Yeah, that interview that CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert did on Monday with Texas U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico that some people didn’t want you to see?
Well, apparently, a lot of people are seeing it. A lot.
As you know by now, Colbert said CBS insisted the show did not air the interview with Talarico on his late-night show, claiming the network was worried about the FCC coming after it for the equal-time rule regarding political candidates.
So the interview was shipped to the show’s YouTube page while Colbert, the network and the FCC all pointed fingers publicly about what happened.
But as far as the interview itself, it is being viewed by way more folks than would have seen it had no one made a fuss and it simply aired on Colbert’s show as originally planned.
According to Deadline’s Dade Hayes, the interview “has now drawn 85 million views across YouTube and social media.”
And that was as of Thursday morning.
Hayes reported that the measuring firm Tubular Labs said over a 72-hour stretch, there were 1,320 video uploads featuring Colbert and Talarico across YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook. The videos have generated more than 8 million engagements, with the 85 million figure stemming from any viewing session lasting at least two seconds.
Hayes wrote, “The most-watched individual clip, notably, is the full 15-minute interview. It has collected more than 7.5 million views, more than twice the daily average viewing level of Colbert’s YouTube channel.”
Since Colbert revealed on Monday night what had happened with the Talarico interview, there have been statements and comments from all sides.
Typically, the equal-time rule does not apply to late-night shows, but the FCC recently began looking into whether ABC’s “The View” violated the equal-time rule by also interviewing Talarico. That raised concerns that late-night shows could be next.
CBS, according to Colbert, felt spooked enough to keep Colbert’s interview with Talarico off TV
So who’s to blame? CBS or the FCC? The debate rages on.
The FCC’s sole Democratic commissioner, Anna Gomez, blamed both. She tweeted on Thursday, “The FCC is engaged in a campaign of censorship and control. They may not have ordered The Late Show interview pulled. But when government interferes in editorial decisions, broadcasters are forced to self-censor or push back. CBS chose not to push back.”
Speaking of CBS
Puck’s Dylan Byers reported that Anderson Cooper’s decision to leave “60 Minutes” “blindsided” CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss and the rest of leadership. They believed they were close to signing Cooper to a new contract.
One source told Byers, “These negotiations were on the one-yard line.”
Another source told Byers, “It was total chaos. Everyone was caught off guard.”
Cooper, who remains on at CNN, said in a statement that he wanted to spend more time with his family. But there have been reports that he was wary of a rightward direction at CBS News.
Byers wrote that, while he didn’t know what was inside Cooper’s head, his decision was likely less out of protest against the network “than a personal rejection of the entire Trump II–era CBS psychodrama, which, frankly, isn’t worth his time.”
Journalism controversy of the week
A week ago, The Atlantic published a story from Elizabeth Bruenig: “This Is How a Child Dies of Measles.”
As Laura Hazard Owen explained in her piece for Nieman Lab, “It’s written in the second person, from the point of view of a woman whose two unvaccinated children get measles — with ultimately horrific long-term consequences for her son.”
The essay’s many details about the children and second-person storytelling led readers to believe that the story was a first-hand account.
Owen herself wrote, “When I initially read Bruenig’s story, I was stunned: An Atlantic staff writer’s unvaccinated child had died of measles in the 2020s, and now she was writing about it?”
That’s how many readers took it.
But then there was this unusual editor’s note at the end of The Atlantic story: “This story is based on extensive reporting and interviews with physicians, including those who have cared directly for patients with measles.”
So, wait, this was not the author’s personal experience?
Owen reached out to Bruenig, who said, “It is a hypothetical account of a very real phenomenon based on careful reporting. I would place it somewhere on the creative nonfiction spectrum.”
Owen went on to ask Bruening many more detailed questions about her writing choice, as well as about the topic, which was measles.
Then Owen updated her story on Thursday to write, “After this piece was published, I heard from two different people who received The Atlantic’s original press push email for the piece around 4:30 p.m. on Thursday afternoon. At that time, when they clicked through, there was not an editor’s note/disclaimer on the piece at all. Both of those readers, who are professional journalists, responded to the press email with confusion and asked if the story was real. An Atlantic publicist emailed one of these readers back and said, ‘This is based on a mother’s real account. Thanks for checking.’ Sometime after that, the disclaimer was added and it was there when I read the story around 7 p.m. on Thursday night. A spokesperson for The Atlantic told me yesterday, ‘The note was added almost immediately after publication.’ This information is significant to me because it suggests that within The Atlantic there was confusion about whether the piece was fictional.”
No doubt that Bruenig’s story is powerful. But many readers got lost in the confusion.
