Talk:60 Minutes/Archive 1

message: I've just done some tweaking of the sections involving 60 Minutes' Greatest Misses, and it occurs to me that, as others have noted, this article really needs some concrete examples of major journalistic successes that 60 Minutes has had. I mean, it's one thing to mention the 75 Emmy Awards at the top, and to say, "Many news organizations suffer from errors in reporting or judgement," before gleefully diving into recounting some of those errors; but one or two specific examples of the major stories that won them all of those awards would go a long way towards illustrating just why their occasional lapses have been so disappointing. I mean, face it: No one gets upset when the Weekly World News claims, erroneously (we hope), that JFK was an alien, or that Osama bin Laden is being hyponotically controlled by Satan using psychic mountain goats; if 60 Minutes didn't have an otherwise decent journalistic reputation, these incidents wouldn't have been particularly notable.
The second thing that struck me — for the fortieth time, now, at least — is that it really is high time that wiki had an article about Don Hewitt. It's downright silly seeing his name in red everywhere I look. --Ray Radlein 02:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm reading to start rewriting the thing to better address the cultural and journalistic significance of the program.  Anyone else agree?
:Absolutely.  This is one of those entries that's suffering from that phenomenon where the people who seem most interested in the entry are interested in its weaknesses.  I think there's a place for that -- it is, after all, a controversial show that has made not insignificant missteps over the years -- but the show is also the most successful television newsmagazine (and, arguably, television show) ever and is awash in awards for its journalistic merit.  The entry doesn't, at the moment, seem to translate that idea nearly as well as it could.Adbarnhart 22:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other observations 

message: I believe the line that Lesley Stahl gives at the end of the 60 Minutes spoof is "...and one of you is hung like an elf," rather than "...and one of you smells." It's either "elf" or "elk," I forget which one, but I'm very close to sure it's "elf." I didn't edit it myself because a) I wanted to be 100% sure of the line and b) I wasn't sure how appropriate the line was for the subject matter of the article. Or maybe, it's a censored version of the show, I'm not sure.Andy 08:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Guy reference 

message: I agree with many of the posters here that the POV of this article is completely unacceptable. To read it you would think 60 minutes was a program that trows facts to the wind on a regular basis. If the controversy section is the remain (and there's no reason why it shouldn't)then a section on the positive noteworthy articles 60 minutes has done.
For the person who removed the POV marker, please read the above and the comments by Ray Radlein. Answer why this article has an entire section devoted to the shows failures and none to it's successes. Is that not bias? Please respond to that before removing the tag or theres just going to be a daily war of reversions.--65.2.69.93 03:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simple. This article was slanted too far in a positive-POV direction, and so a Controversy section had to be added. If you think it's gone too far in the other direction, then add a section entitled 'Positive achievements' or something. I added what I know. You add what you know before complaining. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, I added an awards section (which could be expanded if anyone feels up to it). I also deleted a couple unsourced sentences that were POV. There is yet more POV in the Bush National Guard section, but I'll  leave it to someone else for the moment. IronDuke 06:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree. The criticism section doesn't contain a lot of detail -- it uses external links and other articles for that (possibly except for the section on the Killian forgeries.) Beef up the awards section, but don't cut down the criticism section. If we can't find enough awards data to balance things out, then that's fine...it's not our job to report as much positive as negative...it's just to be neutral. There are some subjects that simply have more positivity associated with them than negative, or vice-versa. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Problem 

message: I was just browsing the page and saw the NPOV tag for the first time.  I definitely agree that if the article is to seem balanced, there needs to be descriptions of the "All in the Family," "The CIA's Cocaine," "Friendly Fire," and "The Osprey" pieces that won the show these awards, especially when there are 6 examples of "controversies," some with quite detailed descriptions.  Even if balance were not a goal, I would at least want to know a little more about the shows 60 Minutes did win awards for, especially since I am probably too young to remember what any of them were. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.43.97.227 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 13 December 2005.
:Journalistic balance is a bankrupt concept.  It is nonsensical that for every good thing we must also include a bad thing, and vice versa.  However, it does seem odd that we gloss over the awards and expand on the controversies.  I've added some information on the awards; perhaps someone who knows more about 60 Minutes can reduce the paragraphs on the controversies down to just the bare essentials (one para per problem would be good).  Also, I'm not really sure that the Viacom cross-promotion thing ought to be there: compared with altering cars to produce phony results, for example, it seems very small fry, just piling on for the sake of it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards section 

