Everyone who has ever led a newsroom has faced the moment. It is never easy and usually results in a strong reaction. Over the course of our decades leading newsrooms, we received a variety of responses on those mercifully few times that we had to do it. They ranged from shouting to crying, and typically would involve the use of some language that you wouldn’t repeat in front of your mother.

While never particularly fun, it is a part of the job, and when it is necessary, you do what you have to do.

The “it” we’re talking about is making the decision to tell a reporter that their news story isn’t ready to go, whether that means it's not cleared to be published or broadcast as scheduled. This is usually referred to as “holding” a story or, occasionally, “spiking” it. The latter term is typically used when the story’s ultimate future is uncertain.

While never any fun to do, the decision that sometimes a story just isn’t quite ready and needs more time “in the oven,” so to speak, is just a part of the process in any diligent newsroom. There are a myriad of reasons why a story may not be "ready to go,” and there is often a spirited debate about why any of those reasons should keep a story from the public. Those who work on researching, reporting, writing, and producing news stories, especially ones that might be weeks or even months in the making, well, those folks can be a bit passionate about defending what they have put so much time and effort into.

As the person in charge and ultimately responsible for deciding whether a particular story can be aired, you try to be as thoughtful and helpful as possible in explaining why you have decided to hold the story. Often, you will point out any particular part of the story that might not meet the standards of the newsroom, whether that is a lack of sources, imagery that doesn’t support the claims made, or any of an endless list of issues that may need to be addressed. Depending on the nature of the story being considered, a review with legal counsel may be necessary to determine whether it meets the standards to avoid legal issues arising from publishing or airing it.

Typically, the higher the stakes of reporting the story, the more complicated this process can become. And the more emotional the arguments can become.

There is a scene in the movie “All The President’s Men” where Ben Bradlee, as Executive Editor of The Washington Post, (brilliantly portrayed by the late actor Jason Robards) meeting with the reporting team of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein after reading one of their drafts of a story during their reporting of the Watergate scandal. He tells them very simply: “You haven’t got it.” Meaning that the story isn’t ready to be published. Woodward and Bernstein (played by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman in the movie) start to argue their case with Bradlee, who, in turn, shoots them a look that, without another word being spoken, conveys that his judgment is not open to further debate. The reporters immediately go silent.

If only it were that simple in real life.

On this Monday, we have the developing story of the latest kerfuffle (as one of our colleagues loved to say) at CBS News. Specifically about the decision over the weekend to pull a story that was scheduled for Sunday night’s edition of the storied news magazine, “60 Minutes.” The gist of the situation seems to be that correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi’s story about horrific conditions experienced by men from Venezuela, deported by the United States, faced during their time in a notorious El Salvador prison known as CECOT.

The segment was scheduled to be broadcast and was already being promoted on social media. According to reports from numerous sources, the sudden decision on Saturday morning to hold the story came from Bari Weiss, the recently installed Editor-In-Chief of CBS News. She assumed the position after the takeover of CBS parent Paramount Corporation by David Ellison and his Skydance company.

The details of this unusual move, which came very late in the rigorous editorial process that every “60 Minutes” story goes through, were made public on Sunday. That’s when several news outlets, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, obtained an internal email by correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi. The email put her view plainly. She believes the decision by Weiss to hold the story was made for “political reasons."

Alfonsi shared with her colleagues that her “60 Minutes” story had been subjected to extensive review, including five different screenings and receiving clearances from both CBS’s lawyers and the network’s Standards and Practices unit. She stated in her note to her colleagues, "In my view, pulling it now, after every rigorous internal check has been met, is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.”

For its part, CBS News issued a statement about the change to “60 Minutes” on Sunday, saying that the segment “needed additional reporting” and would air at a later date. The New York Times reported that Bari Weiss had requested numerous changes to the story before deciding to pull it from the broadcast. The Times’ story states that Weiss first screened the story last Thursday and then asked for “a significant amount of new material to be added."

The new material requested by Weiss included an interview with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Steven Miller or another high-ranking Trump administration official to address the story's subjects. Alfonsi stated in her email to her colleagues that her team working on the piece had requested comment from the White House, the U.S. State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security. All had declined to participate in the story.

Correspondent Alfonsi went on in her email to state a significant concern about this apparent reason for pulling the story: “If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a ‘kill switch’ for any reporting they find inconvenient."

By Sunday afternoon, Bari Weiss had released a statement defending her decision, which said: “My job is to make sure that all stories we publish are the best they can be. Holding stories that aren’t ready for whatever reason — that they lack sufficient context, say, or that they are missing critical voices — happens every day in every newsroom. I look forward to airing this important piece when it’s ready.”

It’s worth noting that Alfonsi claimed Weiss would not have a call with her over the weekend about the decision, made on Saturday morning, to hold the story from its scheduled airing.

Weiss addressed the matter during the news division’s regular morning editorial call on Monday morning, according to a recording reviewed and reported on by The Wall Street Journal. She stated, "The only newsroom that I’m interested in running is one where we are able to have contentious disagreements about the thorniest editorial matters and do so with respect and crucially where we assume the best intent of our colleagues. And anything else is absolutely unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to you.”

The backdrop to all this is that the last-minute decision to hold the story comes against the backdrop of continuing stories that the editorial direction for CBS News is being driven to make the network’s news coverage more acceptable to President Trump, who sued CBS over claims that “60 Minutes” misleadingly edited an interview with then Vice-President Kamala Harris, who was running against Trump in the 2024 presidential election. Ultimately, that suit was settled for millions so that Skydance’s acquisition of CBS owner Paramount could be completed, which happened earlier this year.

Now, Paramount is making a bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery. Aside from the legendary movie studio and HBO Max streaming service, the deal would include WBD’s portfolio of television channels, including CNN, which CEO Ellison has promised officials of the Trump administration would be combined with CBS News and that organization’s “new vision” under Editor-In-Chief Bari Weiss, who coincidentally reports directly to Ellison.

For its part, Warner Bros. Discovery's board of directors rejected Paramount's initial bid for the company, favoring an offer from Netflix for just the movie studio and streaming assets. (The television channels would be spun off to a new company.) In rejecting the Paramount offer, the board cited that there was no financial guarantee for the offer from David Ellison’s father, Larry Ellison, who is backing his son’s effort to acquire WBD, as he did with Paramount.

In a related development, Monday morning, the elder Ellison announced that he was personally guaranteeing the $40.4 billion in equity that Paramount had offered Warner Bros. Discovery.

It is safe to say that, taken together, all of this suggests we haven’t heard the last of what’s next for this “60 Minutes” story and the future of the network it was scheduled to air on.

We now return you to your last-minute Christmas shopping, already in progress—or hopefully already done.

-30-