Explaining 60 Minutes

I’ve watched it again this week, and my conclusion is this: 60 Minutes does not break stories. Like every other major television media outlet, they only report on “controvertial” issues when at least one authority figure is doing something about it. Basically, the news won’t report on something that goes against the status quo unless they can report on someone in power who disagrees. They won’t say that the war with Iraq might be bad, they will say that Senator so and so says the war with Iraq might be bad. They won’t report that there is a protest against war, they will report about how the protest is larger or smaller than expected and on what a politician says in response.

So in 60 Minutes case, all three stories here are about things that are already out there — a Senator is upset that the military isn’t ready for Nuclear/Biological/Chemical attacks, so 60 Minutes is worried (again missing the pesky questions as to “why” that they consistantly fail to ask). Fourth-eight states have sued Tenet Health Systems for medial malpractice, so 60 Minutes is upset. And Michael Moore already made his own controversy, now 60 Minutes can do a piece about him and his movie.

You call this hard-hitting journalism? Geez, I really hope Salon.com gets some money so they don’t have to shutdown at the end of this month. That would be a real shame.

One reply on “Explaining 60 Minutes”

  1. you call salon.com news? what planet are you living on? You should take a trip to a 3rd world country and live there a few months. It will change your world view drastically….it did mine.

Comments are closed.