message: As part of User:Michael Snow's excellent update/partial rewrite of the format section, he added this sentence: "The pair agreed to do ten segments, which were called "Clinton/Dole" and "Dole/Clinton" in alternating weeks, but did not continue into the fall season.".  I just have one question, as a non-American: what the hell does that mean? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the question about fall (also known as autumn)? In American television parlance, the year effectively starts in September/October. This is invariably called "the fall season", and there really isn't any other term to substitute for it, with apologies to the Australians. If something else is the issue, I'm not sure what exactly you're not understanding. --Michael Snow 17:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew what "fall" meant (a silly America-only phrase for Autumn), no worries there.  But I wasn't sure what "the fall season" meant.  I had half a mind to change it away from "fall" (Americans should know what "Autumn" means, but not everyone knows "fall"), but given that I didn't know what you meant by it I felt a talkpage message would be better.  Maybe if we had an article (or a section of an existing one?) on the phenomenon of the fall season, and linked it? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did glance around to see if there was some existing article that covered this subject, and came up empty. Would specifying the "fall television season" at least help make the context slightly more apparent in the meantime? --Michael Snow 06:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey, y'all, I think the concerns mentioned about 4 places on this talk page, above, can be solved with a reformat of the "Controversies" section.  Since the book I used has a list of some of the serious accomplishments of the show (actual indictments, legislation, etc. as a result of the program), I might take it upon myself, later tonight (USA East), to do the rewrite.  Objections?  Oh, and for this particular section's concern, my feeling, in defense of Michael Snow's wording, is that "Fall Season" is a compound in US television.  While "autumn season" would be semantically equivalent, it would not be lexically equivalent, since "fall season" is nearly a hyphenated compound now.  (I.e. we only know it as "the fall season," so American readers would be surprised and linguistically disoriented by "autumn season.")  That said, it would be easy enough to say, "the following season" or "the following year" and get rid of the seasonal adjective altogether.  Geogre 14:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, of course, that it wasn't the following calendar year. But go ahead, rewrite away. --Michael Snow 16:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: True.  I'm not going to mess with that -- just the "controversies" section -- but "following season?"  Apparently, "fall season" is an America-only thing.  I certainly didn't know that before. Geogre 18:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton/Dole 

message: Is there any way of checking the IP addresses to make sure CBS wonks aren't using this as advertising - and trying to put down the memory hole their screw up with Memogate?--Omnicog 18:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate Bias 

message: In the San Francisco Bay Area, 60 Minutes is simulcast on the local CBS affiliated AM radio station KCBS. Is this true for any other CBS affiliated radio stations? If so, I think this should be mentioned in the article. --Cab88 11:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  60 Minutes on Radio 

message: Just to note, the lead needs to summarize the topic of the article, not just mention an accolade or two. (Which seems very POV to put in the intro honestly when there's almost nothing else there). Homestarmy 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: See above entry, also, not enough refs, don't link solo years, check POV in entirety, lead needs expanded to summarize article. on hold for 7 days. Rlevse 19:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No action taken = GA failed.Rlevse 00:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: The infamous "Memogate" incident involving Dan Rather occurred on 60 Minutes II, not 60 Minutes. It's already mentioned in the article for "60 Minutes II" and so I deleted that section from this article. --Hnsampat 03:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memogate 

message: Chuck Norris once watched 60 minutes in 20 minutes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.210.134 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chuck Norris Fact 

message: Why is there no discussion of the George W. Bush Vietnam scandal before the 2004 election? That seems pretty important? I will begin to write it if no one gives a reason why its not here. Brett (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Is there anywhere where I can find a list of guests who have been on 60 Minutes?Ags412 (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of guests 

message: Under International Versions --> Other Versions it says: "The Swedish version 2 Timmen (2 Hours) was deemed too long and was canceled." 
"2 timmen" isn't gramatically correct in Swedish. It should be "2 timmar". (Timmen = the hour, timmar = hours) Judging from the title thought it's possible that the title wasn't Swedish at all but from another Scandinavian country. /Jiiimbooh (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find anything about this on the Swedish, Danish, or Norweigan Wikipedias. I removed the info for now since the it appeared to be incorrect, but if anyone knows more about it feel free to add the correct info to the articla. /Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Swedish(?) version "2 timmen" 

