In my experience, 60 Minutes is less about breaking news than competently explaining it. The tech community, as a whole, is generally bad at communicating its non-commercial preferences. This issue is no exception.
All new Internet protocols and 'standards' proposed by Google come with the implied threat that Google will do it anyways, since often Google implements it in Chrome before it is a standard, leaving everyone else to accept it or be rendered incompatible with Google, who has control of most of the Internet.
A significant number of websites now only test against Chrome and only support Chrome, leaving really only one option, often, when trying to interact with a given Internet entity.
And Chrome isn't just a monopoly, it's a monopoly they illegally use to manipulate the market and boost their other products. For instance, while competing search engines can bid for default placement on Firefox, Google gives it's own search engine exclusive rights to be default there, the monopoly search engine on the monopoly browser.
Recently, Google even introduced a method for banning competitors ads into Chrome, rendering Google ads the only "sure thing" for not having your ads arbitrarily blocked by Google.
Chrome is one of the clearest examples of why Google must be broken up. It's Ad/Search business cannot own platforms like Chrome and Android.
Under your definition, Chrome is supporting the even stronger pre-existing monopoly Google has on search or ads, and therefore is bad.
Usually anti-competitive actions are seen as a player using its monopoly to support emergence into a new market, not to build a moat around an existing market they already are dominant in.
For example, under your framing, Microsoft's usage of Internet Explorer would have been bad not because it came pre-installed with Windows, but because it was Windows-only (or worked best on Windows) thus supporting the existing Windows monopoly.
I don't know if this reasoning can hold legally---merely because I have never seen it used before.
They did a hit piece on someone who I worked with that was flat out untrue. Many people at work knew the details and agreed. That one experience made me view anything I see on TV with a healthy dose of scepticism.
They have to obtain information from some source. Almost always, that source of information can mislead the reporter/news writer easily because of the latter's lack of familiarity with the issue, the region or the culture. The reporter, on the other hand, works against time. Plus, s/he is, after all, human (susceptible to persuasion/personal biases and worse, is sometimes too lazy to do a fact-check and more importantly, to hear the voices from the other side).
As most things in life, the truth is always in somewhere the middle.
For example, in the Theranos segment that followed the Google segment on this week's 60 Minutes, the Theranos employee who first ratted them out stated that he used a fake name when he first contacted the government because he feared reprisal.
Presumably, reporters are supposed to seek adequate proof or confirmation of what they hear from "sources", and we are supposed to be able to trust that they did that job adequately or at least, they are reporting the news as they believe it, until confirmation is available in the form of an official investigation.
Could you elaborate on this? Show some nyt/whatever articles and explain what they got wrong? (What they omitted, etc.)