Anderson Cooperis leaving60 Minutes after nearly 20 years with the program. His departure comes amid ongoing changes at CBS News and brings his long run as a correspondent on the broadcast to a close.
Anderson Cooper announces he’s leaving CBS News’ 60 Minutes
Anderson Cooper is leaving 60 Minutes after nearly two decades as a correspondent, with the media newsletter Breaker first reporting the development. The CNN anchor chose not to extend his contract with the CBS program. His last segment, featuring an interview with documentary filmmaker Ken Burns, aired Sunday.
Cooper will remain at CNN, where he anchors Anderson Cooper 360 and the weekly show The Whole Story. He also hosts the podcast and streaming series All There Is and covers major national and international events. His work on 60 Minutes was part of a partnership agreement between CNN and CBS News.
“Being a correspondent at 60 Minutes has been one of the great honors of my career,” Cooper said in a statement. “I got to tell amazing stories, and work with some of the best producers, editors, and camera crews in the business. For nearly twenty years, I’ve been able to balance my jobs at CNN and CBS, but I have little kids now and I want to spend as much time with them as possible, while they still want to spend time with me” (via The Hollywood Reporter).
CBS News said in a statement, “For more than two decades, Anderson Cooper has taken 60 Minutes viewers on journeys to faraway places, told us unforgettable stories, reported consequential investigations and interviewed many prominent figures. We’re grateful to him for dedicating so much of his life to this broadcast, and understand the importance of spending more time with family. 60 Minutes will be here if he ever wants to return.”
Today show host Savannah Guthrie is facing an unimaginable nightmare as authorities in Arizona reveal a deeply troubling theory about what may have happened to her mother, Nancy Guthrie, who has been missing since the weekend. And the more details that emerge, the heavier this situation feels.
Police now officially believe that Nancy, who is 84, was likely taken from her home while she was asleep. Let that sink in for a second: a woman in her mid-80s, apparently taken from her own bed in the middle of the night, from what should have been the safest place in the world.
Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos did not mince words when he spoke to CBS News on Monday:
“I believe she was abducted, yes. She didn’t walk from there. She didn’t go willingly.”
Hearing that out loud is devastating. There had been quiet speculation about this possibility, but for the sheriff himself to say it so plainly makes the situation feel far more dire and painfully real.
As we’ve been reporting, Nancy was last seen at her Arizona home on Saturday night, and she was officially reported missing around midday on Sunday.
By Monday, authorities confirmed what everyone feared: this is no longer being treated as a simple missing persons case, but it is now considered a crime. Speaking later on Monday night on OutFront with host Erin Burnett, Sheriff Nanos emphasized that while Nancy has physical limitations, her mental state was not a concern:
“Her wits are about her. This isn‘t somebody who wandered off. This is an elderly woman in her mid-80s who suffers some ailments that makes her mobility, her ability to walk around very difficult.”
According to Nanos, Nancy could not have walked more than about 50 yards on her own. He also referenced undisclosed details at the scene that suggested she was removed from her home against her will — something he says experience has taught him not to ignore.
Nanos said:
“I‘ve been doing this for 50 years. I have a gut feeling, but it came to me yesterday… that she was abducted… something about that scene made me believe that there’s more just a missing person. Today we still hope she’s alive… but you can’t ignore what you’re seeing at the scene. Time is of the essence.”
Wow…
Now, neighbors are now being urged to review any home surveillance footage from Saturday night that could help piece together what happened. Authorities are also working closely with Savannah’s security team, though they’ve thus far said this is not being treated as a ransom situation.
What ultimately raised the alarm was heartbreakingly ordinary. Members of Nancy’s church noticed she didn’t show up for Sunday morning services and became concerned. To that end, Nanos said:
“This is a big case to this community because it‘s not often… that we see somebody in the middle of the night in their safe home environment and bed all of a sudden disappear.”
Nancy Guthrie is described as 5 feet, 5 inches tall, with brown hair, blue eyes, and weighing around 150 pounds.
Per Nanos on OutFront, anyone with information is urged to contact the Pima County Sheriff’s Department at (520) 351-4900.
And for now, a family, a community, and so many millions more are watching from afar are holding onto hope in the middle of something truly terrifying.
As Paramount continues its fight for Warner Brothers, Larry Ellison’s company wants TikTok too
TikTok has signed a deal to spin off its U.S. operations to a group controlled by mostly American investors, including software giant Oracle, a company run by billionaire Larry Ellison, a Florida businessman cozy with President Trump.
Ellison, who is also doing battle along with his son David Ellison at Paramount, for control of Warner Brothers, with the father-son billionaires engaging in a hostile takeover offer that is being rejected by the legendary Hollywood studio, will now own a piece of TikTok.
TikTok announced it has sold 80% of the company’s U.S. assets to American and global investors, with CEO Shou Zi Chew breaking the news to employees on Thursday. The alternative was for the app to be banned in U.S., a push first proposed by Trump and then passed by Congress.
Should all of the Ellison’s efforts prove successful, they would add CNN and TikTok to a portfolio that already includes CBS News, which they acquired as part of their Paramount takeover, leading them to control a significant amount of American news distribution.
Bari Weiss is poised to revamp one of the nation’s most venerable down-the-middle news outlets, CBS News. The question is, will she be able to make money for corporate parent Paramount Skydance after doing so?
The query is legitimate. Paramount executives believe Weiss, named editor in chief of CBS News earlier this month as part of an acquisition of her digital opinion site, The Free Press, will bring “a sense of energy and fearlessness” to the home of “60 Minutes” and “CBS Evening News,” according to a person familiar with the company. Paramount brass were particularly impressed by a segment shown on the most recent telecast of “60 Minutes,” this person says, featuring a sit-down with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, with the pair detailing for correspondent Lesley Stahl how they helped broker a seeming peace between Israel and Hamas.
The trouble? The telecast was one of the lowest-rated broadcasts of “60 Minutes” in the early weeks of the current season. The show, crimped by a late-running NFL game which delayed “60 Minutes” in New York, lured an average of 6.9 million viewers overall, and 946,000 among people between 25 and 54, according to Nielsen data, compared with nearly 10.2 million viewers overall, and nearly 2.1 million viewers between 25 and 54, the previous week. Overall viewership fell 32% from the prior week, according to Nielsen, and 54% among viewers between 25 and 54 — the demographic coveted most by advertisers in news programming.
Such ups and downs aren’t unusual for “60,” which can see ratings spike after an NFL broadcast. Still, the numbers are below the average audience for the show, which came to nearly 8.6 million viewers last season, when the 2024 presidential election goosed viewership. The network was encouraged by attention the interview of Witkoff and Kushner received online, according to a person familiar with the matter.
In the TV news business, scoops matter. But so too does sizzle — promotion of a big interview, parceling it out among several programs — and Weiss, who has no previous experience running an editorial operation the size of CBS News or producing TV programs, needs to master it.
There are many in the newsroom who hope she can. And there are still others who do not understand what she intends to do in her new perch or how she will go about doing it.
Upon completion of her deal with Paramount, Weiss hailed the transaction as “a great moment for the Free Press.” People are still trying to determine what it means for the news division over which she now presides.
No one seems able to articulate the relationship between Free Press, which is still publishing stories, and CBS News, which has featured Weiss’ sister and “Free Press” cofounder Suzy Weiss on programs. Are the two part of a single unit? Is “Free Press” bound by the same ethics and newsgathering standards as CBS News? There is some concern among CBS News staffers, according to two people familiar with the matter, that “Free Press,” which is not unionized, will not be bound by the same workplace policies as CBS News, where many employees are represented by Writers Guild of America. Weiss recently hired Adam Rubenstein as a deputy editor of “Free Press,” a move CBS News staffers anticipate will give him some say in the newsgathering direction of CBS News. And yet, CBS News’ union will expect its contract to be honored, even by “Free Press” personnel.
CBS News declined to make executives available for comment. A spokesman for WGA’s East Coast operations did not respond to a query seeking comment.
Inside CBS News, employees have some hope Weiss can help boost the viewership of the company’s streaming properties, which aren’t pulling in the audience executives might like. While CBS News was early to join the streaming game, it hasn’t maximized its efforts to the extend that NBC News has, which operates a stand-alone streaming outlet devoted to “Today” and a live-streaming service for national news called NBC News Now. In recent months, CBS merged its national newsgathering business with its local stations and has tapped personnel from both sides to create new streaming formats and programs, including a show that takes viewers to news stories covered by local stations in “whip-around” style.
There is also a sense that some of CBS News’ best-known programs are in for an overhaul.
Weiss has already leaped to help book newsmakers for segments on CBS News programs, setting Norah O’Donnell to moderate a panel discussion online with former Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice, and arranging an interview between Tony Dokoupil and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It’s notable that such assignments weren’t given to the current “CBS Evening News” anchors, Maurice DuBois and John Dickerson, who preside over a retooled show that uses a dual-anchor format and has tried to focus more heavily on enterprise stories rather than breaking headlines — and seen viewership drop noticeably as a result.
Despite the recent spotlight on O’Donnell and Dokoupil, CBS News executives have begun making outreach to talent agencies in hopes of luring new anchors to the fold, according to three people familiar with the matter. CBS News has tried to find out what journalists might be available in case the offer of a job comes their way, these people say, and would be amenable to putting these people in new places at CBS News even ahead of internal candidates — at least for now.
Such queries aren’t atypical when new management comes into a news division. CBS News reached out in similar fashion to agents after Neeraj Khemlani took the reins at CBS News in 2021, according to two people familiar with the matter, eager to see if potential candidates who worked elsewhere might be near a negotiating window in their contracts.
The move to inject new talent into CBS News spotlights the fact that no matter what new policies and projects Weiss brings, a host of old challenges remain — and may be of more critical economic importance to Paramount Skydance than any ideas she has on the caliber of reporting and journalism.
“CBS Evening News” and “CBS Mornings” have long been mired in third place, partially the result of CBS losing affiliates in 1994 after ceding NFL rights to a still-nascent Fox. But the network can perform well, often notching first-place wins in primetime and late night (CBS will likely lose that distinction next year after it shuts down “The Late Show,” hosted by Stephen Colbert).
Weiss will also have to grapple with what will likely be a much-scrutinized talent decision. The contract of Gayle King, the well-liked co-anchor of “CBS Mornings,” expires in 2026, according to three people familiar with the matter. Renewing King is always “a question mark,” says one of these people, as the host often debates about whether to continue and how to balance her job with her family. At a time when CBS News’ corporate parent is cutting costs and laying off staff, it’s not clear whether Paramount will want to continue paying the morning host her current salary, and whether King would want to continue if asked to take a cut.
Weiss has shown early skill in landing good “gets” for CBS News. But there’s a lot more she’ll have to master in coming months — with little time to get it right.
