The Beat With Ari Melber 6/3/26 — 🅼🆂🅽🅱️🅲 Breaking News Today June 3, 2026 Full HD

[0:00] and we are covering several big stories for you tonight. We begin with what has been clearly a [0:05] type of confusion or double talk by the Trump administration over their controversial embattled [0:11] currently on pause, according to the courts, $1.8 billion fund for convicts and defendants. [0:18] You may recall that the acting attorney general Todd Blanche was on so much defense, [0:21] including a real outcry in Congress with Republicans pushing back, that he said to [0:26] Congress, which is about as real as it gets, that they simply would not be moving forward [0:30] with this fund. In other words, no money taken by them from you, the taxpayer, to go out to Trump [0:36] allies. That's where it stood for a little while until today, the president is saying this. [0:43] Can you explain why you decided to drop the anti-weaponization fund? [0:49] So, I love it. I think it's so important. Is the $1.8 billion DOJ fund dead or is it on hold? [0:56] It's, I'd have to ask the lawyers. I don't know. I know one thing, the weaponization. Are you talking [1:02] about the weaponization fund? The weaponization fund, as far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful thing. [1:09] He doesn't know. Ask the lawyers. It's a beautiful thing. So he's clearly continuing to try to give [1:15] support to something that even Republicans say is wrong, that goes too far, that would potentially [1:20] reward people who physically attacked police, who were convicted of various crimes if it goes to Jan 6 [1:26] people. And again, different than what his attorney general claimed to Congress, which is kind of [1:30] basically like an under oath scenario. It's obviously wrong and usually illegal to lie to [1:35] Congress. Trump is sort of stepping up in a way that he didn't have to. So he's at least [1:39] undercutting the attorney general's message. The whole thing is paused anyway under court order [1:44] right now by the courts when you look at the fund. Now, when you go over to where the money's coming [1:48] from, the Treasury chief was asked about this and sounded more like what we've heard from the acting AG. [1:57] The government will not be moving forward with the fund. We intend to comply with that direction. [2:04] We're unable to comment further on it. Now, this is not exactly organized or clear governance. [2:12] You have a court that's paused it. You have an attorney general says it's over. You have an IRS chief who [2:16] says in sort of very careful terms he thinks it's over and he's not going to say anything more. [2:20] And then the president jumps in and says, I don't know, ask the lawyers, but I like it. [2:24] And the DOJ has not exactly clarified this. They have not put out, for example, [2:27] written guidance or retracted what is currently paused in court, which was a written plan to give [2:32] out this money. Trump's DOJ does, however, still stand by what is seen as an unprecedented or [2:39] extraordinary part of what they call the settlement, if it is legal for Trump to settle things with [2:44] himself, where he and his family would get this sort of nepotistic carve-out and never be audited again. [2:49] That also came up in the hearing today. [2:52] Chairman Crapo, ranking member. I'm unable to discuss most of this because of ongoing litigation. [2:59] Yeah, I know you like, everybody likes to say that, but the constitutional- [3:03] We like to follow the law, Senator. [3:05] And the law is that the Congress has constitutional oversight functions. [3:10] I suggest that you speak with the Treasury attorneys. [3:12] Again, I'm not going to be able to comment on these matters. [3:15] Mr. Chairman, this just makes no sense at all. [3:21] Now, from here, you have questions about what people want to get out of this. [3:26] You have January 6th convicts floating the idea that they could still get paid. [3:30] You have Politico reporting that whatever Blanche, the AG, acting AG, said, nothing stops payments [3:35] from the Treasury for those who engaged in violence that day. [3:38] In other words, there's no outer limit. [3:40] Blanche has worked tirelessly on Trump's agenda, and all of this has been a big public audition. [3:46] Trump now suggesting that he will promote him permanently into the role that he's currently [3:51] the acting replacement in since Bondi was ousted. [3:56] It's a pile of loyalists and a lot of confusion when it comes to the basic question of what this [4:02] government is doing with, remember, your money. [4:05] I want to bring in David Kelly, who served as the FBI chief, and I should note my former boss. [4:11] When you look at this, David, obviously the messaging