Paramount to pay Trump $16m over 60 Minutes Kamla Harris interview
CBS, which is owned by Paramount, previously said the case was "completely without merit" and had asked a judge to dismiss it.The settlement marks the latest concession by a US media company to a president who has targeted outlets over what he describes as false or misleading coverage.According to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Texas, CBS aired two versions of the Harris interview in which she appeared to give different answers to the same question about the Israel-Gaza war.Interviewer Bill Whitaker asked the Democratic nominee about the Biden administration's relationship with Israel. The network later aired two different versions of her response. One clip aired on Face the Nation and the other on 60 Minutes. Trump suggested Harris's "word salad" answer had been deceptively edited in one version to shield her from backlash.CBS said it edited Harris's answer for time, in accordance with television news standards. Trump sued, originally claiming for $10bn (£8.5bn) but that figure was later increased to $20bn ($17bn) for damages.In May this year, the company offered $15m (12.7m) to settle the suit but Trump wanted more than $25m (£21m).In a statement released on Tuesday, Paramount confirmed the settlement fee included the president's legal fees, and that it had agreed that 60 Minutes will release transcripts of interviews with future presidential candidates.
Settled ahead of planned merger
According to both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, the settlement was agreed - with the help of mediator - so as to not affect Paramount's planned merger with Skydance Media, which the Federal Communications Commission has been reviewing and therefore Trump technically has the power to halt.During the month-long settlement talks, some CBS News executives including chief executive Wendy McMahon have left their roles, due to their unwillingness to issue an apology to Trump.There were also reportedly concerns over whether paying to settle the lawsuit could be viewed as bribing a public official.A spokesman for Trump's legal team said the settlement was "another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit." He added that CBS and Paramount "realised the strength of this historic case."CBS has said the broadcast was "not doctored or deceitful".BBC News has contacted Paramount and the White House for further comment.The Paramount settlement follows a decision by Walt Disney-owned ABC News to settle a defamation case brought by Trump.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
A look at the top buyers of Russian oil as Trump pressures China and India to stop buying it
U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing China and India to stop buying oil from Russia and helping fund the Kremlin's war against Ukraine. Trump is raising the issue as he seeks to press Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire. But cheap Russian oil benefits refiners in those countries as well as meeting their needs for energy, and they're not showing any inclination to halt the practice. Three countries are big buyers of Russian oil China, India and Turkey are the biggest recipients of oil that used to go to the European Union. The EU's decision to boycott most Russian seaborne oil from January 2023 led to a massive shift in crude flows from Europe to Asia. Since then, China has been the No. 1 overall purchaser of Russian energy since the EU boycott, with some $219.5 billion worth of Russian oil, gas and coal, followed by India with $133.4 billion and Turkey with $90.3 billion. Before the invasion, India imported relatively little Russian oil. Hungary imports some Russian oil through a pipeline. Hungary is an EU member, but President Viktor Orban has been critical of sanctions against Russia. The lure of cheaper oil One big reason: It's cheap. Since Russian oil trades at a lower price than international benchmark Brent, refineries can fatten their profit margins when they turn crude into usable products such as diesel fuel. Russia's oil earnings are substantial despite sanctions The Kyiv School of Economics says Russia took in $12.6 billion from oil sales in June. Russia continues to earn substantial sums even as the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations has tried to limit Russia's take by imposing an oil price cap. The cap is to be enforced by requiring shipping and insurance companies to refuse to handle oil shipments above the cap. Russia has, to a great extent, been able to evade the cap by shipping oil on a 'shadow fleet' of old vessels using insurers and trading companies located in countries that are not enforcing sanctions. Russian oil exporters are predicted to take in $153 billion this year, according to the Kyiv institute. Fossil fuels are the single largest source of budget revenue. The imports support Russia's ruble currency and help Russia to buy goods from other countries, including weapons and parts for them.
