RADIOOctober 22, 2024

CBS News EXPOSED its REAL agenda with 60 Minutes editing scandal response

After 2 weeks of criticism, CBS News has finally released a statement on its “60 Minutes” editing scandal … and it was very snarky. CBS News insisted that its editing of Kamala Harris’ answers wasn’t “deceitful.” It also claimed that the 2 cuts of Harris’ response to a question about Israel were from the same question/answer segment, and not taken from another part of the interview. But Glenn still has a few questions: Why did it take so long to put this statement out? Why was it so snarky? And will CBS News release the interview’s full transcript? If you’ve had enough of the mainstream media’s games, Glenn and Stu share the most effective way for you to let your voice be heard.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So 60 minutes, finally came out.

Now it's been what? Twelve days. Fourteen days.

STU: A couple of weeks, yeah.

GLENN: A couple of weeks.

And there's been one question. Hey. Why is one answer different in the promo, than the answer you aired the next night, in the special, from Kamala Harris?

Kamala Harris was asked a question, and she gave this long convoluted answer pop Face the Nation. From that interview.

Then when it aired the next day, on CBS. The whole interview. It wasn't anything like that.

So people have been saying, can you release the transcript and release the video footage?

They always do that. For the full unedited interview, go to 60minutes.com, right?

They always do that, at least the transcript. So we've been asking for the transcript. You've been asking for the transcript.

The government has been asking for the transcript. Of the unedited interview.

So 60 minutes takes them two weeks to respond over the weekend with this. Sixty minutes gave an excerpt of our interview to face the nation, that used a longer section of her answer, than on 60 Minutes.

The statement claimed. Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response.

It was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide-ranging 21-minute long subject.

Then they said, but remember, Mr. Trump pulled out of his interview with 60 Minutes. And the vice president participated.

So, wow. Is that -- why was that last line necessary in answering the other question?

That shows, they have an agenda. Why wouldn't they release this?

It's taken them two weeks.

STU: I really don't get it. Other than, there's something there, they're literally trying to hide.

GLENN: Clearly. Clearly.

STU: You can argue, in some way -- like, if someone demanded to us release a transcript of something.

Screw you. We will do what we want.

Like you could see sort of an indignant response. It's our material.

We will release what we want.

That's not the argument we're making. They're not making any argument. They're not even addressing why.

They keep saying, well, we edited to make a 20-minute segment. Well, you have 45 minutes with her.

What happened to the other 24 minutes. Why didn't you release that? You didn't to have put it in the show, even. As you point out, you could put it online.

GLENN: So here's what you need to do. You need to email. Or write snail mail.

I would suggest email. Email the stations. Make it to the general manager.

You look for your local CBS television station.

And you ask them, why they are not demanding for their own local audience. To be informed on what looks like CBS news election interference.

Here's why you write that.

Because a letter has to be saved. Any complaint like that, has to be saved for the FCC.
That's how you get their license pulled.

You don't do it, you know, nationally. CBS news doesn't have a license. But the local stations have licenses.

And those local stations will call up to CBS. And say, what are you doing to us?

Release that information.

So if you want results on this, call -- I'm sorry.

Write snail mail. Or email the general manager of your local CBS station. Do it today.

GLENN: Big news, tomorrow, I'm releasing my next book. Propaganda Wars. How the global elite control what you see, think, and feel.

We all know that we're watching propaganda. It dominates every part of our lives now. From our children's biology textbooks to presidential debate stages.

But what most people don't understand is how powerful and well-organized this propaganda scheme has become. Who are the main players that are transforming our un.

What do they have planned?

What can we do to stop them?

Find out tomorrow. Join me in the fight to take our country back.

Preorder propaganda wars now at GlennBeck.com/books or Amazon.

Wherever you get your books.

It's out tomorrow.

The -- the audiobook is tremendous, I think.

It's really, really good.

This one will tell you how to stop things.

For instance, not in this book. But let me give you one of the things that will be helpful for CBS.

