For decades, 60 Minutes was the crown jewel of investigative journalism—an institution that shaped public trust and defined Sunday night television. But the show that many Americans once revered is now a shadow of its former self.
Behind the crumbling façade lies a string of scandals, ideological bias, and recent events that signal the end of any claim to journalistic integrity. With the resignation of longtime executive producer Bill Owens and a looming legal showdown with Donald Trump, 60 Minutes finds itself exactly where it’s been heading for years: rock bottom.
The Fall of a Media Giant
What happened to 60 Minutes didn’t happen overnight. The erosion of its credibility has been a slow, painful process. The once-respected news program long ago abandoned its commitment to unbiased reporting, trading journalistic skepticism for partisan narratives.
One of the most glaring examples came during a 2020 interview between Donald Trump and correspondent Lesley Stahl. In what was supposed to be a serious pre-election discussion, Stahl dismissed Trump’s mention of the Hunter Biden laptop story—claiming there was no way to verify its authenticity and calling it “unverified” and “disinformation.” Today, we know she was dead wrong. Not only has the laptop been verified by multiple outlets, but even mainstream sources now admit its contents were legitimate. Stahl, however, has yet to issue a retraction or apology. That’s not journalism; that’s gaslighting.
And that pattern of deception hasn’t just hurt their audience—it’s now hurting them legally. Donald Trump has filed a $475 million defamation lawsuit against CBS and Lesley Stahl, arguing that their reporting constituted deliberate misinformation with political intent. At the heart of the case: the network’s failure to correct the falsehoods Stahl spread on national television. Trump’s legal team claims this goes beyond error—it’s weaponized disinformation under the guise of journalism.
A “News” Show That Protects Kamala Harris?
The situation only worsened during the 2024 campaign. When 60 Minutes aired what was billed as a hard-hitting interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, critics quickly noticed something strange: two versions of the same exchange. In one, Harris appeared poised, offering a succinct response. In the other, uncut footage revealed a meandering, disjointed answer—the kind of embarrassing verbal gymnastics that have become Harris’s trademark.
So why the two cuts? Editing interviews isn’t unusual, but 60 Minutes went beyond polishing; they flat-out sanitized Harris’s performance. That’s not editing for time. That’s editing for narrative. It was a blatant act of political damage control masquerading as journalism.
Internal Turmoil and a Public Exit
Bill Owens, the show’s executive producer since 2019, recently announced his resignation. His departure wasn’t framed as a hostile firing, but reading between the lines, it’s clear Owens was being pushed out—or boxed in.
In his memo to staff, Owens wrote:
“Over the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience.”
That’s as close to a whistleblow as one gets in mainstream media. Owens essentially admitted that editorial independence—once a hallmark of 60 Minutes—had been replaced with corporate micromanagement and ideological filtering. He continued:
“Having defended this show—and what we stand for—from every angle, over time with everything I could, I am stepping aside so the show can move forward.”
Translation: they broke it, and I’m not going down with the ship.
Getting Beat Down—Literally
To understand just how far 60 Minutes has fallen, one only needs to recall a bizarre and humiliating moment that perfectly encapsulates the modern state of Western media abroad. In 2011, 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan was brutally assaulted by a mob while covering protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. The horrifying attack highlighted not only the dangers of foreign reporting but also the disconnect between legacy media’s narratives and ground reality. Logan later said the media refused to talk about what really happened—who attacked her and why—because it would have contradicted the prevailing political storyline.
It was another warning sign: 60 Minutes, like much of corporate journalism, had become more concerned with narrative control than truth-telling. Even the safety of their own journalists became secondary to optics.
The Death Rattle of Corporate Journalism
The irony is staggering. A show once known for its fearless exposés now finds itself accused of being a tool for political manipulation. Viewership is declining, credibility is shot, and the lawsuits are piling up. What was once must-watch TV is now just another example of legacy media self-destructing under the weight of its own hypocrisy.
With Bill Owens out, lawsuits mounting, and public trust in free fall, 60 Minutes is rapidly becoming a cautionary tale of what happens when journalism becomes activism.
The ticking stopwatch is still there. But instead of signaling truth, it now ticks toward irrelevance.