Reuters
14 minutes ago
- Reuters
Oil steadies as OPEC+ output hikes counter Russia disruption concerns
LONDON, Aug 5 (Reuters) - Oil was little changed on Tuesday as traders assessed rising OPEC+ supply and worries of weaker global demand, against U.S. President Donald Trump's threats to India over its Russian oil purchases. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, together known as OPEC+, agreed on Sunday to raise oil production by 547,000 barrels per day for September, a move that will end its most recent output cut earlier than planned. Brent crude futures were down 26 cents, or 0.4%, to $68.50 a barrel at 0800 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude was down 7 cents at $66.22. Both contracts fell by more than 1% on Monday to settle at their lowest in a week. Trump on Monday again threatened higher tariffs on Indian goods over the country's Russian oil purchases. New Delhi called his attack "unjustified" and vowed to protect its economic interests, deepening a trade rift between the two countries. Oil's limited move since then indicates that traders are sceptical a supply disruption will happen, said John Evans of oil broker PVM in a report. He questioned whether Trump would risk higher oil prices, which "would be the inevitable outcome of penalising Russian energy customers". India is the biggest buyer of seaborne crude from Russia, importing about 1.75 million bpd from January to June this year, up 1% from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by trade sources. Trump's threats come amid renewed concerns about oil demand and some analysts expect faltering economic growth in the second half of the year. JPMorgan said on Tuesday the risk of a U.S. recession was high. Also, China's July Politburo meeting signalled no more policy easing, with the focus shifting to structural rebalancing of the world's second-largest economy, the analysts said.
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Murdoch takes on Trump in press baron's last stand
When Rupert Murdoch stepped down as executive chairman of both News Corp and Fox just under two years ago, it was seen as a cautious first step into retirement for the nonagenarian media tycoon. Although still ultimately in charge of his empire, Murdoch has handed day-to-day responsibility over to his son Lachlan. Meanwhile, he has focused his attention on succession planning, including a bitter legal battle with his own children over the family trust. But any suggestion that Murdoch might slide into a quiet dotage now appears premature. Donald Trump's $10bn (£7.5bn) defamation lawsuit against Dow Jones, which publishes the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), is aimed squarely at Murdoch himself. The legal challenge is the latest salvo in Trump's increasingly aggressive assault on the media. It also sets up what will likely be a final battle for the world's best-known newspaper tycoon – and one that could define his legacy. As one of his former executives puts it: 'The American president has taken on Rupert Murdoch, an extraordinary media force for the last 50 years ... It's a box office story.' Trump's lawsuit relates to a WSJ story alleging that Trump sent the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein a 'bawdy' birthday card complete with a drawing of a naked woman. Trump, who called the Journal's editor Emma Tucker from Air Force One in an effort to shut down the story, has branded it 'fake' and is seeking $10bn in damages. Trump has sniped at Murdoch, insisting the tycoon wants to settle. In a further provocation, lawyers for Trump last week filed a motion demanding an expedited deposition of Murdoch, citing the fact that the mogul is 94 and 'has suffered from multiple health issues throughout his life'. The scale of these alleged health issues was laid bare in a 2023 Vanity Fair article. It revealed Murdoch had been taken to hospital with a severe case of Covid-19, alongside several other incidents. Alex DeGroote, a media analyst, says the prospect of a trial in which Murdoch would have to take the stand is 'surely not a prospect Dow Jones and the WSJ want to entertain'. He adds that the tycoon may have been shaken by his recent legal clash with Dominion Voting Systems. In a case that signalled the end of Murdoch's cordial relations with Trump, Fox in 2023 agreed to pay $787m to settle a lawsuit with the voting machine company after the channel repeated the president's false claims that the 2020 election was rigged. That said, Murdoch would have a decent chance of success in any legal battle. Unlike in Britain, US libel laws are stacked in favour of the defendant. Trump will have to prove 'actual malice', meaning the WSJ knew the story was false and deliberately published it anyway. It is a high bar for Alejandro Brito, the Miami-based sole practitioner Trump has hired to represent him, to meet. Mark Stephens, a media lawyer at Howard Kennedy, says there are 'fundamental flaws' in Trump's lawsuit and it is likely to be thrown out, potentially as a Slapp [strategic lawsuit against public participation]. 