We were just talking about it a minute ago. You want to stop the propaganda. Well, it seems like you can't get any answers from CBS, right?

Even Congress won't give it. They won't give an answer to Congress.

So they're hiding something. So how do you get to CBS?

CBS cares about its local affiliates.

And if the local affiliates are squeezed, they will report that to the -- to the FCC. Because they have to! So I want you to write a letter to your local CBS affiliate. Your local television.

CBS affiliate. And write it to the general manager.

CC the FCC.

So they know, there's record of this. Because all of those letters have to be saved for their renewal of their license.

And if there is an overwhelming number of letters, addressing this propaganda. And using language, about your local community.

We don't care what the rest of the country might be thinking. But we believe this is propaganda from the network.

How can you, as a local station stand by, and allow this to happen. We demand answers, from CBS.

They won't give them, the answers.

Well, you should be asking for those answers.

Otherwise, you're not serving your community. Make sure you put that in.

You're not serving your community. That's how license challenges come up.

And there isn't anyone who is a general manager, who likes to see a letter like that.

No one. Because that just gives the FCC ammunition. You just want the FCC to walk in. See your public file. And go, okay. You're good.

You don't want anything that just makes that sticky. They will call if you're starting to give them lots of letters. They will call CBS and say, can you edit this please, because this is killing us?

STU: It's a similar approach, that many took toward -- and you discussed earlier about Bud Light. It wasn't called Bud Light.

It was a tweet to Bud Light. It was talk to the distributors. And that made a real difference in that moment.

GLENN: Yeah, it was the distributors that broke the back finally. Because, remember, the distributors said, we're not going to take Bud Light.

We're not going to take it. The local bars, we're not going to take it.

And so once those distributors fall apart, they're in trouble.

STU: And it's important to understand, with 60 minutes. This is a supposedly -- a news organization.

A news program.

The news program.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: We are not asking them, hey. You need to ask tougher questions of Kamala Harris.

Obviously, I feel like they should.

But it's their editorial control on that aspect.

What we're asking for is what actually occurred.

We've got a presidential election decision to make. Can you tell us what went on here?

And I will be honest. At the beginning of this. They edit.

GLENN: We always do.

STU: I try to give the benefit of the doubt, whenever necessary.

Or wherever possible.

Because, you know, I'm a conservative.

And my personal political bias, is to want one side to win.

So I try to question that all the time, so I'm not just randomly. There's so many people, on the freaking internet.

Saying, everything that is good for their side.

I don't want to be that person.

GLENN: I don't either.

STU: So at the beginning of this, I kind of suspected.

60 minutes edits this stuff all the time.

You're right. They will typically release larger portions. Or context alone.

GLENN: Especially if there's a problem or question.

STU: Journalists would react that way.

We're not asking for them. We're not micromanaging the way they ask questions.

Or why didn't they follow up on this. We can complain about that all day.

We just want to know what occurred.

There's a 45-minute interview. In which they aired 21 minutes. Why are we not knowing what happened in the other 24 minutes?

Why? What happened there?

At the beginning, I was skeptical, it was something really bad for the Harris campaign. The way they're acting here, the fact that after all this pressure, they haven't just said, okay. Here it is. Just look at it.

We didn't do anything wrong.

You might have thought we made a wrong editorial choice, but it's all right there. The fact that they haven't done that in 2 weeks, makes me think, something really bad happened.

Something where she really said something, that might really damage her campaign.

And I don't know -- I don't know what to think, other than that.

This is bizarre behavior from an organization that is supposed to be protecting its journalistic credentials.

GLENN: And, you know what, it may not even be on that question.

That question --

STU: I know. It might not at all.

GLENN: Yeah. But that leads us to believe, if they're editing that question, what other questions did they -- did they do anywhere?

You need the full transcript. And the full tape.

STU: Exactly.

GLENN: Like you said, 41 minutes.

Here's what really doesn't make sense to me.

You have a woman, that is not doing interviews.

At the time, this aired. She had just started giving interviews.

So it's her first major interview, since. Who was it? ABC, I think.

