CBS parent company sparks massive outrage with Trump lawsuit settlement
Paramount Global and CBS agreed on Tuesday to settle Trump's $20 billion election interference lawsuit against the network. The lawsuit alleged CBS News deceitfully edited a "60 Minutes" interview last year with then-Vice President Kamala Harris in order to make her appear more articulate ahead of Election Day.
Many legal experts and Paramount's own attorneys insisted the lawsuit was meritless, but CBS' parent company settled it anyway. It is widely believed that Paramount's controlling shareholder Shari Redstone pushed for the settlement in hopes of paving the way for Trump's FCC to approve a long-planned merger with David Ellison's Skydance Media.
CBS staffers are furious and there has been extensive backlash from media watchdogs, journalism advocacy groups, liberal journalists and even Democratic lawmakers.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., issued a scathing statement that said the settlement sets an "extremely dangerous precedent in terms of both the First Amendment and government extortion," while Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., accused Paramount of taking a "bribe" and threatened future federal charges.
Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta said Paramount "paid a shameful bribe to the President of the United States in order to grease the skids for a media deal that, and there really is no other way to put this, stinks to high heaven."
The American Civil Liberties Union believes Paramount and CBS "disgraced themselves" with the decision.
"President Trump's lawsuit was frivolous. Paramount's capitulation was craven. We've never been more in need of a free and independent press as a check on abuses of power. Instead, Paramount and CBS have disgraced themselves and betrayed the core values of journalism," ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project director Ben Wizner said in a statement.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation called the settlement a "dark day" for press freedom.
"Paramount's spineless decision to settle Trump's baseless and patently unconstitutional lawsuit is an insult to the journalists of '60 Minutes' and an invitation to Trump to continue targeting other news outlets. Each time a company cowers and surrenders to Trump's demands it only emboldens him to do it again," FPF director of advocacy Seth Stern wrote.
"It will be remembered as one of the most shameful capitulations by the press to a president in history," Stern continued. "But we are not done fighting."
The FPF is a Paramount Global shareholder, and Stern is ready to make his voice heard.
"We've already filed a shareholder information demand and are sending a second demand today to uncover information about this decision. With that information, we will continue to pursue our legal options to stop this affront to Paramount shareholders, CBS journalists, and the First Amendment. Paramount directors should be held accountable and we will do all we can to make that happen," Stern wrote.
Famed First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, who represented The New York Times during the Pentagon Papers case, told the FPF that Paramount's decision to settle "is an ominous blow to press freedom in our nation."
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment advocacy organization, isn't pleased with CBS News' parent company, either.
"Paramount may have closed this case, but it opened the door to the idea that the government should be the media's editor-in-chief. Trump has a long history of filing frivolous lawsuits to intimidate critics, and his targets have a long history of capitulating to avoid legal headaches. And here, he had the added tactic of using the FCC and its review of the multi-billion-dollar Paramount-Skydance merger to bring added pressure to bear," FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere said.
"Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated," Corn-Revere continued. "This settlement will only embolden the president to continue his flurry of baseless lawsuits against the press — and against the American people's ability to hear the news free from government intrusion."
PEN America, a group that bills itself as standing "at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide," suggested CBS isn't protecting it's journalists.
"Paramount's decision to settle a meritless lawsuit rather than stand behind its journalists at CBS News is a spineless capitulation," PEN America director Tim Richardson said.
"This was a moment to defend press freedom and support reporters targeted by a frivolous legal attack," Richardson added. "Instead, Paramount chose appeasement to bolster its finances, sending a dangerous message that media outlets can be pressured into submission if corporate parents find their profits at risk from government action in unrelated areas."
Richardson noted ABC also settled a defamation lawsuit in December with then-President-elect Trump for $15 million, after anchor George Stephanopoulos repeatedly and incorrectly asserted Trump had been found "liable for rape" in a civil trial last year. ABC additionally paid $1 million for President Trump's legal fees.
"With two major network owners bowing to the president in quick succession, the danger is clear: emboldened politicians and powerful actors will feel more free than ever to weaponize lawsuits and bring regulatory pressure to bear to silence and censor independent journalism," Richardson said.
Heritage Foundation Media Fellow Tim Young sees it differently and is "glad" they settled but doesn't feel it will change the way news organizations cover Trump and other public figures they don't align with.