'The case seems designed to try and chill down discussion of this topic, so you're trying to prevent public discussion of this issue and that has all the hallmarks of a Slapp,' he says. Yet it comes amid an increasingly aggressive assault on the media by Trump. The president has said the mainstream media is 'on notice' after securing settlements from both ABC and CBS in recent lawsuits. Alongside the financial and reputational implications, Trump can also cause problems outside the courtroom, as demonstrated by the move to ban the WSJ from a recent press trip to Scotland. The decision by CBS to capitulate in a $16m lawsuit filed by Trump has been widely interpreted as a way of securing approval for an $8bn takeover of its parent company Paramount. Stephen Colbert branded the settlement a 'big fat bribe' and was axed from the network shortly afterwards. By contrast, though, many believe Murdoch will not roll over and that the WSJ will stand by its reporting. '[Trump] assumes someone will settle and pay him an improbable amount of money, and I suspect that's not Murdoch,' says Stephens. The former executive adds: 'So many people think that Murdoch is the suppressor of a free press. Here you've got a very good example of the fourth estate standing up to the American president.' The source also points to the fact that two key figures – Robert Thomson, the Australian News Corp boss, and Emma Tucker, the British editor of the Journal – may be more willing to stand up to the US head of state than their American colleagues. Another senior figure who previously worked at News Corp agrees that Murdoch will 'close ranks' in defence. 'When you work there you're constantly under attack internally, except when something like this happens,' the executive says. 'They tend to fight hard amongst themselves in normal times, but when there's a crisis they say, 'We're backing you 100 per cent.'' Murdoch's support is not always longstanding, however. James Harding, the former Times editor who now runs The Observer, was quietly pushed out in late 2012 – reportedly after the tycoon baulked at his support for Obama in the presidential election. Could Tucker face a similar fate? It is far from the first time that Murdoch – a key inspiration for Logan Roy, the ruthless media patriarch in HBO hit Succession – has courted controversy or gone into battle against powerful foes. His reputation was cemented during the Wapping dispute, a year-long stand-off with print workers in 1986 in which the tycoon eventually broke the powerful unions. Perhaps most notorious, however, were revelations that journalists at the News of the World had eavesdropped on private messages. While Murdoch has always insisted that he did not know phone hacking was going on at his publication, he was forced to shutter the tabloid and his UK publishing empire has paid out more than £1bn in compensation and other related costs to victims. In the Murdoch empire, even family members are not off-limits in pursuit of victory in business. The patriarch last year clashed with three of his children – Prudence, Elisabeth and James – over his attempt to change the family trust to hand over complete control to Lachlan. Following a high-profile legal battle that drew comparisons to Succession, Murdoch was ultimately defeated, setting the scene for an almighty tussle over his legacy. But his battle with Trump highlights the conflicting positions Murdoch is required to hold as the owner of news outlets that are, variously, sycophantic to Trump and doggedly determined to hold him to account. What's more, it raises fundamental questions about whether it is his commercial interests or passion for journalism that will ultimately win out. Murdoch once claimed that the reputation of his media outlets was 'more important than the last hundred million dollars'. Yet the tycoon has previously been accused of cosying up to China's communist regime and indulging censors in Beijing in an effort to protect his business interests. Ahead of his takeover of Dow Jones in 2007, a group of China-based WSJ writers accused the mogul of 'sacrificing journalistic integrity to satisfy personal and political aims'. In 1998, he ordered publisher HarperCollins to kill a book by Chris Patten, Hong Kong's last British governor, because of its critical stance towards Beijing. In his latest legal battle, it is not Chinese authorities that Murdoch must be