Four Questions About Scott Pelley's Response to CBS Firing Him

As I am sure you are fully aware, CBS fired Scott Pelley after 37 years with the network on Tuesday evening after he blasted the credentials of newly appointed 60 Minutes executive producer Nick Bilton while accusing the network's editor-in-chief Bari Weiss of "murdering" 60 Minutes. 

For me, to this point, the most interesting aspect of this story is Pelley's response to being fired. Pelley sent a statement to the Washington Post. I am particularly struck by this passage.

For my part, new management has instructed me to inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story. I’ve been told to include assertions that are unverified. To date, in every case, I have managed to ignore these instructions or refuse them. Recently, politicians have been invited to choose correspondents for interviews on the broadcast. Giving politicians control over 60 Minutes interviews is not how this is done. 

Given the specificity of Pelley's assertions, I believe these warrant some follow up questions. Four to be exact. 

1. On which politically sensitive story did CBS management ask Pelley to inject falsehoods and bias?

2. What were the falsehoods and bias that Pelley was asked to inject?

3. On what other stories was Pelley asked to include unverified assertions?

4. Which politicians have been invited to choose correspondents for interviews?

Questions 1 & 2 go hand in hand. Pelley has cited a specific story in which accuses network management of asking him to inject falsehoods and bias. We just don't know which story. 

Question 3 is worth if for no other reason to see what distinguishes between unverified assertions and falsehoods and bias. It also appears that Pelley work around such inquiries however potentially improper they may have been. However, he might not have been so lucky with the mysterious "politically sensitive story" in Questions 1 & 2.

As to Question 4, it is a matter of public record that Weiss gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the choice between being interviewed by Lesley Stahl and Major Garrett which Bibi choosing the latter. However, Pelley uses the term "politicians" which would suggest that Weiss have offered this option to other elected officials. In which case, it is well worth knowing who they might be. Were these American politicians or are there others from abroad? If it is American politicians, then was this reserved exclusively for Republicans or for members of the Trump Administration?

Getting back to Bibi, I do remember when Stahl interviewed him on 60 Minutes back in December 2016 and being rather perturbed by it. In her report, Stahl claimed, "Netanyahu took the provocative step of lobbying against the Iran nuclear deal and by extension President Obama in a speech before Congress." Provocative step? Netanyahu was invited by Congress to speak before them. It's not as if he just showed up on Capitol Hill and demanded to speak.

And let us consider this exchange:

Lesley Stahl: You have a friendship with Mr. Putin, and a friendship with China. You seem to be inching toward an anti-American bloc.

Benjamin Netanyahu: God, no.  Let me tell you something—

Lesley Stahl: Well, talk about that ‘cause I think there’s an impression of that.

Benjamin Netanyahu: That’s a false impression.  First of all, there is, there is an irreplaceable ally.  It’s called the United States of America.

Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but here you are making friends with our adversaries—

Benjamin Netanyahu: So no. You have relations with Russia and you have relations with China. We can have relations, economic relations, trade relations with other countries as you do.  Why not?

Now I think Netanyahu handled this line of questioning more than adequately. Nevertheless, Stahl's assertion that Bibi's cordial relationship with Russia and China constituted "an anti-American bloc" and that "there's an impression" of a such a thing isn't a statement of bias, then I don't know what is. In which case, I can understand why Bibi would prefer to talk to Garrett rather than Stahl.

But if permitting an elected or public official to choose who interviews him represents is not within the practices or protocols of American journalism and Weiss breached this practice and protocol, then I share Pelley's objections even if I think if Stahl's previous interview of Bibi was dubious.

I also don't think CBS or any other TV network should become an apparatus for state propaganda. Indeed, I vividly remember when Weiss killed the CECOT story last December because her decision came only hours after I watched All the President's Men during the Robert Redford tribute at the Brattle Theatre. 

Nevertheless, Pelley has made some specific allegations but has not provided the details. And the devil is very much in the details.