Latest news with #TheProblemwith
Los Angeles Times
08-07-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Jon Stewart doesn't mince words about Paramount's $16-million Trump settlement
Jon Stewart took aim at his network's parent firm Paramount Global for paying $16 million to settle President Trump's lawsuit against CBS News, calling the move a payoff for approval of a pending merger. On the Monday edition of Comedy Central's 'The Daily Show,' Stewart and guest former '60 Minutes' correspondent Steve Kroft laid out the details of the legal skirmish, which they agreed felt like an organized crime shakedown. 'I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I did watch 'Goodfellas,'' Stewart said. 'That sounds illegal.' Last week, Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to settle the legal volley from Trump, who claimed '60 Minutes' edited an interview with his 2024 election opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, to make her look better and bolster her chances in the election. CBS denied the claims, saying the edits were routine. But the suit — described as frivolous by 1st Amendment experts — was seen as an obstacle to Paramount Global's proposed $8-billion merger with David Ellison's Skydance Media. The deal requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission, led by Trump acolyte Brendan Carr. Stewart rhetorically asked Kroft if this settlement was 'just a payment so this merger can go through and not be challenged by Trump's FCC?' Kroft, who noted that Paramount Global majority shareholder Shari Redstone wants the sale to go through, confirmed Stewart's assessment. Kroft noted that '60 Minutes' never said it screwed up, 'they just paid the money.' 'So just flat out protection money,' Stewart said. 'Yeah, it was a shakedown,' Kroft said. Comedy Central, the cable network that serves as the home of 'The Daily Show,' will be included in the Skydance deal. But Stewart remained relentless throughout the segment. 'It doesn't feel like scrutiny on news networks — it feels like fealty,' Stewart said. 'They are being held to a standard that will never be satisfactory to Donald Trump. No one can ever kiss his ass enough.' Stewart has always spoken his mind on 'The Daily Show,' delivering mostly harsh assessments of Trump. It remains to be seen if he'll have that freedom when Skydance, led by Trump supporter Larry Ellison and his son David, eventually takes over. Stewart returned to Comedy Central after parting ways with Apple TV in 2023. His last program, 'The Problem with Jon Stewart,' ended after Apple executives reportedly expressed concerns over the comedian's handling of potential show topics related to China and artificial intelligence. Apple has deep ties to China and has launched an artificial intelligence product incorporated into its operating systems. Stewart demonstrated the shakiness of the Trump lawsuit's claims with an edited Fox News interview with Trump from last year. Trump appeared to give a simple yes when asked on 'Fox & Friends Weekend,' if he would de-classify government files on convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. However, Trump equivocated in a longer version of the answer that aired later on the network. With the Harris interview, CBS News split an answer on Israel that she gave to '60 Minutes' presenting one portion on its Sunday round table program on 'Face the Nation.' A different portion aired on the actual program, which led Trump supporters to cry foul. 'I would like to know why the '60 Minutes' edit was worthy of a $16-million acquiescence of what is considered the Tiffany news, gold standard very clearly, Fox just did what seems to me a more egregious edit,' Stewart said. A representative for Paramount Global had no comment on Stewart's remarks. Kroft said the the mood is bleak at '60 Minutes' in the aftermath of the settlement. 'I think there is a lot of fear over there,' he said. 'Fear of losing their jobs. Fear of losing their country. Fear of losing the 1st Amendment.'
Boston Globe
16-06-2025
- Health
- Boston Globe
A member of RFK Jr.'s MAHA movement and a public health expert met on Zoom. Here's what happened next.
