With Mike Wallace’s death 16 days ago, the predictable salutes to him and CBS’ “60 Minutes” as together synonymous with the best that TV journalism could, can, and may ever offer now seems a matter of historical fact.
Yet, “60 Minutes” took many dives throughout the Wallace years, and TV’s most fearsome interviewer grew uneasy when he was asked the tough questions.
The show has long been in the habit of landing first-crack interviews with authors of new books published by CBS corporate partner Simon & Schuster. What a coincidence.
In 2006, suspiciously placed just before the Masters golf tournament, a CBS property, “60 Minutes” “landed” a rare, exclusive interview with Tiger Woods. It was presented in two parts on consecutive Sundays, and conducted by the late Ed Bradley. “Tiger, as you’ve never seen him,” the promos promised.
Oh, and just in time for the release of his father’s book, “Start Something,” published by Simon & Schuster. Woods wrote the foreword.
What carried the stench of a sell — a journalistic dive — was met and surpassed when Bradley’s soft-as-snow questions and overviews painted Woods as not only the world’s best golfer — indisputable, at the time — but as the world’s finest human, something that the brattish Woods hardly demonstrated when playing, and would, three years later, be revealed as one of the all-time image con jobs.
And I wrote, in my sports column, four days later, that Wallace, addressing a seminar the next day, admitted that the Bradley-Woods session was a “tank job.” I wrote “tank job”; I did not quote Wallace using the expression.
Regardless, Wallace was angry. He seemed to be knocking both “60 Minutes” and his colleague, Bradley. Wallace called to complain.
When he called The Post looking for me, the secretary said I wasn’t in, so he cursed her out then demanded that I call him back.
When I called Wallace, I asked that we first clear the matter of his cussing out the secretary. He dismissed that with, “Tell her I’m sorry.”
We then went at it over my use of “tank job,” Wallace adding that a “little bleep” such as me has no right getting anything wrong about him!
Wallace insisted that he’d said nothing at that seminar to indicate that “60 Minutes” in any way was compromised in its Tiger Woods exclusive. That’s not, I told him, what I was told.
The next day I got hold of the transcript of Wallace’s paid appearance at that seminar. It was held at ESPN, where a spat had ensued between producers and management, after management decided to pay Barry Bonds for exclusive rights to tail him as he pursued and surpassed the career home run record.
ESPN producers weren’t happy that 1) ESPN was paying the subject of a news story. 2) ESPN had consented to allow Bonds control of content. 3) ESPN was glorifying a slugger evidently muscled on illegal drugs. 4) Bonds had always treated ESPNers in the field like dirt.
The transcript of Wallace’s talk included his support for those who objected to paying a news subject, especially allowing Bonds content approval. Right on!
But then Wallace was asked, “How many tough questions were asked in the [‘60 Minutes’] Tiger Woods piece, last night?”
“There was” Wallace replied, “an understanding going in.”
His audience responded with a knowing, “Ahh.”
After noting that Woods is a very private person, Wallace, further rationalized:
“I think some concessions were made. You didn’t see a heck of a lot of his wife, last night. The concession was, ‘Look, I’m going to be more candid with you Ed Bradley, than I’ve ever been in public before. Why? Because I’m going to get a chance to tell about my [charity] foundation.’ I think that’s fine.”
But the candid interview was just a lot of gushing nonsense. Tiger, as we’d always seen him. It was a “60 Minutes” tank job. Another one.