Elite Media Tantrums Over ’60 Minutes’ Changes Demonstrate How Clueless They Are

When America’s media elites deign to allow the hoi polloi a brief glimpse behind the sacred curtain, they come off just as clueless and out of touch as we thought they were.

That’s my take on the recent brouhaha over firings at CBS News, which were triggered by staff rebellions over the management of its new editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss.

Weiss, who exited The New York Times years ago because she wouldn’t bow to the incessant demands of woke fellow employees, went independent, created her own media company, then triumphantly returned to the legacy media fully redeemed—and vindicated in her criticism that they’ve become an echo chamber.

She’s taken steps to make CBS a little more balanced in how it covers the news.

This was too much for many, who’ve accused the moderately liberal Weiss of not having the right credentials and of, laughably, being in the tank for President Donald Trump.

One of those critics crashing out was the recently fired longtime “60 Minutes” veteran Scott Pelley, who blasted Weiss for trying to dispel the perception that her network had a left-wing bias.

TRENDING ARTICLES

news

$22 Million Gun Factory Relocates From Virginia to Georgia Over ‘Anti-Gun’ Legislation

Pedro Rodriguez

news

SPLC CEO Makes Astonishing Claim to Explain Why Leftist Group Stopped Its ‘Informant’ Program

Tyler O’Neil

news

Trump Reveals Controversial Plan to Make Americans ‘Very Rich’

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell

Interestingly enough, he went to The New York Times to tell his story.

Pelley ridiculously compared the firings of rebellious employees to a “spouse being murdered.”

When the interviewer posed the question that Weiss apparently asked “60 Minutes” employees about why the country thinks they are biased, Pelley appeared shocked and affronted that anyone could dare ask that question.

“Why do you think so? Do you have a poll? Is there market research? What are you talking about?” he exclaimed incredulously. “Because we certainly didn’t believe that.”

It’s the modern equivalent of “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”

Let’s just say that Pelley exists in a bit of a bubble.

It wasn’t just Pelley making claims that Weiss is essentially Attila the Hun, pillaging the oh-so-hallowed cathedral of network news.

The still-employed “60 Minutes” journalist Lesley Stahl, who is 84, said that the firings on the show were “by far the worst experience I’ve been involved in, or even witnessed.”

That didn’t prevent her from signing a new two-year deal with the show, however.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., called Pelley’s firing a “warning for our democracy” and wrote that “attacking journalists is an assault on the truth that sustains our democracy.”

I didn’t realize that guaranteed employment for journalists was buried somewhere in the emanations and penumbras of the First Amendment.

In the wake of this hyperbolic panic-fest, the rest of the left-leaning media has been eager to jump in and declare that the changes being made at CBS News basically amount to the end of free speech in America and the transformation of “60 Minutes” into Trump TV or something.

One headline loudly proclaimed, “CBS Legend Eviscerates New ‘Trump-Approved’ ‘60 Minutes.’”

Can you guess which “CBS legend” is being referred to here?

It’s Dan Rather.

“For anyone who watches the next season of 60 Minutes this fall, understand this: It is not the 60 Minutes we have all come to trust and respect. It will be a diminished, Trump-approved version,” he said in a hyperbolic Substack essay.

This was my exact reaction to Rather’s blather.

For the younger crowd, this is the same Dan Rather, formerly of CBS News, who used unauthenticated documents just before the 2004 election to falsely accuse former President George W. Bush of behaving badly while in the National Guard.

This is the guy giving us a lecture about media integrity and partisanship?

And “Rathergate” certainly hasn’t been the only “60 Minutes” controversy over the years.

Brian Flood at Fox News had a nice, quick rundown of “60 Minutes” controversies over the years. It’s worth a read. The list ranges from it dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop scandal that turned out to be true, to accusing Gov. Ron DeSantis of engaging in pay-to-play—an accusation with so little merit that even many Florida Democrats came out to defend him.

While mistakes can happen, a clear pattern unmistakably emerges. All the “oopsies” go one way. The scandals almost entirely involve something that hurts the Right or Republicans in some way and benefits Democrats and the Left.

And that presents the problem they apparently can’t see.

The era of centralized, institutionalized media with a near monopoly on information is over.

What they absolutely can’t stand is the idea that they may have to allow conservatives a chance to be fairly heard on their platforms and include not just “conservative” dissenters who just want to bash Trump and the Republican Party to make left-wing viewers feel good.

That small crack opening in the elite media’s extremely cloistered, carefully controlled environment is being treated as an existential threat. In some way, it is. It means that even if they still dominate the airwaves with their views, they can’t fully control the narrative force-fed to the American people.

And that’s what’s got them in a tizzy.

Somehow these journalists have been missing a phenomenon that’s been brewing for some time.

Their bubble already burst long ago, and they just don’t see it. Network news has disintegrated in influence, in part due to technological changes, but just as much due to their perceived but often unacknowledged bias.

Weiss isn’t destroying “60 Minutes,” she’s saving it from itself.

And that’s the most ironic aspect of these staff rebellions.

If legacy media shows really want to recapture even half the influence they once had, they have to find a way to appeal to a broader audience. They need to at least create the perception of providing an objective platform for the divergent views of this country.

But they want to recapture the broad-based appeal they once had while operating in a biased and increasingly partisan way. That just doesn’t work anymore. Nobody buys that the perpetual domination of legacy media is essential for “democracy.”

They’ll rebel, whine for a bit, then be largely ignored.