STU: Dana Bash did one, with both of them. Remember that?

GLENN: Right. So it's her first major network solo interview. All right?

STU: Solo.

In a time, where everyone wants to see it. I mean, we watched it. I don't want to watch -- I'm not watching it, if Joe Biden is giving an interview. I've seen it.

Been there, done that. I've got it. I and everyone else in America. Even her supporters, wants to know where she actually stands on things.

So why would you have a 40-minute interview.

You have 41 minutes in an hour.

Okay.

And why would they only use 21 minutes with all of the setup and everything else.

That's probably. They probably used. I'll be generous.

They used 16 minutes of her actually speaking.

Okay?

Why wouldn't you -- why wouldn't you want to drive traffic even to your -- your website?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Why wouldn't you make the entire thing.

It's not your Sunday, typical 60 Minutes. Why wouldn't you make the whole thing. Just that we sat down for an hour long interview. And you'll see it this week, on 60 minutes. Why wouldn't you do that?

STU: And I watched that whole hour, Glenn, as I mentioned. They had Tim Walz on for a second, which is moderately defensible. It's kind of a strange choice. When you have more material from Kamala Harris. Why wouldn't you air that. Instead of a Tim Walz interview, which no one cares about.

But he's on the ticket. Okay. Kind of defensible. The last 20 minutes of the show, was some produced piece about whether the Arizona election was stolen in 2020.

Like I -- and obviously, with the very heavy tilt, that it was not. And look at all these poor people that -- like campaign workers. Who got bad tweets sent to them. And things like that.

Like, you want to cover that. Right?

I don't see why it's really relevant right now. All right. Maybe you think it is.

But the idea that you would bump 15 minutes of a Kamala Harris interview with this context around it.

To air a pre-produced piece about what happened in the 2020 election in Arizona. What the hell is that -- that's the most insane decision of all time.

You want to throw stupid Tim Walz on there for a few minutes. Maybe you can defend that. Indefensible.

To leave 24 minutes on the cutting room floor of Kamala Harris.

When you're airing that. Air that another week. This is a prime time special.

This makes no sense at all.

GLENN: I would post your letter to the GM or the vice presidents of your local CBS stations.

I would post them on X.

Let people see that.

STU: Yeah. Tag us as well.

GLENN: Yeah. Tag the FCC. Make sure you tag the FCC.

STU: Note, as Glenn noted. The words, community, standards.

GLENN: Yeah. You're not serving your community.

STU: Serving your community.

GLENN: This is not helpful to our local community.

Because that's the directive, that they have to hit.

Rich elites WHINE about Trump's tax cuts?!

A leftist millionaire is furious over President Trump’s tax cuts because it will … SAVE her money?! Glenn Beck gives her a newsflash: She can give that money to whatever charity she wants! Or, thanks to PayPal and Venmo, she can now give it straight to the government. Plus, Glenn reviews the latest example of New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani acting like a communist.

RELEASE the Epstein Files … with a caveat

Glenn Beck wants EVERYTHING in the Epstein Files to be released … BUT with a caveat. Glenn warns that America will have massive problems if the files are released and people don’t actually READ the report. If we only listen to X posts and the media, we can be easily manipulated.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Somebody asked me. Might have been you, Stu. Said, why do you think they're putting up a stink about releasing the files?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I can guarantee you, that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files.

STU: You said that at the very beginning.

GLENN: Years ago.

STU: Even with that -- more recently when Elon came out with his tweet. And we all said, of course, he's in the files. He was friends with this guy for a long time, but before people knew.

GLENN: Right, and he broke up with him, if you will.

STU: Before his initial arrest.

GLENN: Right, before the initial arrest. And he broke up with him, because it's like, hey, you treat women like crap. Okay. So, yeah.

He is in the filing. I can almost guarantee it. So why wouldn't you want that out?