CBS has indicated that staffers at CBS News will not be disciplined if they don’t respond to a much-scrutinized message sent last week by Bari Weiss, the division’s new editor in chief, according to Writers Guild of America East, the union representing many CBS News employees,
CBS “informed us that you will not be disciplined if you do not respond to the email, indicating that a response is optional. The company further stated that if you choose to respond, it will not be a basis for discipline, discharge, or layoff,” according to a message from the union to its members that was reviewed by Variety. “We intend to hold the company to these responses.”
CBS News declined to make executives available for comment.
CBS News staffers have been grappling with conflicting orders since Weiss sent the message, according to three people familiar with the matter, after some producers at the Paramount Skydance news unit urged reporters and journalists to respond despite WGA criticism. Weiss asked staffers to tell her “how you spend your working hours” and what they thought of CBS News, so that she and editorial employees could be “aligned on achieving a shared vision for CBS News.”
A simple memo from a senior executive usually doesn’t spur such conflagration, but Weiss is no ordinary news leader. She was named editor in chief at CBS News last week by Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison, and CBS News staffers have been roiled in the aftermath. Weiss, a digital entrepreneur and opinion writer who built The Free Press, has no experience running a mainstream TV-news outlet, and little history in helping traditional journalists navigate the challenges to finding facts. She has a direct line to Ellison, while Tom Cibrowski, a former ABC executive who came aboard as CBS News president earlier this year, has been tasked with working alongside Weiss and lending his expertise.
The Paramount news drama takes place as most employees are fearful they are about to lose their jobs. Paramount executives have said they intend to cut the company’s workforce significantly in order to trim costs. Details on staff layoffs are expected to be revealed by Paramount’s next earnings report.
CBS told the union that employee responses to Weiss were not supposed to be used to foster pushback against respondents. “The intention is that only Bari Weiss and her Chief of Staff will see the responses, though they may have an obligation to share with other senior executives,” CBS said. The company also noted that Weiss’ purpose in seeking employee reaction was simply “to know the employees and use it as a discussion guide as she meets with employees in the coming weeks and months as time permits.”
Bari Weiss, the incoming editor-in-chief at CBS News, has reportedly had a tough time adjusting to her new gig
Bari Weiss has some big plans as she takes the lead at CBS News, but not everyone is pleased.
The first editorial call at CBS, after naming their new leadership on Monday, started five minutes late, per the tardiness of incoming Editor-in-Chief Weiss, co-founder of news reform outlet The Free Press. She began by suggesting A-list talent like Hillary Clinton to come on-air, talking about the conflict in Gaza and using f-bombs, according to Vanity Fair.
Thursday was one of Weiss’ first days of work since starting her divisive new reign at CBS, which put the Paramount-Skydance portfolio under the spotlight once again, after firing Stephen Colbert and settling the “60 Minutes” suit with President Trump.
The Free Press, which Weiss has historically used to challenge legacy media, was acquired by Paramount-Skydance CEO David Ellison for $150 million. The deal reportedly secured Weiss the top job at CBS, but the idea didn’t please everyone.
The CBS newsroom became hostile, according to Vanity Fair, because Weiss’ agenda came off as criticism to the organization. Weiss often claimed that traditionally revered news sources had gone too “woke” in recent years, causing her to leave The New York Times in 2020, claiming she was bullied for not sharing the same political beliefs.
The ideology behind The Free Press relies on the objectivity she claims is missing from those legacy newsrooms, one of which she now runs.
An unnamed source at CBS told Vanity Fair what that first meeting was like, saying “You could cut the tension with a knife,” as well as, “It was very clear right away that she doesn’t quite understand how things work.”
Weiss identifies as center-left on the political spectrum, but openly mocks the far-left, and thus hasn’t been embraced by most Democrats with her new title. Her stance on Gaza, for which she is decidedly pro-Israel, has isolated some progressives from her news site and podcast, “Honestly with Bari Weiss.” Weiss is gay, but lacks support from the LGBTQ+ community because of her apparent hostility towards trans people with past comments on gender-affirming care and giving a platform to author J.K. Rowling, who’s made several transphobic claims, with The Free Press.
Scroll to continue reading
“Let’s do the fucking news,” she reportedly said in that first news meeting, per a CBS source from The Independent.
“I’m not joking,” the source said. “She actually said that.”
If you’ve been side-eyeing those viral weight-loss shots but couldn’t justify the price tag, Costco just might’ve changed the game. The wholesale giant is now offering Wegovy and Ozempic — yep, the same blockbuster drugs all over your timeline — at a major discount for its members. And, let’s just say…the TL is shook.
According to drugmaker Novo Nordisk, Costco pharmacies are selling the medications for $499 a month for self-pay members — way less than the list price of $1,349. And, if you’ve got that Executive Membership or use a Costco Citibank Visa, you can snatch an extra 2% off. Novo Nordisk says this collab is all about access, especially as they compete with Eli Lilly’s rival meds, Zepbound and Mounjaro, while also trying to edge out those unregulated compounded versions flooding medical spas and telehealth sites.
Social Media Split Over Costco’s Weight Loss Move
One Instagram user @fullfigureblackbarbie said, “Now I’m going to try it“
And, Instagram user @4beautiful_mel added, “Welp looks like I’m signing up with Costco 😂”
Instagram user @holland7367 commented, “$500 is still outrageous“
Meanwhile, Instagram user @therealdjstacks shared, “Ain’t Ozempic getting sued like crazy right now 😆”
While Instagram user @mr.6foot9 commented, “This sh*t going to ruin life’s later on lol“
Then Instagram user @crownthyking wrote, “Imagine a lady in a apron saying you ‘want to try [a] shot’ in Costco 🤣”
Instagram user @fantoine14 said, “Is it the Kirkland brand 😂😂😂”
Lastly, Instagram user @ajo_mvv added, “Any employee discounts? If so, where do I apply?“
Ozempic Hype Grows As Costco Joins In
But, make no mistake, this is still big business. Wegovy and Ozempic are FDA-approved GLP-1 injections that help curb appetite and promote weight loss. While Ozempic is officially for Type 2 diabetes, both drugs have been flying off shelves thanks to their off-label use for dropping pounds. With Costco entering the chat, folks might finally get their hands on these meds without blowing the budget — and let’s just say, the girls (and the guys) are ready to load up the cart.
In 2018, Bari Weiss, then an opinion columnist at the Times, wrote about the so-called Intellectual Dark Web, a loose “alliance of heretics” who were “making an end run around the mainstream conversation.” Adherents were photographed for the article in literally dark settings: glowering out from under an umbrella, perched amid mossy branches, standing half-obscured by bushes. Though they came from different ideological backgrounds, Weiss wrote, these figures—including Eric Weinstein, the managing director of Peter Thiel’s venture-capital fund, who had “half-jokingly” coined the movement’s name; Joe Rogan, an “MMA color commentator and comedian” with a hugely popular podcast; and Jordan Peterson, the already best-selling philosopher—felt they had been ostracized by legacy media outlets in the Trump era for voicing reasonable opinions. These positions ran the gamut: arguing that free speech was under attack, believing in biological gender differences, thinking that forcing Muslim women to “live their lives inside bags is wrong.” Many in the group were building channels of their own. Weiss was sympathetic, but did not quite commit to fellowship. “Having been attacked by the left,” she wrote, “I know I run the risk of focusing inordinately on its excesses—and providing succor to some people whom I deeply oppose.”
Weiss wrote this article at something like the midpoint of her Times journey. When Donald Trump won the Presidency in 2016, she was at the Wall Street Journal; the morning after the election, she sobbed at her desk, and realized that she felt too liberal for the paper and needed to leave. In 2017, she joined the Times, where this was definitely not a problem—but, after three years of being consistently derided (not least over the I.D.W. piece), she quit, and, on the way out, publicly accused her colleagues of cowering before the orthodoxies of Twitter and “bullying” her for committing “Wrongthink.” She has said that she voted for Joe Biden in 2020. But, by the beginning of this year, she was sounding more conciliatory about Trump, dismissing her prior anguish as “Trump derangement syndrome.” “There were two things, I think, that I didn’t know in that moment when I was crying at my desk,” she explained: “the kind of illiberalism that was born out of the reaction” to Trump, and the fact that he would enact “a lot of policies that I agreed with.”
Along the way, Weiss founded the Free Press, a news site hosted on Substack—where it is the best-selling politics offering, with roughly a million and a half subscribers, some eleven per cent of whom pay—that sits somewhere between the center and the right, without “center-right” feeling like a consistently accurate label. This was Weiss’s own end run around mainstream institutions, and the site has come to be seen, at least by its fans, as an expression of her “pro-Israel and anti-woke worldview—not to mention her broadly shit-kicking anti-establishment disposition,” as Puck’s Dylan Byers recently put it. Weiss’s many critics would dispute that she was ever “anti-establishment.” Either way, she is indisputably back in the mainstream: the occasion for Byers’s piece was to report that David Ellison, the son of the billionaire Larry Ellison, and the freshly minted chairman of Paramount Skydance, the parent company of CBS News, was planning to put Weiss in charge of that outlet’s “editorial direction”; this morning, she was formally unveiled as its editor-in-chief. (Notably, she will report directly to Ellison.) The Free Press is coming along, too, with Ellison’s company having acquired it at a reported valuation of a hundred and fifty million dollars. According to a press release, Weiss will continue to lead the Free Press, but the site will “maintain its own independent brand and operations.”
Weiss arrives at a moment that feels almost existential for CBS News, whose owners have been widely and credibly accused, in recent months, of kowtowing to Trump. This summer, Paramount settled a risible lawsuit that Trump filed over edits to a “60 Minutes” segment about Kamala Harris that had displeased him. Shortly thereafter, the Federal Communications Commission approved Paramount’s merger with Ellison’s Skydance. More or less everyone saw these developments as connected; Stephen Colbert said—on CBS—that the settlement was a “big fat bribe,” right before his show was cancelled. (Executives denied any quid pro quo, and cited financial motivations for cutting Colbert.) Brendan Carr, the F.C.C. chair, did publicly welcome Skydance’s “commitment to make significant changes at the once storied CBS broadcast network,” including measures to “root out” what he described as bias. Paramount Skydance also promised to appoint an ombudsman to oversee CBS News, and soon did, tapping Kenneth Weinstein, a right-wing think-tank type and recent G.O.P. donor. Last month, the network said it would no longer edit interviews on its Sunday show “Face the Nation,” after the Administration complained about cuts to a pre-recorded sitdown with Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security.
In a recent profile of Weiss in the Guardian, the progressive journalist David Klion predicted that she would act as an “ideological commissar” at CBS, helping to further “enforce compliance” with the White House line. Others share the fear that a Trumpified Weiss is storming the citadel of objective journalism. Some version of this dynamic may well play out—as I see it, neither Ellison nor Weiss has accumulated enough benefit of the doubt for us to trust any promises to the contrary. But a MAGA-fied CBS isn’t a guarantee. The story is a bit murkier than Manichaean talk of stormers and citadels.