"This is one of the few times the media has been held accountable. They definitely wouldn't have settled had Trump not won the election, because Kamala, who they lied to make look good, would have protected them," Young told Fox News Digital.
"I'd love to believe that this is a turning point in media accountability, but it won't be," Young continued. "When you see the dramatic differences in coverage and continuous lies, legacy media networks are showing that they will continue this dishonest behavior."
Paramount has defended the settlement.
"Companies often settle litigation to avoid the high and somewhat unpredictable costs of legal defense, the risk of an adverse judgment that could result in significant financial or reputational damage, and the disruption to business operations that prolonged legal battles can cause. Settlement offers a negotiated resolution that allows companies to focus on their core objectives rather than being mired in uncertainty and distraction," a Paramount spokesperson told Fox News Digital.
Fox News Digital has learned that the sum being paid to Trump could reach north of $30 million, with $16 million being paid upfront for his future presidential library, in addition to another eight-figure allocation set aside for advertisements, public service announcements, or other similar transmissions, in support of conservative causes by the network in the future.
Current Paramount management disputes the additional allocation, and a source familiar with Paramount's current leadership told Fox New Digital only $16 million was sanctioned by the official mediator, and they have no knowledge of any deal Trump made with incoming owner, Skydance Media. However, the incoming ownership will be responsible for the additional allocation.
Redstone recused herself from settlement negotiations in February.
As part of the agreement, CBS News did not admit to any wrongdoing nor issue an apology. The network did agree to update its editorial standards by mandating the release of full, unedited transcripts of interviews with future presidential candidates.
Trump's legal team took a victory lap after the settlement was announced.
"With this record settlement, President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit. CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle. President Trump will always ensure that no one gets away with lying to the American People as he continues on his singular mission to Make America Great Again," a spokesperson for Trump's legal team told Fox News Digital.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israeli PM nominates Donald Trump for Nobel Peace Prize - as Gaza ceasefire talks continue
Israel's prime minister has nominated Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Benjamin Netanyahu made the announcement as he attended a dinner at the White House, and the US president appeared pleased by the gesture. Speaking to reporters, Mr Netanyahu said the US and Israel are working with other countries who would give Palestinians "a better future" - and indicated those in Gaza could move elsewhere. "If people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave," he added. Indirect negotiations with Hamas are currently taking place in the hope of securing a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, which could lead to the release of Israeli hostages in the territory. Mr Trump has suggested an agreement could be finalised this week. This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version. You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.
Fox News
13 minutes ago
- Fox News
Illegal immigrant killer of Laken Riley wins unexpected court victory for mental evaluation
The illegal immigrant killer convicted in the death of Georgia college student Laken Riley won a court victory Thursday when a judge ruled he should be mentally evaluated after his attorney claimed last year that he wasn't competent to stand trial. Jose Ibarra was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison without parole for the death of Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student. The judge who issued the sentence, Judge Patrick Haggard, on Thursday ordered that the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities (DBHDD) conduct a mental evaluation to determine his competency to stand trial and assist with post-conviction proceedings, meaning his appeal case. In June, Ibarra's attorneys said they believe their client is "suffering from congenital deficiency which could render the client incapable of preparing a defense and standing trial," the New York Post reported. They claimed that he "lacks the mental capacity to understand the nature and object and proceedings and counsel believes that this was in existence at the time of the offense and at the time of the trial." "The mental competence of [Ibarra] has been called into question, and this court has found it appropriate for an evaluation to be conducted at the public expense," Haggard wrote in his order. He ordered the Georgia Department of Corrections to partner with DBHDD for the "prompt evaluation" at a GDC facility or a hospital. In court documents, prosecutor Sheila Ross said there was no evidence during his trial that suggested Ibarra wasn't mentally competent. However, she didn't oppose Ibarra getting evaluated and left it up to Haggard to decide, the Post reported. Ibarra, 27, an illegal immigrant from Venezuela, attacked and killed Riley as she was jogging along trails near Lake Herrick on the University of Georgia campus. Prosecutors said Ibarra saw Riley running along popular trails on UGA's campus just after 9 a.m. and attacked her, dragged her 64 feet into a wooded area and beat her head with a rock repeatedly, killing her. The case attracted national attention because of Ibarra's illegal status. He entered the United States illegally during the Biden administration through El Paso, Texas, in September 2022 and was released into the U.S. via parole. He was arrested by the New York Police Department in August 2023 and was "charged with acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17 and a motor vehicle license violation" before making his way to Georgia.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who's Running American Defense Policy?
