Talk:60 Minutes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Untitled

The line "The show usually ends with curmudgeon Andy Rooney expounding on such varied topics as why they don't make paper clips the way they used to, although lately his commentaries have devolved into a Chicken Little routine on how the "sky is falling" in the war to liberate Iraq." is clearly not a neutral point of view and should not be part of the article. Is there a more appropriate way of handling Andy Rooney's political views in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.54.246 (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2004 (UTC)

I agree, when I read that I definitely thought that it had to be taken out because it wasn't NPOV.Mastgrr — Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 19 June 2004‎

Complete make-over required?

Overall I think this entire page needs re-doing. Examples of text unsuitable for a dictionary:

"The American 60 Minutes has always stood out from the rest with its unique style, awards, and ability to generate news and controversy."

Questionable neutrality.

Fixed. - Mark 01:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"The program (together with its contributors) has won untold Emmys and other prestigious awards over the 35 years it has aired."

Fuzzy. Why not present the actual number of awards given to a specific date?

Done. They have won 75 up until now. - Mark 01:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"One common theme to the stories involves some cheating corporate executive or other high-placed alleged wrongdoer who is asked to comment on a story adverse to him or her. Invariably, the alleged wrongdoer does not want to comment and is shown running away from the pursuing 60 Minutes reporter and camera crew."

Very fuzzy. An example of what occationally happens (I havn't seen it so far) is portrayed as happening on regular basis.

Further more the entire entry speaks in postivive terms of the show. No criticism of any kind is offered. Another reason to question neutrality.

The article feels like it was written by someone who strongly dislikes 60 Minutes. It emphasizes negative aspects of the show, while only briefly going over anything positive, in my view. It needs to be leveled and rebuilt in several key areas, I think. 60 Minutes is generally the most important and prestigious investigative journalism program on TV and deserves better than this. --Pathogen 03:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Altered some stuff, and am looking at this right now:
"Video games

The March 6, 2005 segment was criticized by video game players for encouraging video game censorship."

This needs to get less vague and/or be shown to be especially relevant, or be deleted. Almost every accusatory segment in the history of the show has been criticized by one group or another. I suspect that a lot of our wiki writers are video game players, which in turn led to this addition to the article. --Pathogen 04:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I can see your criticism of that section, but I'm not sure your concerns apply to the "Controversy" section. If they do, please justify. Before the "Controversy" section was added (which was named something else at the time), the article was accused of essentially being a fluff piece. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:49, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather see the "controversies" section contextualized and taken out of the bolded list format. At present, those sections visually claim priority over the rest of the text, and a list of enemies for 60 Minutes reads like the phone book. From the National Council of Churches (USA) to the National Rifle Association to most world governments, virtually everyone has protested something or other. At the same time, the few cases of actual spoofing or spiking a story or staging a result stand out as exceptions. The Masden source said that, in 1984 (copyright date), over 70% of all the mail sent to CBS was about 60 Minutes content, so it's worth pointing out that every story will have its protestors and supporters, and these few examples stand out as major journalistic gaffes. In that light, the "Viacom cross-promotion" should be removed from the bolded list and folded into discursive text, because it's a general rather than specific complaint, and it's a complaint about perceived coverage, rather than an act on the part of the show's producers. It's also worth mentioning, somewhere, that the show has full time researchers (18 of them in 1984). In the same section, it would be worthwhile to mention the "60 Minutes Effect," which is like the slashdot effect, only much moreso. (In fact, there is a standing policy in the Pentagon to not cooperate with any 60 Minutes story. This is from before the "Friendly Fire" story.) Geogre 03:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Killian Memo Fiasco

I've put in a bit about the Killian memo fiasco, but we need to go back through the decades-long history of the show and find more examples of extraordinarily poor "journalism" and give this entry a bit more -- heh -- balance. Sdaconsulting 15:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think I've found a few. I was extremely surprised that these were not in there. They need to be elaborated on. I can provide lots of detail about the Audi 5000 incident (I know people who were in some manner involved) but would appreciate assistance on the other two I added, as well as other incidents that may have occurred. Either last week or this week, 60 Minutes had to issue a retraction about a cocaine smuggling incident. Should we add that? -Joseph 22:34, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
How about that? Is that better? -Joseph (Talk) 18:23, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

