"At stake, they believed, was the long-term credibility of the country’s most decorated and most-watched television news program, a journalistic institution since 1968 that prided itself on holding elected leaders to account. Late Tuesday, CBS’s parent company, Paramount, concluded differently. It agreed to pay $16 million so President Trump would drop a lawsuit that essentially boiled down to a politician’s gripe: that '60 Minutes' had edited an interview with his 2024 opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, in a manner that he did not like. Many legal experts called Mr. Trump’s case frivolous and unwinnable, running counter to long-established First Amendment protections for the American press...."
From "For '60 Minutes,' a Humbling Moment at an Uneasy Time for Press Freedom/After an astonishing concession to a sitting president, the country’s most popular television news program faces the prospect of new ownership and a chilled environment for the First Amendment" (NYT).
८१ टिप्पण्या:
Well, if the 60 Minutes news readers don’t like it they can all quit and be replaced by AI.
"Many legal experts called Mr. Trump’s case frivolous and unwinnable.."
many non legal non experts called that statement BIZARRE,
and stated: "they Wouldn't have settled, if they thought they could win"
That aggrievement is a load of garbage. 60 Minutes did its best to make that interview an unpaid political ad for Kamala. The problem was that she was such a lousy candidate.
I'm not exactly a Trump fan, but if they intentionally edited a segment to make a politician running for office look good (or bad) during an election that is a problem for an organization that claims to play it down the middle.
We all know what they did last summer.
If it was that important, then why settle. They’re 60 minutes dammit! They ARE the press! So who quit that matters (I believe a prducer quit)?
The wacky thing is they shot themselves in the foot when they advertised a response from Kamala that was very different from what they aired in the segment during the show. That was harebrained.
You're supposed to eat the sausage, not consider how it's made. The case wasn't frivolous in that it called attention to a real problem. No one is going to stop Paramount and CBS from selling sausage, but maybe customers will make other choices.
I never thought the purpose of that lawsuit was to, you know, win the lawsuit. I figured it was too keep in front of the public the fact - undeniable after last year - that virtually all traditional media were in the tank for first Biden and then Harris, and were lying all along about both.
The midterms are looming, the party of the administration almost always loses congressional seats in a midterm election, and the current majority is way too narrow to leave money on the table. The American public needs to be kept aware that everything they're told about what the administration is doing and how it's affecting other Americans, other nations, the economy, whatever, may well be a lie, just like everything they were told about the previous administration. People have short memories.
Sooner or later the lesson will be learned, one can hope.
CBS News is like a whore trying to defend their virtue.
CBS knew if the trial had moved to discovery, the text message exchanges between "talent" and producers would have sunk CBS News pretentions of neutrality forever.
You don’t get to be “news” and the only propaganda wing for one political party anymore while also being blatantly dishonest.
What CBS did was a campaign contribution at minimum. There is a reason Rogan had to publicly offer Kamala a space on his show equal to what Trump got.
CBS has been given broadcast rights by our government and it had a privileged position as well. They got benefits their competition did not get.
Really after Russia Collusion gate any of the people working in legacy media who do not end up jail should count themselves lucky.
The legacy media has no credibility any longer. The only people watching broadcast news are old people and they are dying. Podcasts routinely reach far more people than CBS, ABC, and NBC news programs, combined. CNN and MSNBC are probably going to be bankrupt in a couple of years. The NYT relies on revenue from computer games. The world has changed.
The whole controversy will soon be rendered pointless, once Ellison and Skydance take control of the company (this lawsuit was the last obstacle). These guys are whip-smart, aggressive and ruthless. Most of the remaining management, as well as the News Division will quickly be swept aside.
All that matters is whether PARA-B is value at $12.85/share.
They'd be safe if they just labeled it as entertainment fiction instead of news.
A journalistic institution? A chilled environment for the First Amendment? Oh, brother. These people think far too highly of themselves.
Having been the Plaintiff in several commercial lawsuits, I suspect that not a few of such settlements are made to avoid Discovery, which is where the real damage can come.
CBS edited a presidential interview - to help Democrats.
Note the whiners don't go near that.
What Jamie said.