sensitive to, but his own Trump-supporting audiences. In a sign that Murdoch is looking to expand his influence in new areas, News Corp this week unveiled plans to open a new outpost of the New York Post based in Los Angeles. Robert Thomson, the News Corp boss, vowed the new title, dubbed The California Post, would be an 'antidote to the jaundiced, jaded journalism that has sadly proliferated'. Playing both sides While Dow Jones has said it will 'vigorously defend' against any lawsuit, both Fox and the New York Post have remained silent on the issue, suggesting Murdoch may be trying to play both sides. DeGroote says: 'Would it be in his commercial interest to wreck the relationship between his own viewers, his own readers and his titles by being seen to pursue an anti-Trump agenda?' The WSJ is by no means a struggling newspaper business. It had more than 4.3 million subscribers at the end of March, while Dow Jones posted quarterly revenues of $31m. Fox, which pulled in $1.6bn from its cable network in the same three month period, remains the real money-spinner, however. While British broadcasters are struggling to retain viewers in the streaming age, Fox News continues to dominate the US ratings with an average primetime audience of 2.6 million in the second quarter. At the same time, it has been making advances in its digital offering. Fox recently struck a licensing deal with Ruthless, a popular podcast hosted by Republican influencers, while it is set to launch a new streaming service this autumn. Murdoch's supporters argue that he will not be swayed by commercial interests. 'The value of those companies has only grown and I think he takes a really long view – certainly long for someone who's 94 years old,' says the former News Corp executive. Others believe Trump's decision to take on the mogul will backfire. Stephens says: 'By taking this suit he's potentially putting the entire Murdoch press offside. Is that sensible for a Republican president? Essentially the megaphone to Trump's base is held by Rupert Murdoch.' He adds that this is an example of the so-called Streisand effect, where efforts to cover something up only result in greater public awareness. It is not lost on many, however, that Murdoch may prove to be the last true press baron. The role of the newspaper proprietor has traditionally been a powerful one, steering a title's editorial direction and wielding influence over presidents and prime ministers. William Randolph Hearst, the inspiration for the titular character in Orson Welles' classic film Citizen Kane, is often considered to have helped push the US into the Spanish-American war at the end of the 19th century thanks to sensationalist reporting in his tabloids. Lord Beaverbrook, the Canadian-British newspaper publisher whose empire included the Daily Express, has taken credit for the downfall of David Lloyd George's post-war government in 1922. Murdoch must now decide whether he is up for a blockbuster fight with the president that would almost certainly define his legacy as a newspaper man. His stance will also be crucial for Tucker, whom he elevated from editorship of The Sunday Times to lead the WSJ newsroom in 2023. The Briton's willingness to make difficult decisions appears to have impressed Murdoch and she is generally well-regarded at the US newspaper, despite a backlash last year, when journalists plastered her office in Post-it notes in protest against job cuts. That was a minor skirmish from which she emerged unscathed. The stakes for Tucker now, as she comes under Trump's legal assault, could scarcely be higher. For Murdoch, the reputation he has cast for himself over decades as a bulwark of a free press is on the line. Murdoch's status is unique. Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, is undoubtedly a mogul and a far wealthier one, but with tech rather than media values. His tendency to intervene in his publication in ways that have pleased Trump has already come under scrutiny. 'This is the last of the big tycoons in newspapers,' says Murdoch's former lieutenant. 'There's just a lot less money to be made in newspapers than there was and so it won't produce these very powerful media tycoons in a world where the media landscape is pretty fragmented and atomised.' 'Any number of people might have more money than Murdoch and they might even desire to have that level of influence, but they may not know how to do it. It's a skill to remain relevant and ultimately what he's done is stay relevant.' As a result, the newspaper proprietor in its traditional sense – as a wielder of political power and influence – seems an endangered species. So as Murdoch faces down the president of the United States, it may be the last stand for the last press baron.
