The turmoil engulfing CBS News and “60 Minutes” has left me wondering what my grandfather Andy Rooney would make of it all.
Rooney died in 2011 after more than three decades as a fixture of the newsmagazine, and with each passing year I find myself wishing we could hear one more of his droll observations about the state of the world. He had a gift for taking something maddening, absurd or just confusing and reducing it to a simple truth. Unfortunately, there is nothing particularly funny about what is happening to American journalism today.
The recent upheaval at CBS illustrates a troubling trend. Following Paramount’s merger with Skydance in 2024, major changes have swept through the network, including the leadership and editorial structure of “60 Minutes,” long regarded as one of the most respected news programs in American television. The shakeup has triggered concerns among journalists and former staff about the future editorial independence of the network and whether corporate and political pressures are beginning to shape newsroom decisions.
At the heart of the concern is a question that should matter to everyone, regardless of politics: Who controls the news?
For generations, American journalism operated with an understanding that owners owned the company, but journalists decided what stories were covered. That firewall was never perfect, but it existed. Increasingly, it appears to be eroding.
What is happening at CBS is not an isolated incident. It is part of a broader assault on independent journalism.
President Trump has spent years attacking the press, branding journalists “the enemy of the people” and dismissing unfavorable reporting as “fake news.” But the rhetoric has often been accompanied by action. His administration has sued major news organizations, jailed journalists, restricted the Pentagon press corps, threatened to revoke broadcast licenses, used the Federal Communications Commission to investigate newsrooms, triggered the firing of late-night talk show hosts, gutted the Voice of America and worked to weaken independent journalism wherever it exists. The pattern is difficult to ignore: discredit the press, intimidate the press and ultimately control the press.
I witnessed this firsthand. I spent nearly a decade working at NPR before being laid off after Congress voted to eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting after years of political attacks on the institution. Regardless of where one stands politically, this effort demonstrated how vulnerable independent journalism can become when it is portrayed as an enemy rather than a public service.
My grandfather understood that vulnerability.
Most Americans remember Andy Rooney for his closing commentaries on “60 Minutes,” where he offered humorous observations about everything from junk drawers to doorknobs. But before television made him famous, he was a reporter and war correspondent. His first journalism job was with Stars and Stripes, the military newspaper he served during World War II.
For more than a century, Stars and Stripes has operated under congressional protections designed to guarantee editorial independence from the military chain of command. Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced plans to bring the publication under direct editorial control to eliminate what officials described as “woke distractions.”
Critics warned that such a move would transform an independent newsroom into a government public relations operation. The proposal fits a familiar pattern: Institutions that provide independent information are viewed not as assets but as obstacles.
A free press is not a luxury. It is one of the mechanisms by which citizens hold powerful people accountable. The public cannot evaluate leaders, policies or wars if the information reaching them is filtered through political or corporate interests.
Sometimes I miss the era when my grandfather could devote an entire television segment to the mysteries of his junk drawer. Those trivial subjects only seemed trivial because the foundations of democracy felt secure enough to take for granted.
Rooney rarely made himself the story, and he was not known as a particularly political commentator. But he believed deeply in journalism and in the responsibility that comes with informing the public.
On that issue, I do not think he would be silent today.
Ben Fishel is a communications professional and editorial cartoonist living in Washington, D.C.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
The article argues that the upheaval at CBS News and “60 Minutes” following the Paramount–Skydance merger is emblematic of a deeper problem: a growing erosion of the traditional firewall between media owners and newsroom decision-making, raising the question of who ultimately controls what the public gets to see and hear.
-
It contends that, while owners have always had influence, there used to be a broadly respected norm that journalists chose the stories and angles, and that norm is now under strain as corporate and political pressures increasingly shape editorial decisions.
-
The piece links the changes at CBS to what it describes as a broader, years-long assault on independent journalism, highlighting a pattern in which powerful figures first discredit the press as biased or “fake,” then intimidate it through attacks and legal threats, and ultimately seek to control or neutralize it as an independent check.
-
It cites the Trump era as a particularly stark example, noting rhetoric such as calling journalists “the enemy of the people” alongside actions such as lawsuits against news organizations, threats to broadcast licenses, pressure on federal media regulators and government-funded outlets, and efforts to marginalize or restructure independent newsrooms, all presented as part of a coherent strategy rather than isolated incidents.
