The primetime television scene witnessed a consequential turnaround this week, especially for its longstanding segment, ’60 Minutes.’ A fixture in the world of television production, the executive producer, Bill Owens, abruptly made his exit. He claimed his departure had been necessitated by his decreasing ability to maintain the show’s autonomy. What remained unmentioned was the fact that the show’s corporate proprietor was seeking approval for a sale from none other than the Trump administration, even while wrestling with a litigation case filed by President Trump against CBS’ parent company, Paramount. This legal tussle concerned a ’60 Minutes’ broadcast that interviewed Kamala Harris.
Owens’ decision to leave the ’60 Minutes’ camp was rather striking. This revelation came to light in a full staff meeting on Tuesday, a veritable intense tear-filled tableau. The reason he gave for his departure portrayed a man bound by principle; he believed that he no longer had the independence vital to maintaining the journalistic integrity of the program. Furthermore, he held the view that his absence could provide the corporation a chance to reconsider its future approach to the show and reinforce principles that had been cultivated over half a century.
Paramount, helmed by Shari Redstone, was caught in the whirlwind of a lawsuit, adding to the mounting pressure. Redstone was waiting with bated breath for her multi-billion dollar deal to get the green light, a hurdle that rested in the hands of the federal authorities. Owens found this strained atmosphere completely unsupportable. As another blow, Redstone had appointed a widely respected senior news executive, Susan Zirinsky, positioned as an overarching figure to maintain the standard of the network shows.
However, the ’60 Minutes’ team took this move as a direct attack on themselves. They perceived this as monitoring, a significant impingement on their freedom to operate independently and flexibly. It’s an open secret that there’s been a unique dissent between the ’60 Minutes’ team and President Trump. Particularly, some of their pieces, released after Trump resumed his office in January, were distinctly critical.
One of their compelling episodes, and the first-ever endeavor of its kind, examined the criminal history of individuals who had been sent to jail in El Salvador. Astonishingly, they found more than three-fourths of this population did not have a criminal record. This sharply contradicts the narrative peddled by the Trump administration. As expected, this report didn’t sit well with Trump, sparking his discontentment.
The ground for Trump’s grievance against ’60 Minutes,’ it seems, is rather flimsy. He had sought legal intervention from a notoriously lenient federal court in Texas, accusing ’60 Minutes’ of deceit based on its editing of an interview with Kamala Harris from his presidential campaign days. He alleged that they aired different responses from Harris to identical questions on ‘Face The Nation’ Sunday morning public affairs show versus the ’60 Minutes’ episode.
Trump made the dubious claim that ’60 Minutes’ had deliberately doctored Harris’s responses to a sensitive question about Israel and Gaza. He accused them of attempting to conceal Harris’s incompetence or her cautious answers. Irrespective of the truth, such editorial practices fall within the ambit of First Amendment protections, as confirmed by various legal and First Amendment scholars.
Even so, candidate Trump filed the lawsuit, and now he’s President Trump with the powers of the executive branch behind him. One sees a bold encroachment by Brendan Carr, chair of the Federal Communications Commission, who renewed queries about multiple broadcast networks, including CBS. Particularly, he took issue with the broadcast of the ’60 Minutes’ interview on CBS, previously dismissed as a free speech issue.
Concurrently, the FCC was analyzing Redstone’s sale of Paramount, involving 27 local TV licenses transfer. It appears as though these governmental claims against CBS have been propelled by the private lawsuit that the president raised. Bill Owens, till recently at the helm of ’60 Minutes,’ remained unapologetic throughout. Wendy McMahon, head of CBS stations and news, voiced her support for everything he has achieved.
But in sharp contrast, one sees Shari Redstone trying to navigate a resolution of this litigation. There’s an undeniable recognition of the influence wielded by the president and his allies in government. In the end, it’s clear that truth and actual journalism run the risk of becoming casualties in this corporate and political power play. One can only hope that the true spirit of ’60 Minutes,’ built carefully over half a century, will withstand these challenges.