‘60 Minutes' vs. a Corporate Merger? You've Seen This Movie Before – in ‘The Insider'
Stop me if you've heard this one: '60 Minutes' faces pressure from its corporate bosses in order to grease the wheels on a proposed merger, leading to accusations that journalistic integrity has been sacrificed on the altar of profit.
While that applies to Paramount Global's current jockeying with the Trump administration as the company seeks approval for its $8 billion Skydance Media merger, it also describes what happened 30 years ago, when '60 Minutes' caved to CBS' lawyers to avoid putting a roadblock in the way of its planned acquisition by Westinghouse.
At the time, it was a Mike Wallace segment on '60 Minutes,' interviewing tobacco industry whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand, who at great personal risk exposed how his former employer, Brown & Williamson, and others in the tobacco industry had consciously sought to mislead the public about the addictive effects of nicotine and dangers of their cancer-causing products.
The events of that period were dramatic enough to inspire the 1999 Michael Mann-directed film 'The Insider,' starring Al Pacino as CBS producer Lowell Bergman and Russell Crowe as whistleblower Wigand.
For those who see CBS' possible capitulation to Trump as a major setback for the venerable newsmagazine, it's a reminder that tension between corporate ownership and journalism has reared its ugly head before, and not always with a heroic 'All the President's Men'-style ending.
Indeed, in 2016, 20 years after the Wigand piece finally aired, then-'60 Minutes' executive producer Jeff Fager called it 'probably the most important story that was ever reported by '60 Minutes,'' and the decision to yank the segment 'a low point in our history.'
If that was a low point, it could soon have company, as Paramount mulls a settlement with Trump in his lawsuit over what the president has maintained was misleading editing of a '60 Minutes' profile of Kamala Harris broadcast before the election, litigation that journalists and legal scholars both inside and outside of CBS News widely see as frivolous.
During a press conference Monday, FCC chairman Brendan Carr said that the Trump lawsuit had 'nothing to do with the work that we're doing at the FCC,' but those who have watched the commission under his stewardship could be forgiven for viewing those remarks with skepticism.
Last week, the longtime executive producer of '60 Minutes,' Bill Owens, took a principled stand in the face of corporate cowardice, leaving the program while referring to his 'diminished independence' in overseeing the show. The news sent shock waves through the news division and beyond, given the prestige that the venerable newsmagazine still commands even in a hollowed-out linear-TV environment.
Like their predecessors, the current corporate brass under Paramount Global Chairwoman Shari Redstone also have bigger fish to fry — in this case, seeking to safeguard the merger with Skydance that the Trump administration has made clear will not happen without capitulation in the '60 Minutes' lawsuit.
Notably, the current '60 Minutes' team has already publicly pushed back more aggressively than key figures did on the Wigand story, with Scott Pelley delivering a bracing closing note to Sunday's broadcast regarding Owens' departure. Acknowledging the pending merger, Pelley said Paramount 'began to supervise our content in new ways,' adding, 'No one here is happy about it.'
There are some obvious distinctions from what transpired three decades ago, beginning with the fact that CBS feared litigation from a private company, not coercion from the federal government. Yet the question of a corporation buckling under pressure — and undermining the standing of '60 Minutes' in the process — is close enough in the broad strokes to feel eerily similar.
Conducted by the legendary Mike Wallace, the Wigand interview didn't air as initially planned because the legal department feared a multibillion-dollar lawsuit for interfering with Wigand's confidentiality agreement with tobacco giant Brown & Williamson. The pressure came after ABC — on the verge of its acquisition by the Walt Disney Co. — had faced, and settled, a $10 billion libel lawsuit by another cigarette maker, Philip Morris, against ABC News over a segment on one of its newsmagazines. (That, too, has echoes of Disney's $15 million settlement of a Trump lawsuit against ABC's news division, prompted by George Stephanopoulos' references to Trump having been found liable in the case brought by E. Jean Carroll.)
CBS began its negotiations with Westinghouse in September 1995, a month after that settlement was announced, which clearly played on the minds of the network's legal team and executives.
Surprisingly, given their reputations, neither Wallace nor the founding executive producer of '60 Minutes,' Don Hewitt, significantly fought back against the legal department, Bergman recalled in a 2012 interview, not long after Wallace's death at the age of 93.
'I couldn't understand why they folded,' Bergman said, citing the clout Wallace possessed within the organization. 'I would say objectively that he didn't agree with what they were doing, but he wasn't willing to say, 'I'm not going to let this stand.''
