‘60 Minutes' legend Lesley Stahl says she's ‘angry' at CBS boss Shari Redstone over Trump lawsuit
Lesley Stahl, who has spent decades as a correspondent for the seminal Sunday night newsmagazine 60 Minutes, is making it clear that she is 'angry' with her corporate boss for looking to settle Donald Trump's 'frivolous' civil lawsuit against CBS News.
The legendary newswoman also said she is 'pessimistic' about the future of 60 Minutes, adding that 'we're in very dark times' and that she's already preemptively mourning the potential destruction of the long-running program amid an upcoming merger and the president's attacks on legacy media.
In a wide-ranging conversation with The New Yorker's chief editor David Remnick, Stahl sounded off on CBS parent company Paramount's efforts to make Trump's $20 billion lawsuit over the way 60 Minutes edited an interview with Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, which the president contends was done 'deceitfully' to interfere in the 2024 election.
Following Trump's return to the White House, Paramount's top shareholder Shari Redstone has pushed for a settlement as the company needs the administration's approval for an $8 billion merger with Skydance Media, which pro-Trump business mogul Larry Ellison backs. Additionally, Redstone has not only pressured 60 Minutes to ease up on its Trump coverage amid the lawsuit and merger drama, but also criticized the show over the way it's covered the Gaza war.
Amid the discussions with Trump's legal team about a settlement, 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens and CBS News chief Wendy McMahon – who had said they would not apologize as part of any deal with the president – abruptly resigned. Paramount's board has reportedly offered Trump a $15 million settlement, which is in line with ABC News' capitulation to the president, but Trump is demanding at least $25 million and an apology.
Asked by Remnick what is behind the president's lawsuit, Stahl — who has interviewed Trump four times — said that it is an effort 'to chill us,' noting that 'there aren't any damages' suffered by Trump. 'I mean, he accused us of editing Kamala Harris in a way to help her win the election. But he won the election,' she added. Trump's legal team has since argued in court that the interview caused the president 'mental anguish.'
Labeling it as a 'frivolous' lawsuit, Stahl went on to describe Owens as a 'hero' to the newsroom while lobbing criticisms towards Redstone over the 60 Minutes producer feeling the need to step down.
'[H]e was being asked to either not run pieces or to change parts of the stories, and he was standing up to that. I don't know, frankly, if there was one request that led to it or just an accumulation, one after the next,' she said.
'That was just painful. Painful,' she continued, speaking about Owens' resignation. 'Everybody at '60 Minutes'—I think everybody, most of us—really appreciated his standing up to the pressure, and saw him in heroic terms. So when he announced that he was stepping down, it was a punch in the stomach. It was one of those punches where you almost can't breathe.'
Adding that McMahon had also served as an 'intermediary between us and the corporation, and she sided with CBS News,' Stahl then expressed disappointment over the likelihood that Paramount will settle with the president.
'Are you angry at Shari Redstone?' Remnick wondered, prompting Stahl to reply: 'Yes, I think I am. I think I am.'
At the same time, though, the veteran CBS reporter said that while Owens being forced out may have been a bridge too far for much of the staff, she claimed he urged everyone on the show to stay.
'Bill Owens leaving was a line, and here we all are,' she stated. 'He asked us not to resign. He explicitly asked us not to resign. Because it was discussed that we would leave en masse.'
Stahl also said it was 'hard' and 'not a small thing' that Redstone had been applying pressure on the news division over its coverage, making her wonder if 'any corporation should own a news operation' going forward.
'It is very disconcerting,' she proclaimed.
As for CBS News' new 'corporate overlords' at Skydance if the merger goes through, Stahl said she's 'praying' and 'hoping' that they'd allow the network 'to be independent' and for journalists to do their jobs. Still, she acknowledged that it could be a 'little Pollyannaish' to believe that will be the outcome.
'I'm not optimistic. I am not. I'm pessimistic,' she told Remnick. 'I'm pessimistic about the future for all press today. The public doesn't trust us. The public has lost faith in us as an institution. So we're in very dark times.'
Stahl also expressed concern about the fragility of press institutions as a whole, especially with mega-billionaires and large conglomerations pressuring the news organizations they own to soften their coverage of the current administration while they cozy up to the president.