Bruening told Owen, “I collaborated closely with my editors on this piece, and we were attracted to the idea of providing a play-by-play of the progression of measles in granular detail. It seemed like the best way to lay it all out was to spin a narrative that touches on every important aspect of a measles infection, from the biological processes inside the body, to the governmental response, to an outbreak. Writing in the second person made sense to me because it’s a hypothetical addressed to parents weighing these decisions or facing outbreaks in their communities. I write nonfiction either in the first person or third, so this felt like a way to signal that this is a different kind of story. On the other hand, writing in the second person always feels a little bit goofy. We included an editor’s note to remove any possibility of confusion. And yes, it does make sense to me to describe it as a story about ideas.”
Listeners upset
Recently, authorities investigating the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the 84-year-old mother of “Today” show co-host Savannah Guthrie, released door camera footage of a man in a mask outside of the elder Guthrie’s home around the time she disappeared.
In discussing the story on NPR, “Morning Edition” host Steve Inskeep interviewed a former FBI profiler. During the interview, Inskeep said the man’s mask made him look “a little like a federal immigration agent.”
That comment was the focus of the latest NPR public editor’s column by my colleague, Kelly McBride. According to McBride, “Listeners flooded our inbox with concerns about this correlation.”
McBride reports the comment was not in the script. Inskeep’s full question was, “So let me think about this. We have this man. He walks up to the porch. His — he’s armed and his face is covered, a little like a federal immigration agent, although it’s more covered even than that. He’s wearing gloves. His head’s down. Other times, head up. Something in the mouth. Looks like a flashlight in the mouth. Walks up to the security camera. That’s what I see. What do you see, and what do you read from that?”
McBride writes, “Comparing the intruder on Guthrie’s porch to a federal immigration agent was both irrelevant and inflammatory. The short phrase was interpreted by listeners to be a commentary on the controversial tactics of federal law enforcement. Some news consumers who care deeply about the dramatic story of Guthrie’s kidnapping felt like the comment was a sign of disrespect.”
McBride added, “An NPR news executive who would only talk on background told me that Inskeep did not intend for the statement to be political commentary. Instead, the off-the-cuff description was meant to help the audience understand what was in the video. It was not meant to connect the scrutiny of federal officers to the intruder on Guthrie’s porch, the news executive said.”
Check out the column for more of McBride’s thoughts on this matter.
Worth watching
“The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper” returns Sunday night at 8 p.m. Eastern on CNN with a piece by CNN’s Pamela Brown: “The Rise of Christian Nationalism.”
As CNN explains it, Brown will look at the “ideology rooted in the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that its laws and institutions should reflect Christian values.”
In a statement, Brown said, “My reporting for this hour began early last year when I visited Moscow, Idaho to interview Pastor Douglas Wilson. The response to that report was overwhelming and highlighted the need to better understand this movement working to redefine America as a Christian nation in the home, in a marriage, in schools and in government. We embedded with a community under Pastor Wilson’s umbrella and spoke to women who have left the church and are now sounding the alarm. No matter where you live or what you believe, what we learned is especially consequential at this moment.”
Speaking of Wilson, The Washington Post’s Amy B Wang wrote, “Hegseth invited Christian nationalist Doug Wilson to preach at Pentagon.”
Media news, tidbits, and interesting links for your weekend review
- Deadline’s Ted Johnson with “Senate Democrats Ask David Ellison To “Preserve Records” As They Threaten Investigation Of Paramount Contacts With Trump Over WB Bid.”
- Good column from Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher: “Trump and Karoline Leavitt Tried To Laugh Off ‘False Accusations’ Of Racism — Too Many In Media Played Along.”
- The Los Angeles Times’ Cerys Davies with “CBS’ Bari Weiss pulls out of UCLA lecture.”
- My Poynter colleague, Amaris Castillo with “When newspapers cut book coverage, communities lose more than reviews.”
- For Esquire, John Hendrickson profiles the legendary magazine writer in “Tom Junod Finally Reckons with What It Means to Be a Man.”
- Fun design and story here from The New York Times Magazine about a famous photo: “‘I Had No Idea How to Handle That’: The Drama Behind a Tense Ice Skating Moment.”
- Correction: In Thursday’s newsletter, I wrote about CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell sitting in next week on the network’s morning show. In doing so, I called the show by the wrong name. The name of the show is “CBS Mornings.” It used to be called “CBS This Morning” when O’Donnell last appeared on the show from 2012 to 2019.
More resources for journalists
- Great Lakes journalists: Work on coverage strategies, gain reporting tools and spark regional connections in our free election coverage workshops. Apply now.
- New editors: Get guidance from industry veterans and build the skills you need to become indispensable to your newsroom. Apply now.
- Get the skills, policies, and editorial support to cover crime with depth, accuracy, and public service in mind. Apply now.
- Reporters and editors with ambition to do investigative journalism: Get guidance from ProPublica’s Alexandra Zayas in this five-week, hands-on seminar. Enroll today.
Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.
The Poynter Report is your daily dive into the world of media, packed with the latest news and insights. Get it delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday by signing up here. And don’t forget to tune into our biweekly podcast for even more.