One could say that the Free Press focusses on the excesses of the left to an extent that provides succor to people Weiss opposes, or, at least, used to oppose. The right-wing activist Christopher Rufo, who is often helpfully explicit about his aims, has described the site as a “beautiful off-ramp” for center-left élites whom he is trying to “radicalize” into “a kind of defector class.” But the Free Press is not Breitbart, and Weiss is not Steve Bannon. Last year, the Free Press polled its own staff and found its support was split, somewhat evenly, between Trump, Kamala Harris, and neither; since Trump returned to power, the site has rebuked his Administration for nakedly threatening Jimmy Kimmel, to name one example. Last week, Byers wrote that Weiss is “more consistently centrist than her critics care to acknowledge,” and that “it’s quite likely that her first brush with controversy will come when her free speech absolutism” puts CBS in conflict with Trump. Given the crêpe-paper quality of Trump’s skin, you don’t have to think that Weiss is a centrist or a free-speech absolutist (and I certainly don’t believe she is either) to see this as a plausible collision.
Trump’s return to power is, at minimum, essential context for Ellison’s takeover of CBS News and hiring of Weiss, in ways that are specific—Trump’s recent pressure campaign against the network and the role of his regulators in approving the Skydance deal; his apparent closeness to the Ellison family—and in the more general sense that he has exerted a rightward gravitational pull on the concept of what it means for media to be “mainstream.” (The denizens of the Intellectual Dark Web, it’s safe to say, would not be depicted hiding in a forest today.) Ellison will, perhaps, need to stay in the Administration’s good graces as he seeks approval for other deals, including a possible bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN. Even if Ellison seems to care more about Warner Bros.’ entertainment properties—and Paramount’s, for that matter—than he does about news, it’s plausible that he sees hiring Weiss as throwing a bone to Trump while maintaining deniability in politer company. (Again, she’s not Bannon.) Publicly, Ellison has pledged to prioritize “truth” and “trust” at CBS, and said that he won’t politicize the network. At least some staffers say they already view this promise as worthless.
CBS News is giving up some of the power it has to hold “Face the Nation” interviewees to account.
The Paramount Skydance news unit said Friday it would cease editing taped interviews with newsmakers who appear on “Face the Nation” following complaints from the Trump administration over an appearance on the show earlier this week when U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made a number of false or unproven statements about Kilmar Abergo Garcia, the Salvadoran man who was deported despite his having protected legal status in the United States.
The move is an unorthodox one, leaving CBS News unable to remove false statements or propaganda uttered by political operatives and officials and undermining the authority and credibility of Margaret Brennan, the moderator of the Sunday public-affairs program. The edict is also risky, potentially giving viewers the sense that Brennan is less able to question or challenge her guests — one of the main elements of TV’s Sunday political shows that bring viewers to it in the first place.
The decision may spur viewers to leave “Face the Nation,” one of the most-viewed among the so-called “Sunday shows,” and sample rivals such as NBC News’ “Meet the Press” or ABC News’ “This Week.”
“In response to audience feedback over the past week, we have implemented a new policy for greater transparency in our interviews. ‘Face The Nation’ will now only broadcast live or live-to-tape interviews (subject to national security or legal restrictions),” CBS News said in a Friday statement. “This extra measure means the television audience will see the full, unedited interview on CBS and we will continue our practice of posting full transcripts and the unedited video online.”
But it also means “Nation” could become a home of grandstanding by interviewees from either side of the political aisle who would rather spout talking points than answer a question. And it speaks to the naiveté of the new owners of CBS News, a group led by CEO David Ellison, about the nature of TV journalism and its service to viewers.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice presidential nominees JD Vance and Tim Walz have used their time on the debate stage to focus the bulk of their attacks not on one another, but on those at the top of their rival tickets.
Republican Vance and Democrat Walz both sought to project themselves as genial opponents as they lobbed criticism at Harris and Trump, respectively.
With the Mideast in turmoil, the two vice presidential candidates offered different approaches toward foreign policy: Walz promised “steady leadership” under Harris while Vance pledged a return to “peace through strength” if Trump is returned to the White House.
The two running mates agreed that the number of migrants in the U.S. illegally is a problem.
But each laid the blame on the opposing presidential nominee.
“Neither one of the two candidates has earned my vote, and the voters in the country are going to be able to make that decision,” the former Maryland governor said.
Washington — Former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said Sunday that neither former President Donald Trump nor Vice President Kamala Harris has earned his vote in the presidential election.
The popular Republican governor, who served from 2015 to 2023, has Trump’s endorsement. But Hogan said he won’t be voting for the former president.
“I didn’t vote for him in 2016 or 2020 and I’ve made that pretty clear,” Hogan said. “I’m willing to put country over party, and I’m hoping that the voters will be willing to do the same thing.”
Hogan is seeking an open seat in the U.S. Senate representing Maryland, facing off against Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks in a race that’s grown unexpectedly competitive in deep-blue Maryland.
The former governor has often set himself apart from his party, being known to criticize Trump.
“I have a completely separate identity after, you know, being governor for two terms in the bluest state, or one of the blue states in America,” Hogan said Sunday. “I stand up to him, probably more than just about anyone, and I’ll continue to.”
Hogan said Trump’s “divisive rhetoric” is something the nation could do without, while expressing concern about “the toxic and divisive politics” on both sides of the aisle.
“I’m very concerned and I believe both parties are way off track from what their kind of base core values used to be,” Hogan said, arguing that the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left and the GOP too become “more of a Trump party.”
And despite Trump’s endorsement, Hogan said he has no interest in appearing with the former president at a campaign rally.
“I don’t think I will,” Hogan said, when asked whether he would campaign with the former president or even attend a Baltimore Orioles game with him. “He’s not going to really be campaigning in Maryland. But he should go watch a game sometime, yeah — sure.”
In her first broadcast interview since joining the nation’s highest court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson talks Donald Trump’s presidential immunity case, an enforceable code of ethics for her and hercolleagues, and how the last two years on the bench have gone as the first ever Black woman to serve as a United States Supreme Court justice.
Since joining the court, CBS Evening News anchor and managing editor Norah O’Donnell pointed out, Jackson has been a keen questioner.
“You immediately became the most prolific questioner among the justices,” O’Donnell said. “No one else is even close to you.” Jackson smiled. “Why do you laugh?” the anchor asked.
“Because, I was the most prolific questioner as a district court judge as well,” Jackson said. “Because I have a lot of questions,” she continued, her tone turning serious. “We have a very complicated legal system, and these issues are hard.”
CBS’s sit-down with Justice Jackson comes as President Joe Biden is, in part, using his remaining time in office to push for Supreme Court reform amid historically high levels of American distrust in the institution. As of a couple months ago, fewer than half of Americans have a favorable opinion of the court, according to a Pew Research Center survey. For Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, that number drops to 24 percent. Black respondents, along with women, were more likely to feel disdain for the court.
In late July, Biden released a three-part plan of reforms.
First, pass a “No One Is Above the Law Amendment,” establishing that “the Constitution does not confer any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President”—a direct response to the court’s recent immunity ruling where they sided with Trump. Second, term limits for justices set to 18 years. Last, “Congress should pass binding, enforceable conduct and ethics rules that require Justices to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity, and recuse themselves” from cases where conflicts of interest could arise for themselves or their spouses.
Justice Jackson wrote a scathing dissent in the immunity case, which ruled that former presidents have “absolute” protection from criminal prosecution for “official” actions done while in office.
“The majority of my colleagues seems to have put their trust in our Court’s ability to prevent Presidents from becoming Kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new Presidential accountability paradigm,” she wrote. “I fear that they are wrong. But, for all our sakes, I hope that they are right.”
When O’Donnell asked Jackson about this case, the justice responded, “I was concerned about a system that appeared to provide immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances. When we have a criminal justice system that had, ordinarily, treated everyone the same.”
“Are you prepared that this election could end up before the Supreme Court?” O’Donnell followed up.
“As prepared as anyone can be,” Jackson said. “I think there are legal issues that arise out of the political process, and so the Supreme Court has to be prepared to respond if that should be necessary.”
Some of Jackson’s coworkers on the bench have been in hot water recently.
In April of 2023, a ProPublica investigation found that, for over two decades, Justice Clarence Thomas was being treated to luxury vacations from billionaire and political donor Harlan Crow. It was the first drop in what has become a stream of reporting about potential ethics violations from Thomas and other justices. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann, has also been in the news for flying two flags synonymous with the “Stop the Steal” movement—the unfounded right-wing theory that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump by Biden—outside of the couple’s homes in Virginia and New Jersey.
“I’m not going to comment on other justice’s interpretation of the rules or what they’re doing,” Jackson said during the CBS interview.
In November, all nine justices signed onto the court’s first formal code of conduct governing the ethical behavior of its members, but that agreement doesn’t appear to have a clear enforcement mechanism. When asked about her personal code, Jackson responded, “I follow the rules, whatever they are with respect to ethical obligations, and it’s important, in my view, to do so. It really boils down to impartiality—that’s what the rules are about. People are entitled to know if you’re accepting gifts as a judge, so that they can evaluate whether or not your opinions are impartial.”
In his first sit-down interview since dropping his 2024 campaign, President Joe Biden told CBS News reporter Robert Costa that he bowed out because he feared being a distraction in the Democrats’ efforts to defeat Republican nominee Donald Trump. Their discussion, which aired on CBS Sunday Morning, touched on that infamous presidential debate, Biden’s plans for the rest of his campaign, and what another Trump presidency could look like.
“Although it’s a great honor being president, I think I have an obligation to the country,” Biden said. “The most important thing,” he continued, is “we must, we must, we must defeat Trump.”
The interview comes three weeks after Biden dropped out and swiftly endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris. What followed has been an expedited, energized whirlwind of a campaign for Harris and her newly minted VP pick, Minnesota governor Tim Walz. The Democrats revised ticket has shaken up their opponents’ strategy and thrown a wrench into what, prior to Biden’s decision, appeared to be a coordinated campaign. Much of Trump and Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance’s response has been filled with misogynistic and racistattacks on Harris.
Following Biden’s concerning debate performance in late June, Democratic legislators from across the country began calling for the president to rethink his campaign. Some of Biden’s closest allies, like former president Barack Obama, were getting remarkably worried. One main concern was that a lackluster response at the polls for Biden could negatively impact down-ballot races in tough competitions.
“Look,” Biden said during the CBS interview, “I had a really, really bad day in that debate because I was sick. But I have no serious problem,” adding at one point that he “can’t even say how old I am; it’s hard for me to get it outta my mouth.”
“What happened,” Biden began, explaining what led him to end his bid, “was a number of my Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate thought that I was gonna hurt them in the races. And I was concerned if I stayed in the race, that would be the topic.”
“You’d be interviewing me about, ‘Why did Nancy Pelosi say?’ ‘Why did so and so say?’” Biden continued. “I thought it would be a real distraction.”
