Latest news with #FaceTheNation
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
CBS stalwart reveals 'the truth' about edited Kamala Harris interview that Trump is suing the network over
Veteran CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl has lashed out in 'anger' at her corporate overloads potentially settling Donald Trump 's $20 billion lawsuit, arguing edits of Kamala Harris' 'word salad' were done to save time rather than deceive its audience. Speaking candidly on The New Yorker Radio Hour, Stahl, 83, addressed the controversy over an October 2024 60 Minutes segment featuring Kamala Harris, 60, which Trump alleges was edited to make the then-Vice President appear more coherent and electable. Trump, 78, sued CBS - the parent company of '60 minutes' - just days before the 2024 presidential election for $20 billion. He and his lawyers claim that the show edited an interview with Harris in a way that hurt his 2024 campaign. However, according to Stahl, the editing choices stemmed not from political bias but from routine time constraints. 'There was a very long answer,' Stahl explained. '"60 Minutes" ran one part of the answer in Bill [Whitaker]'s piece, and "Face the Nation" chose another part of the same answer to run on theirs. We are under time constraints, and this was done for time. 'We edit to keep our pieces down to a certain length. And this is what Mr. Trump sued over,' the former Face the Nation anchor continued. Stahl's comments directly dispute Trump's accusation that CBS engaged in deceptive editing to aid Harris's public image during a critical election period. 'What he said was that you made clear what had actually been a word salad,' New Yorker journalist, David Remnick, who conducted Stahl's interview recounted, summarizing Trump's claim. 'In other words, what he was accusing '60 Minutes' of doing was trying to make Kamala Harris look better,' Remnick added. But, the seasoned journalist emphasized that both programs - 60 Minutes and Face the Nation - merely used different portions of the same answer to accommodate their differing formats. 'That what we did. We just ran two different halves of the same answer,' she affirmed. At the heart of the legal dispute is Trump's assertion that CBS's editorial decisions were politically motivated. However, Stahl views the lawsuit as little more than a pressure tactic. 'What is really behind it, in a nutshell, is [an effort] to chill us,' she said. 'There aren't any damages. He accused us of editing Kamala Harris in a way to help her win the election. But he won the election.' Despite the lawsuit's seemingly flimsy legal foundation - Stahl flatly called it 'a frivolous lawsuit' - CBS is reportedly engaged in settlement negotiations. Shari Redstone, chair of Paramount Global and a key decision-maker in the network's corporate hierarchy, is said to be open to compromise, according to the New Yorker. Instead of fighting the lawsuit, Redstone wants to settle to stay on good terms with the President while waiting for FCC approval of a major deal. On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Paramount offered Trump $15 million to settle, but his team rejected it, demanding at least $25 million and a formal apology. But, Redstone's openness to settling has since raised eyebrows within the newsroom, even as Stahl downplays internal discord. 'They're in negotiations to settle this lawsuit. Shari Redstone seems willing to compromise. I have to think that the newsroom at '60 Minutes' must be in incredible turmoil,' Remnick probed. 'Turmoil is too strong a word,' Stahl replied sternly. 'That suggests we almost couldn't function, but that's not true.' Still, the situation has stirred unease among some staffers, particularly with Bill Owens, the former executive producer of 60 Minutes, who has since left the outlet. Stahl explained that her former 'hero' ditched the outlet after 37 years because 'he was being asked to either not run pieces or to change parts of the stories.' A CBS spokesperson told the New Yorker that no stories have been blocked by Paramount or CBS management. Stahl has since expressed 'anger' at her corporate overlords. 'To have a news organization come under corporate pressure - to have a news organization told by a corporation, "Do this, do that" with your story, "change this, change that," "don't run that piece" - I mean, it steps on the First Amendment, it steps on the freedom of the press. 'It steps on what we stand for. It makes me question whether any corporation should own a news operation. It is very disconcerting. As I said, we have had pressure before, in earlier owners. And yet...' However, the CBS correspondent stood firm in her journalistic duty to the people, telling the New Yorker she hopes her higher-ups 'hold the freedom of the press up as a beacon.' 'I'm just, frankly, and this is being a little Pollyannaish, hoping that [Larry's son] David Ellison and the people he brings in to run his organization hold the freedom of the press up as a beacon, that they understand the importance of allowing us to be independent and do our jobs.' 'That would be the best outcome,' she added.
