Talk:CBS News

CBS News logo

I feel that the "classic" old san serif CBS News logo should be put in the page's main caption box rather than the 2006 logo that's there now. The 2006 logo wasn't that widely used and CBS News seems to have switched back to the old "classic" logo, at least on their website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.89.63 (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

--User: Scoutstr295

Russ Mitchell's last broadcast is on December 31, 2011 Anthony Mason is his main backup please do not undo current revision until Mitchell has completed his last broadcast on december 31,2011 7:00 PM

User Owen 85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.113.117 (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Lara Logan

The lara logan controversy should be added. When CBS's chief foreign correspondent goes on the record saying that publishing accurate quotes is bad journalism, its a big scandal. She even went on to say that she believes being in the military is a more important job than a journalist. 24.207.131.20 (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Listing every single programme and correspondent

I'm concerned by listing such a large amount of bulleted information in the article, it crosses the line of WP:IINFO and takes us into "long and sprawling lists of statistics [which] may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles". The average reader would benefit more from a couple of prose paragraphs about the channel's most significant correspondents (presented with appropriate context), than from a seven page list of everyone who's ever worked at the station. Similarly, a descriptive history of the station's news slots would let the reader distinguish the significant events in the station's lifetime from relatively minor changes in title or lineup. The CBS News templates, and optionally some newly created categories, should be doing the heavy lifting of "here is a list of every relevant biography article". What do other editors think? --McGeddon (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Don Webster Link

refers to a hockey player.

The Don Webster I think we are actually interested in was a CBS correspondent during the Vietnam War who did some famous and some famously controversial pieces. Here's one on Hue City. http://thewarreporter.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/early-1968-cbs-news-coverage-of-the-battle-of-hu%E1%BA%BF-in-vietnam/

He inspired controversy by allegedly getting soldiers to cut off some ears for the camera: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/02/books/vietnam-the-mess-and-the-press.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

kidnapped & detained for a time in angola: http://books.google.com/books?id=EZjlE4-1GSIC&pg=PA333&lpg=PA333&dq=don+webster+cbs+news&source=bl&ots=tUmKYGYIqg&sig=C_ga8BjhApC63FgGPuB-rlcT3zg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IzoUUOCrDofA9QT3qYCgDA&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=don%20webster%20cbs%20news&f=false

mentioned here: http://lde421.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-top-correspondent-in-vietnam.html

seems like someone with CBS should take the time to give us a bio on this important reporter. lets see what happens...

Jriley555 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly related to a White House advisor

Wouldn't honesty compel the note that Rhodes of CBS is related to Ben Rhodes, the White House advisor who is involved in the IRS scandal? Everybody knows the ideological tilt at the CBS News anyhow, but the present article just ignores that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.20.187 (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have independent reliable sources discussing a family connection between someone at CBS and someone at the White House and somehow connecting this to your hypothesis, this would be a good place to bring it up. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Anna Werner reference.

Anna Werner. I doubt the Anna Werner link you have is correct. The Anna that is on CBS was not born in 1941. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BD81:290:98E8:1440:1423:EC17 (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

A bit late, but fixed, thanks. 15 (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

biased news

Media bias. There have been many instances of biased reporting from CBS News. Noteworthy is from 21 year CBS journalist 5 time Emmy winner Sharyl Attkisson's New York Times bestseller Stonewalled : my fight for truth against the forces of obstruction, intimidation, and harassment in Obama's Washington which referenced among other improprieties at CBS News one of the biggest stories of 2012 the Benghazi attack which she alleged was under-reported by CBS News which notably painted Obama & especially Hillary Clinton in a bad light. There were questions about who knew what when. It is clear to those who look at what & how CBS News reports objectively that it is partisan biased to the left.Haddi Nuff (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The allegations made by Attkisson are already extensively covered in her article. As she's the sole source of those allegations, her article is where it's treated. I'm not against such things being mentioned here, but unfortunately the coverage is pretty much confined to her, and no reliable sources report on it as anything else but uncorroborated claims being made by her personally. Thus her page is a better place to cover those claims, as opposed to the CBS article, since they're essentially hearsay. There are also some issues as to her overall credibility as of late in terms of various claims she's made, as well as her affiliation with the Heritage Foundation, that would affect how we would present such information. But that's sort of a moot point. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

_{Also, note that you can't use Wikipedia itself as a source. I'm assuming you just wanted to link the article, rather than present it as a citation. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)}

References

Update on Bari Weiss Changes?

