Open Letter to 60 Minutes: What Is Your End Game?

Dear 60 Minutes,

As a media and public relations professional, I watched with disappointment as your recent segment on the so-called corruption in the insurance industry aired.

The timing of this piece—right after a hurricane—is more than just suspect; it's an example of what I’d call media hackery.

And to make matters worse, the story you presented is essentially a repackaged version of one that aired three years ago.

This raises a critical question: What is your end game?

We can all agree that the days of Mike Wallace and Dan Rather are over.

They were journalists of integrity who set a high bar for investigative reporting.

But now, 60 Minutes seems more interested in stoking public outrage and sensationalism.

While you certainly have the right to choose your stories, I have to wonder: Are you deliberately trying to undermine an industry that exists to protect people from natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes?

What exactly are you trying to prove here?

Your piece painted the insurance industry as a monolithic villain, hell-bent on cheating policyholders.

Yet, you neglected to mention the complexities of the insurance process and the diligent work that goes into responding to natural disasters.

The reality is that insurance companies don’t get into business to fail. If an insurer writes bad policies or exploits its customers, it won’t last long in this market.

There’s no mention in your story of how these companies and their adjusters are often the first on the scene after a storm, setting up rapid response teams and reaching out to policyholders because it’s not just good business—it’s the right thing to do.

We all hope for calm weather and natural disaster-free years, but the insurance industry stands ready to help when storms do strike.

Unlike storm chasers or roofing contractors who are essentially cheering for a hurricane to come their way, insurance companies are not hoping for a disaster.

Why?

Because paying out claims isn’t profitable; it’s simply part of the service they provide.

Insurers don’t profit from destruction the way others do—and frankly, the way 60 Minutes just did by capitalizing on a “hot” story to spike ratings.

Let’s be honest.

Your story wasn’t about exposing wrongdoing; it was about sensationalizing a narrative for viewership.

Congratulations on the ratings bump!

But in doing so, you’ve demonstrated that the era of responsible journalism that Mike Wallace and Dan Rather represented is truly over.

This wasn’t a balanced exposé; it was a one-sided attack designed to paint an entire industry in the worst possible light.

So again, I ask: What is your end game?

To make the public distrust the very industry that exists to protect them in times of crisis?

To turn hardworking adjusters and insurers into villains while glorifying those who profit off tragedy?

It’s easy to sit in an air-conditioned studio and pass judgment, but the reality on the ground is far more nuanced than the narrative you presented.

While you have every right to air stories like this, remember that others, including those in the industry, have the right to counter your narrative.

As someone in media and PR, I will.

The insurance industry doesn't need to rely on sensationalism to make its case; it relies on facts, transparency, and the critical role it plays in protecting people's livelihoods.

The story you told is not just incomplete—it’s a dangerous misrepresentation of an industry that we all need.

So, to 60 Minutes: If your aim is to reveal truth, do it fairly and fully. Until then, spare us the ratings-grabbing sensationalism disguised as journalism.

The public deserves better.

Sincerely,

Chaz Galloway

Media Expert and PR Consultant