Bari Weiss: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

We're going to dive straight in with our

main story tonight, which concerns CBS

News, one of the most trusted names in

American journalism. It gave us Edward

Armor Maro's Harvest of Shame, Walter

Kankite delivering the news of JFK's

assassination, and of course, this.

>> In recent months, a kind of underground

fashion has spread among marijuana

smokers. It involves the fancy paper

used to roll the joints, as they're

sometimes called. Cigarette papers

manufactured in this country, France,

Mexico, and Spain now amount to big

business, mainly because of the boom in

grass, pot, tea, Mary Jane, reapers,

giggle grass, or marijuana. Wow, someone

really did their research into weed

synonyms back then. I just wish he'd

kept going. Giggler Grass, Boneweed,

Power Flour, Magic Cabbage, Lucifer's

Lettuce, Smokeoky Doie, Whizzle Bizzle,

and of course, checking in at the Blitz

Carlton.

Specifically, we're going to talk about

CBS's parent company, Paramount, and its

recent merger with Sky Dance Media, a

deal largely powered by the money of

Larry Ellison, one of the richest men on

Earth, and notable Trump supporter, with

the company now run by his son, David, a

man with resting, just checked into the

White Lotus face.

There are already some worrying signs

regarding what this takeover might mean

for CBS News in particular. Starting

with the fact that this guy is thrilled

about it.

>> I think ABC is very bad. I think NBC is

very bad and CBS has a new owner. So, we

have hope for CBS. CBS has a great new

owner. My opinion.

>> Yeah. It is never a great sign when

Donald Trump, seen here fresh from a

trip to Sephora to color match his hair

to his skin, loves a management decision

that you've made. But he does have a lot

to be happy about. In order of Sky Dance

to get its merger approved by Brendan

Car's FCC, it committed to adopt

measures that can root out the bias that

has undermined trust in the national

news media. One of those measures was

installing this former conservative

think tank CEO as CBS News's new

onbudsman. But this Monday, Anderson

took a much bigger step. A major shift

in the landscape of TV news. Paramount

Sky Dance announcing that they've made

Barry Weiss, editor-inchief of CBS News,

and acquired her online news and

commentary organization, The Free Press.

She's a registered independent who at

one point called herself politically

homeless, unrepresented by the two main

US parties.

>> Okay, first politically homeless sounds

like how you describe Rudy Giuliani's

current fashion sense, but but it is

true. Paramount has bought the free

press for $150 million and Barry Weiss,

his co-founder, will now be setting the

editorial strategy, vision, and focus

for CBS Morning, CBS Evening News, Face

the Nation, and even 60 Minutes. Also,

instead of reporting to the president of

CBS News, Weiss will apparently report

directly to David Ellison. And look, if

you are not familiar with Barry Weiss,

you should know she's a proud contrarian

who in public appearances will

inevitably deliver some version of this

pitch. I confound people because I'm

Jewish. I've always thought I was

liberal. I'm gay. I'm married to a

woman. Like that's my life. You would

think that I'm liberal and I would just

go along with the flow. It's like I look

like them. I think like them. I eat at

the same restaurants. But I don't think

all the same things. And I'm not scared

to say when I disagree. And I think

that's really pissed people off

throughout my career.

>> Okay. First and least importantly, the

reboot of Between Two Thorns looks

terrible. But that is her basic self.

She's a liberal who's brave enough to

disagree with other liberals. And along

the way, she's accumulated admirers from

Jeff Bezos to Megan McCain and from Amy

Coney Barrett to Joe Rogan. And if

you're thinking, "Wow, that's not a very

ideologically broad from and two,"

you're starting to catch on because

there are times where she's a little

more explicit about what she believes,

like when she gave a speech to the

Conservative Federalist Society

featuring this fun joke.

>> I am a gay woman who is moderately

pro-choice.

I know that there are some people in

this room who don't believe that my

marriage should have been legal and

that's okay because we're all Americans

who want lower taxes.