CBS News
3 days ago
- General
- CBS News
Transcript: FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 1, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on June 1, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face the Nation. We're joined now by FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary. Good morning. FDA COMMISSIONER DR. MARTY MAKARY: Good morning. MARGARET BRENNAN: Good to have you here in person. DR. MAKARY: Good to be here. MARGARET BRENNAN: So I want to get through a lot here, but one of the things we've noticed is this new COVID variant that seems to be circulating in Asia. I believe it's NB.1.8.1. It's a variant under monitoring. What do we need to know? DR. MAKARY: Yeah so this appears to be a subvariant of JN.1, which has been the dominant strain so it's believed that there is cross-immunity protection. The COVID- COVID virus is going to continue to mutate, and it's behaving like a common cold virus. It's now going to become the fifth coronavirus that's seasonal, that causes about 25% of the cases of the common cold. MARGARET BRENNAN: So you're thinking of it as like a flu-type variant, just a normal fluctuation. DR. MAKARY: The flu mutates about 34 times more frequently than COVID. The COVID variant mutation rate appears to be a little more stable, but the international bodies that have provided some guidance on which strain to target, have suggested that either JN.1 or any of these subvariants would be reasonable strains to target. MARGARET BRENNAN: So you don't seem overly concerned about that. I want to get now into some of the recommendations that have been very specific this week from the CDC and you with the HHS Secretary in this video announcement on Tuesday where Secretary Kennedy said the CDC was removing the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women from its recommended immunization schedule. He then had a memo to the CDC rescinding recommendations for kids' vaccines, saying the known risks do not outweigh the benefits. Then late Thursday, the CDC said quote "shared clinical decision-making," which I think is just talking to your doctor should determine whether kids get vaccinated. Can you clearly state what the policy is? Because this is confusing. DR. MAKARY: Yeah, we believe the recommendation should be with a patient and their doctor. So we're going to get away from these blanket recommendations in healthy, young Americans because we don't want to see-- MARGARET BRENNAN: For all vaccines? DR. MAKARY: We don't- well on the COVID vaccine schedule, we don't want to see kids kicked out of school because a 12-year-old girl is not getting her fifth COVID booster shot. We don't see the data there to support a young, healthy child getting a repeat, infinite, annual COVID vaccine. There's a theory that we should sort of blindly approve the new COVID boosters in young, healthy kids every year in perpetuity, and a young girl born today should get 80 COVID mRNA shots, or other COVID shots in her average lifespan. We're saying that's a theory, and we'd like to check in and get some randomized, controlled data. It's been about four years since the original randomized trials, so we'd like an evidence based approach. Dr. Prasad and I published this in the New England Journal of Medicine last week, and we're basically saying we'd like to bring some confidence back to the public around this repeat booster strategy theory, because-- MARGARET BRENNAN: Your statement was not about repeat boosters. It says the vaccine is not recommended for pregnant women, the vaccine is not recommended for healthy children. That's different than annual boosters. DR. MAKARY: Yeah at this point we're dealing, you know, it is a booster strategy- people would be getting the updated shot. So whether or not a young, healthy-- (CROSSTALK) MARGARET BRENNAN: But what about kids who haven't gotten a shot? DR. MAKARY: So we'd like to see the data. We'd love to see that- that data. It doesn't exist. MARGARET BRENNAN: No, no, no, but on a practical level, for a parent at home, hearing you, trying to make sense here. DR. MAKARY: Yeah. We're saying, take it back to your doctor. MARGARET BRENNAN: Their child has not been vaccinated. Are you recommending that their first encounter with COVID be an actual infection? (END CROSSTALK) DR. MAKARY: We're not going to push the COVID shot in young, healthy kids without any clinical trial data supporting it. That is a decision between a parent and their doctor. And just so, I don't know if you know the statistics, but 80 for 88% of American kids, their parents, have said no to the COVID shot last season. So America, the vast majority Americans, are saying no. Maybe they want to see some clinical data as well. Maybe they have concerns about the safety-- (CROSSTALK) MARGARET BRENNAN: I don't want to crowdsource my health guidance. I want a clear thing-- DR. MAKARY: The worst thing you-- MARGARET BRENNAN: --I wouldn't go with popularity-- DR. MAKARY: The worst thing-- MARGARET BRENNAN: --I'm going with, as you're saying, data-- DR. MAKARY: --Yeah so let's see the data. (END CROSSTALK) MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. So the CDC data said 41% of children aged six months to 17 years hospitalized with COVID between 2022 and 2024 did not have a known underlying condition. In other words, they looked healthy-- DR. MAKARY: So-- MARGARET BRENNAN: --and COVID was serious for them. DR. MAKARY: