up from her archives.

Oh, this was so good. Yeah, when she was criticizing the self-censorship at the New York Times. and how politically sensitive pieces could only run after every line is carefully massaged and negotiated and caveated, and that there are always pretextual complaints about a story not being strong enough to justify running it. Come on. Let me play around with this idea that, yes, it could have gotten more reporting and yes, you should have gotten people on camera. I think generally, sure, everything can always get another iteration of reporting, can always try to get someone on camera. But when the standard is set that you can't duplicate something in the Times and or you need Stephen Miller or Tom Harmon to come on camera, you're never going to clear some certain hurdles, right? If something has been printed in the Times and therefore you can't write about it or in this case broadcast it, I mean that, no offense, Times is going to be probably, you know, beating you on a lot of stuff, right?

And then the idea that Stephen Miller has to come on, I guess, but like what are you, what's the additive here? If you are thinking honestly about what Stephen Miller was going to tell you, do you think booking Stephen Miller to talk about Seacott is going to illuminate? Because the whole thing is about illuminating it for the viewer to give him a fuller picture? Is Stephen Miller going to provide you the fuller picture? Is he going to provide you just absolute propaganda? And you know what he's going to say, right? Like, I'm a little bit, I don't know.

I'm not saying there's not nuance. I'm not saying she has no point. But I do think the idea that, oh, you had to get Stephen Miller. I don't know. Do you? There are a few things going on here, which is that, you know, Barry, I think that this couldn't, I think Barry is trying to do something, which is very, which would be very difficult under any sort of circumstance. She, Barry is taking over, a person who has JVL mentioned, has no television experience up until then. It's taking over a legacy news broadcaster that has experienced a tremendous amount of turnover over the past several years.

They've gone through, like, several network presidents just in the last five years. She's coming in there, she's come in there and she's said this is, and this is kind of the spin that you hear from, you know, from kind of her camp, people kind of close to her. They feel, you know, this is old broadcasting that's really stale. And if we want to survive, we need to make it interesting. That's why we're doing the Erica Kirk Town Hall with, you know, a lot of the, uh, five viewers. I'm saying, I'm saying, yes, I'm saying, I'm saying, this is the point.

Poor backs. This is what they're saying. I'm saying, this is what they're saying. I'm, you know, I, I, I, I can, there's a, there, it is true. Some of, some of it certainly is like, it could be flashier or more, you know, dynamic or something like this. Alan Dershowitz, one of the most charismatic figures of our time. You know, I did a video on Alan Dershowitz. Yeah, the last time I was on the bulwark was to talk with saying about Alan Derswitz.

But that's because he didn't like his dumplings or whatever the hell it was. His parogies. Yes, the parrogies. Yeah, okay. But all of that is to say that it is a very, it is incredibly, I think that it is very, very difficult to do that job when both that you don't have a, you know, a career of television experience to help you make those kind of programming calls and to, you know. Did they ever watch her podcast, Max? Her podcast was not scintillating. This is, again, like, we just can't pretend that these, these things are real.

She was not brought on to make things flashier and bring in more interest. that wasn't the purpose behind it. As New York Magazine had a great piece about this last week, which laid out the ways in which Barry's career changed as she got closer to a lot of people in Hollywood in the wake of COVID. You know, there were a lot of people, including people like the Ellicons, who felt they understood her spiritually

in her kind of anti-woke, kind of, you know, the kind of anti-woke things that she was putting on there out there. Plus, as well, you know, her support for, for Israel. That found a nice niche audience, including She sports Israel? I didn't, I wasn't working. Let me, can I make, can I throw out a thought that I, I'm curious for your takes on this. I don't think this was the more, the, the, from a managerial perspective, I don't think this was her worst move yet. I actually think the decision she made to moderate

the Erica Kirk panel was a silly misstep. Not booking Erica Kirk or doing the Barry, centering Barry. I can't believe it, Sam. Because if I were, if I were a person, if I was a CBS news anchor or even a reporter, the idea that editor-in-chief would come in in Bigfoot and then take it over and then do all the promotion around it. Yeah. And then do a little walk and talk.

No, it's because it's because the project is making Barry Weiss more famous. Right. So that's what would tick me off. And to a degree being like, look, I don't feel comfortably yet running this segment. We need more reporting. that's more of a traditional editor-in-chief role. The idea of taking over the interview, the A-1 interview, and being like, I'm going to do it,

and then I'm going to promote it, and it's going to be about me and her, is a little bit more divisive, I would say, in turn. Yeah. The question that I have, and that I've, you know, I'm kind of endeavoring to figure out over the last few hours over the last day

is whether or not, you know, the Ellison's explicitly, you know, said anything to Barry to suggest that, they hold off on either this segment or these types of segments in general, or, and this is, of course, always the more kind of... Wait, is it possible the Allison's are getting screened these segments pre-advance? There was a story that I'm from Charlie Gasperino in New York Post a few weeks ago in which, or maybe this was like a week and a half ago, after Trump tweeted about 60 minutes,

there was some leaks to Gasparino from somebody and he's been hearing, you know, Charlie's very plugged in and part of part of this world. He's been, he was hearing essentially that the Ellisons were unaware. They were putting it out there that they were unaware that this segment was coming out, but that they were like, they had concerns about the segment that had upset Trump. But anyway, I guess what I was going to say, though, is that, and I think that this gets to the point that, you know, maybe JVL was making, and I'm sure that maybe you agree with this well, Sam, that like the, it's not even if, you know, the Ellison's explicitly said,

David Ellison explicitly said to Barry like, hey, cool it, lay off this thing. It's just like the knowledge that one has in the back of your, that she might have in the back of her head that, you know, this is the kind of thing that would, you know, might, might get them into trouble, might ruin this big deal that, you know, they're, they're going to have that would put them in, and Warner Brothers together. That, to me, feels like, you know, the- Barry's not that stupid. She doesn't need to be told not to run a segment.