Biden is planning to hit the campaign trail again in the coming months—but this time to cheer on his former running partner. The president said he is going to team up with Pennsylvania governor and veepstakes runner-upJosh Shapiro to secure that battleground state’s 19 electoral votes. Biden said he’ll visit other states, too, adding that he wants to do “whatever Kamala thinks I can do to help most.”
“I talk to [Harris] frequently, and by the way, I’ve known her running mate is a great guy,” Biden said of Walz. “As we say, if we grew up in the same neighborhood, we’d have been friends. He’s my kind of guy. He’s real, he’s smart. I’ve known him for several decades. I think it’s a hell of a team.”
In his remaining time in the office, Biden said he plans to focus on the ongoing war in Gaza and efforts to avoid additional escalations toward regional war, claiming that a ceasefire deal during his presidency is “still possible.” His remarks come after an Israel Defense Forces airstrike on a school where individuals were sheltering killed at least 100 people and injured dozens more Saturday morning, according to Gaza’s civil defense. After the attack, the White House released a statement urging Israel “to minimize civilian harm.”
Biden also touched on his efforts to reform the Supreme Court, deeming the institution “so out of whack.” On July 29, the president released a three-part blueprint on how to ensure “that no one—neither the President nor the Supreme Court—is above the law.”
First, pass “a constitutional amendment that makes clear no President is above the law or immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office,” in response to the court’s recent immunity ruling siding with Trump.” Second, establish 18-year term limits for justices. Third, “Congress should pass binding, enforceable conduct and ethics rules” requiring that justices disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity, and recuse themselves from cases with conflicts of interest for their spouses or themselves.
A USA Today/Ipsos poll from early August found that a majority of both Democrats and Republicans were in favor of the reforms.
In Biden’s initial Oval Office address after leaving the race, he said that nothing “can come in the way of saving our democracy.” Even, he added, “personal ambition.” Throughout the interview between Biden and Costa, the president repeatedly returned to his anxieties about the future of American democracy should Trump win in November. “Mark my words,” Biden warned, “if he wins this [election], watch what happens, he’s a genuine danger to American security.”
Trump has said it will be a “bloodbath” if he doesn’t get elected.
When Costa asked the president if he was “confident” that there would be a peaceful transfer of power in 2025, Biden responded quickly.
Catherine Herridge, a veteran investigative journalist formerly with CBS News, accused the network of committing “journalistic rape” when they seized her files after her firing in February.
“I was locked out of my emails and I was locked out of the office. CBS News seized hundreds of pages of my reporting files including confidential source information,” Herridge said during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday.
“When the network of Walter Cronkite seizes your reporting files, including confidential source information, that is an attack on investigative journalism.”
The Political Insiderreported that CBS had seized Herridge’s files, computers, and records. The network though, vowed nobody would go through them and that the documents were locked safely in her office.
The firing of Herridge and the way that it was handled, not to mention the timing, initially raised eyebrows, as she had been investigating an aspect of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal at the time.
JUST IN: Reporter Catherine Herridge testifies that CBS News locked her out of the building and seized all her files, says she was working with sources to “expose government corruption.”
The testimony by Catherine Herridge exposing CBS News was nothing short of damning.
In addition to the laptop investigation, the award-winning reporter had been covering the House impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, special counsel Robert Hur’s report on his handling of classified documents, and criminal charges against Hunter Biden.
“I can only speak for myself. When my records were seized, I felt it was a journalistic rape,” she stated.
Herridge’s firing itself was quite a shock to the public. She was a surprise casualty of the network’s layoffs despite an award-winning ability to provide breaking news and insider scoops.
The network subsequently seizing her materials, however, was nothing short of alarming. The ramifications, according to Herridge, were far-reaching.
“CBS News’ decision to seize my reporting records crossed a red line that I believe should never be crossed by any media organization,” the Emmy Award-winner testified.
“Multiple sources said they were concerned that by working with me to expose government corruption and misconduct they would be identified and exposed.”
Despite Catherine Herridge’s repeated accusations that the network seized her files, CBS maintains they did nothing out of the ordinary.
The New York Post reports on the network’s claim that “no one had rifled through the files and that they were eventually locked inside Herridge’s former office in Washington, DC, before being returned.”
President of CBS News Ingrid Ciprián-Matthews, who was involved in the firing of Catherine Herridge, later received a First Amendment Award from the RTDNA Foundation.
Can’t make this up. CBS News fires @CBS_Herridge, then steals her notes, and in disgrace is forced to return them.
A week later, the president of @CBSNews who signed off on that theft receives an industry free speech award. https://t.co/km5O8sVVKd
Earlier this year, Herridge was held in civil contempt by a federal judge for refusing to reveal her source for a series of stories published in 2017.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper imposed significant fines until Herridge complies. She is being pressured to reveal the identity of a source used for a report written that year regarding a Chinese American scientist who was investigated by the FBI but never charged with wrongdoing.
The case, as well as CBS News firing and handling of her files, has significant First Amendment implications.
Catherine Herridge, a veteran journalist formerly with Fox News and CBS News, has been held in civil contempt by a federal judge for refusing to reveal her source for a series of stories published in 2017.
Herridge found herself in hot water regarding a court case in which she was protecting the identity of a source used for a report written that year regarding a Chinese American scientist who was investigated by the FBI but never charged with wrongdoing.
The case has significant First Amendment implications.
Herridge was facing fines of up to $5,000 per day if she refused to be interviewed under oath for the case, a situation critics have defined as an attack on free press principles.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper imposed a fine of $800 per day until Herridge complies, which could lead to a total of nearly $300,000 if she holds out over an entire year.
The fine will not be imposed while she appeals.
A serious First Amendment issue: ‘Judge holds veteran journalist Catherine Herridge in civil contempt for refusing to divulge source.’ From @AP: pic.twitter.com/sj9Qmz1p8x
The judge’s decision to hold Herridge in contempt for refusing to reveal her sources is a dangerous precedent that could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism.
It sends a message to potential sources that they cannot trust journalists to protect their identities, which could result in fewer people coming forward with important information.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Judge holds ex-CBS and Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge in civil contempt for refusing to divulge source of stories.
Judge Cooper, in his decision, said that he “recognizes the paramount importance of a free press in our society” and the critical role of confidential sources in investigative journalism, but noted the court “also has its own role to play in upholding the law and safeguarding judicial authority.”
Cooper was nominated for his role on the bench in 2013 by then-President Barack Obama. He was confirmed unanimously in the Senate the following year.
The reason that veteran journalist Catherine Herridge is being held in contempt for refusing to divulge a source is because her reporting exposed a Chinese communist military official running a school in America.
The Biden regime always protects Chinese spies.
— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) March 1, 2024
Forcing journalists to reveal their sources undermines the public’s right to information and could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism. It is important for journalists to be able to protect their sources in order to ensure that the public is well-informed and that those in power are held accountable for their actions.
“Herridge has long been a respected investigative journalist at Fox News and CBS News,” writes Legal Insurrection’s Mary Chastain. “She has always faced the wrath of the left when she exposed anything negative about Democrats.”
Fox News issued a statement condemning the judge’s decision to hold Herridge in contempt.
“Holding a journalist in contempt for protecting a confidential source has a deeply chilling effect on journalism,” they said.
Even CBS News, who fired Catherine Herridge in the midst of this First Amendment battle and then temporarily seized her files, criticized the Obama-appointed judge.
A spokesperson for the network said that the contempt order “should be concerning to all Americans who value the role of the free press in our democracy and understand that reliance on confidential sources is critical to the mission of journalism.”
President Barack Obama himself has a history of chilling free speech and going after reporters.
The former President used his Department of Justice (DOJ) to try and shut down Fox News reporter James Rosen by spying on him and accusing him of committing a crime.
A 2010 subpoena approved by Eric Holder implicated Rosen as a possible co-conspirator under the Espionage Act of 1917. As such, investigators gained access to the times of his phone calls and two days’ worth of Rosen’s emails.
Sharyl Attkisson: “One of the Federal Agents involved said that they intended to plant child porn in my husband’s computer. This is the FBI. There’s been a case that’s currently in litigation unrelated in which a FBI Agent has testified that they did that, they have done that. It… pic.twitter.com/n7013gdKHj
The DOJ also mounted a serious attack on the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press by seizing the records of reporters at Fox News and the Associated Press (AP).
The AP reporters – 20 of them – had their phone records subpoenaed through their providers, something they claimed at the time was a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into news-gathering operations.
Good on @CNNThisMorning & @Kasie Hunt. Even though it was only 13 seconds, this was the ONLY mention on broadcast OR cable news — ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FNC, MSNBC, & NN — of a federal court deciding to hold Catherine Herridge in contempt for not burning sources from a 2017 story pic.twitter.com/uBHCLdmD4g
Imagine this were a Trump-appointed judge in this case and instead of Herridge, the reporter trying to protect their sources was Jim Acosta or Don Lemon. Would there be outrage at that point?
A small contingent of journalists gathered near the Canadian border earlier this morning to watch as Dixville Notch, NH, continued its tradition of casting the first ballots on an election day.
As the day goes on, network correspondents are fanning out across the state at precincts to talk to actual voters, after months in which the first-in-the-nation primary was judged and assessed by polls. Commentary and analysis is focusing on whether
Haley and her top surrogate, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu, blitzed the airwaves on Monday, while Trump held a final rally in Laconia, NH, where he predicted that Haley would be out of the race after tonight. He was interrupted by climate protesters, who have been a frequent presence at events in recent days.
There is a Democratic race, too. Joe Biden is not on the ballot, as the Democratic National Committee mandated that South Carolina hold the first-in-the-nation primary. But New Hampshire has gone forward anyway, and Biden supporters have mounted a write-in campaign, hoping to stymie efforts by Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN) and Marianne Williamson to make some kind of surprise showing in the state.
Broadcast networks will provide ongoing coverage of the results on their streaming channels, although special reports are possible during the primetime lineups. Polls close in some locations close at 7 p.m. ET and at 8 p.m. ET in others.
Here are the coverage plans of the major networks:
ABC: The streaming channel ABC News Live will provide coverage, with David Muir joining Linsey Davis at 7 p.m. ET for Your Voice, Your Vote special, with reporting from Rachel Scott, Mary Bruce, Jonathan Karl, Martha Raddatz, Eva Pilgrim, Whit Johnson and Rick Klein, among others. Donna Brazile, Reince Preibus and Sarah Isgur will provide analysis. ABC News’ Nightline will devote its full show to the caucuses.
CBS: Norah O’Donnell will anchor CBS Evening News from Manchester, NH tonight, and she will be joined by Major Garrett for live coverage of results on CBS News Streaming starting at 8 p.m. ET. Garrett also will anchor an hourlong edition of America Decides from New Hampshire at 5 p.m. ET. Coverage also will include analysis from John Dickerson and Anthony Salvanto, with reporting from Robert Costa, Ed O’Keefe, Fin Gómez and Caitlin Huey-Burns reporting from New Hampshire. Tony Dokoupil has been reporting from the state for CBS Mornings. Dickerson will anchor a special edition of CBS News Prime Time on CBS Streaming starting at 7 p.m. ET.