is all over the place. [4:16] I don't call on you as the Washington interpreter. [4:19] Anyone who follows the news can see that Trump thinks this very controversial bad thing [4:24] is something he'd still like to happen. [4:26] So he sort of floats the words that way. [4:28] What does it tell you, though, that the acting attorney general, having floated this [4:32] and tried to make it happen, was so quick yesterday to finally say we're done? [4:36] Well, look, it certainly presents an abundance of legal issues, [4:40] but also presents a bunch of political issues. [4:42] And I think the attorney general happily gets the sense that he's running into strong headwinds on [4:47] both fronts. [4:48] And I think that once this is being challenged legally, which it is, and I, you know, the judge has [4:54] reopened the matter, that presents a whole Pindor's box for the judge and that the justice department is [5:00] going to have to deal with. [5:01] And I think Todd Blanche is probably looking at this saying this is not a winning case for us. [5:07] So from a legal perspective, we really need to drop this. [5:10] From a political perspective, I think you see the president, well, I don't really want to drop this. [5:15] So maybe, maybe he can, I can hedge a little bit. [5:18] But I think they're going to have to see how it plays out in court. [5:21] But even if you get past what the judge might do, [5:25] it still presents a bunch of legal issues if it were ever approved. [5:30] If is a big word because you have to get through Congress about whether or not they're [5:34] going to let them have that money. [5:37] But two, think about all the, you know, talk about the devils and the devil in the details. [5:43] Who is, against whom has this lawfare been weaponized? [5:48] You know, what is the criteria? [5:50] Who gets included? [5:52] Who gets excluded? [5:53] And when somebody gets excluded, what kind of rights do they have? [5:56] What kind of action will they bring? [5:57] There'll be lots of lawsuits saying, well, I should have gotten money too. [6:00] Or that person got more money than they should have gotten, and I should have gotten some of that. [6:04] So even if this fund was allowed to exist, [6:08] the number of issues that are going to come flowing from that as a legal matter are crazy. [6:14] Well, it's so strange and unprecedented. [6:18] You know your way around a lot of cases. [6:20] Have you ever seen a case like this where you effectively have a party suing the government he [6:27] controls, settling to his own benefit, and then the benefit, among other things, [6:34] because he wants immunity, but the money then goes to other people. [6:38] I mean, have you ever seen a settlement like this? [6:39] No, it's almost kind of like a money laundering operation. [6:43] Right. [6:44] But no, it's just really crazy that you, you know, you have that. [6:48] It's just really kind of creating a vehicle to create a fund to do with it what you want. [6:56] And you're not being extreme when you suggest there's a money laundering concern. [7:01] The DOJ's guidance asserts that they are not responsible for any potential illegalities [7:09] or any liability for what these people do with the money they get, which is our money. [7:14] Which makes sense, because if you give money, for example, to someone convicted of sedition, [7:17] who's a proud boy, who's promised to wage war against the United States government, they could do it again. [7:21] Well, not only that, I mean, consider also the track record with several of the people [7:26] who have been given pardons from their January 6th criminal conduct for which they were convicted, [7:33] now have gone out and committed other crimes. [7:36] So, you know, the type of folks that you're giving this money to, [7:39] who knows where it's going to end up, to what use it's going to be put. [7:42] Yeah, the president also spoke today, as I mentioned, [7:44] about whether this acting attorney general would become attorney general. [7:47] Let me play that. [7:50] Will he be attorney general, or have you decided? [7:52] I think you will, yeah. [7:54] You haven't got someone else in mind? [7:56] No. [7:57] No, I wanted to see how he's received. [8:00] You know, we put him as acting, and he's done a very good job. [8:03] You see that as a glide path to being attorney general, [8:07] and how do you think Blanche is doing so far? [8:09] Because even leaving aside cases you don't comment on, [8:13] he's certainly been more aggressive than Bondi in rushing out revenge prosecutions. [8:18] It may be a path. I don't see it's a glide path. [8:21] Okay. [8:21] Because where the president may be intent on nominating him because of, you know, [8:29] his loyalty