What is amusing is that the bleating of the NYT and CNN and CBS employees simply reopens and publicizes the issue of whether CBS did, in fact, deceptively edit the video to hide the fact that Harris is an idiot. Which is undeniable.
And if you don't think that what they did was unethical, just google "James O'Keefe" to see how the lefties feel about editing videos.
CBS settled because they don't want the public to see how biased they really are.
CBS splices and dices interviews for democrats.
CBS does the same thing to the GOP - but in the opposite direction.
Jamie 6:40 - 100%
Although a victory for Trump and MAGA, I seriously doubt this will have a chilling effect on the mainstream media shilling for the Davos DNC billionaire front corporation. They will just have to be a little bit more clever in disguising their propaganda.
They worry about their "long-term credibility.".
Too late. Whatever credibility they had was blown away, like a bird feather in a hurricane, by the deeds that led to the suit -- namely the shameless and misleading editing of the Kamala interview.
Trump would almost certainly have lost the suit. But most non-lawyers don't realize that before a trial, there is something called "discovery". The plaintiff's lawyers get to ask the defendant questions, which they are required to answer under oath. They are also required to produce relevant documents, film, etc. asked for by the plaintiff.
The number of questions and document requests would probably been numbered in the thousands, and some times embarrassing things are revealed.
The DNC-NYT's cant write anything without larding it full of Propaganda and leftwing "Code words" and "Buzz Words". The 1st admendment had nothing to do with the case, and "chilling effect" is a meaningless phrase used when no actual harm is done. Nor did the case have anything to do with "Press freedom" .
The whole point of this blizzard of misleading and irrelevant phrases and code words is to simply assert "Trump bad. CBS Good".
Dear NYT: What is truly chilling is bathing daily in the ocean of gaslighting, lies, misinformation, misdirection and other maliciousness you and your “profession” foist on the American public. Your abuse of the first amendment to the point of illegality is the refrigerant.
I think we need to be correct in exactly what 60 Minutes did that put them in a legal problem. It wasn’t holding a President, or Presidential candidate, to account and it wasn’t editing an interview to make a candidate look better. 60 Minutes lied to their audience by editing the video and then, important to this case, denying it was edited at all. They are not credible when they flat lie, as the NYT is doing with this article to defend them.
Back in the day, Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes was the Democratic Party's agenda frontman. Every week there was a new shocking story to support whatever they wanted to push in D.C. This included Vietnam, Watergate, abortion, guns, car safety, nuclear power, pollution, immigration, etc., etc., etc. They had to energize those female soccer moms and ensure they would vote! All CBS news content, to include the strategically calming Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather anchors, was meant to serve the Democrats. Never mind that they dressed up the overt political propaganda of Archie Bunker and the Jeffersons as "entertainment."
The biases of CBS became obvious in 2000 with their early election call for Bush vs. Gore, and then in 2004 Dan Rather pushed fradulent documents in an attack on G.W. Bush.
CBS veterans now whine in 2025? Too high a price, or just the chickens coming home to roost? When you live by propaganda, you die by propaganda.
CBS runs 60 minutes over the public airwaves and it is required to meet certain standards. It also claims that CBS News is an objective balanced news organization. It even -absurdly - makes that claim for the 60 minutes program.
Like Dan Rather's lying "Fontgate" story in 2004, this "interview" with Kam was deceptive and false. And designed to help elect the Democrat POTUS candidate. Last thing CBS wanted was for more details to come in trial, or for Trump to be given more ammo.
BTW, notice that when Tucker was Fired and Fox News paid Dominion almost 900 million dollars, there was no headline in the NYT's about the "chilling effect" on the "1st admendment". Because "Press Freedom" Means "Freedom to help Leftists".
Paramount/CBS obviously thought it was worth paying out $16 million dollars to avoid discovery. Depositions and document production is where the real reputational damage would occur, even if the defendants eventually won a summary judgment motion. They don't have to apologize, just cut a check to the Trump Presidential Library, and spin, spin, spin. " Do, do that voodoo that you do so well." Nothing is likely to change as a result.
And of Lamala had won, this is the last thing we would be worried about. Trump would be in prison and we would be eating bugs.
