En Masse Resignations At 60 Minutes Were Considered
Another Edition of 60 Minutes
How effective it will be is a big question, but it is clear that the journalists of CBS’s 60 Minutes do not intend to stop fighting to do the work they believe in. They do not intend to back down while the network’s owner, Paramount, negotiates with President Trump to end a ridiculous $20 billion lawsuit he filed against 60 Minutes over an interview with Kamala Harris.
What does seem clear is that Paramount is prepared to settle the suit to ensure that the Federal Communications Commission does not stand in the way of its merger with Skydance Media. Reporting suggests that only the size of the settlement is at issue.
As I wrote last week, under normal circumstances there is already enough information about this act of coercion by the president of the United States to warrant a Justice Department investigation. Using the FCC as leverage to force settlement of a private lawsuit is clearly illegal, but this open case of corruption is going to happen and no one in federal law enforcement — and no regulatory authority — is going to do anything about it.
In the last week, CBS correspondents Scott Pelley and Lesley Stahl have both spoken out about the situation. Pelley during a speech to graduates at Wake Forest University and Stahl during an interview with David Remnick of The New Yorker.
While not mentioning Trump by name, it is clear Pelley was telling graduates at Wake Forest that the world they are about to enter is moving in dangerous directions. And just like graduates in 1861 and 1941 they need to ask themselves what they are willing to do to defend their country. This time, Pelley described an attack from within.
“Our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack. Universities are under attack. Freedom of speech is under attack. And insidious fear is reaching through our schools, our businesses, our homes, and into our private thoughts. The fear to speak in America. If our government is, in Lincoln’s phrase, ‘of the people, by the people, for the people,’ then why are we afraid to speak?”
Pelley, you will remember, went on air at the end of a 60 Minutes broadcast last month, to explain the circumstances behind the resignation of the show’s executive producer Bill Owens. Pelley said the show had come under “new” pressure from Paramount to change its coverage of certain issues. Pelley said Owens refused and that is why he left.
In The New Yorker interview, Stahl offered more insight.
She said when Owens announced his decision to resign he begged everyone else to stay on the job. He urged them not to resign en masse, even though others suggested that is exactly what they should do.
Speaking only for herself, Stahl told Remnick she has not decided what the line is for herself. She said in general she is pessimistic about the future of 60 Minutes and the news industry as a whole. She said she expects there to be a settlement between Trump and Paramount and she will make her own decisions about her own future based on how events unfold under new ownership.
Though in recent decades CBS News has been at the bottom of the ratings race, since its inception during World War II, CBS has distinguished itself as one of the premiere news organizations in the United States. 60 Minutes has been the most respected broadcast news magazine for nearly 60 years.
Based on recent resignations and Stahl’s observations in the New Yorker interview, it seems quite possible that we may see the demise of both in the months to come.
Well, It Worked In Rehearsal
Elon Musk has suffered a dramatic decline in reputation ever since he began his take-over of Twitter. By the time Donald Trump gave him the freedom to run his government efficiency project, inside the federal government, Musk was already damaged goods.
As Musk departed the White House on Friday, his brand had suffered even more. Despite efforts by Musk and the White House to describe the work of the “Department of Government Efficiency” as a success, the numbers show it has not been a success, but it has been part of the chaos machine of the second Trump administration. Musk managed to decrease government efficiency and spawn a number of court cases that are likely to drag on for a year or more.
Musk’s personal behavior has not helped his public image. He has appeared at times to be emotionally unstable. He has presented himself in an unprofessional and disrespectful manner inside the White House. A recent New York Times article has raised questions about drug use that should not only concern the White House, but anyone with whom he does business.
There is a time and place for political leaders like the president to temporarily recruit a big name from the private sector to share their expertise. But it has to be the right person with the right level of gravitas. By the time Trump tapped Musk to work in the White House, Musk had already damaged his personal brand significantly. After four months as a wrecking ball inside the federal government, Musk’s public reputation has fallen further and there is no telling what unexploded bombs he is leaving behind that might eventually damage Trump himself.
Yes, but…
As Alex Thompson of Axios and Jake Tapper of CNN continue their tour promoting their book about President Biden’s health cover-up, Tapper in particular has gone out of his way to offer apologies to Lara Trump and two reporters from the Wall St. Journal.
Annie Linskey and Siobhan Hughes published an article in the Journal in June of 2024 claiming that behind the scenes, Biden was showing signs of cognitive decline. When the story published it was big and led to hours of punditry, but it was also criticized because most of the sourcing was anonymous and the primary on the record source as a partisan Republican.
Lara Trump appeared on Tapper’s CNN show and began making accusations — without evidence — that Biden was showing signs of cognitive decline. Tapper intervened and stopped her from going further.
Tapper has now revealed that he privately apologized to Ms. Trump, because he now believes she was right. In interviews he has also praised Linskey and Hughes for their reporting and expressed regret that the larger press corps did not follow their lead.
But another problem remains.
Because Trump and his supporters, especially his family members, lie as a matter of policy and communications strategy, their statements cannot be accepted at face value.
There is no equivalency between someone on the Trump campaign diagnosing Biden as being in cognitive decline and the testimony of an expert on the subject. It was reasonable for Tapper to question Ms. Trump as he did during that interview.
Similarly, it is reasonable to question a story in a conservative publication like the Wall St. Journal, that raises serious questions about the president’s health, when that story relies mostly on anonymous sources.
There is no need to apologize for being skeptical in either instance and there is no reason to now view Ms. Trump as a truth-teller, or the Wall St. Journal as a news outlet that is absent a partisan point of view.
Separation Anxiety
As public relations practitioners advance in their careers to work with bigger and more influential clients, they often lose touch with their primary function.
The goal of an advisor handling media relations for a high profile client should be to enhance the client’s reputation by facilitating positive coverage. It is not the job of a media relations advisor to keep the news media, or content creators, away from the client. The job is to act as the bridge that provides creators the access they need to produce news stories or content that improve the client’s public reputation.
Public relations practitioners who take on the role of pseudo-security officer are missing the point and the opportunity to tell their client’s story.
~
For more writing on politics, public relations, and journalism from Dean Pagani, visit Media Attaché on Substack.