and the work that Todd has done, he's gotten great results for him. [8:33] And when he was his personal lawyer, he's now delivering for him like the former attorney general [8:37] did not. [8:38] So he's got that behind him, but, you know, so he's got 210 days to serve as acting. [8:45] So that concludes in October. [8:48] Before that happens, the president has to nominate him, and then under the Appointments Act. [8:54] So then he has to be confirmed by the Senate. [8:58] So the question is whether or not, and particularly after the midterms, [9:02] what the composition of the Senate will be, and whether or not the Senate is going to confirm him. [9:07] So it's really, when you say, it certainly is a path, but I don't know if he gets to a home plate. [9:12] And you're suggesting that if Trump wasn't so fixated on testing people's loyalty to get these [9:20] outcomes, they could have put him in faster and tried to get a vote from a Republican Senate. [9:26] I think that's a great point, because had he laid low, got rid of the former attorney general, [9:33] nominated Todd, instead of waiting for him to come up with a bunch of controversial decisions to [9:37] please the president, the president might, it might have been more like a glide path. [9:42] I mean, look, you look at Todd Blanche's record, he's a very competent lawyer. [9:45] He's done, you know, very successful as a lawyer. [9:51] And, you know, the Senate might have had trouble not confirming him. [9:55] Had he gone in, but now, from the Senate's perspective, I think he probably has more [10:01] baggage to deal with at a confirmation hearing than he might have had they not put him to the, [10:07] you know, have his, to the president do his bidding on vindictive stuff beforehand. [10:12] And that's sort of, that's the Trump way of doing business. [10:15] I mentioned how I got to know you working for you, [10:18] and that you're rightfully proud of your government service, [10:21] but I've always noticed you were especially proud of being a cop, [10:24] because you started out as a cop, right? [10:26] I wonder what you think now about how far we've gone through the looking glass [10:31] to have a president who still says, well, maybe we'll pay some of these people who were [10:37] convicted of attacking cops. [10:39] In other words, we went through all the legalities. [10:41] What about what we might call the ethics or even the patriotism of that, [10:46] that he and Blanche for weeks have said that's on the table. [10:49] Well, in other words, they can't even just say, whatever happens with this, [10:52] obviously we won't be helping people who attack police on Jan 6th. [10:58] Well, I think they're going to be hard to do that if they have this fund. [11:02] But, I mean, you used the word patriotism. [11:05] I don't put the two together when you're talking about what they did to police officers on that day [11:10] and patriots. [11:11] That's just... [11:12] No, I'm saying that... [11:12] Well, that's what I'm saying. [11:14] The patriotism would be to stand with the police who defended democracy that day. [11:17] Like, did you feel that here... [11:19] Because in January 7th, 21, Trump was saying, hey, I'm against that. [11:26] And now we've gotten to a point where he admits he's for it. [11:30] I mean, what could be more wrong than being for the people who attack the police? [11:34] I hear you. [11:34] And, look, if you're a Capitol Police officer, this has to make you sick to your stomach. [11:39] But not even a Capitol Police officer, anybody in law enforcement. [11:42] Yeah. [11:42] And look at what this fund would do and basically reward people for doing what they did. [11:49] That's just beyond the pale. [11:51] Yeah. [11:52] And you talk to any of your old cop friends about it? [11:54] No, but I can just imagine how they're... [11:57] You can channel it. [11:58] Yeah. [11:58] David, it's always good to see you. [12:00] Especially on More Than One Story here where you bring a lot of credibility and experience. [12:03] Our thanks to David Kelly. [12:04] There is an actual rolling MAGA crisis at 60 Minutes. [12:08] The venerated 30-year-plus veteran Scott Pelley is out because he stood up to executives. [12:14] We have a special booking tonight. [12:15] The renowned journalist Ken Aletta from The New Yorker and the author. [12:18] He's here. [12:19] As for the Republican-controlled House, I can tell you they just bucked Donald Trump on the war. [12:24] This is another late-breaking story. [12:25] I told you we're covering a lot tonight. [12:27] The Reverend Sharpton is here when we're back in 90 seconds. [12:29] This vote, the yeas are 215 and the nays are 208. [12:36] The concurrent resolution is adopted. [12:39] Breaking