I think at some point events pass from controversy into fact. I had extensive discussions with others on this, some software engineers with long experience with fonts. An extremely left wing, but fair member was the first to admit that these documents were without a doubt forgeries. Due to the 1st amendment, this is not an actionable legal matter, so this will never find its way to the courts, it will always be a matter of the court of public opinion. I don't see how terminology such as 'alleged', or using such guarded language or leaving out well known fact such as the superscripted "th" serves the public interest. This seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to make it seem as if there is much more doubt than there actually is on this matter. Look at the little green footballs site and see if you don't agree - http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged.--Omnicog 18:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly Unfairly Associated with "60 Minutes" Proper

I think it's also worth mentioning for accuracy's sake that the story about the memos was aired as part of "60 Minutes Wednesday" previously known as "60 Minutes II" which is supposedly almost entirely autonomous from the normal Sunday night "60 Minutes" program. This particular incident should not necessarily be tied to "60 Minutes" and its history - simply because the two shows are on the same network, and have similar names.


I'm an outsider here. I just visited the entry and it seems remarkably unflattering, especially when one considers that the program is the gold standard for TV investigative journalism. All the "incidents" portrayed should not be seen as indicative of the ultimate importance of the program to both American journalism and culture.

It should be completely revamped.

Sounds like an attempt to sugarcoat the history of the program. You can't hide such incidents. Just because the program is the supposed "gold standard" (a POV statement if I ever saw one) does not mean it isn't subject to criticism. The irony is that before that section was added (which has been the only major structural change), the article was thought to be coddling of 60 Minutes. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:30, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

The thing isn't well written, either. It reads like a smug blog entry. You get what you pay for, right?

Is the anonymous gentleman (or lady) going to substantiate their comments or continue flinging poo like a monkey in a zoo? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:50, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

There are glaring glosses that would never be allowed into a serious journalistic piece about anything, much less a program like "60 Minutes." Take, for example, the notion that the program seems to turn around stories that have already appeared in large mainline print journals and the televised images of corporate bigwigs running from the cameras. Or the unchallenged, unsupported contention that the program "attacks" conservative politicians.

Quantify this. How many stories were first published or aired in other media? When was the last time "60 Minutes" showed executives running from the camera? Who are these conservative politicians who have been attacked? Was there a compelling policy dispute that featured them? Have "liberal" politicians singled out the program for similar biases?

Also, "60 Minutes II" is not a program created or administered by the original producers of "60 Minutes." It's a different animal, albeit one with the same name. The correspondents aren't the same; the production team isn't the same. The only commonality seems to be that they are both housed in the same skyscraper and carry similar names.

Perhaps what's most unusual is that the program has won, apparently, 75 Emmy awards, and yet that's treated as somehow less relevant than three screw ups.

Actually, the Peabody Awards and Investigative Reporter & Editor medals are more prestigious. How many of those trophies did the program win? What years? For which exposes?

I just checked out the IRE website and quickly found two top prizes (in 1995 for a piece on organized crime and another on the fatal crashes of the Osprey helicopter). Both were singled out for being the first stories of their kind on a vital public policy issue, so it seems sometimes, maybe, the program airs original, critical and award-winning pieces no one else does, and that these stories don't involve executives running for cover.

But I'm just commenting. I'm not going to fix the thing.

Well, I'm not concerned with your assertations on the story as a whole as they do not seem to principally be about what is chiefly my section ("Notable incidents.") And it doesn't matter what stories showed up in other media as it was 60 Minutes who was the primary news outlet that popularized the stories in question. And I still resent the idea that we should ignore the problems with the show in favor of its supposed credentials. Anyhow, I find it interesting that you are posting these anonymous comments from a system belonging to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Circling the wagons? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:09, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Yes, I work for a newspaper owned by the Tribune-Review publishing company, which, if you haven't noticed, has one of the most conservative opinion pages in the country and has savaged the 60 Minutes II program.