Good one. And you can almost hear that

room unclench after she basically says,

"I know you think I deserve fewer

rights, but don't worry, besties. We'll

still chill." And while that is

obviously framed as a joke, it's also a

setup to her saying, "In all

seriousness, I am here because I know

that in the fight for the West, who my

allies really are." And she goes on to

say, "Among other things, the wave of

so-called progressive prosecutors has

proven to be an immensely bad thing for

law and order." And I've got to say, for

someone whose claims they are

politically homeless, she sure seems

awfully at home in that room. And look,

this isn't the first time an outsider

billionaire has tried thumbming the

scale of a news organization. We've seen

Jeff Bezos increasingly meddle with the

Washington Post and Patrick Sunun Shong

do the same at the LA Times. But this

feels like the most sweeping change yet

and at one of the few remaining prestige

names in news. And if one person has

suddenly been handed this much power

over a whole news organization, it is

worth knowing who that one person is. So

tonight, let's take a look at Barry

Weiss. So let's start with the fact that

she's been given editorial control of a

massive news organization. even though

she's never run a TV network, has no

experience directing television

coverage, and as one 60 Minutes producer

pointed out, is not even a reporter.

That is true. She didn't come up through

the news side of a newspaper, but

through the opinion pages, which are a

very different thing. She really made a

name for herself after she was hired by

the op-ed page for the New York Times in

2017. And to hear her tell it, it was

for a pretty simple reason. To put it

bluntly, I was brought in along with

Brett Stevens from the Wall Street

Journal as a kind of intellectual

diversity hire. My job explicitly was to

bring in voices that wouldn't otherwise

naturally appear in the New York Times

either because other editors wouldn't

think to commission them or the writers

themselves would think, you know, the

New York Times would never accept me.

>> Yeah. She was apparently tasked with

finding voices that the Times oped page

would never accept, which is already a

big claim given that before she got

hired there, it published opeds from,

and this is true, Mar Gaddafi and

Vladimir Putin. If the Times have been

around in the 15th century, I'm guessing

it would have given an opinion piece to

Vlad the Impaler. Drinking the blood of

my enemies isn't disgusting, it's

beautiful and courageous.

In any case, why started getting

attention at the times for writing

provocative pieces like this one in

which he argued that the left had gone

too far in policing cultural

appropriation. This one, a largely

sympathetic profile of the intellectual

dark web, a term that she popularized

for people like Jordan and Peterson and

Ben Shapiro. And this one suggesting

progressives were so focused on labeling

fellow Americans fascists, they missed

opportunities to call out real fascism,

which is just some weaponsgrade

whataboutism. That piece, by the way,

also got attention for the fact that

Weiss linked to posts from the official

Antifa Twitter account. There was

actually a well-known hoax site, which

is pretty embarrassing. You don't expect

a Times writer to fall for online hoaxes

like they're your 75-year-old aunt on

Facebook who keeps posting that message

saying, "I hereby state that I do not

give my permission to use any of my

personal data or photos." That is fake,

Linda. Also, why would anybody steal

your photos? you exclusively post

pictures of your elderly cat, you're

going to be fine. But things came to a

head in 2020 after the Times ran this

infamous Tom Cotton oped in which he

argued that the US should send federal

troops into cities to tamp down protests

against police violence. A lot of

staffers at the times argued that it

shouldn't have published that editorial

and Barry Weiss wrote a series of tweets

about a supposedly heated staff meeting

characterizing it as a civil war between

the mostly young wokes and the mostly 40

and up liberals. That claim was strongly

disputed by others at the paper with one

editor saying, "I'm in the same meeting

that Barry appears to be live tweeting.

This is inaccurate in both

characterizations. It's not a civil war.

It's an editorial conversation and it's

not breaking down along generational

lines." So, to be fair, it seems Barry

Weiss does have some reporting

experience, specifically trying to

report what was happening in a meeting,

only to have her own coworker say, "Hey,

what the are you talking about?"

Now, shortly after that, she resigned,

posting a lengthy resignation letter to

her website, claiming that her foray

into wrong think had made her the

subject of constant bullying by

colleagues who disagree with my views.

And she now tells the story of that

letter in some pretty self-

mythologizing terms.

>> I thought to myself, I have I have a

choice to make. I can stay. And in where

I lived on the upper west side of

Manhattan, Seinfeld territory, um

telling people you worked at the New

York Times really meant something. got

you a good table at a good restaurant

among other things. Um, and it meant a

lot to me because I felt like, wow, like

I made it or I could leave and I could

give up the prestige, give up the

platform, have no plan for what I'm

doing next, but leave with my integrity.

So, I left with a resignation letter

sort of heard around the world. Uh, it

was my Jerry Magcguire moment.