news late today. [12:42] That is the House voting to reign in the Iran war. [12:46] It is a huge rejection of Donald Trump's effort to keep this off the floor. [12:50] And it took a break for Republicans breaking with Trump and joining Democrats to push this resolution [12:56] just over the edge. [12:57] This is one of those nail-biters. [12:58] Now, there's a long road from here to ending the war, but it shows you just how the opposition [13:03] around the country is rising. [13:05] And the war would be stopped if the entire Senate and Congress move forward on this with enough votes [13:10] to trigger the full War Powers Act. [13:13] So we're not there yet, but tonight we are watching a major rejection of Trump that included [13:17] full Republicans and, as you see, many of the Democrats in the House. [13:22] I'm joined by Reverend Al Sharpton, host of Politics Nation, of course, president of the National Action Network. [13:26] Reverend Sharpton, this is a big rebuke of Trump's Iran war at a time when the country has clearly turned against it. [13:34] What does a vote like this mean tonight? [13:36] Vote means that you now have a break in the dam, in the Trump dam, that it doesn't mean that you're going to get a flood, [13:46] but it means you at least have a leak. [13:48] And I think that this leak should be troubling to Trump because as we now go from primary season almost over [13:56] to the general elections, a lot of Republicans, after seeing these four in the House, [14:02] are going to have to rethink how do they stand with this Iran situation with gas prices still up [14:10] and food and groceries still up, and we don't even see an end to the state of our moves being open. [14:18] So this gives a lot of people things to think about. [14:21] I don't think it's a slam dunk, but it starts the whole ballgame. [14:25] Yeah, and you rarely see this kind of War Powers Act, resistance in Congress, happen this fast. [14:30] Right. [14:31] Trump had famously promised a quick end to the war, very hard to predict war. [14:35] He was wrong. [14:36] We know why he was saying that, because he knew already he was doing something risky and unpopular. [14:41] So we've passed his timeline, busted through it. [14:42] The public is very clear on this. [14:44] I'll show the poll and remind everyone, this is much worse than the first week of the war. [14:48] Now, 60% of Americans opposed the Iran war, a tiny slice, 28% supporting. [14:54] You do the math on that, Rav, translation, a heck of a lot of Republican voters, people [14:59] who voted for Trump at least once, are against this thing, which means that this is a midterm [15:04] issue that the party has to worry about. [15:07] The party must worry about it. [15:09] It is a midterm issue. [15:11] When you see his endorsed candidate lose in Iowa, the handwriting is on the wall that they [15:16] at least need to stop and look at what they're doing if they're not outright concerned. [15:23] And clearly, with the president going back and forward with the $1.8 billion sludge front, [15:29] none of this, that, and another, none of this is helping them, but the war at a centerpiece [15:34] of this, because this is hitting people where they live. [15:38] You can talk all of the ideology you want, you can talk all the politics you want, [15:42] when a person pulls up to the gas station and it's $4.50 to $6 a gallon, that is not politics, [15:50] then, that's real life, and that the president can't explain and has not explained. [15:55] And the wider narrative has really shifted. [15:59] You know, forever we heard Republicans will stand with him on everything, [16:03] they won't break, this doesn't move him, that doesn't move him, what will move him. [16:06] That was sort of, we heard that endlessly, and there was a period of time when it felt like that. [16:10] And now, you know, you really stitched together, you had pushback on tariffs, [16:14] you had them overriding him with a veto-proof majority on Epstein. [16:18] You have a lot of concern about the way he's picking candidates in the midterm. [16:21] So the Senate Republicans were mad at what he did down in Texas. [16:24] You had recently a vote that not everyone in the country was following, [16:28] but a vote where he wanted to move forward on some of the immigration stuff, [16:32] and over the fund you just mentioned, Republicans said no, [16:35] and they didn't give him that vote. [16:36] You have the ballroom pushback, and now today you have this. [16:39] And you start to say, gosh, it's not that they never buck him, [16:43] it's that on several big key things in the last months, they keep bucking him. [16:48] Consistently bucking him, and it looks like small steps, but it starts adding