So, when someone like me points out how unfair this section is, perhaps one would take notice. I can't imagine that is "circling the wagons." I believe it is a professional sense of fair play for an august newsgathering organization.

Yes, the program has made mistakes. But through the years, I believe, the television news medium and American culture have been enriched by the magazine. I can't believe I'm alone in this assumption.

As for "anonymous," well, what is a "User N328KF/Joseph" nickname, if not anonymous?

Other observations

I've just done some tweaking of the sections involving 60 Minutes' Greatest Misses, and it occurs to me that, as others have noted, this article really needs some concrete examples of major journalistic successes that 60 Minutes has had. I mean, it's one thing to mention the 75 Emmy Awards at the top, and to say, "Many news organizations suffer from errors in reporting or judgement," before gleefully diving into recounting some of those errors; but one or two specific examples of the major stories that won them all of those awards would go a long way towards illustrating just why their occasional lapses have been so disappointing. I mean, face it: No one gets upset when the Weekly World News claims, erroneously (we hope), that JFK was an alien, or that Osama bin Laden is being hyponotically controlled by Satan using psychic mountain goats; if 60 Minutes didn't have an otherwise decent journalistic reputation, these incidents wouldn't have been particularly notable.

The second thing that struck me — for the fortieth time, now, at least — is that it really is high time that wiki had an article about Don Hewitt. It's downright silly seeing his name in red everywhere I look. --Ray Radlein 02:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


I'm reading to start rewriting the thing to better address the cultural and journalistic significance of the program. Anyone else agree?

Absolutely. This is one of those entries that's suffering from that phenomenon where the people who seem most interested in the entry are interested in its weaknesses. I think there's a place for that -- it is, after all, a controversial show that has made not insignificant missteps over the years -- but the show is also the most successful television newsmagazine (and, arguably, television show) ever and is awash in awards for its journalistic merit. The entry doesn't, at the moment, seem to translate that idea nearly as well as it could.Adbarnhart 22:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting to the same thing

I noticed that 60 Minutes II links to 60 Minutes again, it is not a significant fact, so I am just going to remove that link.

Family Guy reference

I believe the line that Lesley Stahl gives at the end of the 60 Minutes spoof is "...and one of you is hung like an elf," rather than "...and one of you smells." It's either "elf" or "elk," I forget which one, but I'm very close to sure it's "elf." I didn't edit it myself because a) I wanted to be 100% sure of the line and b) I wasn't sure how appropriate the line was for the subject matter of the article. Or maybe, it's a censored version of the show, I'm not sure.Andy 08:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

POV Problem

I agree with many of the posters here that the POV of this article is completely unacceptable. To read it you would think 60 minutes was a program that trows facts to the wind on a regular basis. If the controversy section is the remain (and there's no reason why it shouldn't)then a section on the positive noteworthy articles 60 minutes has done.

For the person who removed the POV marker, please read the above and the comments by Ray Radlein. Answer why this article has an entire section devoted to the shows failures and none to it's successes. Is that not bias? Please respond to that before removing the tag or theres just going to be a daily war of reversions.--65.2.69.93 03:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's simple. This article was slanted too far in a positive-POV direction, and so a Controversy section had to be added. If you think it's gone too far in the other direction, then add a section entitled 'Positive achievements' or something. I added what I know. You add what you know before complaining. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A POV banner is not complaining. While I am a viewer, I am not an expert on the show. The POV banner is a call for people whoare experts tofix an article. --65.2.69.93 00:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I added an awards section (which could be expanded if anyone feels up to it). I also deleted a couple unsourced sentences that were POV. There is yet more POV in the Bush National Guard section, but I'll leave it to someone else for the moment. IronDuke 06:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a good start, but the awards section needs to be expanded to cover as much detail per incident as the contreversy section. Otherwise we'll need to cut the latter down to the same type of quick blurbs.

