More drama at 60 minutes
-
Word on the street is that 60 minutes had historically been providing left-biased journalism. What is the evidence for this?
ChatGPT:
There is some evidence that 60 Minutes has leaned left in recent political coverage, but it is not as clean as “historically left-biased” in the simple partisan sense. The better claim is:On culture-war and Trump-era political stories, 60 Minutes has often looked establishment-liberal / anti-Trump / institutionally Democratic in topic selection, framing, and editing choices. But it has also run stories damaging to Democrats or liberal institutions, so the evidence is uneven rather than dispositive.
The main evidence buckets:
1. Third-party bias ratings put 60 Minutes left of center
Ad Fontes rates CBS: 60 Minutes at Bias: -9.79, where negative means left and positive means right, with reliability 34.96. That is not “far left”; it is more like skewed left but still in mainstream news/analysis territory. Ad Fontes says it uses panels with left-, right-, and center-leaning analysts to review sample content. (Ad Fontes Media)
AllSides rates CBS News Online as Lean Left and reports that CBS’s audience is disproportionately left-of-center: about 39% left/left-of-center and 20% right/right-of-center, compared with 38% right/right-of-center in the general survey baseline. That is not 60 Minutes specifically, but it supports the broader CBS News environment critique. (AllSides)
2. The DeSantis / Publix vaccine segment is one of the strongest examples
In 2021, 60 Minutes ran a segment implying a possible pay-for-play relationship between Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Publix over vaccine distribution. The criticism was that the show aired a compressed exchange and omitted context that made DeSantis’s answer look less responsive and more damning than the longer answer did.
The Florida governor’s office called the segment “false, defamatory and partisan,” accusing 60 Minutes of misrepresenting the vaccine rollout. (Florida Governor's Office) The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple, not exactly a MAGA house organ, criticized the segment under the headline “60 Minutes embraces innuendo in Ron DeSantis story,” focusing on the editing and the insinuation. (The Washington Post)
That is probably the best concrete example of editing/framing that plausibly harmed a Republican politician through insinuation more than proof.
3. The Kamala Harris interview editing controversy gave critics a very concrete artifact
Trump sued CBS/Paramount over the editing of the 2024 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. Paramount later settled for $16 million, and as part of the resolution CBS agreed that 60 Minutes would release transcripts of future presidential-candidate interviews, subject to limited redactions. (PBS)
That does not prove CBS legally admitted deceptive editing. In fact, AP notes that 60 Minutes released the full unedited transcript in February 2025, and the settlement did not mean CBS admitted wrongdoing. (The Associated Press) But politically, the episode gave the right a simple, quantifiable accusation: the edited version seemed more favorable to Harris than the rawer answer critics thought viewers should have seen.
For “evidence of left bias,” this is less strong than the DeSantis example if you mean “proven journalistic misconduct,” but it is strong if you mean “why many people think the show protects Democrats from looking bad.”
4. The Hunter Biden laptop exchange aged badly
In Trump’s 2020 60 Minutes interview, Lesley Stahl pushed back on Trump’s Hunter Biden laptop claims as not verified at the time. Later, CBS itself reported in 2022 that a forensic review found data on a copy of the laptop appeared authentic and had no clear evidence of fabrication. (CBS News)
This is a classic example of what conservatives call liberal media bias by premature dismissal: treating a politically damaging Democratic scandal as too dubious to discuss, while treating less-certain allegations against Republicans as more newsworthy. To be fair, in October 2020 there really were provenance and disinformation concerns. But the asymmetry critique is not crazy.
5. Conservative media-watchdog studies argue the pattern is broader
The Media Research Center and Daily Signal have repeatedly argued that 60 Minutes favors liberal narratives and omits inconvenient facts. The Daily Signal’s 2025 critique specifically accused the show of “bias by omission” and framed the Harris editing controversy and other segments as evidence of liberal slant. (
Link to video)I would treat MRC/Daily Signal as advocacy evidence, not neutral measurement. They are explicitly conservative institutions. But they are useful for identifying the bill of particulars: selective editing, story choice, hostile Republican interviews, softer Democratic treatment, and omission of facts that complicate liberal narratives.