up. [16:53] One of the things I think that happens is it's very hard to say [16:58] that I'm not going to be against somebody who seems to have no problem being against me. [17:04] So when they see what he did in Texas with Corning and others, [17:08] they say, well, wait a minute, there's no price for even trying to show belated loyalty to this guy. [17:15] Corning voted with him most of the time, and he just tried to destroy him and did. [17:19] So I think that at some point, your self-esteem kicks in saying, [17:25] how am I going to be with a guy that will be disloyal to me [17:29] if he decides in the middle of the night to just tweet something? [17:33] So I better protect my own hide, because he certainly is not. [17:36] Yeah, and a lot of people might watch that and say, [17:38] God, it sure took the Republicans a long time to figure that out. [17:41] I mean, we watched that with Michael Cohen and everyone else in the first term, [17:44] but if they're finally figuring it out, plus, as you say, an election coming that might sharpen the mind, [17:50] well, there we are. Rev, always good to have you, sir. [17:52] Good to be here. [17:53] Okay. [17:54] Coming up, a very rare public clash. [17:58] CBS News in crisis as one of their most venerated long-time journalists, [18:02] 60 Minutes, and CBS anchor Scott Pelley speaks out, gets fired. [18:06] We have Ken Oletta, one of the best guests you could ask for in the country on this big, big clash. [18:12] Pelley, out at 60 Minutes. [18:14] I don't know where Scott Pelley will land. [18:18] Frankly, I hope he lands right here. [18:19] Yeah. [18:20] I hope he stays on, I hope he's on TV tomorrow. [18:22] Right. [18:23] And I hope that everybody in journalism and everybody who values a free press [18:27] figures out ways to outmaneuver the people who are trying to take the free press from us. [18:32] Our colleague Rachel Maddow speaking, frankly, for many, [18:36] and her reaction to what was breaking news last night, [18:38] a long-time 30-plus-year veteran of CBS News. [18:42] In 60 Minutes, and the anchor chair Scott Pelley out, CBS firing him over, [18:46] what he says was standing up for journalism against bias and politicizing their work. [18:53] What 60 Minutes becomes is, in a sense, a question tonight. [18:57] There's a question about whether the owners of this new CBS company, [19:02] which is making larger mergers, are allied with MAGA and putting a thumb on the scale, [19:06] or whether this is also part of a larger effort to curry favor with the Trump administration, [19:11] which oversees the big business tech merger. [19:14] Pelley, who is as credible as they come when you look at his long tenure of independent reporting, [19:19] including from war zones and multiple administrations, [19:23] says CBS News management instructed him to inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story. [19:29] He calls out what he views as incompetence and unprofessionalism in the new management that wreaked [19:34] havoc, describing scenarios that were completely avoidable, according to him, [19:39] that put stories in danger going up to airtime. [19:42] He has a lot of experience here to launch these critiques, [19:45] and he says it's all to curry favor with the Trump administration. [19:51] MSNOW has requested CBS comment on those accusations. [19:55] We haven't specifically heard back, although some of their officials have spoken out publicly, [19:59] and there's been a war of words in the press over what is a big and rare inflection point [20:04] in already a long-running battle over CBS News, independence, [20:09] and whether freedom of speech or Colbert-style criticism of the current government [20:13] would be allowed for long on that platform. [20:15] Pelley also criticized the CBS News boss Barry Weiss. [20:19] There was a staff meeting where Pelley confronted the new executive producer about Weiss. [20:24] This is something that broke in The New York Times yesterday. [20:26] There was reportedly a recording that The Times says they have of this unusually tense meeting [20:32] where he said that she was trying to murder 60 Minutes. [20:36] She does not love this place, he said. [20:37] That was in response to a back and forth. [20:39] She was brought in to kill it, and she's been doing exactly that. [20:43] Now, there are reports that Weiss was telling staff that Pelley was violating trust and mutual respect, [20:49] and for her part, she and others say that they tried to reach out to him, [20:53] including before that tense meeting I just mentioned, for a one-on-one discussion, [20:57] that there was a back and forth, and clearly a breakdown of an ability to get through issues [21:03] that Pelley thinks go beyond communication [21:06] and to the heart of how that news division is being gutted. [21:11] I don't have to tell you, if you're watching this news channel, [21:13] you've probably seen news over the past decades. [21:17] Pelley is someone who reported from war zones, [21:20] who faced politicians and presidents who cover the White House, [21:24] and most recently as well, the war in Ukraine. [21:29] As a viewer, I've never spent any time with Scott Pelley. [21:32] I've watched him as a journalist. [21:34] I can echo what Rachel and plenty of other journalists have said, [21:38] which is this is really one of the long-term gold standards [21:41] of what a TV journalist can be, [21:43] and that independence, whether you saw him there pressing [21:45] then-president Biden on one of his perceived vulnerabilities, [21:49] or going to war zones, as I mentioned, [21:51] or just calling it free and fair, [21:52] and 60 Minutes relied on Pelley. [21:55] Over the years, they've had different stars, [21:57] but he was currently one of their most prominent. [21:59] So it means something when he says, [22:01] after trying to work with this new management for months, [22:03] that it has become untenable, [22:05] and that he has specific concerns, examples, [22:08] of what he calls their bias and effort [22:10] to promote falsehoods at that institution. [22:13] Now, there is another version of this story you'll hear, [22:15] which is that some of the broadcast media has fallen behind, [22:18] has lost a step, and needs to be modernized, [22:21] and that that itself is not illicit. [22:24] Well, that's true as far as it goes. [22:25] If you watch this program, [22:26] we've reported on the shifts in digital media a ton, [22:29] but 60 Minutes didn't need some sudden overhaul [22:33] to reach the public. [22:35] It was a commercial success. [22:37] Indeed, Paramount, which is the parent company, [22:39] recently noted how 60 Minutes made history [22:41] by marking 52 straight seasons [22:43] as America's number one news program, [22:45] with as many as 10 million people watching Variety Reports. [22:49] When you look at those Nielsen ratings, [22:51] there were weeks where the top thing watched [22:53] in all categories would be football in 60 Minutes. [22:57] It was number one in news [22:58] and rivaled some of the other most profitable things on the air. [23:02] And yet, lately, these accusations of bias were mounting. [23:07] One correspondent said there was a, quote, [23:08] political discussion by the bosses [23:10] to try to shape and delay an immigration report [23:13] that might have upset Trump officials. [23:15] Another 60 Minutes correspondent said, quote, [23:17] my producing teams and I have experienced efforts [23:19] to insert political bias into our stories. [23:23] CBS has repeatedly denied those accusations [23:25] during this period. [23:28] The wider context is David Ellison, [23:30] who is part of that Ellison family [23:31] that we've mentioned that has been buying up media. [23:34] Paramount is the company involved here. [23:37] And the wider thing that goes beyond just news [23:39] is that they need the Trump administration's approval [23:42] for that huge Warner merger [23:44] with so much money on the line. [23:48] Broader than CBS News, [23:49] you have a Trump administration [23:50] that has gone farther than any other U.S. government [23:54] to target and sue and intimidate [23:56] and sometimes use executive orders [23:58] and other powers and even indict Don Lemon, [24:00] reminding you of just some of what they're doing here, [24:03] including these lawsuits. [24:05] This is the environment we're in. [24:06] And if you needed an inflection point, [24:09] beyond Colbert, beyond the lawsuits, [24:15] beyond this or that reporter [24:16] telling you they're doing it again, [24:19] someone like Pelley saying out in the open [24:22] at the risk of his career [24:23] and whatever money was left on his contract [24:25] and everything else, saying out in the open, [24:26] they are doing this for the Trump government. [24:29] What they're doing is false, [24:30] what they're doing is wrong. [24:31] That's your inflection point. [24:33] And we are happy to say [24:34] when it comes to getting an expert on this, [24:36] we have lined up someone [24:37] with rock solid credentials, [24:39] renowned journalist Ken Aletta, [24:41] a media author and reporter, joins me next. [24:45] Today we're joined by Ken Aletta, [24:46] renowned journalist, author, writer for The New Yorker. [24:48] He's written many national bestsellers you see here, [24:53] often looking at the intersection of media [24:55] and its role in society, [24:57] which is why we thought of you tonight. [24:58] Welcome. [25:01] Thanks, Harry. [25:02] What