First Amendment advocates decry settlement in ‘60 Minutes' lawsuit

Politico

2 days ago

But in settling, Paramount — the parent company of CBS — has drawn the ire of media groups pledged to protecting freedom of the press. Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders, wrote in a statement the decision was 'shameful' and accused Paramount executives of rewarding Trump for his 'petty legal assault.'
Some of the critics charge that in settling the lawsuit, Paramount executives, including Paramount Global Chair Shari Redstone, engaged in a quid pro quo with the Trump administration so that it would approve its merge to Skydance.
Paramount did not respond to requests for comment on the settlement or the lawsuit.
Several Democratic senators have also decried the move, pledging to probe the then-rumored settlement in May, indicating Paramount 'may be engaging in potentially illegal conduct.' One of the senators, Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) posted on X Wednesday indicating he will be 'first in line calling for federal charges.'
'We're not privy to anything that went on behind closed doors, but it appears to be extortion in plain sight,' Corn-Revere said.
In May, the Freedom of the Press Foundation — which says it is a Paramount shareholder — pledged to file a lawsuit if the settlement went through. It would allow shareholders to recoup damages from harm to Paramount 'that has been caused to it by misconduct of its officers and directors,' Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in an interview Wednesday.
'There is no reasonable explanation, or I should say, no reasonable and lawful explanation, for paying $16 million to settle a ridiculously frivolous lawsuit,' Stern said.
Though the organization has yet to file the derivative lawsuit, Stern said that they have already sent an information demand letter to Paramount and will send another Wednesday. According to Stern, shareholders are entitled to some information about the corporation's affairs under law.
'We are looking for the information to which we are entitled on why this decision was made to pay a settlement to Trump that is far, far exponentially in excess of any value that anyone who knows the first thing about First Amendment law believes that his claims have,' he said.
Stern said he 'would hope' that the corporation would not object to transparency.
'For an organization that owns a news outlet to hide the ball about why it made this extremely consequential move, would just sort of add insult to industry,' he said.