NBC: Tom Llamas will kick off coverage at 5 p.m. ET on NBC News Now, and will be joined by Hallie Jackson in New Hampshire and Chuck Todd and Steve Kornacki breaking down the results. Kristen Welker, who moderated Meet the Press from the Granite State on Sunday, will be back in New York to join Lester Holt for a network special report. She will pick up coverage from Llamas on NBC News Now starting at 10 p.m. ET.
CNN: Following coverage throughout the day, Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper anchor coverage starting at 6 p.m. ET, with Dana Bash anchoring live from New Hampshire, joined by Kasie Hunt, Chris Wallace and Jeff Zeleny. Erin Burnett will lead analysis with Kaitlan Collins, Abby Phillip, Audie Cornish and Manu Raju from Washington, and Audie Cornish from New York. David Chalian will provide polling and delegate analysis, and John King will break down results at the Magic Wall, and Phil Mattingly and Harry Enten will provide updates. Laura Coates and Erica HIll will anchor overnight coverage starting at 1 a.m. ET. The caucus coverage will stream live without a cable log in from 7 p.m. ET on Monday to 5 a.m. ET via CNN.com.
Fox News: Following a two-hour Special Report with Bret Baier at 6 p.m. ET, the network plans coverage during its primetime shows Jesse Watters Primetime and Hannity. Baier and Martha MacCallum will a special Democracy 2024:New Hampshire Primarystarting at 10 p.m. ET, with analysis from Brit Hume, Dana Perino, Trey Gowdy, Charles Payne and Kellyanne Conway. Bill Hemmer will analyze results on the Bill-board, while Sandra Smith will present voter analysis from New York. Trace Gallagher will anchor post-caucus analysis on Fox News @ Night at midnight ET, followed by a two-hour special at 2 a.m. ET with Mike Emanuel and Gillian Turner.
MSNBC: Jen Psaki kicks off special coverage from New Hamoshire at 4 p.m. ET, followed by Rachel Maddow with Decision 2024 starting at 6 p.m. ET. She will be joined by Ari Melber, Joy Reid, Chris Hayes, Alex Wagner, Lawrence O’Donnell and Stephanie Ruhle. Steve Kornacki will be at the Big Board throughout the evening. Psaki will continue special coverage at midnight ET.
PBS: Amna Nawaz and Geoff Bennett anchor coverage from Washington, D.C. starting at 6 p.m. ET, with reporting from Lisa Desjardins in New Hampshire. Desjardins will give an update at 9 p.m. ET, and live coverage will start at 11 p.m. ET.
NewsNation: Chris Cuomo, Dan Abrams and Elizabeth Vargas will anchor Decision Desk HQ 2024: The New Hampshire Primary starting at 7 p.m. ET. Connell McShane is breaking down results, while Leland Vittert and Chris Stirewalt will offer news and analysis from the Granite State. Brian Entin, Kellie Meyer and Joe Khalil will provide additional reporting.
C-SPAN: Starting at 8 p.m. ET, the network will provide candidate victory and concession speeches, viewer calls and social media reaction.
The Republicans’ first primary debate dangles on the calendar like one of those leftover paper snowflakes slapped up on the mini-fridge. It feels like a half-hearted vestige—it’s late summer, five months before the first votes are cast; precedent calls for a lineup of haircuts on a stage. And for the most part, the qualifiers will oblige, except for the main haircut—former President Donald Trump, barring some last-minute fit of FOMO that lands him in Milwaukee en route to his surrender to authorities in Georgia.
So why should the rest of us bother? Would anyone watch a Mike Tyson fight if Iron Mike wasn’t actually fighting? Or The Sopranos, if Tony skipped the show for a therapy session (with Tucker Carlson)?
Poor Milwaukee, by the way, which already suffered desertion three summers ago when it was selected to host the Democratic National Convention only to have COVID keep everyone home. Joe Biden blew off his own convention and didn’t bother to send an emissary (no Jill, Kamala, or even Doug). Delegates were told to stay away, and the city was left all spiffed up for only a crew of surgical-masked functionaries.
Tonight’s pageant of also-rans must go on too. The Republican National Committee has decreed this kickoff debate to be a landmark event, sanctifying August 23 as a key date in the 2024 cycle. (“Cycle” feels like an especially apt cliché here—events spinning hypnotically in circles.) Never mind that Trump upended the traditional presidential campaign cycle years ago, and that it is now dictated by whatever whim he decides to follow at a given moment. No matter how much thunder Trump steals from this proceeding—by skipping it, counterprogramming it with Tucker, and potentially following it up with a morning-after mug shot—everyone else is still required to treat this spectacle as some big and pivotal showdown.
As such, the media will swarm into town—because this is what we do and what we love (and because datelines impress). The host network, Fox News, will hype the clash—the “Melee in Milwaukee,” or some such. One-liners are being buffed, comebacks polished, and umbrage rehearsed. And no matter how effective certain gambits are deemed to be in practice, the absence of the GOP’s inescapable front-runner will only underscore how impotent the rest of the field has made themselves.
Who knows? A debate stage crowded with eight twitchy egos carries the possibility for surprise. Strange things do happen. That’s why we watch. Trump has given his opponents an opportunity, at least in theory. They can seize this chance to hammer away at the most important issue of the campaign: Trump himself, his radiating legal jeopardy, and the recurring debacle of the GOP nominating him again and again (and probably again). This need not be the televised festival of appeasement that so many expect. And no doubt, there will be a few feisty outliers on the stage. Some of the bottom dogs—Chris Christie, maybe Mike Pence—will probably unleash some unpleasantness in the direction of the truant front-runner. They will have their “moments,” and commentators will praise them for “landing some punches.”
Even so, tonight’s contest will inevitably suffer from two basic structural flaws. The main point, theoretically, of a political debate is to try to persuade voters to support your campaign instead of the other candidates’. But that presupposes a constituency of voters who can be persuaded by hearing a set of facts, or are open to being educated. This, on the whole, is not the audience we have here. A large and determinative and still deeply committed portion of the GOP electorate—the MAGA sector—has been more or less a closed box for seven years now.
The rigid devotion that Trump continues to enjoy from much of his party keeps affirming itself in new and dispiriting ways. A CBS News/YouGov poll released over the weekend contained this doozy of a data point: 71 percent of Trump supporters said they are inclined to believe whatever Trump tells them. That compares with 63 percent who are inclined to believe what their friends and family tell them, 56 percent who believe conservative-media figures, and 42 percent who believe religious leaders.
The other structural defect involves the likely self-neutering of tonight’s putative gladiators. Ideally, a debate features participants who actually want to win. That generally requires a willingness to attack their biggest adversary, whether he’s participating in the event or not, and especially when he holds a massive lead over them. Other than Kamikaze Christie, whom Republicans will almost certainly not nominate, most of the remaining “challengers” on the stage seem content to play for second place—running mate or 2028.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis insisted otherwise on Monday, when he claimed on Fox News that he would be the only Republican debater who is “not running to be vice president, I’m not running to be in the Cabinet, and I’m not running to be a contributor on cable news.” This reeked of projection, even though DeSantis would seem especially ill-suited to being a cable personality—even less well suited than he is to running for president.
DeSantis suffered another indignity last week when The New York Timesreported that a firm associated with the super PAC supporting his campaign, Never Back Down, had posted hundreds of pages of internal debate-strategy documents on its website. The game plan, summarized by the Times, called for DeSantis to “take a sledgehammer” to upstart Vivek Ramaswamy while also taking care to defend Trump from Christie’s likely bombardment. In other words, DeSantis would try to score easy goodwill by sidling up to the bully and vivisecting the real enemy, the thirsty biotech guy. So noble of the governor. Maybe Trump will send a thank-you note.
DeSantis remains, for now, the Republicans’ most legitimate threat to Trump. But if these debate directives are a guide, why is he even bothering? The blueprint appears fully emblematic of everything wrong with his campaign: a bloated venture, playing for continued viability, and zero stomach for taking on Trump in a serious way. It’s also telling that someone decided to post the document trove in such a findable space online—which is either really dumb or really indicative of how badly someone in DeSantis World wants to embarrass him.
Whether intentionally or not, DeSantis actually coined something memorable the other day when he chided Trump’s supporters for mindlessly following his every pronouncement—“listless vessels,” he called them. (He later said that he was referring to Trump’s endorsers in Congress, not voters.) This struck me as sneaky eloquence from DeSantis, or whoever wrote the line for him. But again, the phrase carried a strong whiff of projection as DeSantis prepared to lead the real parade of listless vessels to Milwaukee, content to bob along in the wake of the Titanic.
On this week’s Inside the Hive, CBS News’ Robert Costa joins Brian Stelter to dig into the existing indictments against former president Donald Trump—and take a close look at the swirling waters ahead. “What has happened here with January 6,” Costa says, “remains a systemic shock to the American system.” Costa, the network’s chief election and campaign correspondent, and coauthor of Peril with Bob Woodward, says, “witnesses, lawyers to witnesses, people familiar with the investigation” into election interference have said the probe is “moving like a shark beneath the water.”
Former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) unleashed a sea of criticism aimed at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for having “one of the worst” presidential campaigns he’s seen.
“He was the one getting all the attention… wall-to-wall coverage on Fox News, he was the only one other than Trump that was really getting a lot of attention, he raised a ton of money, he was a fairly successful governor in a big state who got re-elected and then started making all kinds of mistakes,” Hogan said.
“I think the campaign is one of the worst I’ve seen so far and he’s dropped like a rock.”
Hogan, who said it’s “getting close to being over” for DeSantis’ campaign, said he thinks the Florida governor is headed in the wrong direction and went on to reveal what he thinks is the “central mistake” of his 2024 bid.
“The culture wars, the dumb comments about Ukraine… he’s got some strengths but he’s also got some weaknesses,” Hogan said.
“I mean, he just doesn’t connect with people, he’s not a good campaigner, he’s not a good debater. He’s a smart guy, went to Yale and Harvard.”
“Doesn’t lead with that,” Garrett chimed in.
“Doesn’t lead with that. He says he went to school in the northeast somewhere but yeah, I think, you know, everyone was thinking he was the guy to beat and now, I don’t think too many people think that,” Hogan said.
The footage is shown before she takes the stage: Lara Logan in a headscarf, addressing the camera from the streets of Mogadishu. Logan ducking for cover as bullets crack overhead in Afghanistan. Logan interrogating a trophy hunter in Texas. Logan walking with Christine Lagarde, Justin Trudeau, Mark Wahlberg, Jane Goodall.
Explore the July/August 2023 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.