I respectfully disagree. The criticism section doesn't contain a lot of detail -- it uses external links and other articles for that (possibly except for the section on the Killian forgeries.) Beef up the awards section, but don't cut down the criticism section. If we can't find enough awards data to balance things out, then that's fine...it's not our job to report as much positive as negative...it's just to be neutral. There are some subjects that simply have more positivity associated with them than negative, or vice-versa. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Awards section

I was just browsing the page and saw the NPOV tag for the first time. I definitely agree that if the article is to seem balanced, there needs to be descriptions of the "All in the Family," "The CIA's Cocaine," "Friendly Fire," and "The Osprey" pieces that won the show these awards, especially when there are 6 examples of "controversies," some with quite detailed descriptions. Even if balance were not a goal, I would at least want to know a little more about the shows 60 Minutes did win awards for, especially since I am probably too young to remember what any of them were. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.43.97.227 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 13 December 2005.

Journalistic balance is a bankrupt concept. It is nonsensical that for every good thing we must also include a bad thing, and vice versa. However, it does seem odd that we gloss over the awards and expand on the controversies. I've added some information on the awards; perhaps someone who knows more about 60 Minutes can reduce the paragraphs on the controversies down to just the bare essentials (one para per problem would be good). Also, I'm not really sure that the Viacom cross-promotion thing ought to be there: compared with altering cars to produce phony results, for example, it seems very small fry, just piling on for the sake of it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Clinton/Dole

As part of User:Michael Snow's excellent update/partial rewrite of the format section, he added this sentence: "The pair agreed to do ten segments, which were called "Clinton/Dole" and "Dole/Clinton" in alternating weeks, but did not continue into the fall season.". I just have one question, as a non-American: what the hell does that mean? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the question about fall (also known as autumn)? In American television parlance, the year effectively starts in September/October. This is invariably called "the fall season", and there really isn't any other term to substitute for it, with apologies to the Australians. If something else is the issue, I'm not sure what exactly you're not understanding. --Michael Snow 17:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I knew what "fall" meant (a silly America-only phrase for Autumn), no worries there. But I wasn't sure what "the fall season" meant. I had half a mind to change it away from "fall" (Americans should know what "Autumn" means, but not everyone knows "fall"), but given that I didn't know what you meant by it I felt a talkpage message would be better. Maybe if we had an article (or a section of an existing one?) on the phenomenon of the fall season, and linked it? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I did glance around to see if there was some existing article that covered this subject, and came up empty. Would specifying the "fall television season" at least help make the context slightly more apparent in the meantime? --Michael Snow 06:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, y'all, I think the concerns mentioned about 4 places on this talk page, above, can be solved with a reformat of the "Controversies" section. Since the book I used has a list of some of the serious accomplishments of the show (actual indictments, legislation, etc. as a result of the program), I might take it upon myself, later tonight (USA East), to do the rewrite. Objections? Oh, and for this particular section's concern, my feeling, in defense of Michael Snow's wording, is that "Fall Season" is a compound in US television. While "autumn season" would be semantically equivalent, it would not be lexically equivalent, since "fall season" is nearly a hyphenated compound now. (I.e. we only know it as "the fall season," so American readers would be surprised and linguistically disoriented by "autumn season.") That said, it would be easy enough to say, "the following season" or "the following year" and get rid of the seasonal adjective altogether. Geogre 14:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Except, of course, that it wasn't the following calendar year. But go ahead, rewrite away. --Michael Snow 16:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
True. I'm not going to mess with that -- just the "controversies" section -- but "following season?" Apparently, "fall season" is an America-only thing. I certainly didn't know that before. Geogre 18:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Corporate Bias

Is there any way of checking the IP addresses to make sure CBS wonks aren't using this as advertising - and trying to put down the memory hole their screw up with Memogate?--Omnicog 18:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Kennewick Man Controversy

