Veteran correspondent Steve Kroft told Bill O’Reilly this month that he “hated” his time at 60 Minutes, a blunt assessment that reopens questions about the costs of high-profile TV journalism. His comments, made on the April 2 episode of O’Reilly’s podcast, underscore how the demands of prestige reporting can push even celebrated reporters to step away.
Appearing on “We’ll Do It Live!”, the 80-year-old Kroft reflected on three decades at CBS and a 30-season run on the newsmagazine. When O’Reilly asked whether he would return to the program, Kroft replied plainly: “No, I probably wouldn’t do it again. I hated it.”
He framed the reason in practical terms: a nonstop pace of travel, irregular sleep and a workflow that left little room for anything but producing the next segment. As Kroft put it, the job felt like it ran around the clock — a rhythm that wore on him over time despite the rewards of reporting.
Hated working at 60 Minutes: Steve Kroft explains why
Lisa Hochstein denies RHOM cancellation, insists show’s paused—here’s why
Still, Kroft acknowledged why so many covet that role. The work could be “exhilarating” and offered rare opportunities to tell consequential stories and interview major figures. But he also described the internal dynamics of television news as competitive and wary, saying colleagues often operate as if someone is waiting to undercut them.
- Career at a glance: Kroft joined 60 Minutes in 1989 and announced his retirement in 2019 after roughly three decades on the show.
- Output: He estimated nearly 500 stories for the broadcast, including interviews with presidents and other high-profile subjects.
- Why he left: Exhausting schedule, constant travel, and a cutthroat workplace culture that made long-term balance difficult.
- Preferred past role: Kroft said he valued his earlier stint at CBS’s London bureau and viewed it as the job he’d most enjoyed.
- Industry trend: Kroft’s remarks arrive amid other departures — notably Anderson Cooper’s recent decision to leave 60 Minutes after almost 20 years to prioritize family and reduce conflicting responsibilities.
Kroft recalled that his hiring created friction — colleagues eager for the assignment, and an atmosphere where advancement sometimes bred enemies. He used frank language to describe the workplace dynamics, calling the environment hostile enough that personal relationships could feel transactional.
When he announced his exit in 2019, Kroft described the choice as deliberate: he wanted to step down while he still felt mentally sharp and interested in pursuing other things. Colleagues such as Lesley Stahl tried to persuade him to stay, but Kroft said he respected those who leave on their own terms.
What this means for newsrooms
Two takeaways stand out. First, the prestige of working on a marquee program does not erase the toll of relentless production and travel. Second, the departures of long-serving correspondents point to a broader conversation about work-life balance in broadcast journalism — especially for reporters juggling high-profile network duties alongside other roles.
Anderson Cooper’s recent exit from 60 Minutes, announced in February, echoed those pressures: he cited the difficulty of balancing his CNN responsibilities with the demands of the CBS show and a desire to spend more time with young children. That example, together with Kroft’s recollections, signals a possible shift in how top journalists prioritize career and family.
For audiences, these departures could affect how networks allocate talent and how storytelling is paced and produced. For journalists, Kroft’s candid appraisal is a reminder that prestige and exhaustion often travel together — and that leaving a high-profile post can be a conscious choice to preserve health and curiosity.
As news organizations reckon with staffing, scheduling and talent retention, Kroft’s reflections offer a rare, veteran perspective on why some of journalism’s most recognizable faces ultimately walk away.
