Latest news with #mediaethics
Yahoo
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How Trump sued CBS and won: The '60 Minutes' settlement that rocked the media world, explained
President Donald Trump sued CBS News and its parent company, Paramount Global, in October 2024 over an interview on "60 Minutes" with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump accused the outlet of deceptive editing and election interference. The lawsuit and its subsequent settlement have far-reaching implications and set off a fierce debate about media ethics and accountability, as well as corporate interference. Fox News Digital breaks down exactly what happened — from the final payout to speculation as to why Paramount settled and what blowback the lawsuit has received since. What happened: October 8, 2024: CBS '60 Minutes' airs two different answers from former Vice President Kamala Harris to the same question | Watch Former VP Kamala Harris was mocked by conservatives when footage of her offering a lengthy "word salad" response when asked why it seemed like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't listening to the U.S. was aired on CBS' "Face the Nation" on a Sunday to promote a special "60 Minutes" sit-down. However, Harris' lengthy answer didn't make the version that aired on "60 Minutes" Monday night and a shorter, more focused answer to the same question was shown instead. October 18, 2024: Former FCC commissioner explains if CBS News could be in hot water over editing | Watch Read On The Fox News App The Center for American Rights argued that the discrepancies by CBS "amount to deliberate news distortion — a violation of FCC rules governing broadcasters' public interest obligations," and formally complained to the FCC. Former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Nathan Simington — appointed by Trump in 2020 — said his priority was to make sure the public was not misled. October 20, 2024: CBS breaks its silence over editing allegations After Trump called for the network to lose its broadcasting license over the editing, CBS put out a statement saying that any accusation of deceitful editing from "60 Minutes" was "false," and that then-candidate Trump pulled out of an interview — which the Trump campaign denied. CBS also stated that, "'60 Minutes' gave an excerpt of our interview to 'Face the Nation' that used a longer section of her answer than that on '60 Minutes.' Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response." October 31, 2024: Trump sues CBS News for $10 billion alleging 'deceptive doctoring' of Harris' '60 Minutes' interview News broke that Trump was suing CBS News for $10 billion in damages, stating the network practiced "deceptive conduct" for the purpose of election interference in its Harris interview. The amount was later bumped to a whopping $20 billion. Trump attorneys said the suit was filed over "CBS' partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion calculated to confuse, deceive, and mislead the public." Trump attorneys also argued the edits were done in an effort to "attempt to tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party as the heated 2024 Presidential Election — which President Trump is leading — approaches its conclusion." February 5, 2025: FCC releases CBS News' raw '60 Minutes' transcript Shortly after Trump was inaugurated, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) released the unedited transcript and video handed over by CBS News of its interview with Harris. The raw transcript showed CBS News had aired only the first half of her response to "60 Minutes" about Netanyahu not "listening" to the Biden administration in a preview clip that aired on "Face the Nation," but aired only the second half of her response during the primetime special. April 14, 2025: Trump lashes out at CBS News and "60 Minutes" Trump shared on Truth Social that he was "honored" to be suing "60 Minutes" over reporting he deemed "fraudulent," and said the network should "pay a big price for this." Trump then went on to say that the network "did everything possible to illegally elect Kamala, including completely and corruptly changing major answers to Interview questions, but it just didn't work for them." April 23, 2025: "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens abruptly quits "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens abruptly quit the long-running CBS News program and put out a statement that it was clear he would not be able to run the show as he had previously done. "So, having defended this show – and what we stand for – from every angle, over time with everything I could, I am stepping aside so the show can move forward," Owens said. May 9, 2025: Paramount, CBS News' parent company, faces mounting pressure Lawyers for Trump and Paramount entered mediation, signaling the company's potential willingness to resolve the lawsuit filed by Trump. The interview received an Emmy nomination the week prior for "Outstanding Edited Interview." Democratic lawmakers made a direct plea to Shari Redstone, Paramount's controlling shareholder, to not settle the lawsuit, saying it would be a "grave mistake." May 29, 2025: Trump rejects Paramount's $15 million offer to settle CBS News lawsuit Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle the lawsuit with Paramount. The president's legal team demanded another $25 million and an apology from CBS News. Redstone had made it clear in prior months that she wanted to settle