message: Copied from User talk:thedemonhog:  –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaceable fair use Image:60 Minutes cast.png 

message: The article states that This Hour Has Seven Days stopped running in 1966, but in fact the show still runs today in Canada. This is a point marginally related to the article but still an inaccuracy that should be corrected. DQweny (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracy in early history section

message: What are the stars (*) in the correspondents list for?  It should be clarified in the article.
71.82.175.94 (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correspondents/Hosts 

message: I'd like to add to the See Also: section links to similar programs like Dateline, 20/20 and their ilk.  Does anyone object?
LP-mn (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also: [[Dateline]], [[20/20]].  

message: I just made about twenty edits to the article. Greatly improved the article structure, fixed some misspells and broken links, and added the number of Emmys (78 in total). Please keep improving this article, thanks. Pagen HD (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many improvements have just been made  

message: If someone can explain the meaning of the following text, then maybe I or someone can improve the text (if the text is not correct).
"This ran until 1979, when Andy Rooney, whose commentaries were already alternating with the debate segment since the fall of 1978, remains with the program today." 
--S(l)ick nation (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete text? 

message: Can anyone find anything on "Another 60 Minutes" I remember the show being on some time in the early 90's in Canada before 60 Minutes More and 60 Minutes II, its bugging me and I can't find anything about it. --Þadius (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Another 60 Minutes

message: The William Westmoreland suit stemmed from a CBS Reports. It was in the 60 Minutes article. The stupid thing about it is- The edit even said it aired on CBS Reports.- William 01:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Westmoreland and CBS  

message: At one time in the past, 60 Minutes ended with a "letter column" where a few pieces of viewer mail,
or excerpts from them, would be shown onscreen (retyped) and read aloud.  The article should mention this and tell when they started and stopped doing it.
--70.48.231.199 (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewer mail 

message: Is there an archive of past stories that is on the web? I am doing some research and have not been able to find a repository of a list of past topics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.145.141 (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive of past stories? 

message: 60 Minutes has been known to go over there time slot from minutes to hours so would that be under controversy or critism. my guess is critism for goin over the time slot  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.17.152 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that a criticism or controversy? The show promises Mike Wallace, if he's away sick for a few episodes is that deemed a criticism or controversy? Don't be a child and attempting to fatten the crit/con sections.
-G  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.115.43 (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy or Critism? 

message: This should be added to the controversy section. They mention it in Insurance_Institute_for_Highway_Safety#Criticism too. VX1NG (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1980 Jeep CJ Rollover Controversy 

message: The news program "60 Minutes" in Chile, has no connection with this program, I find it's just a reach of name. A summary of what was "60 Minutes" in Chile: It was the news of Televisión Nacional de Chile ("National Television of Chile"), which only Was between 1975 and 1988, in the era in which Chile was under a military dictatorship, and as TVN was the channel of the state, 60 Minutes, the official news was that only government news was trying to lie or hide real news, to produce misinformation. More information at Wikipedia in Spanish 60 minutos (noticiero). (i'm sorry for my english)--Fernan2An3 (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "60 Minutes" in Chile 

message: This section here is clearly not NPOV and at the very least belongs on the Benghazi page because it has nothing to do with the 60 Minutes Morgan Jones ( Dylan Davies ) scandal.
"The aftermath of the 2012 Benghazi attack, where US ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens had been killed, had been thoroughly politicized, with the US right wing seizing on unclear facts and relatively minor inconsistencies in the Obama administration's communications with the press to try to paint an image of deception and gross incompetence on the part of the Obama administration. The politicization was probably amplified by the fact that probable 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State during the attack, with overall responsibility for embassy security; Clinton subsequently took responsibility for the security lapses.[50] Compared to the 13 embassy attacks under George W. Bush, with about 60 total deaths, the level of criticism and scrutiny was unprecedented,[51] and false conspiracy theories, e.g. that the Obama administration ordered military units in a position to help during the attack to "stand down", flourished at the highest levels on the right-wing of US politics.[52][53]"
This was deleted once as seen under the history section of this page with a clear explanation why. The deletion was reversed because it was claimed no explanation was given.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.79.20 (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 60 Minutes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120318180807/http://www.rtdna.org/pages/posts/ban-on-face-to-face-interviews-with-federal-death-row-inmates-stands876.php to http://www.rtdna.org/pages/posts/ban-on-face-to-face-interviews-with-federal-death-row-inmates-stands876.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150214223232/http://finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=21336&group=General to http://finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=21336&group=General
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is not much of a secret that "60 Minutes," and CBS generally, lean in the liberal direction.  For instance, the late November 2008 interview of the Obamas was more of a love note than anything resembling reporting.  It is obvious that Fox News tilts toward the Right, and it is equally obvious that CBS tilts toward the Left.      —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You have not provided evidence that supports CBS withholding information or making up information to promote the Democratic party or its policies, as Fox news and others channels do for the Republicans. "As we all know, reality has a liberal bias"
-G  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.115.43 (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