6. But “historically left-biased” is complicated by counterexamples
The strongest counterexample is the 2013 Benghazi debacle. 60 Minutes aired a damaging story about the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi that later collapsed because a key source was unreliable. CBS apologized and faced calls for investigation. (The Guardian)
That was not left-biased; if anything, it helped a Republican line of attack against Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration. So a blanket claim that 60 Minutes has always simply functioned as Democratic propaganda is too crude.
My read
The evidence supports this narrower claim:
In the Trump/DeSantis/Biden-Harris era, 60 Minutes has shown a measurable and observable left-of-center institutional bias, especially in framing, editing, story selection, and skepticism asymmetry.
The evidence does not fully support this stronger claim:
“60 Minutes has always been straightforwardly left-wing journalism.”
The strongest hard evidence is the Ad Fontes left-of-center rating, the DeSantis/Pulbix edit/framing controversy, the Harris interview editing settlement/transcript policy, and the Hunter Biden laptop skepticism that later looked overconfident. The best rebuttal is that 60 Minutes has also produced major stories damaging to Democrats and liberal institutions, sometimes disastrously so, as with Benghazi.
-
There will probably never be any objective proof that the journalistic integrity changed. That discussion will always be dominated by non-disprovable tribal rhetoric from each side, who will claim the journalistic high ground. And if the ratings nosedive, that won't be much proof of anything either. But it seems obvious that the goals of the new leadership are to increase ratings. Pelley is hysterical, to the extent he even believes what he says. Or he's calculated and playing into the anti-Trump sentiment to jumpstart his substack. It's fun to be self-righteous, that much is true. And his actions were obviously intended to maximize the performative self-righteousness, and viral potential. To call it a sacrifice seems very generous.
-
We'll find out in a year or so. If the show continues in more or less the same format, ratings, content... Pelley was a fool. If the show is no-more or objectively changed its journalistic reputation, then we'll know Pelley was right. Can you please ask Siri to remind you in a year to see if you or 89th were right?
-
The only objective thing will be the ratings. If you believe "reputation" is objectively measurable, then I'd be curious what 60 minutes' objective reputation is at this moment, and why you will find so many people who disagree that that is the objective reputation.
Education is extremely important.
-
The only objective thing will be the ratings. If you believe "reputation" is objectively measurable, then I'd be curious what 60 minutes' objective reputation is at this moment, and why you will find so many people who disagree that that is the objective reputation.
The only objective thing will be the ratings. If you believe "reputation" is objectively measurable, then I'd be curious what 60 minutes' objective reputation is at this moment, and why you will find so many people who disagree that that is the objective reputation.
This is the only place I'm aware of that does regular bias and accuracy measurements for almost every program you've heard of.
Reliability = Higher is better.
Bias = 0 is neutral, negative number is liberal, positive number is conservative.Current scores:
60 Minutes
Reliability: +35
Bias: -9
https://adfontesmedia.com/60-minutes-bias-and-reliability/FOx News
Reliability: +28
Biast: +18
Source: https://adfontesmedia.com/fox-news-primetime-bias-and-reliability/
-
Not to mention that the "Trumpism" so hated by everybody has little relation to directionally right politics. Unless you take the accusations of fascism seriously. Corruption, lying, authoritarianism, all the usual complaints, have little to nothing to do with the right/left dichotomy.
-
Not to mention that the "Trumpism" so hated by everybody has little relation to directionally right politics. Unless you take the accusations of fascism seriously. Corruption, lying, authoritarianism, all the usual complaints, have little to nothing to do with the right/left dichotomy.
Unless you take the accusations of fascism seriously.
I can’t take the fascist accusation seriously, however there is a decidedly faint odour of Bonapartism wafting about Washington as of late. I suspect the stench will become stronger once the midterms are past and “His Exalted Loathsomeness” officially becomes a lame duck.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login