[flagged]

You can't say "unobjectionable" and then link to three sources full of objections.

The "unobjectionable editorial reasons" were 'we cannot air anything critical of this administration unless this administration responds on the record first.' Which is just prima facie absurd.

"Unobjectionable editorial reasons" is Orwellian framing. This is not how journalism works, and the fact that a major news org is now being operated this way is a five alarm fire, not business as usual.

The segment was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. Correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi wrote internally that "pulling it now, after every rigorous internal check has been met, is not an editorial decision, it is a political one."

Alfonsi's team had requested comment from the White House, State Department, and DHS. They refused. Weiss then used that silence to kill the story, saying they needed "the principals on the record and on camera." As Alfonsi put it, "Government silence is a statement, not a veto."

Weiss's other objections included demanding the men be called "illegal immigrants" instead of "Venezuelan migrants" (many had applied for asylum and were not here illegally), and pushing for a Stephen Miller interview, which the administration had already declined. Under Bari Weiss' standard, the administration has a pocket veto over any story simply by not responding. Again, not how any of this has worked, ever!

> unobjectionable editorial reasons

The bulk of their staff objected to it, either on or off the record.

"unobjectionable" doing a lot of work in that sentence.