On what planet is it fine for someone like Mr. Miller, a former federal law enforcement official, to be the one to do a big segment on a major government security agency? Mr. Miller got the story because the N.S.A. said yes to his pitch — why would it not? — but other journalists at “60 Minutes” without his potential conflicts were interested as well. No matter how the deal was brokered, the optics were terrible and the N.S.A. got its hands on a megaphone with nary a critic in sight.

Mr. Fager would not speak on the record, perhaps in part because he was pummeled after initially defending the Benghazi broadcast; when it fell apart, he was forced to put Lara Logan, the reporter, and the producer on leave. But while declining to comment, he made it clear that he very much had his eye on the ball at “60 Minutes” and pushed back against any notion of institutional malaise.

Mr. Miller was more than happy to explain his N.S.A. segment, which he said he would not change if he had the chance. As a reporter, he has a blend of insider knowledge and careful inquiry that has been lauded by many, including me, especially during the school shootings in Newtown, Conn. He is nothing if not confident, dismissing his critics as ankle-biting, agenda-ridden bloggers who could not be compelled to get out of their pajamas and do actual reporting.

“I fully reject the criticism from you and others,” he told me. “The N.S.A. story has been a fairly one-way dialogue. There has been no conversation and when you do hear from the N.S.A., it is in a terse, highly vetted statement.”

“We went there, we asked every question we wanted to, listened to the answers, followed up as we wished, and our audience can decide what and who they believe. As we constructed it, the N.S.A. was a story about a debate, not a villain, and we added to that debate with important information. I fail to understand how a shrill argument for the sake of creating televised drama would have accomplished anything.”

Mr. Miller is a highly respected reporter, and stand-up enough to come on the phone and defend his work. (He is reportedly heading back into government to work for his former boss, William Bratton, in the New York City Police Department.) But I’m pretty sure that the credentials that make him valuable on a mass shooting are the same ones that create a conflict on the N.S.A. segment. And Ms. Logan, who raced past conflicting information to a predetermined conclusion and pulled the program into a ditch in the process, should get more than Christmas off for her lapses.

The DNA of “60 Minutes” is adversarial, investigative and most of all accurate. It would be a cheap and easy trick to roll Mike Wallace back from the grave for the sake of contrast, but of course the N.S.A. would not have let him near the place. Maybe that is the point. “60 Minutes” is a calling, not an assignment, and the program should not be the kind of outfit that leaves its skepticism at the door to get inside.