Trump's lawsuit in hopes of clearing the pathway for Paramount's multibillion-dollar planned merger with Skydance Media, which needed approval from Trump's FCC. July 1, 2025: Paramount, CBS pay eight figures, change editorial policy in settlement | Watch Paramount Global and CBS agreed to pay Trump a sum that could reach north of $30 million to settle the president's lawsuit against the network. Trump received $16 million upfront. That was for covering legal fees, costs of the case, and contributions to his future presidential library or charitable causes, to be determined at Trump's discretion. There is anticipation that there will be another allocation in the eight figures set aside for advertisements, public service announcements or other similar transmissions, in support of conservative causes by the network in the future. Sources shared with Fox News Digital that CBS agreed to update its editorial standards to install a mandatory new rule. Going forward, the network will promptly release full, unedited transcripts of future presidential candidates' interviews. People involved in the settlement talks have referred to this as the "Trump Rule." July 7, 2025: CBS parent company sparks massive outrage with Trump lawsuit settlement Paramount Global and CBS' eight-figure settlement caused widespread outrage across the legal and journalism communities. Many legal experts and Paramount's own attorneys insisted the lawsuit was meritless, but CBS' parent company settled it anyway. Figures under Paramount's umbrella like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Scott Pelley and John Dickerson have not been hiding their mockery and disdain throughout the process. Insiders also told Fox News Digital they were furious and felt betrayed by company executives surrendering to Trump. In an interview with Stewart on Monday night, longtime "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft said Paramount had essentially capitulated to a "shakedown." Reactions: Cbs Settlement With Trump Slammed By Journalists, Commentators As 'Appalling' Surrender Cbs Staffers Revolt Over Paramount's 'Shameful' Trump Settlement, 'Betrayal' To The Network's Journalists Washington Post Columnist Torches Paramount For Settling With Trump Over '60 Minutes' Interview Bernie Sanders Blasts Paramount, Says Lawsuit Settlement Will Further Embolden Trump To Attack Media Cbs Anchor Claims Paramount Settlement With Trump Poses 'New Obstacles' For Journalists At The Network Robby Soave Rips Media For 'Pulling Punches' On Dems After Paramount Settles '60 Minutes' Lawsuit South Park' Creators Rip Skydance-paramount Merger As A 'S---show', Blame Deal For Delaying New Season Ex-cbs Anchor Dan Rather Laments Paramount Settlement With Trump As 'Sad Day For Journalism' Longtime '60 Minutes' Correspondent Steve Kroft, Jon Stewart Bash Cbs' Trump Settlement As 'Shakedown'Original article source: How Trump sued CBS and won: The '60 Minutes' settlement that rocked the media world, explained
Fox News
12-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Fox News
How Trump sued CBS and won: The '60 Minutes' settlement that rocked the media world, explained
President Donald Trump sued CBS News and its parent company, Paramount Global, in October 2024 over an interview on "60 Minutes" with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump accused the outlet of deceptive editing and election interference. The lawsuit and its subsequent settlement have far-reaching implications and set off a fierce debate about media ethics and accountability, as well as corporate interference. Fox News Digital breaks down exactly what happened — from the final payout to speculation as to why Paramount settled and what blowback the lawsuit has received since. What happened: October 8, 2024: CBS '60 Minutes' airs two different answers from former Vice President Kamala Harris to the same question | Watch October 18, 2024: Former FCC commissioner explains if CBS News could be in hot water over editing | Watch October 20, 2024: CBS breaks its silence over editing allegations October 31, 2024: Trump sues CBS News for $10 billion alleging 'deceptive doctoring' of Harris' '60 Minutes' interview February 5, 2025: FCC releases CBS News' raw '60 Minutes' transcript April 14, 2025: Trump lashes out at CBS News and "60 Minutes" April 23, 2025: "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens abruptly quits May 9, 2025: Paramount, CBS News' parent company, faces mounting pressure May 29, 2025: Trump rejects Paramount's $15 million offer to settle CBS News lawsuit July 1, 2025: Paramount, CBS pay eight figures, change editorial policy in settlement | Watch July 7, 2025: CBS parent company sparks massive outrage with Trump lawsuit settlement Reactions:
Washington Post
10-07-2025
- Washington Post
Only one American can start nuclear war: the president
Opinion | This is why the media should not replay viral videos of black men being killed June 10, 2020
Malay Mail
10-07-2025
- General
- Malay Mail
Clickbait culture: When the hunt for clicks compromises media ethics — Akmal Nadzmi Azlan and Mohd Istajib Mokhtar
