They ran a piece on Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, during which they showed a photo of what was supposed to be his parents.
But was, in fact, a picture of his Dad, when he was dating Kim Cattrall !
Really ? His Mom is still alive, attends his ceremonies, and has been seen in print media frequently, since his election !
How can the producers be this boneheaded and misinformed? Who’s doing the research over there?
It boggles my mind !
Do you have a story or a link or a cite where I could read about this? I’ve heard nothing about this.
The one time I knew something first hand about a 60 Minutes story, I was shocked at the number of errors, half-truths and out and out lies in the show.
Googled it.
Yeah, it looks like they mislabeled some stills. Its a screw up & its embarrassing, but I’m not sure there was malice intended.
[URL="http://‘60 Minutes’ Misidentifies Kim Cattrall As Margaret Trudeau
I usually mess this up, but here you go!
How can any news organization…I’m baffled truly!
(Sorry, tried twice! It’s out there though!)
(scroll down a bit to get to the bit about the mislabelling.
I’m slightly amused that Kim Cattrall’s tweet in response was sent to @SixtyMinutes (the Twitter handle of an Australian programme) and not @60minutes (the Twitter handle of the American program that made the mistake).
I’ve made this mistake before. I was trying to look up some story that had been covered on U.S. 60 Minutes, and ended up getting all sorts of links to Australian Sixty Minutes. It took me a little while to sort out the confusion.
When I was 12, I thought that 60 Minutes was the pinnacle of American journalism. Whether I was too young to understand, or whether the show has just declined over time, I no longer watch it because I find the stories to be slanted and simplified to the point of uselessness.
Thing is, in the interview he responds, when asked, that Canadians wish Americans would learn more about the world around them and their neighbours sometimes.
Y’think?
Don’t they fact check anything? They should be hugely embarrassed, in my opinion.
Be glad it was just an error. The network news magazines openly fake the news constantly (such as in this 20/20 piece, where they showed a hyper-violent “backyard wrestling” video and then showed the viewers Mick Foley’s reaction to a completely different video).
I would think it would be just about impossible for them to do this intentionally because …
60 Minutes relies on its reputation to be taken seriously. When they make these kinds of errors, it detracts from their image and people will take them less seriously.
They can’t stand for that sort of thing.
There is no way to be certain I suppose. But I can’t imagine the organization did this intentionally.
Some individual employee may have snapped for any number of reason and may have been responsible for this. But I think the odds are astronomical against the organization as a whole having decided to have some fun and try to make Trudeau look bad (or whatever it was they were trying to do).
I’d guess it was just some lone idiot who had been drugging or drinking or something like that.
Or possibly an honest mistake.
I never thought it was malicious.
But it’s kind of hard to believe they take their reputation seriously.
Or that they expect anyone else to take THEM seriously, when they are this ill informed and apparently don’t fact check anything!
Well, 60 Minutes has actually apologized…
…to Kim Cattrall!:smack::dubious:
Eh, I’d be okay with Kim Cattrall being my… let’s say stepmom, so it isn’t weird.
Last year, they did a very graphic piece about Sarin gas, which is being used in Syria even though its use has been banned worldwide. To me, the most offensive thing about it was that it shared airtime with a man with photographic memory who keeps a whole fantasy football league in his head. :dubious:
Yes. I saw a show in the 80s, I think, where I knew something about it, and was shocked at the reporting. I’ve never thought of them as trustworthy since.
Knoll’s Law of Media Accuracy: Everything you see in the media is absolutely true except for the stories you have personal knowledge of.
I’ve been watching it on occasion since the early 70’s when I was a wee lad. It’s always had the reputation of being slanted, half-truths and lies. It pioneered the uncomfortable investigative reporting.
They’ve always prided themselves on being ‘dragon-slayers’ instead of truth tellers
Yeah, I’ve generally not been fond of much of anything 60 Minutes has said about things where I actually know what’s going on, and it made me very suspicious about pretty much everything else that they’ve done on the program. Like any TV program, it exists to draw viewers to advertisements. This one may have a veneer of respectability, but it’s still going for the ratings at the end of the day, just targeted toward a different demographic. I used to watch it with my family for years, but as I got older and wiser I realized that they weren’t being entirely truthful with everything and now watch it only rarely.
I have indeed found this to be the case, with one shining exception: The Wall Street Journal. It’s kind of annoying as I disagree with their political stances, but I have to say, their reporting of facts is absolutely top notch (based on the very very few instances where Knoll’s Law applies).