Has this been authoratatively confirmed as a controversy? The references are to a quote by the Umatilla Chiefs and a fairly balanced article in Time. As the saying goes you can't please everyone, there are bound to be detractors. I think to qualify as a controversy there has to be broad based objection (> 50% of the viewership) or a confirmed mistake. This seems like someone is objecting to the omission of a point of view by one side of the argument. This may be biased, but it is not a full blown controversy.--Omnicog 18:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The controversy is large among anthropological circles, and is taught in antrho ethics/politics courses:
"On October 31, 1998, the CBS program 60 Minutes aired a 12 minute piece on the Kennewick Man. Those who saw the program were not happy with the errors and misconceptions propagated about the Kennewick Man burial. K. Kris Hirst, a project archaeologist at Louis Berger Associates, Inc., compiled the resources found at this site to provide a better understanding about the Kennewick Man and about the controversy that surrounds this issue. Hirst provides a list of columns, bibliographies, Web resources and other materials pertaining to the Kennewick Man." [1]. "Kennewick Man - Or how I learned to hate 60 Minutes" [2].
The story went beyond biased. It reported factually incorrect statements (which hadn't been reported prior, and was probably tacked on to spice up the story) about the Kennewick man case; specifically, it reported that trbies would lose (or were afraid to lose) their tribal rights if Kennewick man was found to be disassociated from Native Americans. The case was about interpetations of NAGPRA, which 60 minutes decided to avoid. Kennewick Man and NAGPRA has some information about what the controversy is actually about.
The Times article mentions some clarifications of Chatters' on the race issue. Chatters' was 60 minutes prime interviewee.
I've added another citation to the text [3], which explains, "Of course, as Stahl herself noted, 'The Indians say that's nonsense.' And the Indians are right: under the law, the claim that treaty rights and casinos depend on Native American's status as 'first peoples' is indeed nonsense." Stahl was the reporter and producer of the segment.

60 Minutes on Radio

In the San Francisco Bay Area, 60 Minutes is simulcast on the local CBS affiliated AM radio station KCBS. Is this true for any other CBS affiliated radio stations? If so, I think this should be mentioned in the article. --Cab88 11:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As of October 29, 2006, an updated logo for the first time since at least the mid-80s has been used.

GA

Just to note, the lead needs to summarize the topic of the article, not just mention an accolade or two. (Which seems very POV to put in the intro honestly when there's almost nothing else there). Homestarmy 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

See above entry, also, not enough refs, don't link solo years, check POV in entirety, lead needs expanded to summarize article. on hold for 7 days. Rlevse 19:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No action taken = GA failed.Rlevse 00:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Memogate

The infamous "Memogate" incident involving Dan Rather occurred on 60 Minutes II, not 60 Minutes. It's already mentioned in the article for "60 Minutes II" and so I deleted that section from this article. --Hnsampat 03:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RTFM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.206.65 (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Chuck Norris Fact

Chuck Norris once watched 60 minutes in 20 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.210.134 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Why is there no discussion of the George W. Bush Vietnam scandal before the 2004 election? That seems pretty important? I will begin to write it if no one gives a reason why its not here. Brett (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

List of guests

Is there anywhere where I can find a list of guests who have been on 60 Minutes?Ags412 (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Swedish(?) version "2 timmen"

Under International Versions --> Other Versions it says: "The Swedish version 2 Timmen (2 Hours) was deemed too long and was canceled."
"2 timmen" isn't gramatically correct in Swedish. It should be "2 timmar". (Timmen = the hour, timmar = hours) Judging from the title thought it's possible that the title wasn't Swedish at all but from another Scandinavian country. /Jiiimbooh (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about this on the Swedish, Danish, or Norweigan Wikipedias. I removed the info for now since the it appeared to be incorrect, but if anyone knows more about it feel free to add the correct info to the articla. /Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:60 Minutes cast.png

Copied from User talk:thedemonhog: –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:60 Minutes cast.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in early history section

The article states that This Hour Has Seven Days stopped running in 1966, but in fact the show still runs today in Canada. This is a point marginally related to the article but still an inaccuracy that should be corrected. DQweny (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Correspondents/Hosts

What are the stars (*) in the correspondents list for? It should be clarified in the article. 71.82.175.94 (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It means they're the stars of the show.Pagen HD (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

See Also: Dateline, 20/20.