Katie Couric used deceptive editing in her "documentary" "Under the Gun" but unfortunately the defamation case against her was dismissed. Lesson learned, anyone being interviewed needs to have their own video recording of the process.
stopped watching 60 minutes over 25 years ago, if not longer. I'd bet their 80 percent of their audience is over 60. Its a holdover from the days before Cable TV and the Internet.
Looking back, its shocking that a small group of people in NYC had a complete death grip over TV News. You had the 3 network nightly broadcasts, which showed the same stories (sometimes in the same order!), you had nightline, the 3 sunday talk shows, and 60 minutes and 20/20. And that was it.
Basically, 50 TV execs/producers decided what was news for the entire country. And it was based on the NYTs and WaPo. Of course some people read other newspapers and magazines. But its far fewer than you'd think. And even our nearby BigCityUSA Newpaper ran the same national/international stories that the NYTs did.
I'm still trying to figure out why Fox News paid Dominion Software 900 million for "Slander" over its election machines, when revenue for the entire Company was never more than 200 million a year.
To the hack-Soviet-Soros press - press freedom means = cheating and lying to aid candidates of a certain party.
A short list of SOME of "60 Minutes" arranging of facts for stories. Weirdly, the arrangements always run in one direction, politically.
I asked Grok to list some key 'misleading' reports produced by "60 Minutes". The list was too long to reprint here. They are who they are. It has been a very slick production for years, but clearly, they understand their power, or at least the power they once held, and they use it to give advantage to whomever or whatever they choose.
Not so much reporting as shaping the news.
..."At stake, they believed, was the long-term credibility of the country’s most decorated and most-watched television news program, a journalistic institution..."
Well, there's your problem ! They squandered that stake a long time ago, and then devoted their entire being as The Establishment, to the destruction of a single political opponent. They did not think they would lose the pot, but their position, and their behavior, were so extreme that they also lost their reason.
The point about discovery is valid, as is the point about preparing for the spectacle of midterm elections. It's entirely possible that material that is even more embarrassing, was at risk of being exposed to public scrutiny had the lawsuit moved further. I think this was a case of saner heads finally concluding that it was better to cut losses - reinforced by the opinions that the case was winnable on its merits. This was not the first; this will probably not be the last.
And now we have the revelations that the Steele dossier was used inappropriately as evidence to support the Mueller investigation, knowingly false by the ones who presented it.
No doubt the CBS execs and their legal team had a serious sit down. "Is this the hill we want to die on"? They took a look at the laundry about to be aired, noted how soiled the undies were and decided: "Nopers". They'll retreat further into irrelevance/defeat, hoping for a better hill to dig in on.
No, no, no… hell no. CBS was caught manipulating a news interview of a candidate they favored in a presidential election. CBS should be tarred and feathered and after they recover made to wallow in ash as a sign of repentance. They interfered with a presidential election. That ought to mean something.
People site the infamous 2004 Rathergate, but don't forget the intense/awkward tv interview between Rather and sitting VP GHWB in 1988 when GHWB was running for the 1988 R Pres nomination. Loved GHWB's realtime comeback to Rather.
One more, since was mentioned in the comments. Katie Couric (CBS news, replacing Dan, I think) has said numerous times W lied about weapons of mass destruction. Depening on the definition of "lie", that is wrong. Yet, I never heard anyone call Couric out.
Jan6s had it way worse and all they did was protest.
Oh, and not for nothing, but it ain’t like it’s the first time IYKWIMAITYD.
Over half a century of lies and disinformation. 60 Minutes is a relic of what was and what should never have been.
Veteran '60 Minutes' correspondents are angry that they got caught doing a cheap fake. That's all.
I quit watching all CBS news programming back in 2004 when Dan Rather tried to influence the election with forged documents. Even before then, 60 Minutes had a track record of shoddy reporting. Those whining "journalists" like to be able to lie without consequences as they push their party propaganda. They hate being called out for their deceptive practices.
CBS knew if the trial had moved to discovery, the text message exchanges between "talent" and producers would have sunk CBS News pretentions of neutrality forever.
This there right here. When you’re guilty as hell you settle then pound the table…
…and I went ‘Oh my God. They framed Nixon’…
I can't emphasize enough how weak that lawsuit was. I don't even think Trump had standing to sue. He suffered zero damages.