As PBS' 'Frontline' noted in a documentary about the Wigand episode, CBS actually gave in without facing a formal lawsuit. The larger backdrop, however, was that then-CBS owner Laurence Tisch was seeking to finalize the network's sale to Westinghouse, and the mere threat of a massive lawsuit could have potentially jeopardized the $5.4 billon deal.
The question raised by CBS' actions then, as 'Frontline' framed it, has echoed through the intervening years — namely, 'As media companies increasingly come under the control of large corporations, what is the threat posed to news gathering and the public's right to know?'
The fact '60 Minutes' has survived another 30 years underscores that the public-relations blow struck by the Wigand story wasn't a fatal one, but the reputational damage — to Wallace and the larger franchise — did linger. It's worth noting, too, that the era in which these cases played out in the mid-1990s marked what in hindsight can be seen as the beginning of the end for the dominance of the broadcast networks, as Fox, the WB and UPN joined the growing influence of cable to gradually chip away at their power.
'60 Minutes' has continued to produce laudable journalism, but the program operates today in a much different, more fragmented media environment. While Paramount management is clearly engaged in a calculation about the value of the merger versus whatever harm knuckling under to Trump might inflict on the CBS News brand, history will likely judge the prospect of caving in under these circumstances at least as harshly, and likely more so, than the network's actions in 1995.
CBS eventually aired the Wigand interview almost a full year after the piece was originally scheduled and pulled. Ironically, a subsequent Vanity Fair article, titled 'The Man Who Knew Too Much,' would be acquired by the studio that had essentially started it all, Disney, and become the foundation for 'The Insider.'
In addition to media industry skittishness, Wigand's story also reflected the enormous power the tobacco companies possessed in the 1990s, and the extent to which they would go to protect their product and profits — including their CEOs lying to Congress about whether nicotine qualified as an addictive substance.
In his two-decades-later appraisal, Fager concluded that no one at '60 Minutes' did anything wrong, and the situation was 'just mishandled.'
Yet that assessment, understandably, came from his perspective as a newsman. Because based on the priorities of lawyers at CBS corporate, then and likely now, the situation was in fact 'handled' in precisely the cover-your-assets manner they intended.
The post '60 Minutes' vs. a Corporate Merger? You've Seen This Movie Before – in 'The Insider' appeared first on TheWrap.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
Republican attorneys general accuse California of excusing 'lawlessness'
FIRST ON FOX: Nearly all Republican attorneys general blasted California's Democratic leaders on Tuesday in a joint statement, accusing them of condoning criminal behavior and saying they left President Donald Trump with no choice but to activate thousands of National Guard soldiers. "In California, we're seeing the results of leadership that excuses lawlessness and undermines law enforcement," 26 attorneys general wrote in the statement, first provided to Fox News Digital. "When local and state officials won't act, the federal government must." The attorneys general said Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard to address anti-immigration enforcement riots and protests that broke out in parts of Los Angeles County over the weekend was the "right response." Their remarks stand in direct contrast to those of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats across the country, who widely condemned Trump's decision to send the military into California as an unnecessary escalation. Newsom sued Trump over the move and accused the president of stripping California of its sovereignty. Presidents federalizing the National Guard, which is a state-based military force that falls under the dual control of governors and presidents, is rarely carried out without the consent of a governor. Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, who led the attorneys general in issuing the statement, told Fox News Digital in a brief interview he felt Newsom was "gaslighting" the public by saying California's local and state law enforcement had the unrest under control and did not need Trump to intervene. "We all saw what was happening," Carr said. "There were federal law enforcement officers that were being attacked by mobs. And in fact, I read articles where local law enforcement were saying they were overwhelmed and they needed help. My question is, why in the world would he not accept the help of the federal government at a time where there was mob rule, where there was arson that was taking place, where assaults were occurring, instead of coddling the criminals that are doing this again?" Carr said those opposed to the Trump administration's immigration raids could "peacefully disagree with what the federal government is doing." Newsom, for his part, alleged that Trump exacerbated the riots, echoing a position some criminal justice advocates take that an immediate show of force in response to intensifying protests is an ineffective approach. In Newsom's lawsuit, attorneys wrote that Trump's decision was not only unwise but also an unlawful and "unprecedented usurpation of state authority and resources." Fox News Digital reached out to the California Attorney General's Office for comment.