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Remember when the United States engaged in an act of war against a country of some 90 million people by sending its B-2 bombers into battle? No? Well, you can be forgiven for letting it slip your mind; after all, it was more than two weeks ago. Besides, you've probably been distracted by more recent news. The United States has halted some weapons shipments to Ukraine, despite the increased Russian bombing of Ukrainian cities as Moscow continues its campaign of mass murder. Fortunately, last Thursday Donald Trump got right on the horn to his friend in Russia, President Vladimir Putin. Unfortunately, Putin apparently told Trump to pound sand. 'I didn't make any progress with him today at all,' Trump said to reporters before boarding Air Force One. Meanwhile, the president has decided to review AUKUS, the 2021 security pact between the United States, Australia, and Great Britain, a move that caught U.S. diplomats (and their colleagues in Canberra and London) off guard and has generated concern about the future of the arrangement. Technically, the president didn't decide to review it, but rather his handpicked secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, did. Well, it wasn't him, either; apparently, the review was ordered by someone you've likely never heard of: Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, a career-long Beltway denizen who initiated the process on his own. But at least someone's keeping an eye on Asia: CNN is reporting, based on a Ukrainian intelligence report, that North Korea is planning to send as many as 30,000 more soldiers to assist Russia in its war of conquest. Of course, this is largely based on a single source, but Pyongyang has already sent at least 10,000 troops into the European battlefield over the past nine months, and things are going poorly for Russia's hapless conscripts, so perhaps a deal really is in the works to provide the Kremlin with another shipment of foreign cannon fodder. All of this raises an obvious question: Who's running America's foreign and defense policies? It's not the president, at least not on most issues. Trump's interest in foreign policy, as with so many other topics, is capricious and episodic at best. He flits away from losing issues, leaving them to others. He promised to end the war in Ukraine in a day, but after conceding that making peace is 'more difficult than people would have any idea,' the president has since shrugged and given up. It's not Marco Rubio—you may remember that he is technically the secretary of state, but he seems to have little power in this White House. It's not Hegseth, who can't seem to stop talking about 'lethality' and trans people long enough to deliver a real briefing that isn't just a fawning performance for Trump. (As bad as Hegseth can be, he seems almost restrained next to the State Department's spokesperson, Tammy Bruce, whose comments about Trump—she thanks God for him from her podium and says he is 'saving this country and the world'—have an unsettling Pyongyang-newsreader lilt to them.) It's not the national security adviser. That's also Rubio. Apparently, American defense policy is being run by Bridge Colby, and perhaps a few other guys somewhere in the greater Washington metropolitan area. Their influence is not always obvious. The order to halt shipments, for example, came from Hegseth, but the original idea was reportedly driven by Colby, who backed the moves because, according to NBC, he has 'long advocated scaling back the U.S. commitment in Ukraine and shifting weapons and resources to the Pacific region to counter China.' (Per the NBC reporting, an analysis from the Joint Staff showed that Colby is wrong to think of this as an either-or situation; the Ukrainians need weapons that the U.S. wouldn't even be using in a conflict in the Pacific.) In this administration, the principals are either incompetent or detached from most of the policy making, and so decisions are being made at lower levels without much guidance from above. In Trump's first term, this kind of dysfunction was a lucky break, because the people at those lower levels were mostly career professionals who at least knew how to keep the lights on. In Trump's second term, though, many of those professionals have been either silenced or outright replaced by loyalists and inexperienced appointees. Ironically, allowing various lower offices to fill the policy void empowers the unknown appointees whom MAGA world claims to hate in other administrations. The Trump White House's policy process—insofar as it can be called a 'process'—is the type found in many authoritarian states, where the top levels of government tackle the one or two big things the leader wants done and everything else tumbles down to other functionaries, who can then drive certain issues according to their own preferences (which seems to be what Colby is doing), or who will do just enough to stay under the boss's radar and out of trouble (which seems to be what most other Trump appointees are doing). In such a system, no one is really in charge except Trump—which means that on most days, and regarding many issues, no one is in charge. In Trump's current administration, irrational tariffs and brutal immigration enforcement are the