A major internal rift has erupted at CBS News following editor-in-chief Bari Weiss's controversial decision to pull a 60 Minutes investigation, prompting sharp criticism from the programme's veteran correspondents over her management style and the timing of her intervention.
A 'Political' Decision Sparks Newsroom Revolt
The crisis centres on a segment reported by Sharyn Alfonsi concerning the Trump administration's policy of shipping Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison. The report, which detailed allegations of torture, was pulled from the broadcast at the last minute on Sunday, 21 December 2025, just three hours before airtime.
In a strongly worded email to colleagues that was swiftly leaked, Alfonsi stated the segment had been "screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices." She argued that pulling it after passing all internal checks was "not an editorial decision, it is a political one," accusing the administration of using silence as a tactical "kill switch" for inconvenient reporting.
Weiss, the centre-right commentator installed as top editor by Paramount chair David Ellison in October, defended her move in Monday's editorial meeting. She claimed the story "wasn't ready" and didn't "advance the ball," as similar reporting existed. Her "North Star," she insisted, was getting principal subjects on the record and on camera.
'It's Not a Part-Time Job': Pelley's Public Rebuke
The situation escalated during the programme's Monday afternoon meeting. Veteran correspondent Scott Pelley, who has previously criticised corporate interference at 60 Minutes, directly challenged Weiss's conduct. He questioned why she waited until the final 48 hours to demand major changes, including a last-minute interview with White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, after skipping all five earlier screenings of the segment.
"It's not a part-time job," Pelley said pointedly in the meeting, according to sources. "She needs to take her job a little bit more seriously." He added that if Weiss wanted deeper involvement in editing, she must attend early screenings and communicate directly with correspondents.
Alfonsi also noted that Weiss never contacted her or her producer during the frantic last-minute push to alter and then spike the report. "Disagreement requires discussion," Alfonsi stated, a pointed retort to Weiss's call for a newsroom where contentious debates are handled with respect.
Timing Fuels Suspicions of Corporate and Political Pressure
The fiasco has been compounded by embarrassing operational errors. The full episode, including the spiked segment, was inadvertently delivered to Canadian network Global TV, where it was widely viewed and shared online before being removed.
Critically, the timing of Weiss's intervention has fuelled suspicions internally and externally that it is linked to Paramount's ongoing, hostile $40 billion takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD). President Trump, who has vowed to be "very involved" in the deal, had been gushing over David Ellison and his father, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, following Paramount's merger with their Skydance media company.
However, Trump's enthusiasm soured after recent 60 Minutes broadcasts critical of him. David Ellison, who has leveraged his family's Trump ties in the WBD bid, reportedly tried to placate the President by claiming he and Weiss had no advanced warning about a segment on Marjorie Taylor Greene that angered Trump. Just hours before Weiss moved to delay the CECOT story, Trump publicly complained that 60 Minutes "has treated me worse under the new ownership."
On Monday morning, 22 December, Paramount submitted a revised bid for WBD, with Larry Ellison personally backing the equity financing—a key move seen as addressing board concerns. The New York Times reported that even some of Weiss's supporters privately conceded she was "still learning the ropes of broadcast journalism" and had "mishandled the timing of her feedback."
The incident has exposed deep tensions within CBS News, raising serious questions about editorial independence, the learning curve of a print journalist in broadcast leadership, and the potential influence of corporate deal-making on news judgement.
