The Washington Post’s TV Week (your weekly TV listings) promoted the liberal CBS 60 Minutes team on its cover on Sunday with a team photo and the headline "Like Clockwork: Time-Honored 60 Minutes Enjoys Ratings Boost." Freelancer Marc D. Allan finds Indiana University professor Julia Fox to explain that the show’s improved ratings:
"Everyone jokes about how old the personalities are on 60 Minutes," she said, "but the fact is, they've been in the business for many, many years, and they're very credible."
There’s no mention in the article that the credibility of 60 Minutes took an enormous hit from Dan Rather and Mary Mapes using phony documents to try and torpedo George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004. There’s only room for congratulations:
Longtime correspondent Lesley Stahl accepts the compliment about credibility and suggests a couple of other reasons for the resurgent ratings: the public's appetite for news and explanatory journalism, and the timeliness of the show's stories this season, including the first major interview with President-elect Barack Obama.
The ratings are up again, but Allan also avoids the idea that while 60 Minutes drops bombs on Republicans from Bush to Tom DeLay, their interviews with liberal Democrats like Obama and Barney Frank have been gooey tributes, which certainly suggests a strong bias of the Rather-Mapes flavor lives on. One reason why the article goes so easy on CBS comes midway through the article:
CBS News President Sean McManus said more viewers are tuning in because "60 Minutes" is doing "important stories."
"It's not doing pregnant men and it's not doing prostitutes," he said. "It's doing really good reporting. The broadcast is as strong in terms of quality and ratings as it's been in a decade or so." (The Washington Post and "60 Minutes" have collaborated on several stories, the most recent being an investigation of Internet gambling fraud.)
So The Washington Post wants its readers to know that 60 Minutes is on a roll of serious journalism, thanks in part to....The Washington Post.
The Post isn’t afraid to use its own TV guide for a little collegial journalistic back-scratching.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Geez!
January 4, 2009 - 09:56 ET by heldmywThere isn't even the pretense of independence, journalistic integrity or ethics in either WaPo or 60M.
Like dogs, they just sniff butt, wag and pant at each other.
Then go poop wherever they please.
Duplicate
January 4, 2009 - 09:57 ET by heldmywduplicate post...
The Barney Frank segment
January 4, 2009 - 09:56 ET by rimskyThe Barney Frank segment that 60 Minutes aired recently was disgusting. They spent more time lauding his gayness than on his involvement in the financial scandal surrounding Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.
Rimsky, you are so right.
January 4, 2009 - 19:55 ET by nadadhimmiRimsky, you are so right. The only question is which is more desireable to the MSM, Gayness or Blackness. A straight white male is to them the lowest form of creation, present company excepted of course, and who better to demonstrate hatred than a token like Charlie, or Brian Williams. The Race and sexist and religious hatred from those folks is stunning.
60 minutes isn't credible...
January 4, 2009 - 10:03 ET by thgrantI no longer watch 60 minutes. They lie.
The good thing about not watching 60 minutes is that I am no longer bothered by the NFL broadcasts that preceed the show.
"Journalism"
January 4, 2009 - 10:22 ET by iveseenitall"Jounalism" is dead in America. The "free press" died long ago. The Constituion of the United States implies a responsibility which the media has ignored. Lies don't cut it. Truth does. Bias doesn't cut it. Truth does. Want backyard gossip? Want left-wing propaganda? Tune into 60 Minutes or read your local rag. Want the truth? Good luck. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Trees in the forest
January 4, 2009 - 10:28 ET by KC MulvilleLook at any one segment, and you see little wrong. It's in the comparison of stories where the distortion shows itself. Softball interviews of Democrats, adversarial interviews of Republicans. Whose interview shows up at crucial times?
The problem with 60 Minutes is the problem with all documentaries. Documentaries always find their drama in a conflict between one or more parties. If they only produced the cold presentation of facts and the alternating theories of the case, no one would watch. The ratings come from the conflict between hero and villain, which means that an editor (and perhaps the on-air talent) has to make a decision about who's hero or villain.
Each segment of 60 Minutes is a twelve minute documentary. Some editor is telling you a story, and it is a story. They generate drama through the conflict between a hero and villain. That's why the lone whistleblower has the advantage over the heinous corporation, because a single person can focus a story better than a large organization. The little guy is easier to fit into the frame of the TV camera than the hierarchical corporation.
That's why I say, caveat emptor. Let the viewer beware.
Well, KC, that's why they
January 4, 2009 - 10:52 ET by motherbeltWell, KC, that's why they call it "explanatory journalism."
And they decide what to "explain" and what to leave out.
Can you imagine them doing a "profile" of Trent Lott without mentioning his Strom Thurmond remark?
Or Tom Delay without mentioning his indictment?
Yet Barney Frank skates without a word about either his public (Fannie Mae) or private (boyfriend) missteps.
As for your comment about Andy Rooney, I misread your "worthess" as "witless." LOL Freudian, huh?
You provoked some thoughts ... sorry ...
January 4, 2009 - 13:10 ET by KC MulvilleAgreed - and I think your word for Rooney is better.
Let me pause here a second to remember, and be grateful for, why we have an adversarial justice system. That means, in our country, our justice system is based on the competition between parties, whether it's prosecution v. defense, or plaintiff v. defendant. The key ingredient is that each side gets to tell its story in its own way, using its own words, framing it in their own way. We may complain about shark lawyers twisting facts for their own side, but at least each side gets to cross-examine the other guy's spin. Not every country does it that way. In many foreign countries, the trial is little more than the judge asking the police what happened, and the parties involved have little real say in the presentation of the case.
