Post

Pelley's interview with the Times makes me even less able to understand the three correspondents who remained.

58 reposts558 likes

I understand the nostalgia behind their reasoning, but that reasoning is flawed. This is the sunk cost fallacy. And frankly they could do a lot more for journalism, and even their beloved 60 minutes, by letting Weiss drown.

You’re a longtime theatre knower. Ever see Taking Sides by Ronald Harwood? Discusses exactly this using Furtlängler, von Karajan’s predecessor. The movie I thought was just ok - I should probably give it another go - so I would start with a well-reviewed stage production.

Pelley says in the interview that he had decided with those three correspondents to also remain, and was surprised that he was fired. He didn't quit on principle, just stood up for his colleagues at a staff meeting. (Meanwhile they were away reporting; maybe they would have done it too.)

As I believe you said earlier, the only reason is to protect others jobs. I think we are past that point now but I find their remaining rationales for staying specious at best.

I thought Pelley’s interview indicated he would have stayed and fought if he hadn’t been fired. He was the one who spoke out at the meeting because he was only correspondent present and most senior in the room.

It's the same old story - stay and "fight for what's right" or leave on the basis of principle. But like staying on Twitter, you are fighting a losing battle. The game is rigged against you, and you are just aiding and abetting at that point.

only real surprise is Whitaker. Stahl has been lost the last few years & has not been able to grasp the political environment at all. She’s always feigning “shock”. Wertheim is just a bad sports reporter - always the dumbest segments.