text: That presumes there were an equal number of scandals to cover. The reason for the lack of coverage for "Obama scandals" is that there weren't any. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Why No Mention of the Political Tilt of "60 Minutes"?

message: Bold text
    I'm just wondering,
   how did this come to be?every tree has to start with a ROOT.even if this tree has grow to be the greatest red wood in the forest,
its branches now consist of government,corporate,global commerce,organised,un organised,private.soul.propritary.rights,its woven into
a nest of health,profit,extoursion,and trade secrets.this tree is more powerful than any other entity on earth,some have speculated on the true
source of this entity and his intentions.the intentions of this entity are,truth love justice integrity understanding forgivness love.some peoples prioritys in life are strictly profit,image,power,lust,greed,jelousy...others are provided with contention in life simply by being able to appreciate simple samples of nature and earths eternaly flowing energys and acts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.2.252 (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  *RIGHTS OF HOLDER***OSwinn..com 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on 60 Minutes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426175153/http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-air/about-us/Carol_Marin.html to http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-air/about-us/Carol_Marin.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141202124912/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/11/17/early-sunday-tidbits-nfl-barack-obama-score-for-cbs-cowboys-lead-nbc/8222/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/11/17/early-sunday-tidbits-nfl-barack-obama-score-for-cbs-cowboys-lead-nbc/8222
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20121217135715/http://www.automobile.com/audi-investigated-for-unintended-acceleration.html to http://www.automobile.com/audi-investigated-for-unintended-acceleration.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040805231342/http://www.mariebrenner.com/articles/insider/man1.html to http://www.mariebrenner.com/articles/insider/man1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616122302/http://www.umatilla.nsn.us/kman3.html to http://www.umatilla.nsn.us/kman3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090403070919/http://www.kaleva.fi/plus/index.cfm?j=789464 to http://www.kaleva.fi/plus/index.cfm?j=789464
*Added  tag to http://www.film.com/tv/60-minutes-more/21327868
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should not Lesley Stahl and Lara Logan be designated hostesses, not hosts?  The latter may be politically correct; but it's not grammatical English, conveys less information, and prima facie makes them seem male, which they're not — particularly relevant in the case of Lesley, since it forces the unfamiliar reader to go through the exercise of remembering which way the masculine and feminine versions of the name are spelled. Paul Magnussen (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Basic principles of markedness at work: unmarked lion can refer to a male or female, while lioness is marked to refer only to females. Lesley and Lara are hosts (perfectly grammatical in every way; test with the mixed plural: John, Lesley and Lara are hosts, marked only for plural,  no gender marked), and it could be specified that they're hostesses if there's reason to. Are Streep and Hanks actors? Sure. Is Streep an actor? Sure. Is Hanks an actress? No way. -- Host/hostess or actor/actress are rather straightforward cases, fairly banal (as long as one steers clear of feminist theory), but there's at least one common instance that's interesting: What's the general singular of cattle, as in "There was a ____ in the road this morning."? The answer most often depends on one's experience. Urbanites usually have no problem using cow in that context regardless of the gender of the animal in view. Cattle ranchers can use non-gendered calf with ease if the critter is young enough, but with age comes gender relevance: cow, bull, heifer, steer. There is no singular unmarked for gender. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hosts? 

message: Am I missing something or does the List of 60 Minutes episodes really not exist?
If it's missing: is there a reason or just not yet undertaken?
If I just haven't found it. TIA and apologies for my oops.
--CmdrDan (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The basics of the episodes of the current Season 53 has been deleted because it didn't look as good as List of Game of Thrones episodes.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for "List of 60 Minutes Episodes" is it just me or does this really not exist?