It is a tour through Logan’s past life as a journalist for CBS’s 60 Minutes, a glimpse at the various exchanges and explosions that earned her the awards and a “prominent spot,” as her former network once put it, “among the world’s best foreign correspondents.” Then, three minutes and one second later, it is over. Cut to right now, February 27, 2023, in Fredericksburg, Texas: Logan looking out at 200 people gathered in a creaking church auditorium for the inaugural meeting of the Gillespie County chapter of Moms for Liberty.
“If you want to know why it’s called social media,” Logan says, “I’ll tell you why: Because Karl Marx was hired by Henry Rothschild, by the Rothschild family, to develop a system of social control. So when you see social, it is a form of control—that’s all it is. Social media is a form of controlling us all.”
She goes on, picking up on the title of a recent book by a friend of hers, retired General Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser and a far-right conspiracy theorist: “So what does fifth-generation warfare really mean?” It means that “you’re meant to believe the narrative, regardless of the truth.”
For the next 45 minutes, Logan, wearing a floral wrap dress and a cream-colored cardigan, lays out what she sees as the true narrative: for instance, that by aiding Ukraine, America is arming Nazis; that the events of January 6 were not an insurrection at all. Turning to The New York Times to understand this moment, Logan warns, is “like being in the battle of Normandy, on the beaches of Normandy, Dunkirk, and going on your knees every day and crawling over to the Nazi lines and asking them to please write nice things about your side in German propaganda.” Her dress is decorated with two identical navy-blue stickers reading STOP WOKE INDOCTRINATION.
As Logan talks, her words at times eliciting applause, the final frame of the introductory footage hovers ghostlike in the background. Logan’s success at events like this—she now features at many—turns on her ability to shrink the distance between her past and present selves. She needs the people in this auditorium to believe that the woman on the projector screen is the same one who now anticipates their fears of woke indoctrination. She needs them to trust that when she talks about subjects like the “little puppet” Volodymyr Zelensky, or how COVID vaccines are a form of “genocide by government,” or how President Joe Biden’s administration has been “participating in the trafficking of kids,” it is with the precise rigor and dispassion she once displayed on the front lines of America’s wars.
Logan, who is 52, is still, after all, a war correspondent. That is how she sees it. The fighting may not be in Afghanistan or Iraq, and she may not be winning Emmys for her coverage anymore, but in her mind this is her most crucial assignment yet, uncovering this “war against humanity.” And she must be getting close to the real story, because the American media have tried to silence her from all sides.
First CBS, and then Fox News. Not even the far-right Newsmax wants journalists who risk piercing the narrative. In October, during an appearance on that network, Logan declared that “the open border is Satan’s way of taking control of the world” and that the global elite “want us eating insects” while they “dine on the blood of children.” Newsmax condemned her remarks and announced that it had no plans to invite Logan on its shows again.
Logan’s life has been rife with personal trauma, some of it well known. In 2011, she was gang-raped in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. In 2012, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. In 2013, a story she reported for 60 Minutes was publicly disavowed. I went to Fredericksburg, where Logan now lives, on that February evening because I wanted to know what had happened in the decade since. I wanted to understand how, after years of association with the tick-tick-tick of 60 Minutes, she had slipped into a world bracketed by MyPillow discount codes and LaraLoganGold.com. How a career built on pursuing the truth had become so unmoored from it.
When I had contacted Logan about an interview, her response, via text message, was: “Unfortunately I have no doubt this is another hit piece desperately seeking to discredit several decades of award-winning work at 60 Minutes, CBS, ABC, NBC and beyond and you are only seeking my voice to add legitimacy to the anonymous cowards you will use to attack me once again. Feel free to use this statement if you are sincere.” She then shared a screenshot of our exchange with her 530,000 Twitter followers.
And so I braced for an unpleasant encounter when I approached Logan at the end of the night, after the long line of grandmothers and mothers and teenage girls who wanted a photo with her had finally dwindled. I introduced myself and said that I had seen probably every story she had ever done for 60 Minutes. “But here you’ve come,” she said. “Here you’ve come to destroy it all.”
She has been described in terms of hazardous weather. A tornado whipped through Midtown Manhattan and there suddenly was Lara Logan, June 2008, striding high-heeled from the wings of The Daily Show. “She is the chief foreign correspondent for CBS News,” Jon Stewart announced, the studio audience cheering as he shook Logan’s hand and guided her to center stage. “You remind me of a young Ted Koppel,” he said.
Logan tilted her head back and laughed. “Dan Rather used to say that about me!”
Logan had begun her career as a full-time journalist 16 years earlier, fresh out of college and with a résumé consisting of two part-time newspaper gigs in her hometown of Durban, South Africa, along with a bit of swimsuit modeling. In her first days covering the post-apartheid landscape as a producer at Reuters Television in Johannesburg, Logan, then in her early 20s, had not exactly reminded anyone of a young Ted Koppel. “The word bimbo came up a lot,” one of Logan’s former Reuters colleagues told me. But opinions began to shift once fellow journalists saw her in the field. “It was a very, very intense time … She’s a fucking hard worker, and she takes risks,” the former colleague said. “She had incredible guts.” (This person, like most of the nearly three dozen other onetime colleagues or friends of Logan’s I interviewed, requested anonymity in order to speak candidly.)
By 30, Logan was a correspondent for the British morning show GMTV. She was working out of London on 9/11, and within days she was pleading with an embassy clerk for a fast-track visa to Afghanistan. At first, GMTV management seemed unsure what to make of it, this young woman apparently desperate to embed herself in al-Qaeda territory. Where would she sleep? What about a driver, security? She’d figure it out. She was en route to Kabul shortly after the first American air strikes that October.
It didn’t take long for Logan’s superiors to recognize the opportunity before them, the potential for their coverage of the biggest story on Earth to become an event unto itself. This was not just because Logan was a woman but because she was attractive. It is prudent to address this now, because the fact of Logan’s attractiveness would soon become unavoidable, the gathering resonance of her journalism inextricable from the public’s gathering interest in her appearance.
Logan had been in Kabul less than a month when her Independent Television News competitor Julian Manyon suggested in a Spectator essay that the “delectable” correspondent’s swift infiltration of Bagram Airfield and the upper ranks of the Northern Alliance was due to her “considerable physical charms.” Logan, he wrote, “exploits her God-given advantages with a skill that Mata Hari might envy.” Responding in a short dispatch for The Guardian, Logan parried adroitly. “If General Babajan smiles around me, perhaps it is because I offer him respect and attempt, at least, to talk to him in a non-demanding manner,” she wrote. “It’s not rocket science.”
The British tabloids, delighted to have located the sex in jihad so quickly, scrambled to build on the story. In the course of interviewing Logan’s mother at her home in Durban, a reporter got access to the swimsuit photos for which Logan had posed to earn extra cash while in high school and university. The photos soon appeared on the front pages of the Daily Record and The Mirror. At first Logan was furious, embarrassed. But then she decided to lean in, to fashion herself as the rare emblem of both harrowing journalism and unabashed femininity. The tip for the next Mirror splash (“Here’s a sight that would stop the Taliban in its tracks. War reporter Lara Logan relaxes on a deck chair in a sizzling swimsuit”) reportedly came from Logan herself. “She was the first field correspondent I ever met who sort of understood her brand, which was a really new thing at the time,” a producer at a rival network told me.
As her profile grew, Logan charmed feature writers with her willingness to talk, to play ball when they asked her about things as personal as the last time she’d had a “good snog.” She argued that not using her looks would be malpractice. “There isn’t a journalist alive who won’t admit to you they use every advantage they have,” she told The New York Times.
More fundamental to Logan’s success in Afghanistan, however, was the simple fact that she showed up when others didn’t. In addition to her GMTV job, Logan worked as a stringer for CBS News Radio, and just a few weeks after arriving in Kabul, she found herself the only CBS-affiliated reporter on hand to cover the Taliban’s rapid unraveling. The network aired her prime-time debut from the capital.
This was when Dan Rather saw a young Ted Koppel. An article in Vogue described Rather as the first to urge CBS to hire Logan full-time. He marveled at her ability to “get through the glass,” as he told the magazine. “The good ones,” he said, “always want the worst assignments.” By spring 2002, Logan had a $1 million contract with the network.
Her new colleagues understood the appeal. “She knows how to position herself, she knows how to relate to the camera—she’s incredibly good at that,” Philip Ittner, a former CBS producer who worked with Logan, told me. “She was also very good under fire. Even in a very bad firefight or something, after an IED exploded, she would get in front of the camera, and she’d be able to deliver.”
But then there was the tornado of it all. “She likes to stir stuff up, unconsciously,” the former Reuters colleague told me. “Wherever she goes, there’s a lot of kinetic energy that’s not necessarily net positive.”
Logan grew up one of three children in a well-off white family in apartheid South Africa. She enjoyed snacks prepared by housekeepers and a swimming pool in the backyard and the tacit belief that her parents had only ever existed, and indeed would only ever exist, in relation to each other. And then one morning when she was 8, her father pulled into the driveway and Logan raced out to greet him and there in the car was a 5-year-old girl she had never seen before. Say hello to your sister, her father said. He was leaving to be with this other daughter and her mother.
“It was such a shock, such a traumatic experience,” Logan later recalled. After the divorce, she watched her mother struggle to reassemble the pieces of her life. Yolanda Logan moved her young children into a small apartment and found work as a sales representative at a glass company, never remarrying. “I learned about betrayal and dishonesty,” Logan told the Sunday Mirror soon after returning to London from Kabul. “When I looked at Mum, I saw a woman who thought she was secure and safe in her marriage suddenly alone.”
That was how Logan explained it when the Mirror reporter asked why she was so willing to pitch herself into danger as a journalist. “I’m afraid of being seen as vulnerable,” she said. “All my life, I’ve been fighting to prove that I’m not weak.”
She refused orders from CBS to keep out of Iraq during the American invasion in 2003, hiring local fixers to sneak her across the Jordanian border. On the drive into Baghdad, she played Van Morrison. With virtually every other American television broadcaster evacuated from the city, “shock and awe” was hers. One of Logan’s early segments for the relatively short-lived Wednesday edition of 60 Minutes showed a Humvee she was in flip over when it hit a land mine; in a Sunday segment, viewers saw Logan defy a vehicle commander’s orders to stay put as he went to inspect an unexploded bomb. In 2005, theTimes christened her the “War Zone ‘It Girl’ ”; in 2006, CBS elevated her to chief foreign correspondent.
Whether Logan was daring or heedless depended on whom you asked—and, as is typical in the environs of television news, a great many of her colleagues enjoyed being asked. Some felt that Logan showed undue deference to the military line; others groused about what they saw as stubbornness and self-absorption. Still others watched Logan peer down at an unexploded bomb and saw not bravery as much as recklessness. At a certain point, “a lot of people refused to produce her,” one of her former producers told me.
