people that don t like the stories you are doing. that didn t bother the same people the way that conservatives did. i am happy if the stories i do receive legitimate recognition. it is not why i do one thing or another. i think it has been an effective strategy to try to turn factual stories into a controversy or controversi controversialize the reporter so some of the public won t listen to the story. tweet me your thoughts. next, sharyl attkisson on what the obama administration did to pressure her and her bosses is stephen colbert the guy to take on jimmy fallon and jimmy kimmel?
questions of fraud. the bait and switch of t.a.r.p., the bank bailout program. all of those stories under bush were met with a good reception. these were different managers. nobody accused me of being a mouthpiece for the liberals at that time. let me make sure i understand. you aggressively reported on various bush administration problems and scandals and those pieces by and large got on the air but in the obama administration, not so much. that would suggest there is a political aspect to it? i think there is a political aspect on the part of some people. cbs news is not a mono lit thick organization. we know we have a lot of different personalities. we have bosses that are at their heart great journalists but don t let that play. in the bigger picture, there is a tendency to avoid certain controversy, because of the pushback and the well-o
producers who don t really want to deal with the headache of it, why put on these controversial stories that we are going to have to fight people on when we can fill the broadcast with other perfectly decent stories that don t ruffle the same feathers. so you are saying that you and other journalists have made these observations. are you saying you personally got pushback from the obama administration and white house officials or they went over your head and tried to apply pressure to your boss sns. both. they worked through you me and they often went over my head to the bosses. i didn t always know what they did so. they would sometimes refer to it later or i would be coped on an e-mail or bosses would copy me on an e-mail. they would consistently tell me if i would write an article on line, which would be the fallback position when something couldn t get on television, but it was still a great story and i would circulate it online, they
watergate was a political scandal. it didn t mean it wasn t a legitimate issue to look at. i don t think anybody today would argue it wasn t. there is this tendency to use a strategy that says, it s political. therefore, don t listen to it. i think there are many valid questions still to be asked. why did cbs lose interest in your reporting on benghazi and obamacare to where you were having difficulty getting on the air? i think that s part of a broader trend that s happening not just at cbs but there seems to be the last couple of years much less interest in original, investigative, in-depth reporting that hasn t been seen elsewhere. there seems to be a advice certainly reaction to doing story that is could ruffle feathers whether it is people in the political spectrum or corporate interests. there has come to be a narrowing universe of stories that are desired by the broadcasts and it leads us with sometimes
people that don t like the stories you are doing. that didn t bother the same people the way that conservatives did. i am happy if the stories i do receive legitimate recognition. it is not why i do one thing or another. i think it has been an effective strategy to try to turn factual stories into a controversy or controversi controversialize the reporter so some of the public won t listen to the story. tweet me your thoughts. next, sharyl attkisson on what the obama administration did to pressure her and her bosses is stephen colbert the guy to take on jimmy fallon and jimmy kimmel?