Sometimes, you look at a set of letters — like, say, just to pick one completely at random, CBS — and wonder if the last two letters, "BS," carry some special connotation. Granted, for quite a few years now, the legacy media has been carrying water for the Democratic Party, and in so doing, they have dispensed record amounts of the malodorous assimilated residue of the digestive processes of the male bovine. Granted the First Amendment gives the media a lot of leeway, and as something of a First Amendment absolutist myself, I'd much rather see the media given more leeway than less.

But the CBS (there are those letters again, purely by coincidence) show "60 Minutes," engaging in some rather creative editing of Kamala "Queen of Word Salads" Harris' recent interview with Bill Whitaker, may have actually crossed a legal line.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioner Nathan Simington said his priority is making sure the public was not misled after an accusation of "significant and intentional news distortion" in a formal complaint regarding the "60 Minutes" interview last week with Vice President Kamala Harris.

"This complaint might come before the commission for adjudication," Simington told Fox News Digital.

Might is the operative word. Of course, CBS is already taking heat from other quarters, and honestly, they would appear to have it coming and then some. This kind of shameless covering for a partisan political candidate is, in a supposed news outlet, unforgivable. And this isn't the only time they've done it.

Previously on RedState: CBS News Does It Again, Deceptively Edits Interview With Speaker Mike Johnson

Calls for CBS to Release the Kamala Interview Transcript Grow Deafening
As Their Reputation Burns

Releasing the entire, unredacted transcript, or better, the complete unedited video, would go a long way towards repairing CBS's shattered reputation here. A statement from a network executive right now would go a long way, perhaps stating, "Some overzealous editors working at '60 minutes' broke faith with you, our viewers, in deceptively editing the response of Vice President Harris to questions from Bill Whitaker, and have committed an unforgivable breach of trust. Rest assured that the people who carried out this editing have been terminated, and we will be releasing both print transcripts of the complete, unedited interview as well as the complete, unedited video. We cannot apologize enough to you, the viewers, for this event."

Sadly, there are enough people out there who approve of what CBS did here that the network will probably keep on heading down this same old, well-beaten road.

Here's the legal hot water CBS might — probably won't, but might — find themselves in.

Simington walked Fox News Digital through the process that could land CBS in hot water, although it’s unlikely the network will be punished.

"The commission acts on complaints about distortion, not complaints about editorial positions. And so, what this claim is alleging is that an act of distortion took place. And so, if you look at the FCC statute -- Section 326 of our statute says that the commission doesn't have the power of censorship over broadcast signals and the commission has generally summarized its own position as saying that we need documentary evidence of deliberate distortion that would be sufficiently strong to require an inquiry," Simington said.

"And in fact, in a prior proceeding on this matter, we gave the example of substituting a yes answer to one question or a no answer to an entirely different question," he continued. "So, the Commission has certainly contemplated the possibility of distortionary reporting taking place via splicing. That's one reason I don't think that this complaint is facially ridiculous, and it would not be inappropriate for the commission to take it up." 

There are a lot of weasel words in there, but the thumbnail seems to be, "Yes, CBS screwed up, but probably nothing will be done about it by FCC."

But the FCC doesn't have to do anything for CBS to feel the heat from this debacle. Granted, if you're here reading these words, you've probably already given up on the legacy media as a bad job. But with every screw-up, every overtly partisan "interview," every attempted "gotcha" question, these activist media people damage their reputations more and more. The First Amendment, yes, gives the media a lot of leeway. That's as it should be. The idea of government interference with the media, barring incitement or some other criminal activity, is horrifying. But the First Amendment doesn't guarantee an audience for a network that breaks faith with its readers/viewers.

It's no surprise that Americans' faith in the legacy media is at all-time lows.