JULY 10 — Have you ever clicked on a headline that promised to 'reveal the shocking truth' only to find a bland, underwhelming article? That's the bait — and you just got hooked. Welcome to the world of clickbait. In today's digital media landscape, attention is everything. With millions of stories competing for eyeballs every second, publishers often resort to flashy, misleading, or emotionally charged headlines to stand out. While these tactics might bring short-term traffic spikes, they raise serious ethical concerns and contribute to a growing mistrust of the media. Clickbait is a strategy designed to do one thing: make you click. It often takes the form of over-the-top headlines, dramatic thumbnail images, or cryptic social media captions that prey on your curiosity. These hooks are engineered to be irresistible — tapping into human impulses like the fear of missing out (FOMO), outrage, or suspense. Experts in media psychology have noted that these tactics rely on what's called a 'curiosity gap' — the space between what the headline teases and what the story actually reveals. By deliberately withholding key information, content creators make readers feel compelled to click just to satisfy that curiosity. In many cases, the payoff is disappointing. And the more that happens, the more readers become skeptical — not just of the outlet, but of journalism itself. According to the author, in the race for attention online, some publishers use flashy or misleading headlines to attract clicks — a tactic that may boost traffic but erodes trust in the media. — Unsplash pic The modern internet runs on attention. Every click, view, and share can be converted into ad revenue. As social media platforms use algorithms that promote high-engagement content, the incentive for news outlets is clear: be the loudest, most provocative voice in the room — even if it comes at the cost of accuracy. Digital media researcher Fahim Rahman pointed out in 2023 that media companies are under constant pressure to generate revenue, and 'engagement metrics have quietly replaced editorial integrity.' He argued that when journalism is reduced to a numbers game, sensationalism often wins. Another reason clickbait thrives is that many of us no longer read full articles. We scroll through headlines on social media, letting those few words shape our understanding of complex events. In this environment, a misleading headline can have more influence than a well-researched article buried beneath it. Clickbait isn't just annoying —it's dangerous. Studies have shown that people who repeatedly engage with clickbait headlines are more likely to distrust the media. A 2022 survey found that even when readers know a headline is exaggerated, repeated exposure leads to a general scepticism toward all news. This effect becomes especially troubling during times of crisis. Take the Covid-19 pandemic, for example. Viral headlines about 'miracle cures' or 'what doctors don't want you to know' spread like wildfire. Many of these claims were not only misleading — they were harmful. People changed their health behaviours based on content designed to generate clicks, not deliver facts. What's worse is that even when the article itself is accurate, a misleading headline can leave a lasting impression. Readers may not retain the nuanced truth — they remember the emotional pull of the exaggerated claim. Over time, this distorts public understanding and contributes to the spread of misinformation. In 2016, Facebook took a public stand against clickbait after facing backlash over its role in spreading sensational and misleading content during the US presidential election. The tech giant rolled out an algorithm tweak that demoted posts with headlines like 'You'll Never Believe What Happened Next!' or 'This Simple Trick Changed Everything!' Adam Mosseri, then head of Facebook's News Feed team, explained that the platform had developed a system to detect commonly used clickbait phrases and reduce their visibility in users' feeds. The move was a step in the right direction — at least on paper. But the strategy had its limits. Publishers quickly found ways around the filters by tweaking their wording just enough to avoid detection. This arms race between content creators and algorithm designers revealed a deeper truth: technical fixes alone won't solve a cultural problem. The ethical dilemma At its core, clickbait raises tough ethical questions. Is it acceptable to mislead people — even a little — if it means drawing attention to an important issue? Some would argue yes, especially under a utilitarian view where the outcome justifies the means. But many ethicists strongly disagree. They point out that journalism is not just about what's effective — it's about what's right. The moment media organisations compromise on honesty, they breach the fundamental trust that holds the public and the press together. Communication ethics also stresses the importance of respecting the audience. Misleading headlines manipulate readers rather than inform them. As consumers become more aware of this manipulation, media outlets face a choice: regain trust through transparency, or risk losing credibility altogether. So how do we fix the clickbait problem? It starts with better newsroom practices. Editors and journalists need to apply the same standards to headlines as they do to body text. That means no exaggerations, no half-truths, and no emotional manipulation for the sake of traffic. Technology can help, too. Some publishers are experimenting with AI tools to analyse headlines for sensationalism before articles go live. Others are adding trust indicators — like estimated reading time or content previews — to set clearer expectations for readers. But the responsibility isn't just on the creators. As consumers, we need stronger digital literacy. Schools, universities, and public education campaigns should teach people how to evaluate online content, spot manipulative tactics, and think critically about what they read and share. Rahman suggests that lasting change will require a combined effort: platforms enforcing consistent policies, publishers upholding ethical standards, and readers staying informed and sceptical. 