I'd like to add to the See Also: section links to similar programs like Dateline, 20/20 and their ilk. Does anyone object?
LP-mn (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

We should create a new section called "Cultural Influence", which will have a sub-section called "Similar shows". Pagen HD (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Many improvements have just been made

I just made about twenty edits to the article. Greatly improved the article structure, fixed some misspells and broken links, and added the number of Emmys (78 in total). Please keep improving this article, thanks. Pagen HD (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete text?

If someone can explain the meaning of the following text, then maybe I or someone can improve the text (if the text is not correct).

"This ran until 1979, when Andy Rooney, whose commentaries were already alternating with the debate segment since the fall of 1978, remains with the program today." --S(l)ick nation (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Another 60 Minutes

Can anyone find anything on "Another 60 Minutes" I remember the show being on some time in the early 90's in Canada before 60 Minutes More and 60 Minutes II, its bugging me and I can't find anything about it. --Þadius (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

William Westmoreland and CBS

The William Westmoreland suit stemmed from a CBS Reports. It was in the 60 Minutes article. The stupid thing about it is- The edit even said it aired on CBS Reports.- William 01:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Viewer mail

At one time in the past, 60 Minutes ended with a "letter column" where a few pieces of viewer mail, or excerpts from them, would be shown onscreen (retyped) and read aloud. The article should mention this and tell when they started and stopped doing it. --70.48.231.199 (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive of past stories?

Is there an archive of past stories that is on the web? I am doing some research and have not been able to find a repository of a list of past topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.145.141 (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversy or Critism?

60 Minutes has been known to go over there time slot from minutes to hours so would that be under controversy or critism. my guess is critism for goin over the time slot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.17.152 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

How is that a criticism or controversy? The show promises Mike Wallace, if he's away sick for a few episodes is that deemed a criticism or controversy? Don't be a child and attempting to fatten the crit/con sections.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.115.43 (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The 1980 Jeep CJ Rollover Controversy

This should be added to the controversy section. They mention it in Insurance_Institute_for_Highway_Safety#Criticism too. VX1NG (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"60 Minutes" in Chile

The news program "60 Minutes" in Chile, has no connection with this program, I find it's just a reach of name. A summary of what was "60 Minutes" in Chile: It was the news of Televisión Nacional de Chile ("National Television of Chile"), which only Was between 1975 and 1988, in the era in which Chile was under a military dictatorship, and as TVN was the channel of the state, 60 Minutes, the official news was that only government news was trying to lie or hide real news, to produce misinformation. More information at Wikipedia in Spanish 60 minutos (noticiero). (i'm sorry for my english)--Fernan2An3 (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

This section here is clearly not NPOV and at the very least belongs on the Benghazi page because it has nothing to do with the 60 Minutes Morgan Jones ( Dylan Davies ) scandal.

"The aftermath of the 2012 Benghazi attack, where US ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens had been killed, had been thoroughly politicized, with the US right wing seizing on unclear facts and relatively minor inconsistencies in the Obama administration's communications with the press to try to paint an image of deception and gross incompetence on the part of the Obama administration. The politicization was probably amplified by the fact that probable 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State during the attack, with overall responsibility for embassy security; Clinton subsequently took responsibility for the security lapses.[50] Compared to the 13 embassy attacks under George W. Bush, with about 60 total deaths, the level of criticism and scrutiny was unprecedented,[51] and false conspiracy theories, e.g. that the Obama administration ordered military units in a position to help during the attack to "stand down", flourished at the highest levels on the right-wing of US politics.[52][53]"

This was deleted once as seen under the history section of this page with a clear explanation why. The deletion was reversed because it was claimed no explanation was given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.79.20 (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 60 Minutes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Why No Mention of the Political Tilt of "60 Minutes"?

