14 is only 0.6% of 2,325, so (assuming each controversy stems from one episode) less than 1% of their episodes have generated controversy.

Edit: That said, also according to the linked Wiki article, there have been only 13 aired controversies (the last one is an internal issue). The updated percentage is 0.56%.

Without the exact number of episodes that have aired since then, I cannot answer that question.

>Have they issued corrections for them?

It seems to me that you only skimmed the Wikipedia article to get a total count of controversies and to determine the dates around when they occurred. It would probably do you some good to take just a few minutes to read through them so that you better understand the nuance of them, the actual severity of the issues, and whether or not they issued corrections, retractions, etc.

In fact if you had read through them, you'd have noticed that the last one isn't a controversy about any aired content at all but is rather an internal issue, so there have only been 13 controversies.

This isn't a pissing contest. I believe 60 Minutes is of low journalistic/information quality (low value content/investigation, controversies in recent years, only some corrections, partial retractions, removal of content without issuing a correction/reason). It sounds like you have a different opinion - seemingly that an unknown number of episodes (14 or greater) over the course of over 2300 episodes and their actions/inactions related to them does not tarnish their reputation. And that's fine.

All that happened was that I saw you say that 14 issues “seems kind of high”, I got curious about how that compared with the total number of episodes aired, did the math and then shared the data. At best, my response was a suggestion that your “kind of high” claim didn’t line up with the data available to us at the time. Your subsequent responses, however, flagged some things for me; while you suggest that 60 Minutes has “low journalistic integrity/information quality”, your responses seem to demonstrate the same lack of attention to detail.

First, your initial post demonstrated that you simply counted Wiki sub-headings instead of reading about them to see if they actually counted as a “controversy” relevant to your point. One of the controversies listed was limited to internal sexual assault issues and, as far as we are aware, doesn’t have anything to do with on-air controversies or failures of journalistic integrity. I also mentioned that you should better understand the nuance of some of the issues because for instance, in the case of “Alar”, the issue was that the program highlighted a concern around a chemical used on apples, and sales of apples plummeted. The EPA ended up banning the same chemical the year that the program aired, so beyond apple sales plummeting there wasn’t much “controversy” that I can see. Because this specific comment chain was about the program “making stuff up, lying about it, or peddling other peoples lies”, I’m not sure whether or not the Alar/apple “controversy” actually falls in line with that specific concern.

In addition, your last response says that, “if you read it you would see some of these controversies spanned multiple episodes”, but that’s a lie - none of the controversies “spanned multiple episodes”. Let’s review:

- “Unintended Acceleration” aired on November 23, 1986, no mention of multiple episodes

- “Alar” aired in February 1989, no mention of multiple episodes

- “Werner Erhard” aired on March 3, 1991, no mention of multiple episodes

- “Brown & Williamson” aired in 1995, no mention of multiple episodes

- “US Customs Service” aired in 1997, no mention of multiple episodes

- “Kennewick Man” aired on October 25, 1998, no mention of multiple episodes

- “Viacom/CBS Cross-Promotion”, accusations of the program promoting books/films/interviews of value to sister company Viacom, but doesn’t mention “making stuff up, lying about it,” etc. nor does it say that those spanned multiple episodes

- “Killian Documents Controversy” aired on September 8, 2004, neither the 60 Minutes wiki page nor the linked Killian controversy page mentions multiple episodes

- “Benghazi Report” aired on October 27, 2013, no mention of multiple episodes

- “NSA Report” aired on December 15, 2013, no mention of multiple episodes

- “Tesla Automaker Report” aired on March 23, 2014, no mention of multiple episodes

Ultimately, I don’t have a problem with the fact that you don’t think 60 Minutes meets your standard of journalistic integrity. I also don’t have an opinion about the program myself. One doesn’t have to be defending something, or showing support for it, if they’re simply pointing out that data might not jive with a claim and that there is more nuance involved than someone seems to suggest.

My concern simply lies in the fact that you’re berating an outlet for not doing their due diligence with regard to the facts at hand, when you yourself are quite guilty of doing the same thing, continuing even after it was suggested that you hadn’t read the data you were using to back up your claims. You’re right, it’s not a pissing contest; I believe people should thoroughly read through anything they use to back up their claims, and it sounds like you have a different opinion.

And that’s fine.

On what basis? The cutoff is subjective. To you, your (incorrect) .6% might seem to be low, but to me, that might seem high.

You mention the Viacom controversy, but dismiss it because it's not lying and wrongly imply that reasoning as being my position. You also quote me about "journalistic integrity". One does not have to lie to be of low journalistic integrity. The Viacom controversy fits the complaint of low journalistic integrity and spans multiple years.

"I believe people should thoroughly read through anything they use to back up their claims, and it sounds like you have a different opinion."

I do believe people need to read and understand anything they are discussing. It's wrong of you to create these ad hominem attacks, and quite ironic as well.

The one with Fauci where he reveals he has to have security is genuinely disturbing.