Okay,

self arandizing aside, let's

not reduce the Upper West Side to just

Seinfeld territory, it's the site of

many other cultural touchdowns like

You've Got Mail, Will and Grace, and

that time the night before the Macy's

parade when balloon Spider-Man made an

absolute meal out of Uncle Sam's ass. My

point is, the Upper West Side is more

than just one thing. Anyway, she quickly

launched her own publication, first as a

substack called Common Sense, and later

as a full-blown media company, The Free

Press. Its first motto was honest news

for sane people, which feels

scientifically engineered to trigger an

eye roll. Here she is, not long after

starting it, making her pitch.

>> I want to create the media company where

people can go for the best podcasts, the

best reporting, the best analysis.

basically combining the blue chip high

quality of the old media landscape with

the punk energy of the new political

realignment.

>> Okay, first, it is pretty hard to claim

you've got punk energy when you

essentially spout conservative talking

points while dressed like the front desk

manager at a Courtyard Marriott. I I for

one do not trust the punk bonafise of

anyone wearing an Anne Taylor Collus

silk blouse. But but it turns out like

most punk rock things, the free press

was quickly bankrolled by a string of

reactionary billionaires like venture

capitalist Mark Andre and David Sax. And

in the 5 years since it's grown to

roughly 1.5 million readers, although

only around 1 in 10 actually pay to

subscribe, meaning it generates

subscription revenues of about $15

million a year, which isn't nothing, but

I would argue also not quite enough to

justify someone spending $150 million to

acquire it, as that is a revenues to

valuation ratio that would make Mr.

Wonderful start vomiting blood.

Anyway, Weiss has since stocked the Free

Press with staffers who in some cases

are quick to brag that like her, they

are proud refugees from the mainstream

media.

>> Hey, I'm Lucy. I'm the social media

editor here at the Free Press. And today

I'm going to ask my co-workers the

moment they realized they were free

pressers. Olivia, when did you realize

that you were a free presser? Um, when I

was reporting for on President Trump and

they inserted the word racist into the

headline.

Okay, so just to be clear, she was

apparently reporting for NPR, even

though that bleep makes it seem like she

used to write for an outlet called the

Hole Times or something.

And and the word racist was a top a

story of hers about public response to

Trump saying these four members of

Congress, all American citizens, three

of whom were born in the US, should go

back to the countries they came from.

And I guess if you're not ready to call

that racist, the free press might be the

place for you. One of Barry Weiss's goto

lines is that she's only interested in

the truth. In announcing her decision to

go to CBS this week, she said, "America

cannot thrive without common facts,

common truths, and a common reality."

Which sounds great. But watch her

articulate the free press's approach to

arriving at the truth and see if you can

spot a small problem with it.

>> The identity of our brand is truth

seeeking and our premise is you cannot

get to truth in an echo chamber. The

only way that you get to truth is by

sitting next to some. This is what makes

it so different from any newsroom I've

ever worked in. Right.

>> Sitting next to someone who disagrees

with you, who you still respect, admire

them, and and collaborate with them.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> I mean I mean maybe maybe that is how

you do it as an opinion writer, but that

is not how you get to truth as a

reporter, is it? You do that by leaving

the newsroom and reporting. That's not

saying the only way to hold Henry

Kissinger's skull in your hand is by

sitting next to someone who disagrees

with you. No, that's not it. You do that

by leaving your desk, breaking into Dick

Cheny's house, going into his master

bathroom, and taking it out of its jar.

And I'll be honest, there's not a ton of

hard journalism on the free press sites.

There's really not much of anything

there. There's usually just a handful of

new posts today, which can even include

weird like editorial cartoons from

David Mamemoth, the playright. And if

you're thinking, "I didn't realize David

Mamemoth could draw." Fun fact, he

can't. But don't worry, cuz that hasn't

stopped him from producing cartoons like

this one that says, "What's the best way

to deal with detractors?" with the

answer being a manual for tractors. Or

this one supposedly about

environmentalism that just says,

"Shoving eggs up the tushies of

chickens." Or this one of an

autobiography by Kermit the Frog with a

blur that says ribbiting, which I'm

worried might be too funny.

There are also a ton of first person

clickbait essays with titles like I can

explain why the Nazi salute is back. I

crit criticized BLM then I was fired. I

took religion out of Christmas. I regret

it. I want people to have more kids.

Does that make me far right? I was

called an inbredad swine at Princeton

last night. I'm 17 and I'm immunized

from woke politics. My family was hunted

by Nazis, but I was fired for defending

Hitler. My husband wants to be cremated.

