CBS Takes the Knee: Mike Wallace Would Say No Effin’ Way to Woke Orthodoxy
Wallace was the greatest interviewer in TV history, a skill that sadly has been lost in the modern CBS.
Business tycoons used to make a joke about the 60 Minutes interviewer, better known as the most ruthless interrogator in television history:
Question: “What are the four most frightening words in the English language to a CEO?”
Answer: Mike Wallace is calling.
Not only did Wallace spread fear in his redoubtable subjects, but he could also be a relentless innovator, always searching for new ideas. Wallace and I first crossed paths at a dinner honoring his co-host, Morley Safer.
That night was full of stories, laughter, and many martinis. As you might expect, Wallace introduced Safer with a sharp wit that mixed affection and gentle ribbing. He remarked on Safer’s persona of being ‘everyman’ — though Wallace couldn’t help but point out the irony of someone who rode around New York in a Rolls-Royce and wore Turnbull and Asser ties still thinking of himself as a regular guy. The room chuckled as Wallace, with his signature blend of charm and edge, set the stage for the night.
After Safer’s heartfelt thanks, we all stayed around, chatting. That’s when Wallace turned to me with a question that could have changed my career. He asked how we structured our investigative stories at Forbes where I was the publisher. It turned out we both valued hard-hitting, fact-driven journalism — though I hadn’t expected the worlds of 60 Minutes and Forbes to align so neatly. Wallace, in true form, didn’t miss the opportunity.
Wallace asked, “Jeff, why don’t we do something together, you publish it and we film it?” Then he invited me up for coffee to his office at CBS to chat. He followed up with this letter:
Most of us picture celebrities working in studios, surrounded by set lights and assistants. But there I was, a few days later, sitting in the reception area of Mike Wallace’s office at CBS headquarters, overlooking the Hudson River. It was not a glamorous space — certainly no hint of Hollywood.
Wallace came out to greet me, sleeves rolled up, looking every bit the no-nonsense journalist that he was. He led me into his office, which was simple — a desk, two chairs, and bookcases lining the walls. It could have belonged to a middle manager in any office across America. But what followed in that room was nothing short of groundbreaking.
As we began to talk, Safer and Don Hewitt, the legendary producer of 60 Minutes, poked their heads in. “Coffee?” Hewitt asked. I almost laughed — who would believe that Morley Safer and Don Hewitt were fetching me coffee? But they did.
We hashed out an idea over those cups of joe that had never been tried before: a collaboration between Forbes and 60 Minutes. We’d investigate a story, and Forbes would publish it the Monday after 60 Minutes aired their corresponding piece on Sunday evening. It was a new way to merge TV and print journalism in a way that amplified both platforms. If this went through, it wasn’t just a career maker for me — it was a game-changer for both media outlets.
Today, CBS feels like a different place, an embarrassment frankly. Wallace, Safer, and Hewitt are long gone, and with them, it seems, the hard-hitting, risk-taking journalism that defined the golden era of 60 Minutes.
Recently, CBS has faced public scrutiny, including an interview with writer Ta-Nehisi Coates that sparked controversy. Instead of leading with Wallace’s uncompromising interrogation style, the network bent to pressures of tone-policing, worried about woke offense more than digging into uncomfortable truths.
Last week, CBS journalist Tony Dokoupil broke the china. He did something increasingly rare in mainstream media — he asked tough, honest questions during an interview with author Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Coates was promoting his new book, The Message, a one-sided polemic against Israel. In the book, Coates dismisses the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, calling it an intentional smokescreen to defend what he views as Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. In an interview with New York magazine, Coates went as far as to claim that using complexity as an argument was “horseshit” — comparing it to how defenders of slavery and segregation rationalized those horrors a century ago. “It’s complicated,” Coates said, “when you want to take something from somebody.”
So Dokoupil did what any journalist should do: he asked pointed questions to challenge Coates on his oversimplified narrative.
“Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it?”
“Why leave out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to eliminate it?”
“Why not detail anything of the first and second intifadas… the café bombings, the bus bombings, the little kids blown to bits?”
Had Wallace been around for the Coates interview, I can only imagine the fireworks. He would have pressed Coates with precision and insight on Israel and the antisemitism on campus, particularly among the people of color community, asking the hard questions no matter how unpopular. Wallace had a way of drawing out the truth, even when his subjects didn’t want to give it up. It wasn’t about avoiding controversy; it was about confronting it head-on.
In other words, Dokoupil was doing his job — engaging in journalism: probing, fact-based, and challenging a one-sided portrayal. But that’s when the real trouble began.
In today’s media landscape, where certain subjects are off-limits, or where narratives must align with woke orthodoxy, honesty seems to be an offense. Challenging a source who presents a skewed view of reality — especially when that view aligns with certain ideological camps — has apparently become an unforgivable act of editorial malpractice.
At least, that’s what CBS News seems to be telling its staff in the aftermath of the Coates interview on CBS Mornings on September 30.
The fallout didn’t take long. By the following Monday, during CBS’s 9 a.m. editorial meeting, the network’s leadership all but apologized for the interview. Wendy McMahon, the head of CBS News, along with Adrienne Roark, who oversees news gathering at the network, quickly distanced themselves from Dokoupil’s line of questioning.
Roark’s tone was contrite, and she seemed more concerned with appeasing internal progressives than standing up for journalistic integrity. She started by quoting extensively from the CBS News handbook, emphasizing that covering sensitive stories requires “empathy, respect, and a commitment to truth.” She then delivered what can only be described as a preemptive apology for the fact that Dokoupil dared to question Coates’ narrative.
Mike Wallace would have puked.
“We will still ask tough questions,” Roark claimed, “but we will do so objectively, which means checking our biases and opinions at the door.” But where was this commitment to objectivity during the coverage of other contentious topics — school shootings, or critical race theory bans?
The answer is clear: certain subjects get the “approved” treatment, and some don’t. When it comes to Israel, or any narrative challenging the woke status quo, CBS seems to operate under a different set of rules.
Roark continued, “We are here to report news without fear or favor.” But it’s hard to square that with CBS’s own actions. The network’s leadership went on to acknowledge that they had “failed” in the Coates interview, and they implied that Dokoupil’s questioning did not align with the network’s editorial standards.
In a statement that felt more like damage control than a defense of journalistic integrity, Roark added, “Many of you have reached out to express concerns about recent reporting — specifically about the CBS Mornings Coates interview.” She went on to promise more “empathy” in future coverage, signaling to staff that challenging favored narratives might not be part of CBS’s playbook anymore.
Ttranslation: Don’t expect any Mike Wallace type interviews in the future.
The entire spectacle highlights a growing issue in media: the prioritization of ideology over truth. Had Mike Wallace — 60 Minutes’ legendary interviewer — been in Dokoupil’s shoes, the result would likely have been very different. Wallace would’ve gone even further, unafraid to confront Coates with uncomfortable facts and complex realities.
And he certainly wouldn’t have apologized for doing his job. He would have been given a raise.
But in today’s CBS, journalism seems to be bending under the weight of political correctness, where the truth takes a backseat to the “right” narrative. And Tony Dokoupil, for daring to question the orthodoxy, is now finding out just how narrow that path can be.
That’s what made Mike Wallace a legend. He didn’t just follow the story — he challenged it. And he believed in the power of collaboration, innovation, and always pushing the envelope. Those conversations with Wallace weren’t just about what 60 Minutes could do — they were about the possibilities that journalism as a whole could unlock. It’s hard not to wonder how different the media landscape might look today if more of Wallace’s spirit had stayed alive at CBS.