So first of all, we know the CDC data is contaminated with a lot of false positives from incidental positive COVID tests with routine testing of every kid that walks in the hospital-- MARGARET BRENNAN: You don't trust the CDC data? DR. MAKARY: --When I go to the ICU, when I walk to the P- the we know, We know that data, historically under the Biden administration, did not distinguish being sick from COVID or an incidental positive COVID test. When you go to an ICU in America and you ask, how many people are in the ICU that are healthy, that are sick with COVID, the answer I get again and again is, we haven't seen that in a year or years. And so the worst thing you can do in public health is to put out an absolute universal recommendation in young, healthy kids. And the vast majority of Americans are saying, no, we want to see some data. And you say, Forget about the data. Just get it anyway. MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, so on data and transparency for decades, since 1964 it was the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, ACIP that went through this panel recommendation. People watched these things during COVID. The report was then handed up. It offered debate, it offered transparency, and it offered data points that people could refer back to. Why did you bypass all of this and just come down with a decision before the panel could meet and meet that data? DR. MAKARY: That panel has been a kangaroo court where they just rubber stamp every single vaccine put in front of them. If you look at the minutes of the report from, they even say we were- generally want to move towards a risk stratified approach. MARGARET BRENNAN: So why not let them do that in June? DR. MAKARY: So in the meantime, we don't want an absolute recommendation for healthy kids to get it. They can do it, and that committee-committee will meet and make recommendations. But you look at the minutes of the last couple of years, they say we want a simple message for everybody, just so they can understand it. It was not a data based conversation. It was a conversation based on marketing and ease and and I've written an article titled "Why the people don't trust the CDC," and it's in part from that blanket strategy– MARGARET BRENNAN: You're telling them not to right now. You just said don't trust the CDC. DR. MAKARY: We're saying it's going to be between a doctor and a patient until that committee meets or more experts weigh in, or we get some clinical data. If there's zero clinical data, you're opining. I mean, you're just, it's a theory, and so we don't want to put out an absolute recommendation for kids with no clinical data at this point. MARGARET BRENNAN: So you made this pronouncement as well on pregnant women. There is data. Researchers in the UK analyzed a series of 67 studies, which included 1.8 million women, and the journal BMJ Global Health published it. People can Google it at home, and it says the COVID vaccine in pregnant women is highly effective in reducing the odds of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospital admission and improves pregnancy outcomes with no serious safety concerns. This is data that shows that it is recommended or could be advised, for pregnant women to take this vaccine. Why do you find otherwise? DR. MAKARY: There's no randomized control trial. That's the gold standard. Those 67 studies are mixed. The data in pregnant women is different for healthy versus women with a comorbid condition. So it's a very mixed bag. So we're saying your obstetrician, your primary care doctor, and the pregnant woman should together decide whether or not to get it. 12% of pregnant women last year got the COVID shot. So people have serious concerns, and it's probably because they want to see a randomized trial data, the randomized trial of pregnant women– MARGARET BRENNAN: But in the meantime, the world moves on, and you published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 20. In that report, you referenced, you listed pregnancy as an underlying medical condition that increases a person's risk for severe COVID. You said that. So then seven days later, you joined in this video announcement saying you should drop the recommendation for the COVID vaccine in healthy pregnant women. So what changed in the seven days? DR. MAKARY: In the New England Journal medicine, we simply list what the f- what the CDC has traditionally defined as high risk, and we're just saying, decide with your doctor. We're not saying the other– MARGARET BRENNAN: But doctors want data and information as well from you– DR. MAKARY: and the randomized trial– so here's the data on pregnant women. A randomized control trial was set up, and it was closed without any explanation. We wanted to see that trial complete so women can have information that in a randomized control trial, which is the gold standard, this is what the data shows. We don't have those data. MARGARET BRENNAN: All right. It is still unclear what pregnant women now should do until they get the data that you say-- DR. MAKARY: I'd say talk to their doctor. MARGARET BRENNAN: When do they get the data you're promising? All these controlled studies. DR. MAKARY: In the absence of data, they should talk to their doctor-- MARGARET BRENNAN: So no date? DR. MAKARY: --and their doctor will use their best wisdom and judgment. MARGARET BRENNAN: FDA Commissioner, thank you for trying to help clear this up.