Like, she knows what the score is. Can I ask you guys a question? Yeah. Wind back the clock to the lawsuit that got 60 minutes in trouble with Trump because they interviewed Kamala Harris and they offered to interview him and he declined. Under a Barry Weiss regime, would one presidential candidate declining to participate in an interview

then mean that they didn't do the interview of the other person? It's a true question because obviously it is. If the Democrat declined, then she'll run the Republican. public interview, but the other way around, right? If J.D. Vance says, no, I'm not going to do it. Then they won't run the Democratic. That seems to, that would, I mean, obviously everything's squishy, but that would seem to be the standard she's setting here, right?

It's like you have to have. And there was something about, in her note that she said. Like Mitch McConnell standards on Supreme Court nomination. So like, and this was, like it's negotiable. So in this four, in this multi-part note she sent to staff explaining her email, the 60th staff explaining the decision. There was one line that really stood out to me at the end. We need to do a better job of explaining the legal rationale by which the administration

detained and deported 252 Venezuelans. It's not as simple as Trump evoking the Alien's Enemies Act and being able to deport them immediately. And that isn't the administration's argument. The administration's arguing in court that the detainees are due judicial review. And we should explain this. Here's the part I noticed with a voice arguing that Trump is exceeding his authority under the relevant statute.

And another arguing that he's operating within the bounds of his authority. So it is this kind of faux balance when if you look at basically, what is it, like 95% of lawyers probably would say, no, he's dramatically exceeding his authority here. And there's like a handful off and work in the administration. So there does seem to be. If they do a segment on birthright citizenship, are they going to have two constitutional law scholars, one explaining how no, birthright citizenship is in the constitution. And then another one explaining how actually it's not. Yeah. It's absurd.

And she's just like fucking say you want to be newsmax. Just say it. To me, this also gets at the other problem that exists here, which is, you know, that the Ellison's brought in Barry to run CBS News. And part of one of Barry's things that she put out there right when she started is like, we got to rethink kind of like this is this place has lost kind of its ideological and kind of journalistic. It's core way, basically. And that like this has leaned too far and become like too far. implying that it had moved too far to the left. But that's not like, and that was the thing

that was causing viewers to leave and audiences to leave. And the reality is that it has nothing to do with that. What has, viewers are leaving because they can watch, you know, the Bullwark podcast with you guys instead. That might have been true back. Do you remember the Texas National Guard scandal

right under George Bush with the CNN? The Dan Rather thing. Like, that might have been true 20 years ago. Right. CBS News has been a perfectly responsible news organization over the last decade. There has not been any crazy left-wing, you know, resistance stuff coming out of CBS. Yes. This is just like, she, you know, the whole world is a nail and she's got a hammer, and she's gotten super rich doing it.

Let me ask to close this up. So if you had to, and this is mostly to Max, I just don't see how it's tenable when you have staffers leaking memo, staffers putting out emails. Barry saying, we've like, we have to trust each. other, then coming down hard. And yet, what's, I mean, what, we're in this industry, where do they go, right? It's not like, you know, I just don't know what 60 minutes looks like in six months. I really do think in general that this, it's, I think it's, I think it's, I think it's really over. Like, I really think, I think that this was going, this is going to happen for two reasons. Like, I think part of it is just the, is the current. What does it over mean, though?

Situation. I mean that I think that these, I think that the ratings on these, CBO, Fox News has been releasing their ratings regularly showing themselves beating a lot of the CPS broadcasts. That used to never happen, right? Like Fox was always the biggest in cable. It wasn't the biggest in broadcast in general. Broadcast viewership decline for the news is just as steep as it is anywhere else. And I think that when you don't have a clear, and when you don't have a clear identity or audience, you're going to lose talent because people are going to go and want to work someplace

where they can, you know, be in front of people and make a difference. And, of course, you're going to lose viewers who are confused about what's going on. And they were already in a declining kind of business. So, I mean, my personal view is that I think that the heyday of this show is a review. But does the show even exist? I'm just got, put inside the heyday. Does the show exist? Yeah, yeah.

It still was watched by a lot. It's still watched by a lot of people because it's leading. in is NFL football for most of it's, most of the year, which is a pretty nice lead in. And I think that that's, so yeah, I think it'll still, I think it'll still be there. I think that the question is, are they going to see the kind of declines that places like, you know, say the Washington Post saw when they decided not to endorse, you know, Kamala Harris, right? And their audience kind of revolted. I've been telling JVL, we need to get NFL streaming rights for our YouTube page, but he just does.

Absolutely. working on that. Can you get like the, like any of the weird game, you know, kind of, you get a preseason game, maybe here and there. The Berlin game. A lot of people watch that, though, I think. I don't think it's on it. It's such odd hours. I think a lot of people watch that. All right, JVail, it seems like you agree that this basically is just. Yeah. Not dead by that. You think this is bad? Big cuts. Just wait until she gets her hands on CNN. If she gets her hands on CNN. It's happening. You think so? Yeah, I think so. You think so, man? I think that Paramount, I think that Paramount wants it more than...

They want it bad. They keep up in the bid, changing it for them. Their business really relies on them, you know, reaching a level where they can compete with, with the other big kind of players in the space, Netflix, and also YouTube and Disney and some of these others. Yeah. So I think that they want it more.

Yeah. Oh, man, Kim Mashin. Jeez. How can she review every single segment before it, cares though if she has all those things underneath her some will get through the cracks some people actually work hard at their job sam people some people some people really care that's that's what it is i'm not one of them obviously all right max jvil thank you guys appreciate it really good segment happy holidays okay