Public Eye
September 18, 2006 5:45 PM

Maher Not Merrier About “freeSpeech” Segment

(CBS)
Over the weekend, the TVNewser blog, widely read by media and media-obsessed types, picked up on something HBO host Bill Maher said on his show Friday night. According to blog, Maher disclosed that he had been asked to do a “freeSpeech” segment for the “Evening News.” Here’s how the blog put it: “He asked if he could talk about religion but was rejected and told that he would be provided with a list of 'approved' topics." I’ve been unable to see the show firsthand myself, but I have seen clips where Maher claimed, “I asked if I could talk about religion, and that was a deal-breaker right from the beginning. … They said, ‘We’ll send over a list of acceptable topics … for our segment on free speech.’” In response to Maher’s comments, CBS News sent out the following statement:
“Bill Maher was never told that he couldn’t discuss religion in a ‘freeSpeech’ segment," said Rome Hartman, executive producer of the CBS Evening News. "In fact, ‘freeSpeech’ has already addressed religion and we expect others will in the future."
In fact, tonight’s “freeSpeech” segment deals with that very topic, featuring a Muslim author speaking on the uproar in response to the Pope’s recent comments. In an e-mail, Hartman also said that Maher was not told the topic of religion was off limits, that all prospective “freeSpeech” participants are given “suggested topics” in order to yield timely commentary and avoid repetition. Hartman added, “no effort was made to dictate content to him or anyone else, other than that we have told everyone that we won't air personal attacks, and that we're seeking an overall tone of civility and respect, even while airing very divergent views.” (You can check out a complete list of the commentators and topics here).

Last week, we took a look inside the process of the segment and noted some of the editorial considerations involved and you can read that for a little more background. On the surface, it certainly appears contradictory for a segment touting free speech to have any constraints on it whatsoever. Of course, reality isn’t always so simple. CBS is responsible for what goes out over its airwaves and there are obviously constraints involved. The broadcast could not air anything that violates FCC standards, for example, or anything that is factually untrue or libelous to an individual. And there are some opinions that would simply be irresponsible to air – racial, religious and otherwise.

I would draw a comparison to our own “Outside Voices” feature here at Public Eye. While we have never made anything more than grammatical or cosmetic changes to those submissions, we have exercised our editorial control in ways similar to what I understand the “Evening News” has done. Last spring, for example, most everyone we approached to participate wanted to write about the speculation that Katie Couric was coming to the network. While we had no objection to that in principle, there were just so many of those posts we could handle. After a few, we started asking for different topics to be addressed. At other times, we’ve suggested timely topics to others.

“Outside Voices” exists to provide a forum for all kinds of media-types to weigh in on journalistic issues at CBS News and the media as a whole. It’s not a place for gossip or personal attacks and we reserve the right to exercise our editorial judgment as we see fit. The “freeSpeech” segment supposedly fits that model as well – a nightly segment to hear interesting and thought-provoking opinions you might not be exposed to elsewhere. Just as we have been criticized for our choices in “Outside Voices” from time to time, the “Evening News” has gotten an earful as well.

Some critics have wondered why the broadcast has chosen to feature people like Rush Limbaugh, who certainly has more than his fair share of opportunities to offer his opinions. Not a few complaints have been registered about the existence of the segment, arguing that the broadcast should deliver news, not opinion. Others complain it takes valuable time from “hard news” and should be used sparingly, not every night. While those are legitimate points, I personally like the idea in general. I would like to see fewer “names” featured, but overall, I think it adds a little context to the barrage of news we get throughout the course of a day. I seem to be in the minority on that point.

Update: Maher has issued the following statement, according to the New York Daily News:
"If I or my representatives got it wrong about how the 'Free Speech' segment of the 'CBS Evening News' is, sorry, our bad. I'm ready, willing and able to speak about the topic I originally suggested."

Tags:
Free Speech
Topics:
CBS News Issues
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 16 Comments
by fflnashmj September 20, 2006 6:58 PM EDT
From what I've seen so far, it's obvious that Hartman isn't telling the truth when he says that "we won't air personal attacks, and that we're seeking an overall tone of civility and respect, even while airing very divergent views."

Here's some of what Rush Limbaugh said during his segment: "Unfortunately, some Americans are not interested in victory. And they want us to believe that their irresponsible behavior is patriotic. Well, it's not. When the critics are more interested in punishing this country over [...] Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo than they are in defeating those who want to kill us; when they seek to destroy a foreign surveillance program which is designed to identify those who want to kill us and how they intend to do it; when they want to grant those who want to kill us U.S. constitutional rights, I don't call that patriotic."

I don't see how attacking the patriotism of dissenters from the Bush doctrine qualifies as civil or respectful. And "divergent views"? The freeSpeech segment has yet to feature any progressives or Democrats. Maher, a libertarian, is the closest that they've come. Meanwhile we've been subjected to right-wingnuts like Limbaugh and Michael Gerson, one of Bush's speechwriters. I suspect that when CBS finally invites a "Democrat," it'll be some DINO like Joe Lieberman.

"FreeSpeech" indeed. This may qualify as free speech for people who think that waterboarding isn't torture, but for those of us who haven't drank the koolaid, it's a pale imitation.
Reply to this comment
by ManticMan September 20, 2006 6:17 AM EDT
I personally support taking Maher up on his offer to follow through with his piece bashing religeon on CBS, as he has offered in his respnse above. Strongly.