I think it was highly likely the suit was settled so that Trump will not block the Paramount merger.
60 Minutes is a fraud.
CBS is a fraud.
This lawsuit is a fraud.
And the settlement is a fraud.
The 16 year-old me would watch 60 Minutes Sunday evening with my best friend and her dreamy philosophy-major older brother. I hung on his every word, and thus began my education in critical thinking. He would note 60 Minutes would ask This, follow up with That, and should then logically ask the Other. The unasked questions were always the key to the truth, and reveal the 60 Minutes preferred narrative. I learned much from interesting men over my life, obviously including recognizing BS when I heard it.
"...the long-term credibility of the country’s most decorated and most-watched television news program..." *cough* Dan Rather *cough*
As noted above, CBS aired the ad for this segment to boost the audience. I watched that. Then I saw the program.
Must have blinked at the response as finally aired a bunch of times. It wasn't just different than the teaser, it was WAY different. For example VP Harris seemed to have gained 20+ i.q. points and was coherent.
Today's theme is experts get it WRONG. And JournoLists bray handmade tales with gay appeal to an empathetic entourage.
Like virginity credibility is something you can lose only once. 60 Minutes credibility disappeared long ago.
$16 million is chicken feed compared to discovery.
Discovery is kryptonite to left wing organizations. That's why they settle. And, Trump's team knows it.
The suit should have been tossed the day it was filed but Trump got a friendly judge for once. Once the suit was allowed to go forward, the producers faced an unpalatable choice- (1) defend the case and then appeal any unfriendly verdict; (2) settle. (1) would have allowed discovery and that was what the producers really feared- those e-mails and texts would surely have shown that the producers were aiding Harris' campaign in no uncertain terms- so the chose door (2) to salvage whatever credibility still remains for 60 Minutes- which is pretty much none at all at this point.
a lawsuit that essentially boiled down to a politician’s gripe: that '60 Minutes' had edited an interview with his 2024 opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, in a manner that he did not like.
Put that way, of course it was "frivolous." You could reduce a lot of cases to frivolity by throwing out the actual points of contention and reducing everything to somebody not liking something.
C'mon man you cant be that lame quid pro quo deluxe!
For years, professional wrestling had the code of Kayfabe. No matter what, they presented their product as real and not choreographed. They finally admitted that is was all staged, and it didn't hurt their popularity at all. 90% of the fans knew it was fake, but enjoyed the performance anyway. Journalism is in the same boat. They Kayfabe that they are serious and true journalists, not blatant advocates for progressive ideology. We all see what they are, but they won't drop the charade. Professional wrestling has more honor than Journalism.
It's really amazing that they're willing to pay $16 million to avoid discovery in court.
CBS was on Team Blue. Unless they fire 90% of their staff, they will continue to be Team Blue. I'm surprised to hear that CBS is afraid that the public will find out that they are Team Blue. The public already knows.
Unfortunately, Team Red is not doing a great job, either. There is lots of low hanging fruit associated with DEI, green energy, foreign aid, education, earned income credit corruption, subsidies for protests, and lots more. Team Red doesn't hire, train, and pay enough journalists.
Once they edited the interview, it ceased being news and became an undeclared campaign contribution.
"At stake, they believed, was the long-term credibility of the country’s most decorated and most-watched television news program, a journalistic institution since 1968 that prided itself on holding elected leaders to account.
You have no credibility, and haven't had any since you let Dan Rather fake up documents to try to throw the 2004 election to Kerry.
You had a simple and easy fix: release the full interview on the internet so anyone could see it. You refused, because it would show just how dishonest you are.
So sit down and STFU, losers
Imagine the lack of self awareness among “veteran correspondents” who make themselves available to the NYT for this purpose. Next, imagine the damage to 60 Minutes if the complete interview were made public and/or if CBS had to go through the discovery process.
essentially boiled down to a politician’s gripe: that '60 Minutes' had edited an interview with his 2024 opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, in a manner that he did not like.
