I wasn't going to comment on this originally since I've discussed this issue before, but I love a good disagreement. Not that this one is a full-fledged dispute, mind you.

Background from Will Lewis:

This morning I got an email from a loyal reader about the 60 Minutes article that aired last night, China Investment An Open Book? The video and transcript are available at that link. The focus of the story is an interview with Gao Xiqing, President of the China Investment Corporation (CIC).

Before I started typing away I decided to check what else was out there. Rich Brubaker at All Roads Lead to China has a post up, 60 Minutes Report: China’s Sovereign Wealth Fund. Mr. Brubaker gives a nice summary of the material covered in the article, but I disagree with his perceptions.

Will thought the piece was fairly even-handed, while Rich's feathers were ruffled. I went ahead and watched the piece. I agree with Will that it is fine on its face. The interview with the head of CIC was good (that guy is a hell of a good speaker – get him out in front of the camera more often!) and the other interviews were unsurprising. Of course they gave some air time to a China basher, since that is the other side of the story. Peter Navarro did not come off very well, but that's his problem. His attempt to conflate IP infringement with potential financial misdeeds was stupid and bizarre.

I would be curious to know whether Rich was more upset with the piece itself or the editorial decisions that went into choosing that topic in the first place – his post suggests the former. If I have any criticism, it's with the executive producer or whoever chooses stories. Why do a whole segment on sovereign wealth funds and, although other countries were mentioned, focus solely on China? The real answer, of course, is that they sent Lesley Stahl to China for that, and probably other, stories. Costs too much to also fly her to Dubai or Kuwait – I understand there are constraints here. Another reason of course is that China is the boogeyman du jour, and even with an even-handed segment, 60 Minutes understands that trotting out protectionist fears will play well to its audience.

While I therefore would not call this a hit piece, I think that 60 Minutes' motivations here are quite transparent. We are not amused.