CBS can easily post a disclaimer and warning before the rant distancing the network from Maher's opinions (unlike the ABC/O'Donnel situation).

I am certain that I would not agree with Maher's bigotry. But why not give him the forum to show his *** if he want's it so badly?

There's certainly nothing special about anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, and otherwise anti-religious prejudism. But for some reason all those bashing the religions believe that they are an oppressed minority. Maher is using CBS to 'prove' that case. Better to put Maher on the spot, and maybe CBS can take the high road for once, condemning those whose hate speech is aimed at the faithful.
Reply to this comment
by janish64 September 19, 2006 10:02 PM EDT
Can "Memekiller" please support the accusation that Limbaugh "fantasizes on the air of how great it would be if dissenters from his views had their heads sawed off"

Please provide the direct quote. And do you know what his "take" is on national security? Please tell me what that is. Is your point that ONLY dissent should be aired?

And - PhoenixAndy - in which segment did Rush Limbaugh "attack" people who disagreed with him?

Are you and "memekiller" just aliases for Bill Maher, who is notorious for throwing out baseless charges?
Reply to this comment
by cmbat-2009 September 19, 2006 9:43 PM EDT
Bill Maher is one of the few people that actually gets what is right and wrong about this country correct. It would be nice to hear his thoughts in primetime and not on pay cable where only people can afford him can listen to him.
Reply to this comment
by siglaw1893 September 19, 2006 8:25 PM EDT
Bill Maher wants only to bash Christians and have a mainstream platform for his bigotry. If CBS wants to further alienate itself, go for it, let Maher have at it.
Reply to this comment
by annoyedman September 19, 2006 8:17 PM EDT
I am a self-identified conservative Christian Republican. I also subscribe to something that Andrew Sullivan once said: "Freedom means learning to deal with being offended."

I despise Bill Mahr, and he is really far more smarmy and smart-*** then he is intellectual. He is a classic example of someone who believes that wielding a sharp skewer is a sign of intelligence. In the real world of adults, that is a sign of foolishness, not wisdom.

Be that as it may, I think that Mahr ought to have the right to speak his mind - as long as he keeps it clean - and the rest of us, religious or not, ought to be adult enough to hear him out.
Reply to this comment
by letthemspeak September 19, 2006 6:41 PM EDT
One could ask the simple question. What could Maher possibly have to say? He clearly is a no nothing, but letthemspeak and we'll see that he really has NO CLOTHES
Reply to this comment
by letthemspeak September 19, 2006 6:38 PM EDT
PhoenixLady:
No intelligent conservative would ever try to stop a liberal from speaking--as soon as they open their mouths their moral bankruptcy shows
Reply to this comment
by whocomments September 19, 2006 5:17 PM EDT
To say that Bill Maher is not religious is quite an understatement. The level of irreverence and hate he displays on his HBO show is deplorable.
If he were to say something similar to the overly sensitive/defensive radical mulims...his life would be in jeopordy. The pope's only problem is that we live in a world where one sentence becomes a headline (with no context). In spite of this the pope is extremely apologetic...I'm still waiting for Maher's apology.
Reply to this comment
by phoenixandy September 19, 2006 3:07 PM EDT
k-sozer, equality7's post was deleted.
Reply to this comment
by k-sozer September 19, 2006 12:38 PM EDT
who is this equality7 that phoenixandy refers to?

I thought the muslim woman was very much worth listening to. in general, i would prefer voices such as hers to those of either bill maher or rush limbaugh or other celebrities.
Reply to this comment
by memekiller September 19, 2006 12:24 PM EDT
I guess the question is, would you let Bill Mahr talk about religion? And would you let a non-Republican talk about security? Bill Mahr is not religious, and if you are afraid of airing that viewpoint, then you really should rethink the title of your segment. If you won't allow anyone dissent for the administration on security matters, then it's "Free Speech" in the Orwellian, support your government sense.

Rush Limbaugh, a man who fantasizes on the air of how great it would be if dissenters from his views had their heads sawed off, isn't exactly in line with your desire for "civil" discourse. Nor does he present any different take on national security than we have heard, unchallenged, by the mainstream media since the gin-up to war.

The title of your segment promises something different from what you've heard elsewhere. So far, it's more of the government coddling same.
Reply to this comment
by phoenixandy September 19, 2006 12:58 AM EDT
Another thing Vaughn, you said "Free Speech" won't tolerate speakers attacking people, yet, you allowed Rush Limbaugh to attack people who disagree with him.
Reply to this comment
by phoenixandy September 19, 2006 12:36 AM EDT
equality7 represents the fascist mentality that supports silencing liberals.
Reply to this comment
by rogerbru-2009 September 18, 2006 11:40 PM EDT
Okay, Vaughn, by now you could have gotten either a video or a transcript of Maher's remarks instead of relying on a college kid's blog. But let's slice through all this verbiage and why don't you tell us simply and straightforwardly why Maher hasn't appeared on the "Free Speech" segment? Is it or is it not because he and the producers were unable to agree on a topic?
Reply to this comment
by phoenixandy September 18, 2006 9:57 PM EDT
So, tonight's "Free Speech" focused on a Muslim-in-name-only who defended the Pope's attacks on the Muslim religion. You guys at CBS were too scared to put on tonight's newscast a real Muslim attacking the Pope for his comments? Oh, I see. It wouldn't play to mainstream audiences.
Reply to this comment
See all 16 Comments

About Public Eye

Description for Public Eye