An Unsavory 60 Minutes-Mossad Production

The show let Israel’s premier spy agency control the narrative in “The Pagers Plot”

OPINION

In its Dec. 22 segment on "The Pager Plot"—Israel’s spectacular sabotage operation against Hezbollah in Lebanon—the legendary Sunday news show failed professionally and ethically as an investigative news outlet. It broadcast a story that could have been written by Mossad itself—and practically was. The show featured two retired Mossad operatives—they were masked, wearing glasses and their voices were distorted—one of whom was identified as the operation's commander.

As the world learned in mid-September 2024, thousands of Hezbollah pagers blew up. The next day, hundreds more walkie-talkies exploded, some during funerals for those killed while handling the devices. The operation, bold and impressive, caused significant disruption within the ranks of the Iran-backed militias. Thousands of people were left in shock; some 3,000 were injured, and dozens were killed (mostly in Lebanon, some in Syria).

It was the largest targeted killing in the history of counterterrorism, executed with minimal collateral damage—earning widespread admiration internationally.

60 Minutes’ senior correspondent Lesley Stahl, a reputable veteran journalist with an admirable record of incisive reporting, appeared to diverge from her typically rigorous approach, however, accepting the operatives' narratives with minimal challenge or contextual scrutiny.

To understand the gravity of these editorial choices, consider how the journalism community would respond to 60 Minutes airing an exclusive feature on Iranian military operations against Israel, complete with carefully curated footage and an unchallenging interview with a senior Iranian commander celebrating battlefield accomplishments.

The outcry would be immediate—and justified. Despite its weaknesses, Israel is still a democracy, while Iran is ruled by a brutal dictatorship.

Yet when it comes to journalistic judgment, both should be treated equally, with no free ride.  Questions about editorial independence, balanced reporting, and the responsibility to challenge propaganda must be impartial. 

The report by 60 Minutes, now in its 57th year, represents a troubling moment in journalism—not because of what it revealed, but because of what it signifies about the state of contemporary media. The program's handling of this story raises serious questions about how major news outlets are willing to compromise in pursuit of ratings and real or imaginary scoops.

Yet, when similar editorial choices are made with different subjects, the media's critical faculties seem to dim when the targets of its investigations offer it exclusive access and compelling footage.

This selective application of journalistic standards should concern us all.

The fundamental issue here isn't about intelligence agencies or military operations; it's about journalism's growing willingness to compromise its core principles for the sake of exclusive content.

The 60 Minutes story was fully controlled by the Mossad, Israel's foreign espionage agency. In return for granting CBS exclusivity, the deal was that Mossad chief David Barnea would select the agents to be interviewed.  In addition, a representative of Israeli military censorship sat nearby during the interview, at a filming location in a Tel Aviv hotel, to monitor and make sure that the prearranged understandings—including the censorship of information it did not want discussed—would be observed. 

When news organizations allow access to dictate content, when they trade critical distance for insider footage, they betray their fundamental mission.

This trend is particularly dangerous in an era where the line between news and propaganda becomes increasingly blurred. Major news outlets, especially those with the prestige and reach of 60 Minutes, have a special responsibility to maintain rigorous standards. Their choices set precedents and shape industry norms.

(SpyTalk reached out to 60 Minutes for comment on Tuesday. By press time today it had not responded.)

PsyOps

The celebration of this segment in the Israeli security establishment as a successful exercise in psychological warfare (as much as a battlefield triumph), aided by uncritical reportage, should set off alarm bells in newsrooms across the country. When journalism becomes a willing participant in strategic messaging campaigns —regardless of the source—it compromises its role as an independent observer and critic.

What is even more difficult to accept is how the pursuit of exclusivity seems to lower the bar for critical questioning. Important context gets sidelined, challenging questions go unasked, and alternative perspectives remain unexplored. The result is coverage that, while visually compelling and potentially exclusive, fails to serve its fundamental purpose: providing viewers with a complete and critically examined picture of events.

Stahl asked the operatives, "What about Israel's moral reputation?"—as if that hadn’t already been under severe questioning for months worldwide for its ruthless bombing campaign in Gaza.

 "There is a prioritization," an operative dubbed Gabriel responded. "First, you defend your people, then you worry about reputation." Cut to more video.

This isn't just about one program or one story. It's about a growing pattern in journalism where the allure of exclusive access leads to compromised standards. The public deserves better. They deserve journalism that maintains its critical edge regardless of who's offering access or how compelling the footage might be.

CBS' 60 Minutes, with its unmatched prestige, knows it all too well.###

Yossi Melman is an Israeli intelligence reporter and commentator and co-author (with Dan Raviv) of Spies Against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars. Elad Mann is an Israeli lawyer specializing in free speech issues.