Name: 「犧牲整個國家只為滿足一個人」：CBS 正在毀掉自己的聲譽！ ("Servicing one guy at the expense of the entire country": CBS is Destroying Its Reputation)
Uploaded: 2026-02-20T21:36:13.000Z
Duration: 7 min 45 s

程度副詞

And the mess going on at CBS where Colbert is leaving in May and something that he just did here recently against the advice of his lawyers is, you know, basically telling cbs, what are you gonna do, fire me?

而CBS那邊的亂象，Colbert五月就要離開了，他最近做了件不顧律師建議的事，就是大概在跟CBS說，你們能怎樣，開除我嗎？

As he's doing whatever it is that he wants and as Anderson Cooper leaves 60 Minutes.

他想做什麼就做什麼，而Anderson Cooper也離開60 Minutes了。

And it is clear that the mainstream media is so replete with conflicts of interest that.

很明顯，主流媒體充斥著利益衝突，所以。

That you have one of the great empires in network news right now falling apart in front of our eyes with an assortment of corporate conflicts.

你看現在一個偉大的新聞網帝國，就在我們眼前瓦解，裡面充斥著各種企業利益衝突。

Because it's painful to watch what's happening around 60 minutes at what used to be a mainstream institution that you could count on for at least attempting objectivity and fairness.

因為看著60 Minutes發生的事，看著這個曾經是你可以期待至少試圖保持客觀和公正的主流機構，現在變成這樣，真的讓人很痛心。

Yeah, it's left a real wide open lane for independent journalism to come in and actually try to hold powerful people, very wealthy people to account.

是啊，這為獨立新聞業留下了很大的空間，讓他們進來試圖讓有權有勢的人、非常有錢的人負責。

I was just doing the morning show here, Morning Joe, and

我剛剛在做早上的節目，Morning Joe，然後

we had James Talarico, the Texas state representative, who Colbert interviewed and was not allowed to air the broadcast of a network television on the show.

我們訪問了James Talarico，德州州代表，Colbert採訪了他，但節目卻不允許在電視臺上播出。

And we were talking to him about this, and

one of the things that immediately became obvious was this was such an enormous win for him.

其中一件立刻變得顯而易見的事是，這對他來說是個巨大的勝利。

Millions more people ended up seeing the video that they had to post on the Internet because he became this target of the fcc, which Donald Trump has used, as he does every branch of government, every regulatory would be regulatory agency to just serve his own particular purposes.

數百萬人是以看到了他們不得不發布到網路上的影片，因為他成了FCC的目標，而FCC被川普用來服務他個人的目的，就像他對待政府的每個部門、每個監管機構一樣。

And so the through line here, we're at this moment, and

所以，這裡的脈絡是，我們正處於這個時刻，

this is beyond just, like, liberal stuff, right?

這已經超越了單純的「自由派」議題，對吧？

We're at this moment where there is such clarity around corruption, around billionaires, around Silicon Valley, around people at the very top.

我們正處於一個時刻，對於腐敗、對於億萬富翁、對於矽谷、對於頂層人物，都有了非常清晰的認識。

And if you choose to service the President of the United States, he may give you, in these quid pro quo arrangements, these transactional arrangements, benefits and pardons and favors.

如果你選擇服務美國總統，他可能會在你這些 quid pro quo 的安排、交易式的安排中，給你利益、赦免和恩惠。

Why are millions of people watching these clips?

為什麼有數百萬人會看這些片段？

Why, when it comes to the Epstein files, are millions of Americans sort of waking up to realize, oh, my God, when Pam Bondi is being questioned in Congress about all of this stuff and she can't even get the words out about the Dow, how we should focus on the Dow instead of these victims, these female victims who are right behind her in that room, people realize it's because she is servicing one person at the expense of an entire population of people, an entire audience of Americans from both sides of the aisle.

