Let's be realistic.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

"60 MINUTES," in my opinion, is a good news magazine show. I enjoy seeing Mike Wallace as the main anchor. All this time, before I found out he passed away in 1991, I thought that Harry Reasoner had been fired that same year. When I leaned the truth, I was really sad. If you ask me, it seems that nobody stays with a TV show throughout its entire run anymore. Still, I enjoyed hearing him report about what was happening in the world. I still think about him to this day. Upon learning of Ed Bradley's death, I was really sad. I didn't even know he had been battling cancer. The only things I don't like hearing about are when someone has been murdered or gone missing. Now, in conclusion, I'd like to say that Harry Reasoner and Ed Bradley were fine reporters who will be sorely missed.

CBS's "60 Minutes" aired Scott Pelley's interview with Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich on March 18th, 2007 ("The Killings in Haditha"). Pelley's performance was a disgraceful failure. Instead of using the discussion as a platform to give the viewers information about Wuterich's experience and what happened in Haditha on November 19th, 2005 in a simple, straightforward fashion -- which is, or at least should be, the aim of such interviews -- Pelley spent far too much time moralizing about Wuterich's actions and endeavoring to make sure that everyone knew that he was making important, and importantly correct, judgments about what Wuterich had done. Everyone can agree that what happened that day in Haditha was tragic, like so much of what happens any in war. I'm not saying that what Wuterich did that day Haditha was legal, morally permissible, illegal or morally impermissible. But I'm certain that the way Scott Pelley conducted the interview was unacceptable. I might, after some thought, make a judgment about what I thought of Wuterich's actions, but only if I had enough facts about the incident to form such a judgment. And I would have gotten such information if Pelley had done a passable job in his discussion. His moralizing was counterproductive and irritating. Regardless of the moral or legal status of Wuterich's actions on November 19th, 2005, he did do a good job of handling Pelley's ham-fisted melodrama -- he didn't succumb to the pressure to show excessive, blathering emotion and didn't make an on-air entreaty for forgiveness, absolution and mercy. Shame on you "60 Minutes". And Shame on you, Scott Pelley, for such a cheap, manipulative charade of an interview. You could have provided us with information, but left us with only tawdry, highhanded sanctimony.

This is the news show to which other news shows aspire, and none has ever even come close. This show has been on for 35 years because people trust it. They know that what they see and hear will be the unvarnished, unbiased truth; while a fatuous blowhard like Bill O'Reilly can call his show "The No-Spin Zone" when it is actually nothing BUT spin, viewers know that "60 Minutes" doesn't "spin" anything; it's not afraid to take on powerful people, institutions and corporations, and in fact has even raked its own network over the coals on more than one occasion. The show has a reputation for integrity that is unparalleled in the history of TV, and the fact that it has often elicited howls of protest from both the right and the left because of its coverage or investigations of issues or people "sacred" to those particular political philosophies is testimony to its effectiveness. This show is as good as it's possible to get.

With the explosion of news magazine shows on the prime-time airwaves, it is useful to remember the long-running program that producers are trying to emulate: 60 Minutes.This show combines investigative journalism, celebrity profiles, and features about interesting organizations and events. When it's a serious subject, you feel like they have fairly and objectively reported the story. Even with lighter topics you get the impression 60 Minutes has captured the essence of the story.Each segment is about 15 minutes long; we get three in every one-hour show. When the subject is something serious, the viewer has the option of following up in detail on other sources.Sure, it's a formula, but the 60 Minutes people perfected the formula. No one else on commercial television does such good journalism.Why has this show consistently placed near the top of the ratings for three decades? Because it's damn good. Why do people tune into 60 Minutes every week, despite the fact that during football season it is often delayed due to long-running games? Because they know that 60 Minutes will deliver.Jack and Shana's debates in the 70s were a little much to take, and I can't stand Andy Rooney's musings, but the core of the show has remained solid.