Would this be an appropriate article to add Bari Weiss changes to staff and new plan for CBS? If so, where? Here's the reference: ? ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 23:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks like there's a good spot under History section so I'll add it there. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 23:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Creating new History Subsection "Second Trump Administration"

I'm wondering if under the 21st Century section we can add a subsection called "Second Trump Administration" or similar. The new section would essentially start with the October 2024 lawsuit as background and then better organize/frame the following paragraphs. Right now the content currently reads as a timeline of separate, disjointed events when (according to the reliable sources we cite) much of the upheaval/rearranging of staff/change in editorial directives is because the merger required approval from the executive branch; subsequently, it is widely speculated in reliable sources that political pressures have impacted editorial independence. If this is agreeable, I would recommend removing the second paragraph of the controversies section as a bit redundant.

Alternatively, the "Second Trump Admin" subsection could be moved to the controversies section. If we did this, we would keep the 21st century section to the high level information (executive changes and mergers). I also think the controversies section should be the last subsection of the History section because the in-between sections are mostly lists and breaks up the narrative flow.

Finally, I think we should remove the paragraph about Mick Mulvaney because, when we look CBSs more recent actions and consider what is most likely to be important at an encyclopedic level, the hiring of one paid-contributor seems like small beans. Let me know if there are any objections or additional considerations! PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Layoffs

@PositivelyUncertain If wiki readers independently draw the conclusion that racial purges happening shortly after Bari Weiss took power is connected to her, that is their prerogative, but nowhere in the text you reverted did it actually say she instituted them. It is not wikipedia's job to sanitize right wing institutions, this isn't the Manhattan Institute; and BLP doesn't apply to orgs.

As for a tweet, a CBS producer alleging something is a CBS producer alleging something. The medium is irrelevant. Do you have a better reason for removing this, or can I reinstitute it? Snokalok (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this convo. Even if, as you contest, this is not a BLP issue, the sentence is unsuitable:

...which — as one former CBS producer alleged — primarily targeted racial minorities at the company, while white employees were simply shifted to other jobs.

The source is quoting an Instagram post and the article itself does not verify the truth of that statement. It's a primary, self-published source. Furthermore, the producer was talking about layoffs on his team, not all people laid off.

This is gossip and we don't include everything associated people say on social media in our articles. Furthermore, I disagree that this isn't a BLP issue because the paragraph - and the article cited - is directly linking Weiss to the lay offs. It's not about readers "independently" drawing that conclusion - it's directly what our article is inferring. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The source is quoting an Instagram post A public allegation is a public allegation, it doesn't matter if they're shouting it in the middle of Times Square or posting it on social media.

does not verify the truth of that statement I mean, that's why it's called an allegation. Plenty of rape, discrimination, and war crime allegations that we include on the project have been made via social media, it's a public platform - why wouldn't someone make it there?

This is gossip and we don't include everything associated people say on social media in our articles No but we do include allegations when they meet GNG.

I disagree that this isn't a BLP issue because the paragraph - and the article cited - is directly linking Weiss to the lay offs A. Then you're free to reword it to further separate them. B. I mean, that just sounds like then that we have a reliable source saying this allegation was made - which it was. Snokalok (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

No but we do include allegations when they meet GNG - How does a one sentence mention meet GNG? And yes, allegations can be in Wikipedia articles, but allegations from an Instagram post? No. That's primary sourcing unless further reporting comes out verifying the claim.

I mean, that just sounds like then that we have a reliable source saying this allegation was made - which it was. WP:NOTNEWS, just because a RS repeats a claim made on social media doesn't mean it belongs in our articles. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

How does a one sentence mention meet GNG? Because it's being reported by RSP green sources. And again, the platform is irrelevant. It's an allegation made by a former producer, he could've written it in the sky with an airplane and it'd hold the same validity.

WP:NOTNEWS, just because a RS repeats a claim made on social media doesn't mean it belongs in our articles You say that, but here we have reliable news sources still talking about it months later and going more in depth to corroborate it. Now it goes from being a simple producer's allegation to something The Guardian is actually throwing their own voice behind months later. Snokalok (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Great find! Use the Guardian source, which goes more in depth and doesn't just quote a social media post. My issue wasn't the content per se, but the sourcing. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. I appreciate the willingness to collaborate. Snokalok (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you finding that article! The focus on anti-DEI changes was very interesting and just furthers my opinion that this article needs a specific section for describing the second Trump Administration's on impact CBS News and how the lawsuit/merger contributed. Unfortunately, due to heavy life stuff I haven't had the time to get drafting that yet. Hopefully sometime in the coming weeks. If that does happen, I'll be sure to let you know and get your feedback. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll throw something together over the weekend, let me know what you think at your leisure. Feel better in the meanwhile! Snokalok (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)