Tell I'm wrong about 60 Minutes. Back in the late 90's 60 Minutes ran a Saddam

[snagglepuss]

Hussein piece about secret weapons he had that could deliver missiles to Europe, his ruthlessness etc. That story stayed with me. In fact back then I regarded 60 Sixty Minutes as a utterly trustworthy news source. When after 911 there was talk about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I thought back to this story and believed Hussein had them.

I mention this because tonight 60 Minutes ran a story about US vulnerability to hacking at the highest levels which imperil US security and of the billions required to secure these systems. On one hand I don't doubt at all this is an issue but I no longer see CBS as a credible source.

So my question is whether 60 Minutes is again simply laying groundwork to prep Americans about billions that are to be allocated to fight this new homeland security issue.

[stray cat]

1. You actually think businesses are paying to protect you and I instead of focusing on profits?

[snagglepuss]

5. Not at all but the story had the very same not so subtle fear-mongering tone

the story about Saddam had. Back then I remember saying I never knew the situation in Iraq was so dire and that story gave sense to rumours about WMDs, I'm sure there are many viewers saying the same thing tonight about the dire warnings of high level hacking. Is this propaganda in service to the military-industrial complex or is it fact?

[Cleita]

2. Back before then they had good journalists on 60 Minutes and you could

trust that what they investigated was the real story. Not so much after Charles Kuralt (1968–1979)
Walter Cronkite (1968-1981), Roger Mudd (1968–1980) and Eric Sevareid (1968-1969) left. My husband started catching them in mistakes and propaganda (he was a very thorough researcher himself) and finally stopped watching because he felt they couldn't be trusted any more. I still watch but with a very skeptical eye.

[snagglepuss]

8. Its almost a disservice that they were so trustworthy because they created

an aura around 60 Minutes that is hard to dispel.

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. Yeah, I don't think there's anybody really trustworthy on 60 minutes anymore.

Scott Pelley is such an obvious CIA plant he could announce it to the world and shock absolutely nobody. Steve Kroft comes off as a right wing douchebag most of the time. The fact that Katie Couric appears on the show at all is a fucking joke, and then there's Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper - who doesn't even fucking work for CBS but manages to be on the show all the time anyway, who ADMITS to flunking out of CIA "summer camp" when he went to Yale (the CIA's favorite school)

Andy Rooney is the only one left resembling the old 60 minutes, and he doesn't do any "hard news".

[malaise]

3. What frightened me was the way in which

they were sharing ideas for anyone who is interested.

And yes you may be right about laying groundwork.

[snagglepuss]

6. Are you suggesting too much information was being giving out?

[cbayer]

4. I have noted a distinct change in 60 over the past few years, but particularly this year.

They seem to be doing a lot of pieces that look a lot like war propaganda.

They did one on how cool the drone aircraft bombings were with Lara Croft (or whatever her name is) just going all gaga about the video game type equipment and how you could kill people in Afghanistan from a silo in Nebraska.

And I am not seeing them ask hard questions at all.

I thought it might just be me.

[snagglepuss]

7. Yes that piece was really over the top, all gaga.

In fact the piece sounded like a recruitment ad: Join the and play neat games. The fact no WMDs were found radically changed my estimation of 60 Minutes and I felt like an absolute moron for buying into spin.

I marvel how they can quietly whip up anxiety.Its interesting how they can seem so bloody credible.