“60 Minutes” Sparks Controversy by Criticizing Parent Company Live on Air

In a rare and bold move on national television, the long-running news program 60 Minutes publicly criticized its parent company, Paramount Global, during the closing minutes of Sunday night’s broadcast. The segment aired shortly after executive producer Bill Owens announced his resignation, citing deep conflicts with corporate leadership.

Speaking candidly to millions of viewers, veteran journalist Scott Pelley said, “Paramount has begun supervising our content in new ways. No story has been forbidden, but Bill felt he had lost the independence that real journalism requires.” His comments were a subtle yet powerful message about increasing editorial interference from the corporate parent.

Owens stunned the 60 Minutes staff earlier in the week by announcing his departure from the nation’s highest-rated news magazine. He stated that his decision was driven by Paramount’s growing influence over editorial decisions: “It was made clear the company no longer wanted me around.”

Although Paramount has not issued an official statement, 60 Minutes airing Owens’ grievances on national television gave the public a rare look into tensions between the program and the media giant that owns it.

Much of this tension appears to stem from ongoing efforts by Shari Redstone, the controlling shareholder of Paramount, to finalize a multi-billion dollar sale of the company to a film studio headed by the son of tech mogul Larry Ellison. The deal, however, reportedly requires approval from the Trump administration—making Paramount’s decisions surrounding 60 Minutes increasingly politically sensitive.

Adding to the drama, former President Donald Trump has filed a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS, accusing the network of maliciously editing a 2024 campaign interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. While legal experts argue the case is weak, Redstone has reportedly signaled a desire to settle the lawsuit out of court, sparking speculation about potential compromises from Paramount’s top leadership.

Sunday night’s episode of 60 Minutes also featured a segment critical of the Trump administration’s decision to slash funding for the National Institutes of Health. A former NIH director interviewed in the piece warned of the public health consequences of such cuts.

Pelley’s decision to publicly back Owens and denounce corporate interference is being seen as an effort to defend the editorial independence that has defined 60 Minutes for more than half a century. “He did it for us and for our viewers,” Pelley said. “Our stories are always controversial—from the Israel-Gaza war to the Trump White House—but Bill always ensured they were accurate and fair.”

This latest controversy is reminiscent of the 1995 crisis when 60 Minutes was initially blocked from airing an explosive interview with a former tobacco executive due to legal pressure. That event ultimately inspired the Hollywood film The Insider, a testament to the program’s longstanding battles for journalistic integrity.

Now, with corporate ownership more entangled than ever with politics and profit, the 60 Minutes team appears to be drawing a line in the sand.

Their bold move raises a critical question: In an era when financial and political interests increasingly dominate the media landscape, how far can journalists go to protect their independence?