Politico
29 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge
President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he plans to revert the names of seven major Army bases back to the Confederate generals for which they were originally named. 'We are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Robert E. Lee,' Trump said. 'We won a lot of battles out of those forts, it's no time to change.' Trump's announcement, during a speech to soldiers at Fort Bragg, follows Biden-administration era alterations in 2023 that changed the installation names to honor new, non-Confederate individuals. Those included changing Fort Hood to Fort Cavazos, for the Army's first four-star Hispanic general. The Army previously redesignated Fort Liberty, previously known as Fort Bragg, to its original name, but honoring Private First Class Roland L. Bragg, a World War II hero instead of the Confederate general Braxton Bragg. The service also redesignated Fort Moore, after Gen. Hal Moore and his wife Julia Compton Moore, for Fred G. Benning, who won the Distinguished Service Cross during World War I. The Army is taking the same approach for the bases tapped for renaming on Tuesday, finding award-winning soldiers with the same last names as the Confederate generals to name the bases after, according to a statement released by the service after the president's speech. The president gave no timeline for the name changes and it was not immediately clear whether the Army's bases would be renamed after Confederate generals or soldiers from different eras. One army official, granted anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak, said they were caught off guard by the rapid-fire developments, which could take months to Army did not immediately respond to POLITICO's request for comment. Though the Trump administration insisted the redesignations were in-line with laws that prevent the Pentagon from naming bases after Confederate leaders or battles, Ty Seidule, a retired Army brigadier general who was the vice chair of the Congressional Naming Commission, which is tasked with relabeling bases and U.S. military assets, said that Trump's decision went against the spirit of the new rule enacted after the George Floyd protests. 'The bottom line is he's choosing surname over service,' said Seidule, who's now a visiting professor at Hamilton College. 'It is breaking the spirit of a law that was created by the will of the American people through their elected representatives.' Seidule said that the commission, which was made up of three Republicans, one Democrat and four retired flag officers, spent 20 months seeking input from the public and got 33,000 responses to change the names of Army bases and other installations and assets named after Confederates, including several U.S. Navy ships. But he said the decision still reflected that the Trump administration 'realizes that Confederates chose treason to preserve slavery, and they are unworthy of having bases named for them in America in 2025.' On Tuesday, Trump criticized Biden at several points during his speech, which was full of asides about immigration, transgender Americans and the spending bill currently being debated in Congress. His political comments in front of hundreds of soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division led to a smattering of boos from the mostly uniformed audience when he criticized former President Joe Biden. Audience members also jeered when Trump mentioned California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whom the president clashed with over protests in California that were sparked by the Trump administration's immigration raids. Presidents normally avoid giving political speeches to military personnel. 'Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden,' Trump said at one point in his remarks. 'I don't think so.' 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again,' Trump said, claiming parts of the city are under the control of international criminal gangs. The president has ordered 4,000 California National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, though so far only about 300 guardsmen have entered the city. The Marines are positioned outside Los Angeles, where they're undergoing training on crowd control, said one defense official who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. The move to rename Army bases comes just days after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moved to relabel a Navy vessel named after gay rights activist Harvey Milk as well as other ships named after civil rights leaders and women. Seidule, the retired Army brigadier general who served on the Biden-era naming commission, said that Trump's decision creates the risk that future administrations could take turns renaming the Army's bases. 'What happens if some other administration would name something after someone that one party thinks is just absolutely beyond the pale,' said Seidule. 'I think that this could absolutely be a tennis match.' Sam Skove contributed to this report.


The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
Granholm: Democrats would ‘welcome' Musk ‘helping us out'
Former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said Tuesday that Democrats would 'welcome' tech billionaire Elon Musk 'helping us out' after an intense clash between Musk and President Trump last week. 'I think the Democrats would welcome him helping us out, politically, but — financially, etc.,' Granholm said at Politico's 2025 Energy Summit. 'But, maybe, maybe not, I don't know. I'm not running.' Last Thursday, a fight between Musk and Trump over the president's 'big, beautiful bill' earlier in the week escalated rapidly on Musk's X platform and Trump's Truth Social platform. The president said the tech billionaire 'just went CRAZY!' and threatened Musk's government contracts. Musk alleged that Trump had ties to convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein on X. The public spat followed the end of Musk's recent service in the Trump administration and an alliance with the president that appeared to start off strong. Musk endorsed Trump in July 2024 in the wake of Trump surviving an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. Musk's administration service was marked by intense backlash from those on the left and Democrats over actions taken by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on the federal government. Trump's ex-personal attorney Michael Cohen on Saturday said that Trump isn't done with tech billionaire Elon Musk yet. 'They're going to really go after Elon Musk like nobody has seen, ever, in this country, because they can,' Cohen told MSNBC's Ali Velshi.