'Clickbait thrives in ignorance,' he notes. 'Education is our best defence.' Clickbait may seem like a harmless marketing trick — but it reflects a deeper conflict between profit and principle in the digital age. While the race for clicks can boost numbers on a dashboard, it chips away at something far more valuable: public trust. In the end, every headline is a promise. When that promise is broken — again and again — the damage isn't just to one article or one outlet. It's to journalism itself. So the next time you see a headline that screams for your attention, take a moment to ask: is this worth the click? And more importantly, is it worth the compromise? * The authors are from the Department of Science and Technology Studies, Faculty of Science, Universiti Malaya, and may be reached at [email protected] ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Daily Mail
08-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Co-host breaks her silence after shock jock sues radio network over 'royal prank' call that led to nurse's suicide
Radio host Mel Greig has spoken out on her former co-host Mike Christian's decision to take legal action over claims he was not supported by his employer in the fall-out of a prank that led to a nurse's suicide. Christian and Greig were presenting on 2Day FM on December 4, 2012 when they made the phone call to the King Edward VII Hospital in London, who was caring for Princess Catherine. The then-Duchess of Cambridge had been admitted to the hospital for severe morning sickness ahead of her first child's birth. Christian alleges he was ordered by 2Day FM's production team to make a prank call to the hospital and impersonate Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth to try to gain access to the duchess. Nurse Jacintha Saldanha died by suicide days after the prank call, leading to widespread backlash against the radio hosts and broadcaster. Breaking her silence on Christian's decision to sue 2Day FM's broadcaster Southern Cross Austereo in the Federal Court, Greig shared a statement on Instagram. She wrote: 'I understand why Michael is choosing to go down this path. 'Whilst there are various reasons we may never be able to speak our entire truth on all that occurred, I do hope that the continued attention on this tragic incident results in substantial reforms in the way media produce content and support their staff, so that something like this never happens again. 'My thoughts and supports as always are with the Saldanha family.' Almost 13 years after the incident, Christian has claimed his former employer promised to provide support if the content put out by its 'shock jocks' ever went too far. The former radio host - who was made redundant in February - says he believed these claims, but was let down by the organisation. The broadcaster did not 'step in' but rather let its radio presenters take the blame, negatively impacting their careers, court documents seen by AAP allege. Christian and Greig called out Southern Cross Austereo and tried to prevent the company from crossing the line, but were left in the cold after the suicide, the documents say. 'SCA did not immediately take public accountability for the incident, but rather allowed Mr Christian and Ms Greig to be left exposed to relentless public vitriol, harassment and abuse, including death threats,' his lawyers wrote. 'The radio presenters were left by SCA as the convenient fall guys and scapegoats for SCA management decisions and non-compliance.' Greig made a tearful apology to Ms Saldanha's family at an inquest into the nurse's death in 2014, placing the blame on the radio station and commercial radio culture. Rhys Holleran, SCA's chief executive at the time of the incident, told the ABC in 2024 he suffers anxiety about it. 'I have always felt completely and utterly responsible for this,' he said. Christian says he started as a 2Day FM presenter just two days before the prank call, which he alleges breached the Australian Communications and Media Authority code of practice. He claims he was told in early 2013 the broadcaster would help restore his reputation and rebuild his career. He remained working for 2Day FM and did not pursue legal proceedings against them because of this promise, court documents say. However, the firm failed to provide meaningful health support, did not start a public relations campaign to rebuild his brand, and failed to offer meaningful opportunities or pay rises to reward his loyalty, he alleges. Instead, he claims he was 'gradually marginalised' within the organisation. Christian did not sign a release preventing him from speaking publicly about his time at the broadcaster, instead retaining lawyers after learning of his impending redundancy in February. 'Mr Christian claims that the redundancy was not genuine, particularly in circumstances where SCA still requires Mr Christian's former role to be performed,' court documents allege. Christian is seeking penalties, compensation for economic loss and damages. The matter is yet to appear before the Federal Court. Daily Mail Australia has contacted Southern Cross Austereo for comment. Help is available 24/7
