A few weeks before the announcement in the early hours of July 1 Paramount Global and CBS had a lawsuit mocked Donald Trump for “60 minutes” for 16 million dollarsGeorge Clooney took his last bow in Broadway like Edward R. Moro, famous CBS Journalist Pictures in “Good Night, and we wish you success. The play lists the conflict between Moro and Senator Joseph McCarthy El Hamra and emphasizes the respectable position that CBS News has long been occupied in the broadcasting press. From Walter Cronkite Reporting In the Vietnam War to Publishing the first pictures of violations by American soldiers in Abu GhraibCBS News has a proud date of public service when it comes to verifying government violations.
The crown jewel in the CBS group is “60 minutes”, Mike Wallace Forum interview With the manufacturers of the tobacco industry, Jeffrey Wigston and Interviews With the main characters in the Watergate scandal. Since Richard Nixon fled against Hubert Humphrey in 1968, “60 minutes” had been practiced Conducting interviews Both the party’s main candidates in the period before all presidential elections.
Looking at this longitudinal date, it was especially worrying to read the news that the parent company CBS News, Paramount, agreed to settle Trump suit Against “60 minutes”, claiming that the offer is from interview In October 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris formed the deception of the consumer. Trump, which was Decline To follow the example of his predecessors and sit in a special “60 -minute” interview, he confirmed that CBS had erred in editing a Harris interview. An unspecified amount of Paramount will be worth $ 16 million to cover Trump’s legal fees, as the balance is supposed to be funded by President Trump’s future presidential library.
The details of President Trump’s case do not deserve to be analyzed, unlike noting that the decision to settle the case for any amount of money – not to mention 16 million dollars – must be for reasons outside the four corners of the law. In this case, the interpretation is simple. Paramount has an inclusion of $ 8.4 billion Waiting Before the Federal Communications Committee (FCC), and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) appointed by Trump Brendan Car, they put this approval in danger when it was reopened doubtful.Distinguish news“Investigation of Harris’s interview. Although this investigation is still suspended, it seems clear enough that Paramount decided that billions exceeded millions and the cost of throwing contracts for credibility outside the window cannot compensate for the difference.
Trump’s approach is not just like Corlelion towards media relations on CBS, nor is it unique Paramount. Last December, ABC News paid $ 16 million to Trump and his lawyer Settling Requesting defamation based on the data made by ABC George Stefanopoulos on the civil ruling that Trump sexually exposed to any. As with Paramount, ABC, owned by Disney, chose to settle that issue instead of taking advantage of a number of first amendment defenses. Likewise, both of them Dead and Elon Musk’s X. Millions of dollars pushed the Trump presidential library to settle the law -made lawsuits that Trump filed against Facebook and then Twitter to suspend his novels after his actions on January 6, 2021.
These shameful rings show two disturbing directions for the second Trump administration when it comes to freedom of expression and independent press.
First, Trump used the tremendous power of the federal bureaucracy, including the power of the portfolio and the organizational supervision of companies, to silence critics and control the views of private speakers. These measures fly in the face of the principle of the first basic amendment that the government should not be allowed to use its authority to monitor views or distort public discourse.
Secondly, these speakers often have been in the face of Trump administration’s threats instead of using strong protection for the first amendment to defend their right to freedom of expression. The first amendment, as much as it is, can only be a shield for those who want to use it as one.
It is difficult to mobilize a lot of sympathy for companies that chose to surrender unnecessarily. But the real loser here is the ability of the press and other speakers to criticize strong personalities and expose violations by the government and companies. In order to be fair, CBS News did not fold itself without a fight: during the months in which PAAROUNT executives negotiate a settlement, many journalists and producers CBS spoke against the settlement, and long -term “60 minutes” CEO Bill Owens and CBS News, President of Windy McMahon He left the Paramount ready for the settlement. But Paramount’s surrender puts a precedent that harms our political operations and threatens the basic performance of our democracy.
The message sent by Paramount and other media companies that settled with Trump is that journalists and news institutions should think twice before publishing reports that may anger the president. There is already evidence that Paramount CEOs may have them compressed “60 minutes” for not running some controversial stories. Likewise, in the past autumn owners Los Angeles Times newspaper and Washington Post The employees of their papers were prevented from managing the presidential approvals of Harris; The implicit meaning was that the owners did not want Trump’s anger.
However, these decisions have put a precedent that harms our political operations and threatens the basic performance of our democracy. The only way to avoid such an unimaginable result is that other media companies are ready to stand in this type of illegal bullying.
Katie Holo is the deputy director of litigation in The first amendment Institute FarisIt focuses on the threats of freedom of expression and free press in the digital age, especially in the field of social media. Before joining the Knight Institute, Volo, Deputy Director of the Consumer Protection Office at FTC and was a partner in litigation at Jenner & Block in Washington, DC, where video game makers were represented in a long series of challenges facing governmental restrictions on video games, which culminated in the Supreme Court decision in 2011 in the world in 2011 Brown Association against Merchant Entertainment, Violent video games holding a protected speech.