For the same reason he's saying, you know, there's a lot of people in here, whose names are going to be involved, who may not have done anything.
That's not just protecting him. You know what that is? That's a comment on us. Because here's my stance on this. The whole thing should be released.
Every bit of it should be released. However, there is a competing argument in my own mind that says, not responsible enough for that. What do I mean by that?

This system of our government is wholly inadequate for an immoral and non-religious society.

And I don't mean, well, our society has got to go to church.

I mean, you have to have the underpinnings of things like the Ten Commandments.

Don't lie!

Don't cheat. Don't steal.

Don't smear your neighbor. We don't do any of those things. Okay?

We can't even do ten simple laws. Okay?

And they're all good safety tips. I don't know occasion if I renamed all of these things.

If I didn't use the religious context, every American would say, yeah. Well, that's a good thing.

Hey. You shouldn't worship your car.

Yeah. That's a good thing. You know, you shouldn't -- you shouldn't look at the image of somebody, and go, that's -- that's who I serve.
That's my God. No! That is a bad thing.

Don't cheat on your spouse. Don't lie.

Honor your mom and dad. All of these things, we would all agree, we can't do that as a society! We can't even agree on eight of the ten!
So how are you going to remain free? Let me bring this back to the Epstein file.

All of this information should be public. It should be out there. There should be no secrets.

Unless it is in our national interests.

And I don't mean, well, it could go badly for the CIA.

Good!

Let it go badly for the CIA. If they did something wrong, or they were doing something nefarious. Or they were doing something that the American people just wouldn't like. I want that exposed.

Okay?

But are we responsible enough to have all of the information?

I contend, no!

That doesn't make me say. I'm still saying, release it all!

But I'm telling you, the consequences will be ugly.

STU: It could be a mess.

GLENN: A mess.

STU: That's okay. Probably.

Because we're talking about -- if there's information in there, that the American people need.

GLENN: I think we are approaching a place to where it's -- it's not just a mess.

And here's why I say that.

STU: What do you mean?

GLENN: So you get all this information. How is this information going to be used?

Of course, Donald Trump's name is in there.

Is Donald Trump -- did he -- was he messing around with young girls?

No. No.

STU: Is there even an accusation.

I mean, there's a lot of things they accused Donald Trump of.

GLENN: Not that.

STU: Is this even an accusation that he was interested in underage girls?

GLENN: No. No. No.

And all they're saying is, he's in the file.

Well, there will be a lot of people in the file. Okay?

A lot of people in the file.

And some of them might be guilty.

Some of them, you -- I worry, because I want to know their names. But I want to hear, why were you with him?

Oh, it was before you knew.

Oh, it was this or that. You were getting money as a scientist, for your thing. From him. Okay.

But it wasn't about underage girls. As a society, we will not read the Epstein report.

We won't.

STU: No. Of course not. Right?

We won't read it. It doesn't matter if it's ten pages! The vast majority will not read it. What they will do is they will go to Twitter and X. And they will look for what name is in there.

And somebody will say, Donald Trump. And you know what you know this means? He was diddling with little girls.

And that will just become their opinion, not based on fact, not based on anything.

Except, somebody who has ill will on anyone or is just as stupid as the rest of the public.

Yesterday, this -- last week, this file came out from Tulsi Gabbard. And what do you say this is, Stu?

One hundred fifty pages, maybe. One hundred pages?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. My staff read it. We read it. You know why?

Because you weren't going to read it. And my job is to make it easier for you to understand what is going on.

My job really is not to tell you, what is going on.

I'm -- my job is actually to try to give you perspective on why it's happening, and what it means.

But because nobody -- and I'm not dissing you. This is a very, well-read audience.

In many cases, more well-read on some things than we are.

But generally speaking, the American people don't read.

They don't read these reports.

This one came out yesterday, and what is this?

20 pages, maybe?

And this thing is unbelievable. Because there were only five copies of it.

This was the -- they categorized the highest level of top secret outside of a nuclear weapon in our codes.

Okay. This was in the most top -- this was like the knock list, at the CIA.

Five copies, all in one -- in one safe. Where the most confidential CIA stuff is kept.

