CBS’ ‘60 Minutes’: Hardball for GOP Presidential Hopefuls, Wiffle

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

On Sunday, the “60 Minutes” squad put out a statement dismissing Donald Trump’s accusations of manipulative editing in their Kamala Harris interview as “false.” But they offered no evidence in support of their claims.

Everyone can see the divergence between the Harris word salad that appeared in a promo on CBS’ “Face the Nation” and the shorter, more coherent answer on its election special. But it refuses to release a transcript to explain themselves. It’s always maddening when the arrogant journalists who claim they hold government accountable refuse to be accountable.

Nobody in TV news has been more overpraised than “60 Minutes.” This horde of urbane leftist snobs has concocted syrupy minutes for Democrats (especially Barack Obama) and salty minutes for Republicans (especially Trump).

Four years ago at this time, Lesley Stahl’s interview with Trump was so hostile that the transcript is a long list of interrupted answers. Right from the beginning, Stahl asked, “Are you ready for some tough questions?” She asked that four times.

Trump couldn’t even finish sentences. Stahl lectured him that the Hunter Biden laptop was unverified. “You know, this is ’60 Minutes.’ And we can’t put on things we can’t verify.” That needed a laugh track. (See Dan Rather’s 2004 phony-documents debacle on “60 Minutes II.”)

(Bob Strong/AFP/Getty Images)

Trump accurately shot back: “No, you won’t put it on because it’s bad for Biden.”

Stahl argued that the Bidens taking money from Russia, China, and Ukraine wasn’t a serious issue, and instead revisited 2016 issues like “Lock Her Up” chants against Hillary Rodham Clinton—and in 2020, against Michigan’s Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer.

But it’s easy to forget Norah O’Donnell’s interview with Joe Biden four years ago, where she lamented Biden was “forced to address new and unverified claims that he was involved in his son Hunter’s foreign business dealings.” As we know, CBS claimed they couldn’t be verified.

O’Donnell tossed this Wiffle ball: “Do you believe the recent leak of material allegedly from Hunter’s computer is part of a Russian disinformation campaign?”

Biden gave an unchallenged answer about how the intelligence community said, “[former New York Mayor Rudy] Giuliani was being fed disinformation from the Russians”; “Putin’s trying very hard to spread disinformation about Joe Biden”; and “it’s a smear campaign.”

There was no interruption and no follow-up. They went to commercial.

This pattern is not new, and moderate Republicans were also knifed. Mike Wallace’s interview with GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney in 2007 was sharply personal, demanding to know if the Republican candidate had premarital sex with his wife and asking his five sons why none of them had ever joined the military. In 2008, Scott Pelley hammered then-Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on the Wall Street bailout: “But why would you let the Wall Street executives sail away on their yachts and leave this on the American taxpayer?”

Back in 2000, “60 Minutes” devoted a whole segment to crackpot author J.H. Hatfield and his book trashing George W. Bush called “Fortunate Son.” They put on this Stahl segment despite Hatfield being unable to prove Bush was arrested for cocaine possession and despite Hatfield once paying for a hit man. Their website announced: “Just because he lied to his editors about being a convicted felon isn’t a good enough reason for those editors to doubt his book.”

CBS’ Lesley Stahl—seen here addressing the 2024 Directors Guild of America Honors on Oct. 17 in New York City—has a long history of liberal bias in her interviews with Republican presidential candidates. (Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images)

They weren’t kidding. For the die-hard Democrats at CBS “News,” Republicans don’t deserve any decency—including the candidates they now celebrate as the decent ones.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.