does this mean for 60 Minutes and CBS News? [25:07] How rare is it to see this spill out [25:10] the way it's happening over the last 48 hours? [25:13] Well, you know, you look at the history of mergers, [25:15] take Time Warner when AOL acquired it. [25:18] And AOL comes in, [25:19] and they say, you guys are, suck. [25:22] You're Luddites, you know, this at all. [25:24] And alienates all the time Warner people. [25:27] Something similar has happened right here. [25:30] The people from Paramount are coming in. [25:33] Harry Weiss coming in and saying, [25:34] you guys suck. [25:36] You're Luddites. [25:36] We have to make changes. [25:38] Now, you do have to. [25:39] You said this earlier in the introduction. [25:41] They do have to make changes. [25:43] The audience is aging at 60 Minutes [25:46] and at all of newscasts. [25:48] And the audience is declining [25:49] as more choices proliferate. [25:51] So you have to try and upgrade 60 Minutes and news. [25:56] But you don't come in and say, [25:57] you guys suck, [25:59] and insult people and summarily fire them, [26:02] which is what they've done. [26:03] And so they've created a place at CBS News [26:09] where people aren't happy [26:10] and they're going to leave. [26:11] And they won't work as hard. [26:12] They don't have to trust [26:14] that you need when companies merge. [26:16] And by the way, it's not just CBS. [26:18] If they get Trump's approval, [26:21] they're going to take over CNN too. [26:23] And how does that radiate out to CNN? [26:25] So it's really a huge problem. [26:30] They've really mishandled this. [26:32] Yeah, you say the new owners have mishandled it. [26:34] I mentioned to viewers who probably know [26:36] that Mr. Pelli is pretty serious [26:39] when it comes to the life and career [26:42] he's led on behalf of independent journalism. [26:44] So him saying this doesn't read to me, [26:47] what do you think, [26:47] as just another employment dispute? [26:51] It's not another employment dispute. [26:53] You know, one of the things, [26:54] I mean, as a watcher of your show, [26:57] where you talk about Republican senators [26:58] and members of Congress who don't speak up. [27:02] And here's Scott Pelli speaking up [27:03] and daring to speak up [27:05] and putting his job on the line to speak up [27:07] and speak what he sees as the truth. [27:10] And so he deserves a lot of credit [27:12] for his courage to do that [27:13] and to risk his career, which he's done. [27:16] Now, I'm sure he has communicated, [27:20] he has misunderstood certain things [27:22] that these people, [27:23] they don't want to destroy 60 Minutes. [27:25] They don't want to destroy CBS News. [27:27] But nevertheless, [27:28] the message that they've conveyed [27:30] is one of destruction. [27:32] And Scott Pelli is standing up [27:34] for the people he's worked with [27:36] for years and he admires. [27:37] And he's gone and several other [27:41] correspondents have gone. [27:42] The longtime executive producer, [27:44] 60 Minutes, was summarily fired, [27:46] as was her deputy. [27:47] So it's, this radiates out [27:51] in a very negative way. [27:53] Yeah, and it seems that MAGA [27:54] owners want the power and reach [27:57] of 60 Minutes, [27:59] the audience and the credibility. [28:01] But according to so many people [28:03] who built that, [28:04] these MAGA owners don't want [28:06] to do the hard work, [28:07] the compromise, [28:08] and the independence of that. [28:09] And so they're running into that. [28:10] It's one thing to say, [28:11] oh, you know, [28:13] let's widen our story selection. [28:15] Let's do more stories [28:16] about rural America [28:17] or the things you sometimes hear. [28:18] And you go, okay, [28:19] go let the 60 Minutes people [28:20] do it that way. [28:22] That's not it. [28:23] We're hearing about, [28:24] and I want to put up [28:25] on the screen there, [28:25] we have some evidence here [28:27] and they can answer it. [28:28] But this is the evidence from, [28:29] again, a very credible source [28:30] from Mr. Pelli. [28:31] He says they instructed him, [28:33] the new management, [28:33] to inject falsehoods [28:36] and bias into the reporting. [28:39] He says that politicians [28:40] have now been invited [28:41] to choose the correspondence [28:42] for interviews, [28:44] basically handing the government [28:46] a kind of oversight role [28:48] and then, of course, [28:49] picking perhaps their favorites. [28:51] He describes how incompetence [28:52] and unprofessionalism wreaked havoc. [28:54] In one of his stories, [28:55] he says, quote, [28:55] the entire program came within 19 minutes [28:57] of not getting on the air at all. [28:59] That point, as