It is not much of a secret that "60 Minutes," and CBS generally, lean in the liberal direction. For instance, the late November 2008 interview of the Obamas was more of a love note than anything resembling reporting. It is obvious that Fox News tilts toward the Right, and it is equally obvious that CBS tilts toward the Left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Colbert Report is conservative too, and that information is all over the Colbert Report article. Rush Limbaugh (or however you spell it) too.Pagen HD (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No. You have not provided evidence that supports CBS withholding information or making up information to promote the Democratic party or its policies, as Fox news and others channels do for the Republicans. "As we all know, reality has a liberal bias"

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.115.43 (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Compare the number of Obama scandals 60 Minutes has covered to the number of Bush scandals they covered in the same timespan. Sometimes, bias has just as much to do with what you don't say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.205.106 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That presumes there were an equal number of scandals to cover. The reason for the lack of coverage for "Obama scandals" is that there weren't any. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned. There are numerous examples. The most obvious one recently off the top of my head was when they interviewed Apple and Tim Cook. They were clearly criticizing Apple's policy of not bringing their overseas profits back to the US to be taxed, which is definitely a left-leaning view. Gluons12 (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

*RIGHTS OF HOLDER***OSwinn..com

Bold text 

   I'm just wondering,
  how did this come to be?every tree has to start with a ROOT.even if this tree has grow to be the greatest red wood in the forest,

its branches now consist of government,corporate,global commerce,organised,un organised,private.soul.propritary.rights,its woven into a nest of health,profit,extoursion,and trade secrets.this tree is more powerful than any other entity on earth,some have speculated on the true source of this entity and his intentions.the intentions of this entity are,truth love justice integrity understanding forgivness love.some peoples prioritys in life are strictly profit,image,power,lust,greed,jelousy...others are provided with contention in life simply by being able to appreciate simple samples of nature and earths eternaly flowing energys and acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.2.252 (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 60 Minutes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hosts?

Should not Lesley Stahl and Lara Logan be designated hostesses, not hosts? The latter may be politically correct; but it's not grammatical English, conveys less information, and prima facie makes them seem male, which they're not — particularly relevant in the case of Lesley, since it forces the unfamiliar reader to go through the exercise of remembering which way the masculine and feminine versions of the name are spelled. Paul Magnussen (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Basic principles of markedness at work: unmarked lion can refer to a male or female, while lioness is marked to refer only to females.[4] Lesley and Lara are hosts (perfectly grammatical in every way; test with the mixed plural: John, Lesley and Lara are hosts, marked only for plural, no gender marked), and it could be specified that they're hostesses if there's reason to. Are Streep and Hanks actors? Sure. Is Streep an actor? Sure. Is Hanks an actress? No way. -- Host/hostess or actor/actress are rather straightforward cases, fairly banal (as long as one steers clear of feminist theory), but there's at least one common instance that's interesting: What's the general singular of cattle, as in "There was a ____ in the road this morning."? The answer most often depends on one's experience. Urbanites usually have no problem using cow in that context regardless of the gender of the animal in view. Cattle ranchers can use non-gendered calf with ease if the critter is young enough, but with age comes gender relevance: cow, bull, heifer, steer. There is no singular unmarked for gender. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Are all of the deceased hosts Christian? If not, might there be a secular symbol other than a cross for designating which are deceased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.138.211 (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking for "List of 60 Minutes Episodes" is it just me or does this really not exist?

Am I missing something or does the List of 60 Minutes episodes really not exist?

If it's missing: is there a reason or just not yet undertaken?

If I just haven't found it. TIA and apologies for my oops. --CmdrDan (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


The basics of the episodes of the current Season 53 has been deleted because it didn't look as good as List of Game of Thrones episodes.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:60 Minutes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Heartfox (talk · contribs) 06:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick failing—the lead is inadequate given the size and content of the article, there are multiple "citation needed" tags, numerous unreferenced sentences, paragraphs, and even a section. Obviously it doesn't need to be perfect but I would expect a larger and broader ratings and recognition section given it has aired for over fifty years. The organization of sections is kind of weird as well. Overall, there is a lot of work to do that wouldn't be possible in a week or so, and I'm not convinced the nominator is up to it given they have never edited the article. Heartfox (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:60_Minutes/Archive_1&oldid=1210739621"