Trashing “the media” at-large has become a national pastime.
But its worth noting that CBS News made a quiet, positive, seismic shift in political journalism earlier this month.
After complaints from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about the editing of her Face the Nation interview, the show announced a major shift in its editorial process: interviews will now air either live, or recorded in full and broadcast later without cuts — a practice known as “live-to-tape.”
Unlike traditional edited segments, live-to-tape offers viewers the entire exchange — just as it happened — with no trimming for time or content.
That’s a big deal, and a trend to watch.
For decades, the “Sunday shows” and similar public affairs programming has occupied a privileged perch in American political life. They frame debates, drive headlines, and tee-up the week’s narratives for policymakers, D.C. insiders, and the high-propensity voters who tune-in out of habit.
But this programming has also operated under a longstanding, and now problematic, norm: edit for time, smooth out the rough edges, and package the best clips.
In today’s hyper-partisan climate, phrases like “editing for time” and “smoothing out the rough edges” carry one inevitable translation: content manipulation.
Of course, it all depends on your politics and point of view.
In Noem’s case, CBS initially defended its process, insisting the interview “met all CBS News standards” and had simply been “edited for time.”
But that’s a non-starter these days.
CBS’s defense and editing rationale sounds as hollow to Fox News viewers as Fox’s explanation would to MSNBC viewers.
By embracing a live and live-to-tape only interview approach, Face the Nation has set a new standard other networks and shows should adopt. Here’s why:
- Transparency over suspicion. With “fake news” now a political rallying cry across the spectrum, unedited interviews are the simplest way to neutralize accusations of bias or cover-up.
- Audiences are savvy. Viewers know politicians spin, obfuscate and avoid getting pinned down on specifics. It’s all part of the game. Despite an ongoing debate about whether news consumers need editorial intermediaries to protect them from misinformation, they’re better off seeing and hearing the full exchange to judge a guest’s answers and ultimate credibility.
- Levels the playing field. Complaints about actual interview questions will persist — but accusations of one-sided editing lose their salience and credibility if everything is aired in full.
- Enhances interview format trust. One of the best ways for public affairs programming to restore a semblance of credibility and relevance is to prove they have nothing to hide.
Critics of live and live-to-tape correctly argue that unedited interviews allow guests to spout unchecked falsehoods — with filibustering to kill time a strategic and tactical objective.
It’s also correct to say that guests with more media savvy, experience and better prep staff have an advantage in the live and live-to-tape formats.
But the answer isn’t to trim the record — it’s for the interviewer to challenge the guest in real time, hold them accountable, and let the audience see the full exchange.
Stonewalling, circuitous non-answers and the standard b.s. political pablum regularly offered up by politicians of all stripes takes its own toll on one’s credibility, or lack thereof.
There’s no perfect answer — but the editorial default of “doing things the way we’ve always done it” is the worst approach. CBS and Face the Nation deserve credit for taking the plunge on adopting new standards more applicable to contemporary political reality.
It’s more than just a routine policy change — it’s a trend worth watching.