What a shame — literally — about '60 Minutes'

Just a few years ago — though it seems light years away now — I wrote a column at the Washington Post about the 50th anniversary of CBS’s legendary program, “60 Minutes.”

in 2018, there was every reason to celebrate the long-running show’s quality by remembering many moments of outstanding journalism. Mike Wallace holding Nixon administration officials’ feet to the fire during the Watergate scandal of the 1970s. Scott Pelley challenging former CIA Director George Tenet in 2007 about the agency’s “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which might be more simply termed torture. Ed Bradley’s 2004 reexamination of the murder of Emmett Till.

 

 

But now, the show — and CBS, once known as the “Tiffany Network” and the home of Walter Cronkite — is in the news for another reason.

And what’s happened tells us a great deal about the state of the nation and its weakened news media.

For months, the internal drama at CBS News has been been a running story. Donald Trump sued the network for defamation — a whopping $20 billion worth — over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris during last year’s presidential campaign. He claims that it was deceitfully edited to benefit her and harm him. (There’s no reason to think that’s true; the editing, by all accounts, was standard stuff.)

But rather than standing firm on its principles and defending its practices, CBS’s parent company, Paramount, has been busy negotiating with Trump’s people. It sounds like they’re getting close to settling the case for tens of millions of dollars — something they absolutely should not be doing.

Why are they doing it? That part is easy. The boss at Paramount, Shari Redstone, wants to clear a path for her big media merger. Apparently she’s willing to sacrifice the network’s journalistic integrity and credibility to do so.

A couple of weeks ago, the well respected Bill Owens stepped down as executive producer at “60 Minutes,” saying he felt his editorial independence had been breached.

This week, another shoe dropped. This one is even more consequential.

Wendy McMahon, president and chief executive of CBS News, abruptly resigned, after essentially being forced out. “It’s become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward,” she said in a memo to staff. Here’s a gift link to the New York Times coverage.

The turmoil “has turned CBS News into collateral in a merger fight,” wrote Oliver Darcy in his Status media newsletter. Darcy reported that McMahon particularly objected to issuing an apology to Trump as part of the settlement. That was “a red line that she would not cross.”

She’s right. There’s no reason to apologize. And there’s every reason to think that doing so would add to the mess that’s unfolding every day, as major institutions fail to stand their ground. This is one of the biggest disappointments of the current moment, and one of the most dangerous signs about our future.

Some law firms are, in essence, paying protection money to Trump. Universities, like Columbia where I work, are yielding to some of the administration’s demands. Many businesses are backing down from their diversity efforts.

I admire people like Owens and McMahon for fighting hard internally to preserve editorial integrity — and then, when they realized that the battle had been lost, leaving the network rather than compromise their beliefs.

There really are some lines in the sand. And McMahon was right to recognize that an apology to Trump, as part of a huge settlement, was one of them.

Where does that leave the many outstanding journalists at “60 Minutes” and, more broadly, at CBS News?

They’re in a tough spot — the same kind of spot that has caused so many prominent journalists at the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times to resign rather than stay someplace where they can’t do their best work or fulfill their missions. Some of those at “60 Minutes” (Scott Pelley is one) may not return for next season — if there is one.

What baffles and infuriates me is how the leadership figures of these major institutions refuse to recognize the harm they are doing, including to the places they are supposed to be stewarding — and to their own reputations. After all, Trump and his minions will never be satisfied with any settlement or negotiation.

Appeasement never works.

The goalposts will always be moved, and then moved again. In fact, Trump is again attacking ABC News (which settled another unnecessary claim from him a few months ago). This time it’s over ABC’s coverage of his appalling, unethical decision to accept the “gift” of a jet from Qatar.

The original title of this newsletter — back when it began as a podcast in 2023 — was going to be, “Can Journalism Save Democracy?” I decided to make the title more punchy, and I came up with American Crisis.

Just as well.

We do need good journalism to support democracy. In fact, it’s an absolute necessity. But the way things are going, at far too many news organizations, the original question is quickly answering itself. Hence, the growing crisis.

Readers, I appreciated your thoughtful responses to my recent question about former President Biden. Any such retrospective now is complicated by the awful revelation that he has cancer. How are you reacting to this latest news? Are you as disgusted as I am about those on the right who find it an opportunity to trash the former president and his family?

Finally, thank you for your support and interest. The paywall remains down here. I removed it last fall, so that all can read and comment at will. That seemed important to me then, and seems even more so now. If you decide to become a paid subscriber, that’s much appreciated; but any way you choose to stay involved is completely fine.

 

 

Here’s my pledge: To whatever extent I can encourage the good journalism that is necessary to democracy — and point out where the media is failing — I will do that. And I hope you’ll be here with me.

Leave a comment