So NYT, in a story about a settlement with a substantial payment over deceptive editing, opts to completely mischaracterize - to effectively deceptively edit - the complaint
Also lied about 60 Minutes being the nation's "most popular television news program" - Fox news kicks its ass and its ratings have been in a steady decline for about two decades. 60 Minutes does claim to be the country's most popular "newsmagazine" shows, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
"those e-mails and texts would surely have shown that the producers were aiding Harris' campaign in no uncertain terms"
But the suit should have been tossed?
The tears are flowing ... and it's glorious!
Anybody who worked in and around the tree fruit industry has known 60 Minutes is full of shit since they lied about Alar in 1989.
This is staggering stupid commentary.
CBS released the full tape, and, as the Wall Street Journal ED page says, it shows "[Trump's] claims are concocted." Reason Magazine described Trump's lawsuit as "laughable."
CBS settled because of Trump's not so subtly implied threat that the Justice Department and/or the FCC would retaliate for failure to do so by failing to approve a major merger.
This corrupt use of public power to punish protected speech is something Professor Althouse should be able to recognize as contrary to her values. Her silence on the issue, like her silence about the meritless attacks on law firms and on universities for exercising their first amendment rights, is telling on the question of her neutrality and her continued commitment to free speech values.
Stephen defends blatant lying because it benefits Team D.
Yawn.
What was the false statement, Jim?
I hope that someone in the Trump administration with the power to do so now blocks Paramount's merger. Wouldn't that be a riot!
Stephen, no rational human being can watch the unedited interview and not admit that the edited, broadcast interview makes it appear that Harris was far more coherent and knowledgeable than she really was. The editors created an entirely false Kamala Harris. Now, I think this was perfectly legal and I think the suit should have failed right out of the gate, but it is a fucking lie that 60 Minutes didn't create a false version of Harris.
Yancey,
Here's an attempt to offer some authentic neutrality, rather than the ersatz version on display on this blog.
it may be true that shortening Harris's rambling answers made Harris appear more coherent. Presumably, that would be true of shortening the answers of any politician who gives rambling answers, including our current President. If that provided a basis for the opposing candidate to claim billions in damages because the editors made Harris look too good, then every Democratic candidate in the nation would have a similar claim against Fox News. Are you similarly upset at the way Fox edits to make Republicans look good?
So the key point is your second one. You think that what CBS did was perfectly legal. And you are joined in that view by every neutral expert who has looked at the case. People should not have to pay money in settlement for conduct that was clearly lawful, and they especially should not have to pay that money to a government official in his private capacity based on the very real threat that he would use his official power to prevent a merger that was otherwise lawful.
I trust you agree with this analysis, and also agree that it should apply whether the person paying the settlement does or does not agree with your political position. If you don't agree, I am happy to hear why.
PS--I do not think all law fare is equivalent. The merits matter. I thought both Jack Smith's cases had legal merit and deserved to be tried. Conversely, I am not a fan of most of the state law cases, with the exception of Jean Carroll's lawsuit, and I will not be surprised if Trump's appeals of the New York state criminal and civil cases against him are successful. Trump's lawsuit against CBS is far weaker than any of those cases, as are the grounds for his executive orders against law firms, now rejected emphatically in four successive lawsuits.
"...it may be true that shortening Harris's rambling answers made Harris appear more coherent...."
My reading on this says this is not what happened. What CBS did was to substitute Harris' answer from a different question to improve the way she sounded.
Aggie, The replacement claim is directly refuted by the transcript itself. But even if were not, how would that give Trump a right to claim billions on the basis of mental suffering by viewers?
Stephen, then 60 Minutes and the owners should have taken the case to trial- they almost surely would have won or had any adverse verdict overturned. One can only assume that the real reason they settled is that 60 Minutes and the Harris Campaign staff did not want their communications with each other made public. I strongly suspect you have not actually watched the unedited video and compared it to what aired- what 60 Minutes did is particularly egregious and qualifies as lying- they gave us a fake version of Kamala Harris giving an interview.
Face it, 60 minutes led with their chin. They could have just left out her babble answer, instead of trying to fix it, after the babble answer had already been broadcast. Everybody knows about how they do misleading edits. Any conservative that doesn't take their own camera crew to an interview with the press is an idiot. What they were afraid of was discovery.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.