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House Speaker Mike Johnson says Medicaid cuts in Trump bill have a "moral component"
Speaker Mike Johnson, who oversaw the passage of President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" in the House, insisted to "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" that projections that nearly 200,000 people in his home state of Louisiana will lose Medicaid under the bill are actually targeting "waste, fraud and abuse." "There's a moral component to what we're doing," he said.
CBS News
18-05-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Transcript: Ret. Gen. Stanley McChrystal on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," May 18, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Retired Army General Stanley McChrystal that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on May 18, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: We're joined now by retired General Stanley McChrystal, whose new book is "On Character: Choices That Define a Life." Good morning to you. GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Thanks for having me, Margaret. MARGARET BRENNAN: So you write that character is a choice built upon our deeply held beliefs. Sounds like you really think there's a lack of it these days, we certainly see there's a loss of trust in many of our country's institutions, whether it's the federal government, journalism, the courts. How do you describe our national character right now and the leaders we have? GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: I think it's confused. If you look at polling, as you just referred to the lack of trust, like 22% of Americans a year ago had trust in the U.S. government. Only 34% had trust in other Americans. So I think we all sort of intuitively know we have a real problem, but what I would argue is our national leaders are not the cause of the problem, they're the symptom of the problem. The cause is us at our individual level, our unwillingness to think about character, to talk about character, and to demand character. And I would also argue that we're also the cure. There is a symptom that we see and we're distracted by it, all the things that we are disappointed by, people lying, people doing things that we find beneath us. As a nation, our character is our fate. And so what I'm trying to do is convince people to start a national conversation on character with the idea it starts at the bottom, not at the top. We need to start it down where things actually happen, on farms, in schools. We've just sent out 240 copies of the book to college sports coaches to try to have them start just to talk about character. And so that's what I'm passionate about. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I admire the effort. You know, it's interesting to look at where this began, not pinning it on a person. I understand you're trying to do that. But is it a symptom of, it's always been this way we just have more transparency, and thus we know more about people's flaws? Why does this seem to be building as a problem? GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Well, we've always had a problem with certain evil in society and corruption, lack of character, but I think the fact that we see everything so much now we normalize it. We start to accept things in celebrities or leaders that I frankly think we wouldn't have accepted even a generation ago. And that's sort of our problem. We give them our likes on social media, we spend our money with them, we vote for them, and we know better than that. And so I think the responsibility, again, arcs back to us. MARGARET BRENNAN: You're not a Democrat or Republican you say. GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Right. MARGARET BRENNAN: Though you did endorse Joe Biden and Kamala Harris-- GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Right-- MARGARET BRENNAN: --In the last elections. Most retired military try to stay out of politics and make an argument that that's crossing the rubicon in some ways. GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Yeah. MARGARET BRENNAN: Why did you? GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Well, of course, you go back to Dwight Eisenhower and Ulysses S. Grant, they actually went into politics. MARGARET BRENNAN: Fair. GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: So there is some tradition, but that was not my goal to get into politics. I just felt that we had hit a period in which we were so adrift as a nation in terms of character, we were accepting something that is not as good as we are capable of. So I made a decision, and I'll be honest, it was tough, because there's a lot of pushback from peers and from outsiders that say you shouldn't get political. But I don't think that saying that America should stand up for its values and for its character