為什麼在 Epstein 的檔案出來後，數百萬美國人開始意識到，天啊，當 Pam Bondi 在國會被質詢這些事情時，她甚至說不出話來，關於我們應該關注道瓊指數，而不是那些受害者，那些就在她身後房間裡的女性受害者，人們意識到這是因為她為了某一個人，犧牲了整個人口、犧牲了兩黨的美國觀眾。

And so CBS is caught in this very awkward position of needing the protections of the president via the quid pro quo system, the transactionality of him granting favors via the fcc, via the ability to merge with other companies, Paramount, Warner Brothers, et cetera.

所以 CBS 陷入了一個非常尷尬的境地，需要透過 quid pro quo 系統、透過總統給予的恩惠來獲得保護，像是透過 FCC、透過與其他公司合併的能力，像是 Paramount、Warner Brothers 等等。

But in the meantime, they are losing audience, and

但同時，他們正在流失觀眾，而且

they're losing, more important than that, even the confidence of a public that frankly, says, you guys are lying to us because we're not so stupid anymore.

他們更重要的是，甚至失去了公眾的信任，因為公眾坦白地說：「你們在騙我們，因為我們不再那麼愚蠢了。」

And that's the part where there's a real opportunity, and

that's what CBS is opening the door for, is for people to call them out on it and call the administration out on servicing one guy at the expense of an entire country.

這也是 CBS 為大家敞開大門的原因，讓大家可以指責他們，並指責政府為了某一個人而犧牲整個國家。

The folks who listen to this show have heard me lament the idea that I don't really believe that a whole lot of people understand what it is that Meadowlark Media is aspiring to be amid this climate.

聽這個節目的人都聽過我抱怨，我認為很多人並不真正理解 Meadowlark Media 在這種氛圍下，到底想成為什麼樣的公司。

I do believe that this audience and its allegiances are, at least in part because they do appreciate what it is that Pablo and we are trying to do at a time where a whole lot of people are compromised and conflicted.

我確實相信，這個觀眾群和他們的忠誠度，至少有一部分是因為他們欣賞 Pablo 和我們在這個許多人都妥協和陷入困境的時刻，所努力做的事情。

You talked with David Remnick of the New Yorker and Ezra Edelman, who did the O.J.

你和《紐約客》的 David Remnick 以及拍了 O.J.

simpson documentary about what specifically is happening right now at the Washington Post.

Simpson 紀錄片的 Ezra Edelman 談論了華盛頓郵報現在到底發生了什麼事。

Can you take us through what you thought were the most interesting parts of that conversation as you watch these entities like CBS and Washington Post not have the wherewithal for what the present moment demands?

你能跟我們說說，你認為那段對話中最有趣的部分是什麼嗎？當你看到像 CBS 和《華盛頓郵報》這樣的機構，無法跟上這個時代的需求時。

So what we're doing at Meadowlark, right, is saying, what if we use this money to create a, frankly, a coalition of people who will use journalism to hold the most wealthy and therefore dangerous people in this country to account?

所以我們在 Meadowlark 做的，就是說，如果我們利用這筆錢來建立一個，坦白說，一個由願意用新聞業來追究這個國家最有錢、因而最危險的人的聯盟呢？

And so it is incredibly gratifying to have David Rabnick, the editor of the New Yorker, and

是以，能讓《紐約客》的總編輯 David Rabnick，以及

our grumpy friend Ezra Edelman, who's the greatest documentarian of our time, basically come into your studio, Dan, in New York and have this conversation.

我們那位有點難搞的朋友 Ezra Edelman，他是我們這個時代最偉大的紀錄片導演，來到你丹，你在紐約的錄音室進行這場對話，真的非常令人欣慰。

I mean, Remnick, who studies not just Russia, but

我是說，Remnick 不只研究俄羅斯，

also the Washington Post, as a former employee, he funny enough was like, you know, a branch on the Tony Kornheiser coaching tree, that dead sports section.