I'd ignore his dying wish. And I used to

hate Trump. Now I'm a MAGA lefty. At

this point, it feels like we're just two

weeks away from them posting an article

titled, "I dressed my dead wife up as

Hitler for her funeral, and now her woke

family is mad at me." And look, if you

go to the homepage of the Free Press, it

might not immediately read as a

particularly conservative outlet, but

once you start reading its articles, the

pronounced theme that starts to emerge

is the left has gone too far. Basically,

whatever issue you feel like that is

true for Israel, campus politics, DEI,

or police reform, you'll find articles

there to reinforce that opinion. And

look, I am not saying the left never

goes too far or that it's immune from

criticism at all. But it can sometimes

feel like the free press's conclusions

can get out ahead of its evidence, which

brings us to the fact that some of its

pieces can be pretty poorly fact checked

and in ways that feel important. And

let's look at three key examples. First,

take one of its biggest splashes. This

article, I thought I was saving trans

kids, now I'm blowing the whistle. It's

an account by Jamie Reid, who'd worked

as a case worker at the Washington

University Transgender Center. Her piece

claimed that the clinic was harming

patients by, among other things,

routinely approving adolescence for

medical transitions without proper

mental health assessments, calling its

work morally and medically appalling.

Now, that story understandably got a ton

of attention, including from public

officials, which prompted Weiss to go on

Megan Kelly's podcast to take something

of a victory lap. The day after the

piece published, I've never seen such a

sort of rapid reaction to a piece of

journalism, Missouri's attorney general

announced an investigation into the

gender clinic. The reason that this

story was especially important and

gratifying for us to have substantiated

was because it's exactly the kind of

story that we exist to pursue. It's

exactly the kind of morally naughty

story in which journalists avoid

pursuing it because they know they will

be punished or smeared for doing so.

That is why the free press exists.

>> Wow, that is an exceptional amount of

self- congratulation. And the bar was

already set at the Jerry Maguire moment

heard around the world. But she is

right. The state AG apparently found

that article, to borrow a term,

ribbiting, because they soon announced

an investigation into the center, and it

ultimately stopped treating minors with

Reed's claims even being used to help

justify a statewide ban on gender

affirming care for them. So, it did have

real impact, which is what makes it so

awkward that when Washington University

conducted its own investigation, they

found that allegations of substandard

care causing adverse outcomes for

patients at the center were

unsubstantiated. And when other outlets

reported the story out again and again,

their findings did not match what the

free press published. For instance, the

St. Louis Post Dispatch found dozens of

former patients and parents at the

clinic who told them their experiences

sharply contradicted the example

supplied by Reed. NBC spent two months

reaching out to nearly 40 people

associated with the center and got the

same result with patients and parents

saying the care they received was

thorough and slow. And the Missouri

Independent found parents who told them

any treatments their kids received were

only undertaken after long consultations

with doctors and mental health

professionals. And often patients were

told they needed to wait four years. In

fact, at worst, follow-up reporting

showed that as more patients sought

care, the clinic became overwhelmed as

its employees grappled with how best to

help patients. And to be fair, the Times

did find some former patients who had

complaints, including one who' since

dransitioned and felt there'd been a

major lack of care and consideration

from the center. But even that article,

which Weiss claimed vindicated their

story, said it's clear the clinic

benefited many adolescence with patients

and parents saying their experiences

were overwhelmingly positive. And the

thing is, some of Reed's marquee

examples just don't hold up on further

inspection. For instance, she cited the

harrowing story of a patient she claimed

suffered uh liver toxicity from

medication she was prescribed at the

center and whose mother was so

distraught, she sent a message saying

they were lucky her family was not the

type to sue. That sounds pretty

striking. But when the Times spoke with

that family, they were stunned to read

this characterization of their

daughter's case, saying she only

experienced liver problems after getting

COVID and taking another drug with

possible liver side effects. As for

threatening a lawsuit, they were adamant

that never happened to the point they

went on local news to refute the whole

story.

>> It's not just not true, but it's a lie.

>> You can't see their faces. We're in

shadow, but we're not hiding.

>> But you can hear their voices.

>> There's lies, and people have paid for

that in the transgender community.

>> Did you ever say that you were going to

sue the clinic or ever allude to suing

the clinic?

>> No.

>> Nope.

>> The parents message goes on to say they

don't regret any decision and would

never have denied their daughter these

lifesaving treatments.