is necessarily political. MARGARET BRENNAN: And we had, in the past, conversations with other guests that question about what does America stand for, and does it matter. There is a shift more towards pragmatism, or what's in it for me, on the national scale. That's very much in our politics right now. GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: And I think it's a mistake for the nation. If you think what really helped the United States in the modern era, we'll call it after World War II, people admired American ideas. They admired American democracy. They admired our social, our culture. They didn't like every part of it, and they knew that we as a nation made mistakes, but countries and people wanted to be more like us than they wanted to be like the Soviet Union or other enemies. And as long as we are an example that people want to be, it gives us extraordinary influence and power. When it becomes transactional, when we, when we become somebody that just wants something from them, and we're unwilling to be generous, we're unwilling to sacrifice for larger ideals, we lose some of our moral standing and I think some of our national force, our power. MARGARET BRENNAN: At the Pentagon right now, we hear a lot about values and culture sort of being at odds with the mission. GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Yeah. MARGARET BRENNAN: Or that's how it's being described, right? Secretary Hegseth has talked a lot about restoring the warrior ethos. That's part of his justification for eliminating diversity programs or DEI. Do you think DEI really "hurts lethality"? GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: Yeah. I am completely aligned with Secretary Hegseth on the idea that we need to defend the nation, that the defense department needs to be as effective as it can be, and that a certain warrior ethos matters. We just define it differently. In my experience, we tend to understand that everybody can contribute, particularly in today's modern wars. The idea that everybody's got to look a certain way, got to have biceps of a certain size, there's got to be a male, straight, all these things, is not my experience. In the counter terrorist fight, where much of my experience was, it became a meritocracy. You didn't care what somebody looked like or how old they were, what their gender was or sexual orientation because it was too important to get the job done. And I would argue now America needs to harness talent from every corner of our society, everyone. I would even argue that if we went back to a draft, we could draft people with physical disabilities because much of what we do, that's not a block to that. And so I think we need to think about what do we need to field the most effective armed forces, and I think that the DEI thing is, frankly, a distraction. It's not helpful. MARGARET BRENNAN: In terms of national character, when you were commanding forces, the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, ISAF, you know very well that country. The Taliban's since taken over. We have seen them strip women and girls of even the right to have their voice heard in public. You have seen them carry out retribution against Afghans who worked with our country and put their lives at risk. This past week, the Trump administration said Afghanistan is safe enough for people living here to go back. They stripped the legal protections, the Temporary Protected Status. They are ending some of the programs that helped to evacuate our American allies there. What do you think that says about our character now? GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: I think it's disappointing. I personally disagree with that decision, but I also think it sends a message. What about people who we ask to ally with us in the future, that we asked to partner with us, they look at what happened in the past. And so I think our national character should be bigger than that and we're capable of being bigger than that. MARGARET BRENNAN: General McChrystal, thank you very much for sharing your reflections. GEN. MCCHRYSTAL: You're kind to have me. Thank you. MARGARET BRENNAN: And your book "On Character: Choices That Define a Life." We'll be right back.
Wall Street Journal
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
I Thought I'd Love Being a Congressman. I Prefer Owning a Bookshop.
'About Face' is a column about how someone changed their mind. I spent 16 years as a member of the House of Representatives. After being elected in 2000, I made my way to Capitol Hill like a modern-day version of Jimmy Stewart in 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington': wide-eyed at the grandeur of it all. I found myself in rooms with the newsmakers I'd been watching for years on 'Meet the Press' and 'Face the Nation.' On the day I was sworn in, I believed this new chapter would be the most important of my life.