two big ideas. Both have foreign-policy ramifications, but they are being pursued by Trump and his team primarily as domestic political issues. Everything else is on the periphery of the White House's vision: Pakistan and India, nuclear weapons, the Middle East (or nuclear weapons and the Middle East), the Ukraine war. All of these get Trump's temporary attention in the form of a quick evaluation of their utility to Trump personally, and then they're dumped back outside the door of the Oval Office. Even the Iran strike—one of the most important military actions taken by the United States in years—has apparently lost its luster for the president. Trump said that Iran's nuclear program was 'obliterated'; other parts of the U.S. defense and intelligence communities said they weren't sure; Israel thanked America; Trump moved on. This might be because the political advantage of the bombings never materialized: The American public disapproved of Trump's actions, and so the president is now looking for some other shiny object. Today, that trinket seems to be in Gaza. Over the weekend, Trump claimed that he has a 'good chance' of making a deal, perhaps in the coming week, with Hamas for the release of more hostages. This is foreign policy in the Trump era: Announce deals, push their resolution out a week or two, and hope they happen. If they don't—move on and declare success, regardless of any actual outcomes. No one in Trump's administration has any incentive to fix this, because serious changes would be admissions of failure. Repopulating the National Security Council with people who know what they're doing means admitting they were needed in the first place. Hegseth or top people resigning would admit the enormity of the mistake that Trump made in hiring them. Reining in policy freelancers and curtailing the power of lower-level policy makers (as Rubio has at least tried to do with regard to diplomacy) is to admit that senior leaders have lost control of their departments. This administration was never directed or staffed with any coherent foreign policy in mind beyond Trump's empty 'America First' sloganeering. Less than a year into his second term, it's clear that the goals of Trump's 2024 run for the presidency were, in order of importance, to keep Trump out of prison, to exact revenge on Trump's enemies, and to allow Trump and his allies to enrich themselves by every possible means. No one had to think much about who would defend America or conduct its diplomacy; Trump's appointees were apparently chosen largely for shock value and trolling efficacy rather than competence. The rest of the world's most powerful nations, however, are led by grown-ups and professionals. Some of them are enemies of the United States and are quite dangerous. Undersecretary Colby has had some bad ideas, but Americans had better hope that he and the handful of other guys trying to run things know what they're doing. Related: A crisis is no time for amateurs. The one-and-done doctrine Here are four new stories from The Atlantic: Political violence usually gets worse before it gets better. Anne Applebaum: The U.S. is switching sides. The man who thinks Medicaid cuts won't cut Medicaid Take off the mask, ICE. Today's News More than 100 people, including at least 27 campers and counselors from Camp Mystic in Kerr County, are dead after flash flooding hit central Texas over the weekend. President Donald Trump announced tariffs on at least 14 countries effective August 1, unless they can broker trade deals with the U.S. A man who opened fire and injured several people near a Border Patrol building in McAllen, Texas, was killed after exchanging fire with law enforcement, according to officials. Dispatches Work in Progress: Annie Lowrey on why the Medicaid work requirement is a terrible idea. Explore all of our newsletters here. More From The Atlantic Alexandra Petri: A day in the life of the Gen Z worker Trump's only-okay economy Peter Wehner: Why Evangelicals turned their back on PEPFAR What Schwarzenegger knows about George Washington Evening Read I Fought Plastic. Plastic Won. By Annie Lowrey I used to love my Teflon pans. I crisped tofu, fried latkes, and reduced sauces to sticky glazes in them, marveling at how cleanup never took more than a swipe of a sponge. Then I started to worry that my skillets might kill me. The lining on the inside of a nonstick pan is made of plastic. When heated, it can release toxic fumes; when scratched, it can chip off, blending in with tasty bits of char and grains of pepper. 'Data indicates that there are no health effects from the incidental ingestion of nonstick coating flakes,' the company that produces Teflon says, noting that the government has deemed the cookware 'safe for consumer use' … I tossed my nonstick pans into the trash, over my husband's objections. Read the full article. Culture Break Watch (or skip). Murderbot (streaming on Apple TV+) is a quirky show that suggests that AI might be interested in something other than humanity, Emma Stefansky writes. Read. 'Lamentations,' a short story by Nicole Krauss. 'For as long as I'd known him, Harold had been gnawing at me! How many things did I hold against him? Why not his death, too?' Play our daily crossword. Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