>> We have still have no regrets. It's

blatant exploitation

of my daughter's medical situation.

>> Yeah, that mother felt that the story

was blatant exploitation of her

daughter's medical situation, or as I

guess Barry would describe it,

harnessing the punk energy of the new

political realignment. And look, I get

her frustration at seeing misinformation

about her daughter go far and wide. In

fact, when we reached out to that

mother, she told us, "I've been fighting

for the truth about that damn free press

article for a while." And if you're

getting the sense that the free press

isn't about to let whatever factchecking

they do get in the way of a story they

want to tell you, that also extends to

some of the original reporting they do.

Take this piece piece that they

published last year about Austin,

claiming crime had soared there under a

progressive DA named Jose GarcA. It

prominently featured a billionaire named

Daniel Leetsky, the founder of Kind

Snacks, who'd moved to Austin a few

years earlier and was supporting a

primary campaign to elect a more

moderate DA. The story claimed that

Austin's crime wave was leading many of

its most buzzed about new residents and

some of its wealthiest to worry it might

become the next San Francisco. But as

local news there pointed out, there was

a pretty big hole in that piece's

argument. But this article from a

website called the free press, one of

the first lines, hopefully we can pop it

up right here on the screen. One of the

first lines of the article claims crimes

in Austin has soared under a progressive

district attorney. This morning, the

numbers tell us that that is just not

the case. We looked at crime reporting

data from Austin police. So, in December

of 2020, before Jose Garza took over,

20,500 crimes against people were

committed throughout the entire year. A

few years later, in 2023, with Garza as

DA for a couple of years, the number was

2,000 fewer than in the same time frame.

>> Yeah, it's true. And it is kind of

striking that even local news was like,

"Girl, calm down."

Because the only thing they usually love

more than overhyping crime is maybe

maybe dogs running 5ks.

This just in. Woof woof pant pant. Good

boy goes fast.

And finally, there's this piece the free

press recently posted about media

coverage of young people starving in

Gaza. It concerned photos that it said

had helped convince a growing number of

Americans that Israel has induced famine

and is committing war crimes in Gaza.

There is a lot wrong with this article.

For one thing, it questions how

starvation and famine have been measured

by claiming the IPC, the international

body that helps monitor food insecurity

and malnutrition, has quietly changed

its methodology in Gaza, essentially

redefining the criteria for determining

a famine. But that is false. Very

basically, the IPC has multiple metrics

for measuring malnutrition in children.

One involves measuring height and

weight. Another involves arm

circumference. Now, because arm

circumference only requires a tape

measure, it's far easier to obtain,

especially in a place like a war zone.

So, in Gaza, that is what they started

using because of, you know, all of this

happening. And those methods were

not in fact quietly introduced as the

free press suggested, but have been

accepted since 2019 and previously used

in famine classifications in South Sudan

and Sudan. But it gets even grosser

because the piece tries to provide extra

context for some pictures of starving

children. And here's one of its writers,

the the one who used to work for the

Hole Times,

summing her work up. So, you've probably

seen these photos of skeletal kids in

Gaza on front pages, all over social

media, even in a UNICEF ad. They've

become the symbols of famine. But we

decided to look into these photos and

the stories behind them. And what we

found is that in case after case, these

kids were sick, but not just with

malnutrition. In every instance they

were suffering with other conditions or

illnesses like cystic fibrosis, cerebral

palsy and even traumatic head injuries.

>> Now their article claims all those kids

were already facing grave situations

because of their health irrespective of

any third party action. But a few things

first the traumatic head injury she

mentioned was as their article points

out caused by an Israeli shell explosion

which feels like a pretty significant

third party action. Second, it's not

like the 12 photos they chose to look

into are the only ones illustrating

stories about famine in Gaza. And as for

the notion that this is something that

the mainstream media was ignoring, there

is a key problem with that claim, too.

And see if you can spot it as she walks

through their in-depth journalistic

process.

>> We did something so simple, it's

shocking that no other journalist

bothered to do it. So, this is how we

figured this out. Let's just take this

example of Naja Hussein Haj who appeared

in CNN simply as suffering from severe

malnutrition in Gaza City. So all we did

is we took her name, we went to Google

Translate, we took the Arabic spelling

of her name, put that into Google and

pulled up a lot of local clips in which

her parents were talking about what was

really going on. And what we learned is

that she has an esophagus condition,

which is something that was even

reported in English media, including the

New York Times. That is a quite

different and more nuanced story than

the assumption that Israel wants her

dead and they're starving her.