If, for Logan, this was not cause for introspection, it was perhaps because her approach was winning a lot of awards. (In her first six years at CBS, she picked up Gracie Awards and Murrow Awards and an Emmy.) And if, for Logan, the New York Post article headlined “Sexty Minutes” had not been cause for alarm, it was perhaps because Jeff Fager, then the executive producer of 60 Minutes, had hung a framed copy of the article in his office. “It’s hard to judge what Lara Logan is going to be in 10 years,” Fager told Broadcasting & Cable magazine in the fall of 2008. “But boy, she’s made a mark in a short period of time.”
And yet, for as long as Logan had craved precisely this level of success, she also seemed uncomfortable with having actually attained it—as if to accept life as it presented itself to her, the way her mother once had, risked revealing it to be a trick of the light. She spoke sometimes of unspecified plans to derail her career. “I’m sure people are interested in seeing me fail,” she said shortly after joining CBS. She detected threats where no threats were intended. In 2006, when reviewing Katie Couric’s premiere as the first solo female anchor on a major-network evening news show, the Times pronounced that “the woman who stood out the most” was not Couric herself, but rather the “experienced and unusually pretty” CBS war correspondent. The unwanted comparison with her senior colleague seemed only to reinforce Logan’s inchoate sense of being conspired against. “I always think it is some kind of secret plot to destroy me,” she told Vogue in 2007. “I mean, to disparage the anchor at my expense?”
This dim, diffuse paranoia would sharpen, according to some colleagues, after the start of Logan’s relationship with the man who is now her husband, Joe Burkett.
Logan was married for the first time in 1998—to Jason Siemon, an American who played professional basketball in the United Kingdom. She met Joseph Washington Burkett IV, a Texas native and an Army sergeant who was also married, a few years later, while reporting in Kabul. Early 2008 found them working again in the same city, this time Baghdad. Logan was now in the final stages of a divorce and Burkett was newly estranged from his wife. He quickly became a regular presence in the press compound outside the Green Zone.
It was not clear to Logan’s colleagues what Burkett did for a living, and Burkett seemed to prefer it that way. He cultivated an air of secrecy, dropping hints that he was involved in clandestine operations. Logan seemed drawn in by the mystery of Burkett and his “very secretive job,” as she once called it. It was a while before Logan’s colleagues learned that Burkett had been in Baghdad on behalf of the Lincoln Group, a now-defunct firm quietly contracted by the Pentagon to disseminate pro-America propaganda in Iraqi newspapers. But they needed only a few conversations to register his penchant for conspiracy theories.
As Logan’s relationship with Burkett progressed, some of her colleagues noticed slight shifts in her story ideas. “As much as she would occasionally come up with loony tunes stuff on her own, it would always be more of, like, ‘Hey, let’s go right into the most dangerous part of’ whatever environment they were currently covering,” Philip Ittner told me. “But when Burkett came on the scene, it was like—and this is a hypothetical—‘Clearly the CIA is bringing in hallucinogens to put into the water supply of Baghdad; we really need to dig into this.’ ” (Logan declined to answer questions about herself, her husband, or other topics related to this article. In response to a list of factual queries and requests for comment that The Atlantic sent her, Logan wrote, “You are a hundred percent wrong on everything.”)
Logan and Burkett were wed in November 2008; Logan was seven months pregnant with their first child. They began married life in a house they bought in the Cleveland Park neighborhood of Washington, D.C.
On the evening of February 11, 2011, at the height of the Arab Spring, Logan threaded through the congested streets of Cairo. She, her cameraman, her security guard, and her producer had come straight from the airport, as she later recounted on 60 Minutes, having landed just moments after President Hosni Mubarak announced his resignation. “It was like unleashing a champagne cork on Egypt,” she recalled.
Logan’s agent, Carole Cooper, had advised against the trip; only a week earlier, Logan and her crew had been detained overnight by Egyptian officials targeting journalists. But now, in Tahrir Square, thousands of people were singing, chanting, unfurling flags. For more than an hour she reported from the crowd, people smiling and waving at the camera. Then the camera’s battery went dead. The light illuminating Logan and the people around her was suddenly gone. A few moments later, Logan felt hands on her body. She thought that if she screamed loud enough, the assault would stop, but it didn’t.
The mob tore off her clothes. For a few minutes she managed to hold on to her security guard’s arm, but then, like everyone else in her crew, he was beaten back. This was when Logan thought she was going to die. Later she would recall for Newsweek how the men raped her with their hands, with sticks, with flagpoles. Onlookers took photos with their cellphones. The assault lasted at least 25 minutes before a group of Egyptian women intervened. They were able to cover Logan until soldiers managed to reach her and get her to her hotel, where she was seen by a doctor.
The next morning, Logan was on a flight home to her husband and two young children in Washington. She would spend four days in the hospital. People from all over the world sent flowers and letters. President Barack Obama called her to share his support. Logan’s eventual decision to talk openly about what happened inspired other women in journalism to share their own stories of being sexually assaulted while on the job. After she spoke out, the Committee to Protect Journalists launched a major effort to survey the problem and stigma of sexual violence in the field.
Over time, the most obvious reminders of Logan’s assault—the hand-shaped bruises all over her body—faded. For years afterward, however, as she told the Toronto Star, Logan would continue to cope with internal injuries—severe pelvic pain, a hysterectomy that failed to heal. And there was the emotional damage. Logan talked about problems of intimacy with her husband, the dark memories that could sweep over her with a single touch.
A little over a year after the assault, Logan, at 41, was diagnosed with Stage 2 breast cancer; she underwent a lumpectomy and six weeks of radiation, then went into remission. It was during this period of her life, Logan would say, that she “wanted to come apart.” She felt herself in a situation where “nobody could see it and nobody could see me and nobody understood.” She began suffering panic attacks. She tried therapy.
Through it all, Logan found refuge in her career. In April 2013, a little more than two years after the assault, The Hollywood Reporterpublished a glowing feature on executive producer Jeff Fager’s 60 Minutes. The article depicted Logan as a confident correspondent striding into a screening for her next story, settling in beside Fager as he prepared to mark up the script. His verdict: “Terrific.” She could always make it back to terrific.
Until, that is, she couldn’t.
Not long after the Hollywood Reporter article, Simon & Schuster reached out to CBS with a pitch. A conservative imprint within the publishing company had a book coming out in the fall—The Embassy House—about Benghazi: the “real story,” as the prologue promised, of the deadly attack on the American compound and CIA annex in September 2012, as recounted by “the only man in a position to tell the full story.”
The man’s name was Dylan Davies, but he was writing under a pseudonym—for his safety, the book explained, and also because he had “no interest in seeking official recognition.”
Davies, a British-military veteran from Wales, was a security officer whose employer, Blue Mountain, had been hired by the State Department to help protect the Special Mission in Benghazi. In his book, he described how, on the night of the attack, he had scaled the compound’s 12-foot wall to try to save the Americans trapped inside, rifle-butting a terrorist in the process. He also said that he had seen Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s body at the hospital.
Logan and her producer, Max McClellan, agreed to consider The Embassy House for a feature on 60 Minutes. The basics of Davies’s biography appeared to check out; email correspondence that Davies shared with Logan seemed to confirm, as he claimed, that he had been interviewed by officials from across the U.S. government, including the FBI, about everything he had seen and heard and done that night. Over the next few months, Logan and McClellan put together a Benghazi segment featuring Davies’s story as well as original reporting on the attack. After the screening of the finished product, CBS and 60 Minutes leadership, including Fager, green-lit the broadcast for air.
Some of Logan’s reporting broke significant ground. No journalist had yet substantiated, for example, the role of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, an Ansar al‑Sharia leader and former Guantánamo Bay detainee, in the Benghazi attack; the Obama administration did not publicly announce his involvement until the next year. But the segment’s revelations were framed almost as sideshows to the Rambo-esque account of Davies, whose view of the attack comprised the majority of the report’s 15 and a half minutes.
Within days of the broadcast, his story began to unravel. The Washington Post reported that Davies had told his employer he wasn’t at the compound that night—something 60 Minutes had known but did not mention, accepting Davies’s explanation that he had lied to his employer. A week later, The New York Times revealed that Davies had also told the FBI that he wasn’t at the compound. Logan and McClellan knew that Davies had been interviewed by the FBI; they had not checked what he actually said. And when, after the Times report, they tried to reach Davies to demand answers, they couldn’t find him—The Daily Beast later reported that he had emailed his publisher saying that because of a threat against his family, he was going dark.
I was recently able to reach Davies via email. He claimed without evidence that his son’s life had been threatened by “the US state department (Clinton)” after the 60 Minutes report. (A spokesperson for Hillary Clinton denied the allegation and noted that Clinton had stepped down as secretary of state several months before the Benghazi report aired.) When I pressed him on whether he had told the FBI and 60 Minutes different versions of his story, he replied that he didn’t “want anything to do with Benghazi” and asked what was wrong with me.
Media Matters, the liberal watchdog group founded by the Clinton ally David Brock, seized on the controversy immediately, publishing no fewer than 36 stories highlighting problems in Logan’s reporting. Other outlets would point to a speech Logan had given a year earlier, in which she accused the Obama administration of perpetuating a “major lie” about the ongoing threat of al-Qaeda, as evidence of political bias.
On November 8, 2013, for the first time in her career, Logan went on air to announce the retraction of a story. “We were wrong,” she said. Simon & Schuster withdrew The Embassy House from sale later that day. For CBS, and Fager in particular, it was a colossal embarrassment—the program’s “worst mistake on my 10-year watch,” he wrote in a 2017 book. Logan would later say that a nondisclosure agreement she and McClellan had signed with the publisher had prevented them from checking Davies’s story with the FBI. It was an odd line of defense—Logan arguing that she had given up the right to verify key points. An internal CBS review concluded that problems with Davies’s account were “knowable before the piece aired.” Logan and McClellan agreed to take indefinite leaves of absence. (CBS News declined to comment on the Benghazi report and its aftermath.)
Sitting in her home in Cleveland Park during the leave of absence, Logan took calls from colleagues and tried to make sense of things. For the first time in her career, she was losing control of the narrative.
Logan soon learned that Joe Hagan, a writer at New York magazine, was working on a profile of her. Hagan’s article, titled “Benghazi and the Bombshell,” was published in May 2014. Hagan attributed the Benghazi mistake to a “proverbial perfect storm” of factors, including Logan’s reputed personal sympathies with the Republican line on the attack, and the “outsize power” she enjoyed at 60 Minutes thanks to Fager.
Logan would later file a lawsuit against Hagan and New York—a suit quickly dismissed by a federal judge. The complaint alleged that prior to publication of the “Hagan Hit Piece,” as Logan called it, Fager and CBS Chair Les Moonves had come up with a “specific and detailed plan” for her to return to 60 Minutes. According to the lawsuit, after the article appeared Moonves felt that he and Fager had been painted as Logan’s “lapdogs” and decided to shift course; Fager then informed her that she would return to the program in a “drastically altered role.” When she went back to work in June, her relationship with him was, she claimed in the suit, “irreparably damaged.” “She really felt hung out to dry,” a person formerly close to Logan told me. (Neither Fager nor Moonves responded to requests for comment.)