And it was released yesterday.

And it's not 30 years old.

It's four!

Did you read it? Did anyone actually -- I contend, very few reporters, very few talking heads on cable TV even read these.

STU: Yeah. And, by the way, it's not an unreasonable expectation for a population to have a media that is going to inform them properly about very lengthy government documents.

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

But once you have seen that that media is not reliable.

And everybody knows that now.

You may not find me reliable.

But the person who doesn't find me reliable, also probably doesn't find CNN reliable.

They might go, well, they're a little better than he is.

But they -- they don't trust anybody.

And they shouldn't.

At this point, you shouldn't trust anybody.

Which means, you have to know it for yourself. So when you're looking at the Epstein files. You're looking at these files.

These files, everyone should care about. Because this shows. This -- it's not new. Some of it is!

But very little of it is new.

It's just authentication that what has been said, all these years, by people like me, is accurate!

And you wouldn't have fought about its accuracy, if it didn't matter.

But you fought -- he didn't know what he was talking about. That's a conspiracy theory. He has to be shut down. Get him off Facebook. Take him off Twitter.

He can't say these things. Why would you say that if it didn't matter? Now you not only that know those things are true, but you now see a pattern of behavior. It's like looking at one murder, and then another murder, and then another murder.

Okay. We've got three murderers, on the loose now.

And then all of a sudden, you realize, wait a minute. Not only did those murders happen, it was the same guy. Now you have a serial killer.

Is a serial killer more -- a higher priority than just one murderer?

Yeah.

Yeah. It is. Because they are -- they are killing people -- I don't know. Out of the love of it. Out of their distorted.

It's not a crime of passion. It becomes something really, really sick.

This is a serial killer.

You now have not just one offs. You see, this is a pattern.

This group has been doing this from the beginning. You know what I said, you know, if they can get away with this. They will keep doing it.

This shows, they got away with it, for so long.

By 2016. They just, they don't care anymore.

They don't care anymore.

But how many people are reading this?

What they'll do is they'll listen to people like me, or people like CNN, and they'll say, oh, well. I heard Jake Tapper talk about it.

It means nothing.

Well, now, Jake Tapper might not mean -- let me leave you with a better example. I really like Andy McCarthy.

I really like him.

I read his work.

STU: It's great.

GLENN: I believe -- I believe his opinion is valid. I don't think it's right.

But I think it's valid.

And I read his work. And I thought, okay.

Wait a minute. If Andy McCarthy is saying this. I really need to examine what he's saying. And see where I disagree with him.

And as I went in, I was prepared to change my mind, if I thought Andy was right.

Now, he might in the end, be right.

But I don't think so.

Because what he is saying is, a lot of this stuff is old news.

Yes, Andy, it is. But it's now a grand conspiracy. You have to look at the through-line.

You're not looking at the one-off events.

You're looking at two things.

One, it's now been verified at the highest sources in writing.

You have whistleblowers, at the time, writing saying, we can't do this.

We didn't have that information. You have on record now, Brennan saying, you don't know what I know. Well, what did you know? We have new information.

What new information?

Because none of it is quoted anywhere.

And he's never answered the question.

What new information?

Most importantly, you have the grand conspiracy line.

We are not going to save the country, unless we do our own homework. Then listen to people and say, let me start at the opposite ends. Let me start with Glenn Beck and CNN.

And let me see what both of them are saying. Okay.

I think they both agree on this one thing. So I know that's true. But I think Glenn is more right. Or CNN is more right on this.

And then you just keep narrowing it in. And all it does is not form your opinion. It helps verify for you what you think is right.

Or it changes your opinion, because you realize, I missed that.

I didn't understand that. So when we're looking at all of this stuff needs to be transparent. We need to know all of the information.

Yes, we do.

But we also are played, every single day by many times, the exact same actors, who do not have a good bone in their body.

They're trying to destroy us. They're trying to separate us and divide us.

And they have proven themselves to lie at any level, without thinking about you or the ramifications.

And we continue to listen to them, over and over and over again.