-
The article uses the author’s own experience working at NPR, and being laid off after Congress eliminated federal funding for public broadcasting, as a case study in how public media can be politically targeted and financially weakened when it is framed as an adversary instead of a public service.
-
It argues that institutions like Stars and Stripes and Voice of America exist precisely to provide independent information even though they are government-funded, and warns that attempts to bring them under tighter political control—justified by labels such as eliminating “woke distractions”—risk turning them into public relations arms rather than journalistic enterprises.
-
The piece maintains that a free press is not a luxury or a partisan cause but a core mechanism by which citizens can evaluate leaders, policies and wars, and it warns that if information is filtered through political or corporate interests, democratic accountability becomes impossible in practice.
-
It frames the nostalgia for Andy Rooney’s lighthearted “60 Minutes” essays as evidence of a time when many viewers felt democracy’s foundations were stable enough that the news could make space for trivial or quirky topics; the article suggests that the current moment feels too precarious for that kind of comfortable detachment.
-
The column emphasizes that Andy Rooney was more than a curmudgeonly television personality: before his decades of commentary on “60 Minutes,” he was a reporter and World War II correspondent, and those experiences informed a deep belief in journalism’s role in informing the public and checking power.[1][2]
-
Finally, the piece suggests that, although Andy Rooney was not known as an overtly political commentator, the present threats to editorial independence and the treatment of journalism as an enemy would have compelled a response, and that silence in the face of such trends would have been inconsistent with the values reflected in his long career.[1][2]
Different views on the topic
-
Some media executives and industry analysts portray the CBS and “60 Minutes” restructuring not as a political or ideological takeover but as a business-driven response to intense competition, audience fragmentation and streaming-era economics, arguing that ownership has a legitimate right to reconfigure leadership and formats to keep a legacy brand viable.
-
In this view, corporate involvement in editorial priorities is seen as an unavoidable part of commercial broadcasting rather than a new “assault” on independence, and supporters maintain that internal standards, professional norms and reputational concerns still provide meaningful checks on overt interference.
-
Conservative and populist critics of mainstream outlets such as CBS, NPR and other legacy news brands often argue that these institutions themselves eroded public trust by adopting what is described as a culturally liberal or establishment worldview, and therefore see political pressure, funding cuts or leadership changes as corrective measures rather than attacks on press freedom.
-
From this perspective, rhetoric like “fake news” and harsh criticism of journalists is framed as a response to what critics view as slanted or inaccurate coverage, especially of Trump-era politics, and is defended as hard-edged but legitimate political speech rather than an attempt to abolish a free press.
-
Advocates of reducing or eliminating federal funding for public broadcasting contend that taxpayer support for media is inherently fraught, arguing that news outlets should rely on private markets, philanthropy or subscriptions; they often insist that changing or cutting budgets is a policy choice about limited public funds, not a form of censorship.
-
Similarly, some policymakers and commentators argue that government-funded outlets such as Voice of America or Stars and Stripes should reflect national priorities or avoid content described as “woke” or unpatriotic, and they characterize tighter oversight as ensuring accountability to elected officials and taxpayers rather than transforming these entities into propaganda operations.
-
Defenders of past Trump administration actions toward media note that many of the most feared steps—such as revoking broadcast licenses or shutting down critical outlets—did not occur, and they argue that using legal mechanisms, regulatory reviews or public criticism to challenge coverage falls within the normal, if contentious, give-and-take between politicians and the press.
-
Some viewers and critics of “60 Minutes” and similar newsmagazines believe the brand’s reputation for toughness and balance has faded over time, and they therefore see changes in leadership or editorial direction as overdue reforms to restore relevance, ideological diversity or investigative vigor, rather than as the “downfall” of the program.
-
There are also voices within journalism who, while sharing concerns about political pressure, caution against treating all corporate or governmental changes as part of a unified campaign against the press, warning that such framing can oversimplify complex institutional dynamics and risk further polarizing public debate over media credibility.
-
Finally, where the article interprets current trends as a fundamental threat to democracy, some analysts argue that the proliferation of digital and independent outlets, including nonprofit and subscriber-supported journalism, demonstrates that press freedom remains resilient, and they contend that focusing on large legacy organizations understates the adaptability and diversity of today’s information ecosystem.
