This Disgusting Take on Spiking of ’60 Minutes’ Story Shows Dems Have Truly Gone Off the Rails
The piece critiques reactions to Bari Weiss pausing a 60 Minutes segment about illegal immigrants and El Salvador’s CECOT prison, arguing her request for more reporting and administration comment was editorially sound, and condemns an extreme comparison made by a left-leaning commentator that likened her actions to those of editors during the Nazi era.
There has been a lot of noise about Bari Weiss asking 60 Minutes to hold a story until it was more complete, and the noise has mostly come from people who don’t appreciate basic journalism standards. Weiss did not say she would bury the story; she asked reporters to secure up-to-date responses from relevant officials and to include them, which any editor worth the name should want.
The piece points out that the program had three different potential sources for comment — the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the White House — but apparently chose not to include any of those responses in the aired report. That omission matters because fairness and completeness are not optional in newsrooms; they are the minimum of responsible reporting.
Instead of acknowledging those editorial concerns, some on the left went medieval with the rhetoric. One particularly vile reaction came from Julie Roginsky, a former Democratic strategist turned commentator, who publicly compared Weiss’s editorial decision to the moral catastrophe of Dachau. That comparison is grotesque and wildly inappropriate when used to attack an editor asking for a fuller accounting of facts.
Roginsky expanded on that argument in a public post that included a dramatic image and an extended comparison meant to cast Weiss as morally equivalent to those who enabled mass atrocities. The visible portion of that piece equated an editor who requests more reporting with the kind of person who would silence testimony from a concentration camp survivor — a claim that is not only inaccurate but deeply offensive.
If escaped inmates from Dachau had staggered into a newsroom in 1930s Berlin — starved, beaten, carrying testimony of a system designed to disappear human beings — the most dangerous person in that room would not have been the regime’s censor. It would have been the editor who smiled sympathetically, took notes, promised “serious consideration,” and then quietly killed the story under the pretense that it didn’t present both sides of the concentration camp debate.
That editor, in today’s American media landscape, has a name: Bari Weiss.
Let’s be clear: asking reporters to do their job and to make their pieces stronger is not censorship, and equating that with the systematic murder carried out by the Nazis is a callous distortion. This comparison minimizes real historical suffering while weaponizing it against routine editorial oversight, which is shameful in its own right.
The comparison takes on another ugly layer because Weiss is Jewish, so using Nazi imagery against her is not just hyperbolic — it’s cruel. Using Holocaust metaphors to score political points shows a rhetorical poverty: when an argument rests on Nazi comparisons, it usually means the arguer has no persuasive facts to rely on.
Roginsky also mocked Weiss for pointing out the ease of reaching Trump administration officials for comment, suggesting the journalists at 60 Minutes couldn’t find phone numbers. That sneer misses the point entirely: Weiss’s issue was that the report lacked current responses from administration officials, not that reporters can’t find phone numbers in a directory.
Practically speaking, editors ask for comment when a story touches on current policy or allegations tied to government action, and that is exactly what this story did. Weiss asked for a present-day comment to be included so viewers would hear what the administration had to say — a straightforward demand for balance and accuracy, not an ideological stunt.
The reaction from the left — rage, grotesque analogies, public mockery — instead reveals one clear thing: too many media commentators prefer scorched-earth tactics over sober debate. Rather than engage the editorial point, they weaponize outrage and drag history into the mud to score cheap rhetorical points.
Those who care about journalism should reject that tactic, because it degrades public discourse and chills ordinary editorial judgment. If editors are not allowed to press for fuller reporting without being accused of moral villainy, then the standards that keep newsrooms honest start to collapse.
There’s a responsibility here for everyone in media to keep standards high and language in check, especially when history’s worst crimes are invoked. Reasoned critique and insistence on accuracy are how journalism survives; stunts that equate routine editorial judgment with atrocity do nothing to help the public or the profession.
Add comment