Every Sunday night for as long as I remember after the football game plays on CBS, the segment called 60 Minutes starts. In middle school, I was a secondary observer, watching out of the corner of my eye while doing homework as my parents were intently listening. Yet as I progressed to actually taking interest in the shows, which addressed the geopolitical status quo and other stories about national or global interests, I fell in love with the investigative journalistic style that the show employs. 60 Minutes today remains the grandfather of televised media segments which are not live broadcasts since they stick to the traditional morals of investigative journalism–which make the show trustworthy and highly entertaining.
For over five decades, 60 Minutes has served as a cornerstone of investigative journalism, illuminating the forces at work behind some of the most consequential events in modern history. The program’s influence stretches across many countries and ideologies and has shaped public opinions and even catalyzed real-world change. Its coverage of Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential victory and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami offers two starkly different case studies, each revealing the power and the limitations of even one of the most powerful journalism platforms.
In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, 60 Minutes aired a segment entitled “Fed up with the economy, Americans turn to Trump.” The report centered on voter dissatisfaction with inflation, stagnant wages, and the rising cost of living—especially in critical swing states like Pennsylvania. The segment included real voices from the electorate, such as Roz Werkheiser, a lifelong Democrat and diner owner who expressed her frustration with the economic climate:
“The prices have went up, obviously because [of] the food cost. And for a family of, like, four people, five people, I have them come in and say, ‘Oh my God, I spent $100 with the tip for breakfast? That’s crazy.’ Which it is.”
While the program presented contrasting data to show signs of recovery under the Biden administration, the lived experiences of many voters didn’t align with the narrative of progress. This dissonance revealed that in today’s polarized media, statistics often are less highly regarded to sentiment.
The segment underscored a growing divide in how economic information is perceived. For many, even if the macroeconomic indicators suggest improvement, those gains feel abstract—remote from the daily struggles of managing a family budget or running a small business.
Despite the segment’s careful framing and compelling interviews, its ultimate impact on voter behavior was negligible. Most Americans had already made up their minds, illustrating the formidable challenge that journalism faces in an era of deep political polarization. Even high-quality investigative work can struggle to shift perceptions when opinions are already drawn.
Sarah Fish ‘26 continues that, “I believe reliable journalism plays a vital role in our society, especially with how much misinformation spreads online. That said, the challenge isn’t just about access to trustworthy news—it’s about whether people are willing to engage with it. Even when credible sources are available, many individuals tend to follow outlets that reinforce what they already believe. As a result, echo chambers form, and people miss out on well-rounded perspectives.”
Post-Election Fallout
Journalism’s faces struggles today on all fronts including when the president filed a $20 billion lawsuit against CBS, which hosted 60 Minutes, alleging that a 60 Minutes interview with Vice President Kamala Harris was deceptively edited to favor the Democratic ticket. The lawsuit accused the network of editorial bias and manipulation, suggesting the segment had intentionally skewed public perception during a critical election moment.
Alicia Yu ’26 said, “I think that having a factual news source is incredibly important in today’s world, and that people are improperly informed on crucial issues. However, even with being provided reputable news sources, people tend to only consume the news that they seek out. And therefore, people continue to live close minded with their personal beliefs and usually will not turn to or listen to unbiased media.”
CBS strongly denied the allegations, defending its editorial integrity and reaffirming its commitment to journalistic standards, but the damage was already done. The controversy stirred a broader national debate about media bias and press freedom. The lawsuit triggered the resignation of longtime 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens—a symbolic moment that highlighted the fragile boundary between media accountability and political intimidation. With the political intimidation reaching other press outlets and even colleges today, this threat has to be taken seriously.
The 2004 Tsunami and Journalism as a Force for Good
In contrast to the political storm surrounding the 2024 election, 60 Minutes’ coverage of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami demonstrated journalism at its most constructive. The segment brought harrowing images and human stories from devastated areas in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand into the homes of millions of viewers around the world.
Using on-the-ground footage, survivor accounts, and expert’s opinions, the episode provided not just information but immense pathos for the viewers. Viewers didn’t just learn about the death toll—they saw the faces of those affected. In doing so, 60 Minutes moved beyond its role as a news outlet and inspired global action.
In the days following the broadcast, humanitarian aid surged. Relief agencies and nonprofits reported record-breaking donation spikes, attributing much of the momentum to the emotional resonance and broad reach of the 60 Minutes report.
Journalism’s Dual Impact
These two stories from 60 Minutes’ segments illustrate the dual nature of journalism’s power. On one hand, in volatile partisan climates, true journalism can be ignored and attacked. On the other hand, journalism can still unite people under common emotions or in times of crisis.
Domestically, journalism increasingly operates in an environment where even the most diligent reporting is filtered through confirmation bias. The flux of misinformation on other platforms as well don’t help, either. The 2024 election story was fact-based, thoroughly reported, and emotionally resonant. However, its influence was dulled by hardened opinions many Americans bear. The lawsuit that followed only deepened the sense that journalism itself is under attack.
Emi Hare-Yim ’26 said, “One of the most serious issues that we face today is the overwhelming spread of misinformation. Social media platforms and unverified sources have made it incredibly easy for false or misleading content to go viral. At the same time, it feels like truly credible journalism is getting drowned out. I learned this especially from doing debate because we have to find credible research for modern topics, and there is an overwhelming abundance of misinformation with that.”
Internationally, however, 60 Minutes demonstrated its potential to rise above political squabbles. The tsunami coverage showed how journalism can provide urgency that drives meaningful change.
Lessons for the Future
As 60 Minutes enters its next era, it faces an increasingly complex task: to maintain editorial rigor while getting people to believe their media over another source or people’s own biased opinions. The contrasting outcomes of its election and tsunami coverage reflect a broader truth about the influence of the media depending on the topic as well.
As journalism continues to battle shrinking attention spans, increasing polarization, and economic pressures, 60 Minutes remains a model of true journalism and persistence for facts. Its legacy is a testament to journalism’s once great influence and the stark contrast of how the media is perceived today.
As 60 Minutes enters its next era, it faces an increasingly complex task: to maintain editorial rigor while getting people to believe their media over another source or people’s own biased opinions.