Joe Orenstein
LightNews LightNews
banner
jnojag.bsky.social
Joe Orenstein
@jnojag.bsky.social
580 followers 140 following 170 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
jnojag.bsky.social
First they came for the mathematicians . . .
December 24, 2025 at 7:06 PM
Reposted by Joe Orenstein
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Again, from Michael Grynbaum, here is Sharyn Alfonsi's full email.

It must be read:
News Team, Thank you for the notes and texts. I apologize for not reaching out earlier. I learned on Saturday that Bari Weiss spiked our story, INSIDE CECOT, which was supposed to air tonight. We (Ori and I) asked for a call to discuss her decision. She did not afford us that courtesy/opportunity. Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now-after every rigorous internal check has been met is not an editorial decision, it is a political one. We requested responses to questions and/or interviews with DHS, the White House, and the State Department. Government silence is a statement, not a VETO. Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story. If the administration's refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a "kill switch" for any reporting they find inconvenient. If the standard for airing a story becomes "the government must agree to be interviewed," then the government effectively gains control over the 60 Minutes broadcast. We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state. These men risked their lives to speak with us. We have a moral and professional obligation to the sources who entrusted us with their stories. Abandoning them now is a betrayal of the most basic tenet of journalism: giving voice to the voiceless. CBS spiked the Jeffrey Wigand interview due to legal concerns, nearly destroying the credibility of this broadcast. It took years to recover from that "low point." By pulling this story to shield an administration, we are repeating that history, but for political optics rather than legal ones. We have been promoting this story on social media for days. Our viewers are expecting it. When it fails to air without a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship. We are trading 50 years of "Gold Standard" reputation for a single week of political quiet. I care too much about this broadcast to watch it be dismantled without a fight. Sharyn
December 22, 2025 at 4:00 AM
jnojag.bsky.social
As one who lives in her district, you probably heard my sigh of relief from here
December 19, 2025 at 11:05 PM
jnojag.bsky.social
Haven’t worked for the Jets, don’t think they’ll help Seattle
December 19, 2025 at 2:08 AM
jnojag.bsky.social
To say I am thoroughly disappointed with the Times for publishing this dreck is a massive understatement
December 14, 2025 at 11:30 PM
jnojag.bsky.social
I'm certain there is one person the President is worried about being incriminated by the evidence
December 9, 2025 at 10:55 PM
jnojag.bsky.social
Tom Cotton was apparently absent the day they taught law at law school
December 7, 2025 at 6:08 PM
jnojag.bsky.social
Say you don’t understand supply & demand without saying you don’t understand supply & demand
November 14, 2025 at 9:17 PM