Of course, that's true for every journalistic piece, whether it's on TV or not. Every news article is a reporter's/editor's personal perspective on any given event. Journalism is a one-sided summation of a two-sided confict, and the reader must keep that in mind when they consume news. Beyond the natural bias of that, remember that the news media brings its own needs to every story. Every report is whittled to fit within the media framework (12 minutes or 750 words, etc.), so that crucial perspectives are sacrificed for brevity.
We have a lot of conflicts in society (political, social, economic, etc.). Until now, the model of journalism has been the one-eye summation of a complex conflict. I'd love to see journalism attempt a long-form presentation of all sides. Hannity and Colmes is just a shout-fest because TV allows so little time for each topic. The best way to inform the public is to allow all sides adequate time to present their case and rebut the opposition.
But that takes time to deliberate. And the news media hates time, and it scorns deliberation. TV hates dead air. So, TV emphasizes dead brains instead.
Virtually every week for the
January 4, 2009 - 11:34 ET by TEVirtually every week for the last seven years, 60 Minutes has featured a fawning and unchallenging piece on the latest Bush hating book written by the latest leftist loon of the week. I don't expect we will see 60 Minutes do dozens and dozens of stories on books critical of their candidate (i.e., the thoroughly unqualified, terrorist fraternizing, community organizer). I don't expect we will see a single story on 60 Minutes over the next four years on any book critical of their candidate.
Bernie Goldberg Book....
January 4, 2009 - 12:11 ET by BDIt does make you wonder if anyone will notice that the only books 60 Minutes will begin to cover are the fawning "pro-president Obama" tomes that will begin arriving on shelves.
Anybody wanna bet that 60 minutes does not do a story on Bernie Goldbergs book reference the love affair of the press with the Obama campaign?
An honest journo organization would cover that responsibly, but it would cut too close to home for the CBS news staff and thus will be ignored.
But I could be wrong. I will lay odds at 60 to 1 that 60 minutes does NOT cover Bernie Goldbergs book. Any takers?
CBS uses 60 Minutes to plug books from corporate relative
January 4, 2009 - 19:43 ET by nkviking75A great many of those books hitting Bush were published by Simon and Schuster, which is a division of CBS Corporation.
Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!
Two explanations for the
January 4, 2009 - 12:08 ET by fitzfongTwo explanations for the "ratings spike" on 60 minutes: 1) Election year, 2) NFL lead-in. Watch the ratings tumble back down to earth in 2009. Like the Katie Couric news, 60 Minutes is a "prestige" property that hemorrhages red ink...putting more pressure on the prime time schedule to recoup the losses.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Part of the mix
January 4, 2009 - 13:01 ET by StarAZI include 60 Minutes in my mix of information. One of many sources. I would not have learned about Credit Default Swaps without them--even though I subscribe to the WSJ. One of my three driveway papers expired as of today and one other announced format cutbacks with the usual sunny BS--think of the time you'll save not walking to the trash or some equivalent. I have been duking it out on several sites about newspapers, which are--to me--almost a utility, a necessity of life. But I guess they are getting kissed off now. So sad, too bad. What news will you have to "bust"? Andy Rooney is a bore, I agree on that. And Lesley needs some new earrings! She is repeating!
The Newspaper
January 4, 2009 - 21:01 ET by pbthinkerI recently cancelled my subscription to the Palm Beach Post. The paper, as a source of news, is worthless. They are nothing more than a media arm of the Democratic Party and liberals in general. While the Sun-Sentinel is no right wing, Conservative newspaper, they did report the Rob Wexler story with more accuracy than the Post. The Post was all cover-up all the time, with Wexler, while the S/S actually took the time to find out that Wexler was the only Congressman who didn't maintain a home in his district.
When the press gets to the point where they're not reporting the facts of the news, there is little use in supporting them. To me, the press in this country has moved away from it's responsibility to the public, and become an advocate on issues, most of which it really knows little about because they won't take the time to do their homework.
I'll happily lighten the load on the recycling centers.
Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.
What still surprises me is
January 4, 2009 - 13:29 ET by RR GOPWhat still surprises me is that the MSM ever did pick up on the Rather forgery scandal...guess they weren't so far gone back then.
Well, I'm sure they'll never make that mistake again!
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
CBS News President Sean
January 4, 2009 - 20:01 ET by Jack BauerYet, I heard on Fox this morning that CBS hasn't got ONE solitary reporter covering the Gaza conflict.
They are using the Brit's SKY NEWS feed.
Sky News has a budget that is miniscule compared to any US network.
Amazing huh? Guess it's just not important for CBS.
There is no way 60 minutes can be credible anymore.
January 4, 2009 - 20:47 ET by pbthinkerOnce you prove you are willing to sacrifice your jounalistic integrity for political reasons, you lose your credibility along with it. Had 60 minutes chosen to purge those involved in the Bush story and do an expose on it themselves, perhaps they could have saved something. Instead, they circled the wagons and let Rather stay on for an extended period of time. Let's face it, during the election period, 60 minutes did nothing to vet Obama or to expose his political associations with people of questionable character in and around Chicago. In fact, the Washington Post, though not perfect, did more in this regard than 60 minutes ever did. Given the puff-ball interviews all the networks did with Obama, they all need to prove they're credible, IMHO. Let's face it, Washington Post, just because you say it, doesn't mean it's so.
Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.