>> Okay, so if no other journalist bothered

to do it, but it was even reported in

the New York Times, that sure suggests

the journalist very much did bother to

do it. But also, if we're talking about

context, when it comes to the child she

mentioned there, they quote from an

Arabic news outlet. Here is the whole

section about her from that outlet.

Here's the translation, and here's the

quote the Free Press pulled, mentioning

her ailments since birth, including

vomiting while eating. But it's worth

noting the sentence before says, "Her

condition worsens each day without

access to protein and vitamin rich foods

that are needed for her treatment." And

the line after reads, "During the

Israeli war on the Gaza Strip, her

condition deteriorated and she developed

malnutrition because the right food for

her was simply unavailable." And while I

would love to keep splitting hairs on

whether a country's starving kids is

better or worse if those kids are

already sick, let's just table that

discussion for when I see you in hell.

And and that is not the only bit of

cherry-picking in that piece which

features a lot of young people with,

yes, pre-existing conditions or

ailments, but which were made

significantly worse when they couldn't

access food. And to be clear, as the

president of Refugees International

wrote, "People with underlying

conditions always suffer first when

hunger sets in, adding that

vulnerability is not a rebuttal of

famine. It is a feature of how famine

kills and who it hits first. And and it

is kind of weird that nobody at the free

press thought to include that sort of

important context given that they are

famously proud of their ability to

Google And and you should also

know that piece circulated far and wide

among those seeking to downplay the

suffering in Gaza, including BB

Netanyahu himself, who shared that video

on his social media with a caption,

"Facts matter." which is terrible for

multiple reasons, including if Netanyahu

ever shared one of our stories, I think

I'd burn this place to the

ground. And by the way, any story, too.

Even if it was the one where I ate the

ass of a cake bear that looks like me,

if he retweeted that with a comment,

"Facts matter," you would never hear

from us ever again.

And look, everything I've shown you so

far should comfortably be enough to make

you question the wisdom of putting Barry

Weiss in charge of CBS News. But I still

haven't even gotten to her weirdest

venture, which lays out her priorities

and worldview pretty clearly, and that

is the fact that Barry Weiss has started

her own university. Specifically, she's

co-founded the University of Austin in

Texas, and it is exactly what you'd

expect. Here is one of the school's

promo videos. If you're wondering why

the museums you love and the publishing

houses you love and the newspapers you

used to trust, if you want to understand

why they are hollowed out, you have to

look at the nucleation point for this

and that is the university. The premise

is that America is not only not great

but evil to the core and rotten and need

to be torn down. The answer to that is

simply no.

>> Okay, there are so many things wrong

with that. from the firm no to a

straw man argument to the claim

we all have publishing houses we love

that have been hollowed out to the

pretentiousness of the phrase nucleation

point which sounds more like the title

of a straight to streaming action flop

starring Steven Sigal now UATX is

currently unacredited and while Wise

proudly posted this image of students on

the school's first day I should note

that while that building does look

impressive that is because it's the

Texas state capital the actual school is

housed on a couple floors of a former

department store in downtown Austin,

which is pretty unusual. You don't

generally expect a college to suddenly

pop up in an abandoned store like it's a

spirit Halloween.

While the the school may not have a

traditional campus, it does have a white

marble bust of Barry Weiss prominently

displayed in one of its common areas. It

was apparently donated by Joe Londale,

the billionaire co-founder of the

defense contract of Palanteer. He he's

one of several billionaire donors to the

school along with Daniel Leetsky, you

know, the Nutbar billionaire from that

Austin Crimewave story and Harlon Crowe,

famously Clarence Thomas's benefactor.

So, the school's already got a lot of

red flags on it even before you get to

what's being taught in there. It

Substack, because of course it has one,

brags that it's a place where students

quote Joseph Conrad and Joe Rogan in the

same breath. And one of its big selling

points is that its students adhere to

what's called the Chattam House rule,

which essentially requires all classroom

conversations be conducted off the

record. And I'll let one of the school's

professors explain. If someone says

something unacceptable to people or

shocking or problematic, you can't run

out and say, "Bobby said something

racist or Susie actually is a Zionist."

You cannot do this. And what that means

is that students don't have to conform.

They can actually say what they think.