The conversations are the brainchild of Brinda Adhikari, a journalist and former television producer who grew increasingly concerned about Americans' mistrust of institutions after Donald Trump's reelection. 'These are two groups that talk a lot about each other,' said Adhikari, who has worked for ABC News and the podcast 'The Problem with Jon Stewart.' 'I just don't see a lot of spaces where they talk to each other or with each other.' The conversations are captured on Adhikari's weekly podcast, ' Advertisement Despite the high stakes, the goal wasn't to change anyone's mind, said Adhikari, who lives in Brooklyn. She hoped both sides would discover shared concerns and better understand their opponents' perspectives. Those common worries included the risks of corporate influence in science and medicine, the possible harms Medicaid cuts could cause, and the safety of Americans' food. 'I didn't expect the areas of agreement would be so obvious that we would actually find spaces to work together almost immediately,' said Megan Ranney, dean of the Yale School of Public Health, who participated in the conversations. Advertisement Though 'We really came into this feeling ostracized,' said Elizabeth Frost, a panelist who led Kennedy's Ohio presidential campaign operation. 'What really surprised me is a lot of people in public health feel the same way.' The two groups, five MAHA representatives and the same number of public health experts, met twice in May. A third conversation involved a few of the same panelists, plus MAHA representatives from Georgia. Some meetings took on the tenor of estranged family members working to heal rifts. MAHA is grounded in a deep skepticism of establishment medicine. Many gravitated toward the movement after feeling let down by doctors they had trusted. Public health experts derive their knowledge from establishment medicine: They rely on hard-won data and the scientific method for their conclusions. One side feels ignored or dismissed. The other is frustrated and dismayed by how little sway scientific evidence and expertise hold with some MAHA adherents. Advertisement 'Scientists try their best to be open-minded, and ... we push and test each other to make sure that we're coming up with new ideas and using the best methods possible and getting as close to truth as we can,' Ranney said during the podcast. She then asked Frost, 'What would help folks to feel like science was being done with and for them?' 'There was a lot of outrage for having any questions about the way that the COVID pandemic was handled,' Frost responded. 'People on the MAHA side of it felt very demonized and very othered, that they weren't allowed to be a part of the conversation.' The MAHA movement coalesced around Kennedy's presidential campaign last year, though it adopted its name only after he suspended his campaign for president and endorsedTrump and his Make American Great Again movement. MAHA emphasizes personal choice in health, with a focus on addressing chronic illness, food quality, and distrust of the pharmaceutical industry. It also is associated with opposing longstanding, and well-proven, public health cornerstones, including the importance of widespread vaccination and water fluoridation to improve dental health. It's proven to have surprising appeal to members of both political parties, drawing liberals, MAGA Republicans, and independents, said Frost. As a result, members' beliefs are highly heterodox. Antivax sentiments are far from uniform, and dissatisfaction with overall policies in the Trump administration isn't unusual. Mark Harris, another Ohio MAHA leader, described himself as an independent thinker. He disapproves of proposed deep cuts to Medicaid and was among the first in his friend group to recognize how serious COVID would be. He did take the COVID-19 vaccine, he said. Advertisement 'I do believe in herd immunity,' he said in an interview. 'I believe in vaccines being very helpful in achieving that.' He emphasized during one of the podcasts, though, that the word vaccine implies permanent protection against an illness, and seems like a misnomer when applied to the COVID shots. COVID shots reliably offer long-term protection against serious illness and death but don't keep the virus entirely at bay over more than a few months. 'I completely agree with you,' said Paul Offit, one of the nation's most prominent vaccine experts and a member of the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccine Advisory Committee. 'Very early we should have made that very clear what the vaccine can and can't do.' The two sides also generally agree on why so many Americans have lost faith in the medical establishment. Access is expensive and difficult. Insurance coverage can appear arbitrary and confusing. Interactions with physicians are often through overcrowded emergency departments or with harried primary care physicians with barely the time to spend 10 minutes with a patient. Public health officials are not often visible, trusted figures in a community until an emergency arrives, leaving them with limited credibility, noted Craig Spencer, associate professor of the practice of health services, policy and practice at Brown University. Many public health officials wish scientific evidence spoke for itself, particularly when it comes to the power of vaccines. Polio is virtually unheard of in the United States. Measles was eliminated in this country before lower vaccination rates allowed it to resurface. The absence of these illnesses makes it hard for people who didn't live before widespread inoculation to fully believe in the value of vaccines, Spencer said, and data alone can't compete with a powerful messenger. Advertisement People like Kennedy have stepped in to fill that communication gap. Many of his ideas aren't supported by science, Spencer said, but his ability to command an audience is enviable. 'They've done such an incredible job just being out there,' he said of MAHA leaders and influencers. 'Even if they're saying some things, a lot of things that I wouldn't agree with, they're out there and that is instilling trust." During the podcast, Frost described how angry she was that people with COVID had been denied ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Offit responded with a layman's explanation of the evidence that the drugs aren't effective against the virus and, in the case of hydroxychloroquine, may do harm. Yet in the interview Frost didn't sound especially convinced, saying she gives the most weight to what her physician recommends. That wasn't evidence of the podcast's failure, Adhikari said. 'That you're going to sit down with someone whom you've never met and act as though you could say something to them within a two hour conversation that will completely change something that is a deep-rooted value for them, it's just not reasonable,' she said. 'What I am trying to do is to build the bridge, to trust each other enough to even be at the same table.' Jason Laughlin can be reached at