For Logan, reckoning frankly with the circumstances in which she now found herself would have meant accepting her own responsibility for creating them—accepting, in other words, the unextraordinary truth of the human capacity for poor judgment. But in the fall of 2014, a movie came out that helped Logan rewrite her narrative.
Based on a book by the journalist Nick Schou, Kill the Messenger tells the story of Gary Webb, a San Jose Mercury News journalist who, in 1996, published a blockbuster investigation that linked the CIA to America’s crack-cocaine epidemic by way of its relationship with the Nicaraguan contras. Although much of the reporting was solid, Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series also had serious flaws; the Mercury News eventually determined that the series “did not meet our standards” in several ways. Webb resigned from the paper not long afterward. He died by suicide in 2004. In the movie’s telling, the various news outlets that called Webb’s work into question were motivated less by a desire to correct the record than by petty jealousies and a longtime deference to the CIA.
It’s unclear whether Logan had ever heard of Webb before she saw the film. In many respects, their experiences were utterly unalike. Nevertheless, Logan seemed to cling to Webb as a kind of life raft, and would later invoke his name and story in interviews about her Benghazi report. (She also questioned whether Webb’s death had truly been a suicide.) Logan ultimately decided that Media Matters, in an effort to discredit the “substance” of the Benghazi report—about security flaws at the compound—had worked in concert with various media outlets to silence her. The problem, as she now saw it, was not that she had put an unverified account on air. It was that her report had dared to criticize the Obama administration. To use Webb’s own formulation—one that Logan repeats to this day—she had told a story “important enough to suppress.”
Alicia Tatone. Sources: Chris Hondros / Getty; Alex Wong / Getty.
In mid-2015, when Logan’s contract was coming up for renewal, CBS offered, and Logan accepted, a part-time correspondent role on 60 Minutes. Shortly after the contract was signed, she, her husband, and their children packed up their house in Washington and moved to Burkett’s hometown of Fredericksburg, Texas.
For most of her professional life, Logan had not struck her peers as especially political—“very moderate,” one former colleague called her. She now began to shape a new worldview, one steeped in antagonism toward the media establishment she felt betrayed by, and toward the figures and institutions she believed it served. It was a worldview that offered both absolution and purpose. And it was soon to find a partisan expression in Donald Trump.
On-screen, over the next two years, Logan seemed much the same journalist and person she’d always been. She continued to file stories from various countries for 60 Minutes. Off-screen, however, she was becoming closer to people like Ed Butowsky, a Fox News regular and Texas-based financial adviser of whom Logan was now a client. Butowsky would play a central role in the story of Seth Rich.
In July 2016, the murder of the Democratic National Committee staffer—in a botched robbery, police said—produced a torrent of right-wing conspiracy theories. Butowsky helped instigate an investigation that resulted in a Fox News story suggesting that Rich had been killed by Hillary Clinton associates in retaliation for supposedly leaking emails from the DNC to WikiLeaks. (Fox soon retracted the story and later settled a lawsuit brought by the Rich family. Butowsky settled a separate lawsuit brought against him by Rich’s brother.)
According to Facebook messages shared with The Atlantic, Logan, too, had been suspicious of the botched-robbery line, and saw in the episode another instance of the elite media providing cover for the left. In an April 2017 exchange with Trevor FitzGibbon, a left-wing public-relations strategist whose firm had represented WikiLeaks, Logan wrote that she did not know “for a fact” that Clinton’s associates were responsible for Rich’s murder. “But I would be stunned if it were not true.” No journalist had reported this, because “they”—presumably the Democrats—“own the media,” she wrote, and pointed to the fallout from her Benghazi report. “They saw me as a threat and went after me and the show.” A few months later, Joe Burkett attended a small gathering at Butowsky’s home at which, according to one attendee’s sworn deposition, the possibility of wiretapping Rich’s parents’ house was raised. (Butowsky has denied that this was ever discussed.)
Toward the end of 2018, CBS declined to renew Logan’s contract. She was likely not surprised. Logan later characterized her final four years at the network as isolating; executives who’d once supported her now treated her with “utter contempt.” (Fager and Moonves, as it happened, were both ousted at approximately the same time—Fager for sending a threatening text message to a CBS News reporter looking into #MeToo allegations against him and Moonves when a dozen women said he had sexually harassed or assaulted them. Both denied the sexual-misconduct allegations.)
In interviews, a number of Logan’s former colleagues expressed the belief that, in time, she would have been picked up by another network. Her 60 Minutes segment in 2015 on Christians in Iraq had won a Murrow Award; in 2017, she and her team won an Emmy for their report on the battle for Mosul. But what Logan’s messages with FitzGibbon seem to underscore is that, even if a continued career in mainstream media had been possible, she wasn’t necessarily interested in pursuing one.
Logan was creating, in effect, a new brand for herself. She unveiled it in early 2019, sitting down for a three-and-a-half-hour podcast interview with the former Navy SEAL Mike Ritland, whom she had once interviewed for 60 Minutes. Logan related the story of her life and offered a blistering critique of the mainstream media she had chosen to leave behind. In speaking out against what she saw as the media’s liberal bias, Logan told Ritland, she was committing “professional suicide.” She likened right-wing outlets such as Breitbart News and Fox to the “tiny little spot” where women are permitted to pray at Jerusalem’s Western Wall, while “CBS, ABC, NBC, Huffington Post, Politico, whatever”—the “liberal” media—took up the rest of the space, reserved for men. The interview went viral, and Sean Hannity invited her on his show for a follow-up. “I hope my bosses at Fox find a place for you,” the host told her.
By the start of 2020, Logan had a deal with Fox News’s streaming service Fox Nation, for a series called Lara Logan Has No Agenda. Along with reported segments on subjects including illegal immigration and the dangerous advance of socialism in America, Logan would use her new role to build on her criticism of the media. One of Logan’s former producers remembers calling her around this time. “I was like, ‘You know, you’re talking about me … You’re talking about all these people who’ve worked with you—we’re part of some vast left-wing conspiracy? Like, seriously, you believe that?’ And she was like, ‘No, you don’t understand … You may not know you’re complicit—but you’re complicit.’ ”
As the months passed, Logan’s comments became more extreme. Eventually some of her closest friends from her former life could no longer stomach a phone call with her, knowing it might turn into a stem-winder on the virtues of Michael Flynn, who had admitted to lying to the FBI about his contact with the Russian ambassador. When Trump supporters mobilized to deny the results of the 2020 election, Logan was right there with them; she would work on a movie (financed by MyPillow’s Mike Lindell) about alleged voter fraud. After the January 6 insurrection, she rallied behind the people who were charged with taking part in it.
All of which seemed to culminate in an appearance on Fox News—in November 2021, as the country battled COVID—during which Logan compared Anthony Fauci, then the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to the Nazi doctor Josef Mengele. Fox stayed silent about the remarks but ultimately did not pursue a new season of Logan’s streaming show.
It was the sort of moment that those few friends left over from her old life thought might finally force a reckoning. Even her newer allies struggled to defend the remarks. (“Anytime you bring up a Nazi in anything, you’re kind of going off the reservation,” Ed Butowsky told me.) But by that point, Logan had come to seem firmly of the mind that setbacks, criticism, or a reproach of any sort were only evidence that she was doing something right. Carole Cooper, her agent—who, according to people familiar with their long relationship, had been like a second mother to Logan—dropped her. Less than a year later, Newsmax, where Logan often appeared on the commentator Eric Bolling’s weeknight show, washed its hands of Logan, following her riff on the global blood-drinking elite.
Logan was undeterred. The stakes, as she had come to see them, were simply too high. This is what she tries to communicate to people at the various local speaking gigs that now constitute much of her career, events such as the Park Cities Republican Women Christmas fundraising lunch in Texas, which she keynoted last year. “We had to cut her off because she was going too long,” one member who helped arrange the lunch recalled. The message was: “The world is on fire” and “your kids are being exposed to cats being raped” and “elections are stolen” and “we’ve lost our country.” The woman added, “It’s a Christmas lunch, mind you.”
The truth is that I had been nervous about approaching Logan on that February evening in Texas. Two weeks earlier, she had suggested on Twitter that I was engaged in a broader “strategic hit job” involving an effort to frame her as a Mossad asset. I did not know how she would respond to my presence at the Moms for Liberty event, which I paid $10 to attend. After my initial exchange with Logan, her manner softened, though she would not speak with me on the record.
In the past several years, I have written about a number of public figures on the right who believe very few of the things they profess to believe, who talk in public about stolen elections and wink at the specter of global cabals, and then privately crack jokes about the people who applaud.
I don’t think Logan is one of these figures. People who know her say the private person is also the public one. It was with sincere urgency that she recommended Flynn’s The Citizen’s Guide to Fifth Generation Warfare to her audience that evening. I Googled Flynn’s book as I waited to approach Logan. It is advertised almost as a self-help guide, the promotional copy encouraging Americans and “freedom loving people everywhere” to buy the volume to “understand the manipulation happening around you” and “why you feel the way you do.” “When I just saw General Michael Flynn,” Logan had told the audience, “he said to me—opening words—‘We’ve got maybe 18 months before we lose this country.’ ” She had nodded as many in the crowd vocalized their dismay. “This is not something you can pick and choose about whether you want to do.” She declared, “I’m not going to surrender. Even if they throw me in a prison and execute me—’til my last breath, I’m going to be fighting.”
In recent years, many Americans have embraced conspiracy theories as a way to give order and meaning to the world’s chance cruelties. Lara Logan seems to have done the same, rewriting her story as a martyrdom epic in the war of narratives. Five years after Logan departed CBS, few tethers remain to the woman on the projector screen. Executives and journalists who were once her greatest advocates have long since stopped talking to her and would prefer not to talk about her, either. “Respectfully, I would like to pass speaking on this subject. Best wishes,” Dan Rather wrote in a Twitter message when I reached out to him. Former friends who remember Logan as empathetic and generous now fear incurring the vitriol of a woman who frequently trashes critics and perceived enemies as “evil,” “disgusting,” “worthless.” The only former colleague of hers who was willing to be quoted by name in this article agreed to do so out of a sense of duty. “She is spreading Kremlin propaganda,” Philip Ittner told me. “And as somebody who is here in Ukraine, trying to fight back against the Russian information warfare, I can’t in good conscience just sit idly by.” It may be that saying nobody owns you, as Logan so often does, helps dull the reality that very few people claim you.
But the people at the event in Fredericksburg did claim her. After the speech was over, Logan talked one-on-one with dozens of audience members who seemed anxious to learn more about why they felt the way they did. She lingered until the very last person left the auditorium.
I think she stayed for as long as she did that night because she believes she has seen the light and wanted the people in the auditorium to see it too. I think she also stayed because the people there represent some of the only community she has left.
This article appears in the July/August 2023 print edition with the headline “A Star Reporter’s Break With Reality.” When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.