This article was first published in the Right to the Point newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each week.
Earlier this month, a New York Times columnist argued that the unconventional presidency of Donald Trump merits a national civic uprising.
“People throughout history have done exactly this when confronted by an authoritarian assault,” David Brooks wrote. … “These movements used many different tools at their disposal — lawsuits, mass rallies, strikes, work slowdowns, boycotts and other forms of noncooperation and resistance.”
One of those “other forms” is on display at the long-running television show “60 Minutes.” The venerable show, which debuted in 1968, has won more Emmy and Peabody awards than any other show, and for many people, it has been “must-watch” TV across decades. Its access to newsmakers and its in-house investigations have long made it a show that didn’t just report news, but made news.
That’s happened again with the recent resignation of the show’s executive producer, Bill Owens, followed up by an extraordinary segment on Sunday in which correspondent Scott Pelley paid tribute to Owens while sharply criticizing his employer. In his remarks, Pelley insinuated that CBS and its parent company are caving to Trump.
As NBC reported, “CBS News’ parent company, Paramount Global, is in the midst of a merger with Skydance Media that needs the approval of the Trump administration. Trump has sued ’60 Minutes’ for $20 billion, saying it unfairly edited a Kamala Harris interview last fall to her advantage. Owens and others at ’60 Minutes’ believe they did nothing wrong and have opposed a settlement.”
Owens had been at ’60 Minutes’ for 26 years when he resigned, saying in a memo to staff, “Over the past months, it has also become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it. To make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience.”
The resignation was, according to an article in The New Republic, “akin to a soldier pulling the pin on their last grenade.”
On Sunday, however, Pelley threw another grenade, saying in his tribute to Owens that Paramount had been “supervising” show’s content.
“None of our stories has been blocked, but Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires. No one here is happy about it, but in resigning, Bill proved one thing: he was the right person to lead ’60 Minutes’ all along,” Pelley said.
On the one hand, if none of the show’s stories have been axed by Paramount, this reaction can seem overblown, as can Owens’ description of “60 Minutes” as being an essential part of the national dialogue. (“The show is too important to the country, it has to continue, just not with me as the executive producer,” he wrote in the memo.)
“60 Minutes” draws an average of more than 8 million viewers — more than the top rated cable news shows, of which the leader in the first quarter of 2025 was Fox News’ “The Five,” with viewership above 4 million. “60 Minutes” is an important show, to be sure, but much of that importance derives from its history, not necessarily its future. Like all news shows today, it is caught up in a rapidly changing media landscape with no guarantee of future relevance. Also, it’s not even the top-rated show on CBS, but third, behind “Tracker” and “Matlock.”
In their defiance, the “60 Minutes” journalists will be lauded by other journalists and opponents of Trump, much like Harvard University is winning fans for its resistance to the administration. They are pieces of the uprising that Brooks wants.
But Brooks’ column brings to the fore difficult questions, not the least of which is this: Trump is the president, having won the 2024 election with both the popular and electoral vote. Shouldn’t he get to be president without calls for uprising and resistance within his first 100 days?
Also: Is all this talk of uprising unfair to the Americans who elected Trump and who are happy with what he is doing? And, is the language of “uprising” dangerous in ways we don’t yet foresee?
Perhaps the most sensible response to Brooks’ column was in the comments of The New York Times. A Bronx resident wrote: “I have two words that solve the uprising problem: midterm elections.”
That is, after all, the democratic way.
The month in apologies
It’s been a week of insufficient apologies, starting with the 21-year-old who called a top NFL draft prospect and pretended to be the general manager of the New Orleans Saints with a job offer. Jax Ulbrich later said on Instagram that his action was “completely inexcusable, embarrassing and shameful” — but then misspelled Shedeur Sanders’ name in his public apology. Full story here.
Meanwhile, Nike was forced to apologize for a billboard along the route of the London Marathon that said, with the Nike logo, “Never again. Until next year.”
“Never again,” of course, is a somber vow associated with the Holocaust, and the use of the phrase in this manner provoked outrage on social media.
As my colleague Kelsey Dallas noted, the reaction included Bill Ackman writing on X, “It is hard to imagine that there was no one at Nike, on the marketing team, at their advertising firm, banner manufacture etc. who didn’t know or who didn’t think to Google the words ‘Never again’.”
Nike’s response? A statement provided to Louis Keene of The Forward that said, in part, “We did not mean any harm and apologize for any we caused.”
It’s hard to imagine a weaker response, but Nike has a history of blowing past controversy without any significant harm to its balance sheets. In fact, the company seemingly courts outrage, using Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong and Colin Kaepernick in ads at the height of controversy swirling around these athletes.
But these apologies were topped by a more jaw-dropping one, published after Christianity Today ran an article — on Holy Week — saying that Jesus might not have been nailed to the cross, but bound with ropes.
An editor’s note later added to the piece said: “This article has been revised to clarify that Scripture, including the Gospel of John, indicates that Jesus was crucified with nails and that Christianity Today, along with Christian scholars and theologians throughout church history, affirms that account.”
The magazine also published an apology from the author, Daniel Silliman, who said he just intended to explore ideas that had been put forth in the journal Biblical Archeology Review. On X, Silliman wrote simply, “I clearly messed up. I’m sorry.”
Which perhaps is what Nike should have said.
Quote of the Week:
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, responding to a question from Elizabeth Dias of The New York Times about his prospects for succeeding Pope Francis:
“I got a better chance of batting cleanup for the Yankees than I do being pope.”
Recommended Reading
Law professor Asma Uddin looks at the Supreme Court’s challenge in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Maryland case involving parents who don’t want their children exposed to books about gender and sexuality in public schools.
“Some see the case as an attack on inclusive education. Others view it as a necessary defense of religious liberty in the public school system. But the truth, as is often the case, lies somewhere in the middle.”
How the Supreme Court Could Respect Religious Families Without Undermining Public Education
Everyone knows society is less civil, right? But Naomi Schaefer Riley wonders if that’s really the case after she witnesses an episode of tennis-court rage.
“Are there surveys in the past where people have responded that civility is improving? I’d be surprised. There’s always a little bit of a “hell in a hand basket” kind of response when you ask these questions."
Is Incivility Really Getting Worse?
Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute takes a deep dive into all the fuss about reciprocal tariffs and concludes Trump’s version of this concept is a “catastrophically bad idea.”
“Regardless of whether you think the United States needs higher or lower tariffs, the decision should be based on what’s best for most Americans and the economy as a whole, not what some random government official in some random country decides (often for political, not economic, reasons).”
End notes
Fresh off my conversation with Franklin Graham and getting ready to write about NewsNation personality Brian Entin, I’m wondering if there is anyone in particular you’d like to see featured in a Deseret profile. If so, drop me a note at Jgraham@deseretnews.com, or reach out on X, which will always be Twitter to me: @Grahamtoday.
Thank you for reading and being part of the Right to the Point community.