Oh, that's good. Well, in the spirit of

saying what we think, I'll go first. Um,

your vibe is all the way off. You look

like GMO del Toro if he only directed

episodes of Yellowstone. And and you

enunciate like you're the third Crane

Brother that Frraasier and Niles never

talk about. And you can't tell anyone I

said that Chattam House rule.

And if you're wondering what sort of

topics might require a rule like that,

apparently one of their first offerings

were summer classes called the forbidden

courses, which promised to inquire

honestly into today's most vexing

questions, which they then illustrated

with this photo of an instructor seeming

to point out hot button statements for

debate. And if you zoom in, you'll see

there it is. Non-black people cannot use

the n-word. And suddenly that Chattam

House rule makes a whole lot of sense,

doesn't it? Although any black college

student will tell you you don't need to

set up a whole university to find out

which college kids are comfortable using

the n-word when all it takes is a couple

of rum and cokes and Lil Wayne to come

up on shuffle.

Look, it is no mystery what sort of

person starts a university like this.

But in case there were any doubt at all,

just listen to Barry Weiss not long

after the campus protest started over

Gaza spell out as clearly as possible

what she wanted to see happen. Above

all, starting today, we need to uproot

root and branch the ideology that has

supplanted truth at the core of American

higher education. And that ideology goes

by the name DEI. Some call it wokeness

or anti-racism or progressivism or

safety or critical social justice or

identity Marxism.

Whatever term you use, what is clear is

that this worldview has gained power in

the world in a conceptual instrument

called DEI.

>> Yeah. And that itself is a whole

worldview right there. You know, this

DEI thing that we've been trying where

we acknowledge not everyone's been

getting equal access to opportunity.

Let's just roll back the clock on that,

shall we? Also, let's be

anti-anti-racist and not think too much

about what that might make us.

DEI is actually one of her favorite

targets. She's also said it's

undermining America, is about arrogating

power and that it demonizes hard work,

merit, family, and the dignity of the

individual. And look, it is not new or

indeed interesting that a commentator

would say that. There are plenty of them

out there, and there'll always be an

audience for those who want to make that

case. And the truth is, we wouldn't even

have done this story were it not for the

fact that Barry Weiss has just been

named editor-inchief of CBS News. And

that feels different because there are

many opinionheavy outlets out there from

left to right and with low to high

editorial standards. This show is among

other things an opinion outlet. And

while our staff works incredibly hard to

research stories before we write

something and vigorously check our facts

afterwards, we're also not the news. And

I wouldn't want anyone who led a pure

opinion outlet, not even one that I

happen to agree with, to suddenly be

running CBS News, but it is especially

alarming to have someone doing it who

has spent years putting out work that,

in my opinion, is at best irresponsible

and at worst deeply misleading. And

look, it is not just about Barry Weiss

being at CBS. It's about the fact that

CBS is now under the control of someone

who thinks that she and her editorial

sensibility make her a good fit for the

job. and who incidentally is reportedly

preparing a bid for Warner Brothers

Discovery, home of CNN and uh-oh,

HBO, which isn't ideal. Although, I've

got to say, if what he likes about Barry

is that she forces him to have hard

conversations that get a bit

uncomfortable, maybe he'll like this.

But the thing is, it's not just about

Ellison either. Again, he's just the

latest in a string of billionaires

who've taken over our journalistic

institutions from the Washington Post to

the LA Times and started making worrying

changes. And whatever complaints I might

have had with their coverage before, and

I have had plenty, my solution would

never have been this. Because when these

takeovers get announced, it's easy to

think, well, thank goodness there are

other outlets that aren't under some

billionaire's influence. That is true

because there is always another one

until there suddenly isn't. And I admit

I don't know what is going to happen

next. Maybe Barry Weiss will completely

reshape CBS News. Maybe she'll flame out

and write another resignation letter

heard around the world. But it is it is

worth keeping an eye out for subtle

changes there. Because while I'm sure

many of CBS's good journalists will

continue to do great work, if you start

seeing people resigning or getting fired

or or you start seeing stories that seem

off in some way, especially if it

involves the left going too far on a

topic Barry Weise cares about, it's

worth asking yourself why that might be.

Because unfortunately, the much bigger

answer might be that a billionaire has

chosen to inject contrarian

right-leaning opinion journalism into an

American icon. Even if much like that

Thanksgiving Day Spider-Man, it has

absolutely no business being

there.