you'll understand, Ken, [29:01] and many other people won't know [29:03] all the details, is, you know, [29:05] folks watch the show, [29:06] they say, ah, Ari pulls up around six, [29:09] talk to some people and leave. [29:11] Hey, if that's what it looks like, great. [29:12] In fact, anyone who's worked [29:14] in the challenge of TV news knows [29:17] there's a huge team, [29:18] most of them aren't visible on air, [29:20] and they do a lot of work. [29:21] And if you want to have [29:22] an editorial discussion [29:23] about changing a story [29:24] on a magazine-style weekly show [29:26] like 60 Minutes, [29:27] and you're at all competent, Ken, [29:29] you do that with advanced time [29:31] in the proper way. [29:32] And he is suggesting, [29:33] and there's been other [29:34] independent reporting on this, [29:36] that these new executives [29:37] don't even know [29:38] how to put a show together. [29:39] And then he adds on top of that, [29:41] they want him to put a show [29:42] out that he said was false [29:43] and he resisted. [29:44] Your reaction to that, [29:45] that evidence or that, [29:47] those claims he puts forward? [29:49] We heard, we haven't heard [29:50] from Scott Pelley what specific [29:52] happened, what people told him [29:55] not to do or to do. [29:57] But he is specific [29:58] when he talks about [29:59] the interview with Netanyahu. [30:02] Leslie Stahl had been [30:04] petitioning to do that interview [30:06] for 60 Minutes [30:07] and had done other interviews. [30:09] She's a long-time [30:10] and prized journalist [30:12] at 60 Minutes. [30:13] And they brought in someone else. [30:15] And they actually cleared her [30:16] with Netanyahu, [30:18] which is what Scott Pelley [30:19] is talking about. [30:20] Netanyahu chose someone else [30:22] to do the interview. [30:23] Now, the interview was okay. [30:24] It wasn't a soft interview, [30:28] but it also wasn't [30:29] as hard as it could have been. [30:30] He didn't ask any questions, [30:32] for instance, [30:32] about the right-wing government [30:34] that Netanyahu supports [30:36] and some of the oppressive things [30:38] they've done in Palestine. [30:40] Right. [30:41] And so then you say, well, [30:42] is that part of a process [30:43] where the government [30:44] is getting the first word [30:45] or the last word [30:46] through their intermediaries? [30:48] And then the alleged [30:50] corruptive questions [30:51] about whether this is all [30:52] to get a merger done. [30:53] So, Ken, for viewers [30:55] who watch tonight going, [30:56] gosh, this is what's happening [30:58] at CBS, Colbert's out, [31:00] Pelley's out, [31:00] these other people [31:01] are being pushed. [31:02] And then these folks [31:04] are very close to finalizing [31:05] their deal to control CNN. [31:07] What do you say about [31:08] the outlook for independent [31:09] media in the United States? [31:13] I mean, anyone listening [31:15] to those facts writes a headline, [31:19] don't trust the Paramount people. [31:22] They don't love us. [31:23] They don't support us. [31:25] And I'm sure [31:26] that's not entirely true. [31:28] But nevertheless, [31:29] that's the headline. [31:30] And that's the message [31:31] that's been conveyed. [31:33] And so the element of trust [31:34] that's so essential [31:35] when you're working, [31:37] particularly after a merger, [31:39] is absent. [31:41] Yeah, that's fairly put. [31:43] And again, speaks to these challenges. [31:44] And you reminded everyone [31:44] there have been mergers past [31:45] that looked big and bold [31:46] and they didn't work [31:48] on a business level. [31:49] We're still talking about media. [31:51] You know, what the kids call it, Ken. [31:53] They call it content. [31:54] They say, I like your, [31:55] I saw your content. [31:56] I like that. [31:56] Well, whether you call it [31:58] media content or substance, [32:00] at the end of the day, [32:01] it's got to connect [32:01] with a heck of a lot of people. [32:03] And if you lose credibility [32:04] because of these shenanigans, [32:05] then that's an issue too. [32:07] So like I said, [32:08] we're glad to have you on [32:09] as an expert. [32:09] On a night when we're less busy, [32:11] I'll ask you [32:12] your favorite New Yorker cartoons. [32:15] You got it. [32:15] Okay. [32:16] Our thanks to Ken. [32:17] Thanks, Harry. [32:17] A big story. [32:18] Thank you, sir. [32:19] I'll fit in a break. [32:20] And when we come back, [32:21] why movies like Her [32:23] and Minority Report [32:24] are coming true, [32:25] the dystopian use of AI. [32:27] We're going to get into that [32:28] and what you can do [32:29] to not be on the wrong end [32:30] of the AI trying [32:31] to actually predict...