也研究《華盛頓郵報》，他以前是那裡的員工，很有趣的是，他就像是 Tony Kornheiser 的教練樹上的枝幹，那個已經消失的體育版。

What he points out is that you don't need to be some incredible media incisive analyst to point out that this is Jeff Bezos, like the Melania documentary, which Remnick watched, which is hilarious.

他指出，你不必是什麼了不起的媒體分析師，才能發現這是 Jeff Bezos，就像 Remnick 看過的、非常搞笑的 Melania 紀錄片一樣。

They sold novelty buckets like it's Dune.

他們賣著新奇的桶子，就像在演《沙丘》一樣。

You know, they sell novelty popcorn buckets for the Melania movie.

說真的，他們賣新奇的爆米花桶給梅蘭妮亞的電影。

梅蘭妮亞的電影根本不是電影。

The Melania movie is basically like crypto.

梅蘭妮亞的電影基本上就像加密貨幣。

Is it is a way to transact and to funnel money from one private enterprise to our government.

這是一種交易方式，也是將資金從私人企業導向我們政府的管道。

And the reason that's meaningful and why Ezra was also in the room is because, of course, that is corruption wearing the disguise of media.

之所以有意義，以及 Ezra 也參與的原因是，當然，那就是披著媒體外衣的腐敗。

That is corruption wearing the disguise of a documentary.

Corruption wearing the costume of a newspaper.

I don't think people can tell the difference.

I don't think enough people can tell the difference.

我覺得沒有夠多的人能分出來。

I think that's what's happening with the ability to take a hatchet to all of it with just the two words, fake news.

我覺得這就是為什麼只要講出「假新聞」這兩個字，就可以輕易地摧毀這一切。

that's why you need people who will say it explicitly without also hopefully forgetting that this needs to be also entertaining and fun.

這就是為什麼你需要有人能明確地說出來，同時又希望不要忘記，這件事也需要有趣和好玩。

Like, that's why, you know, everything I do with this and that you have funded is the premise of this is important, but

就像，這就是為什麼，你知道的，我做的所有事情，以及你們贊助的，其前提是這很重要，但

And what's more fun to me, at least as a journalist, than like exposing, as if you are a detective in a movie, perhaps, about the Washington Post, all the President's Men in which you are aiming up, you're not aiming left or right, you're aiming up.

對我來說，至少身為記者，還有什麼比像電影裡的偵探一樣，揭露《華盛頓郵報》的《驚爆焦點》裡，你瞄準的是高層，不是左邊或右邊，而是高層，來得更有趣呢？

And the detective dynamics of journalism and the willingness to say, this is what we found.

還有新聞業的偵探動態，以及願意說出「這就是我們發現的」。

And hoping, maybe it's the last hope we have, that this will hold something to account.

而且希望，也許這是我們最後的希望，能讓某些人為此負責。

And if you don't say it, if you don't defend the terms, right.

如果你不說出來，如果你不捍衛這些詞語，對吧。

It means you're independent from the subject.

這代表你跟報導的主題是獨立的。

You're using journalistic depictions to tell a story.

你們是運用新聞報導的手法來訴說一個故事。

這就是為什麼會有《O.J.辛普森：美國製造》這部紀錄片。

Because that thing OJ Made in America is a North Star for everything.

因為《O.J.辛普森：美國製造》這部片是我們一切的北極星。

It's incredibly dense and historical and serious.

它內容非常豐富、歷史悠久且嚴肅。

And so with this, how can you define the terms of what journalism is so it can't be worn as a costume?

那麼，要如何定義新聞業的標準，才不會被當成是裝扮呢？

It may be insufferable to non journalists, but

這對非新聞工作者來說可能很難受，

I promise you, it's really important because otherwise you're just going to be at a costume party full of people who are trying to rob you.

但我保證，這真的很重要，否則你們就只會參加一場假扮派對，裡面都是想搶劫你們的人。

And that's otherwise what's happening in America right now.

這就是美國現在正在發生的事。