'The pain in my heart is that the public does not appreciate the importance of a free and strong and tough press in our democracy,' she lamented, adding: 'We are a headache. An expensive headache. And that's part of the fragility.'
Amid the continued push to reach a settlement with Trump, Democratic lawmakers have warned the Paramount board and Redstone that paying the president to kill the lawsuit could run afoul of anti-bribery laws, considering that the company is hoping to coax the administration to approve a merger. The California State Senate has now opened an inquiry into Paramount over whether it violated state laws on bribery, inviting both Owens and McMahon to testify.
Paramount executives, in fact, have even discussed the possibility of being held liable or criminally charged if the business settles the complaint. The Freedom of the Press Foundation has since threatened to sue the company if it reaches a settlement with the president.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Journals
6 minutes ago
- Business Journals
Impact on tariffs on the M&A market
As the second quarter of 2025 is nearing its end, it remains unclear when the Trump administration's trade and tariff policies will stabilize or when agreed upon trade deals will be reached with key nations. While many of the announced tariffs have now been paused or reduced from their levels initially set on 'Liberation Day,' allowing time for trade deals to be negotiated, this state of limbo has led to significant uncertainty as dealmakers attempt to navigate a challenging mergers and acquisitions (M&A) market. Tariffs have long been a tool used by governments to regulate trade and protect domestic economies and industries. Dealmakers and their advisors have always had to pay attention to trade laws in M&A transactions to ensure they are conducting appropriate diligence and taking trade matters into account in their valuation models. What is new, however, is the volatility of the constantly changing tariff landscape. This volatility is preventing dealmakers and M&A professionals from confidently projecting future earnings or creating long-term plans, which in turn makes it harder to value businesses. Additionally, in response to tariff uncertainty and its potential economic impact, the Federal Reserve has held interest rates steady instead of continuing planned rate reductions. U.S. M&A activity in the first quarter of 2025 as compared to the first quarter of 2024 has been significantly lower, both in terms of the number of deals that took place and the amount of capital being invested and when isolating Georgia M&A activity, the difference is even more drastic. While initial interest rate cuts in the late summer, coupled with expectations of a strong economy after the election resulted in optimism at the end of 2024 about an increase in M&A activity in 2025, this sluggish start suggests that the tariff landscape has made dealmakers more hesitant under current market conditions. There are deals still happening though, and for companies continuing to execute M&A strategies, the impact of tariff uncertainty has led to valuation adjustments, required buyers to reassess their strategic M&A initiatives and investment focus, and forced more flexibility on deal structure and risk shifting. 1. Valuation adjustments Buyers are taking tariffs into account for purposes of financial and valuation modeling, particularly in industries heavily reliant on international trade. Companies in industries with significant exposure to tariffs (such as automotive, construction and manufacturing, agriculture and port logistics) may see decreased profit margins and have increased uncertainty on how tariffs will impact their business, resulting in lower valuations that can stifle deal activity and cause buyers or sellers to cancel or delay a potential transaction. On the other hand, domestic companies in industries otherwise impacted by the looming tariffs may become attractive targets. 2. Reassess targets and investment focus In response to the new tariff policies, buyers are reassessing their acquisition targets to enhance their competitive positions. Targets with local manufacturing capabilities or alternative supply chains are becoming more attractive to domestic buyers as a way to reduce dependence on overseas supply chain, and similarly, to international buyers with a goal of mitigating tariff impacts. Investors have also shifted focus toward companies that are less vulnerable to tariff fluctuations so as to mitigate valuation fluctuations from dynamic changes in tariff rates. This can lead to increased M&A interest in sectors such as technology, services and food and beverage, where tariffs play a less significant role compared to traditional manufacturing industries. 3. Deal structure and risk shifting Tariffs have caused buyers to deviate from the traditional M&A structure. We have seen more of a focus on joint ventures, partial stake sales and other strategic alignments instead of the traditional stock or asset sale. To reduce tariff risk and bridge valuation gaps, buyers are becoming more creative by offering earnouts, equity and other contingent consideration conditioned on certain performance metrics. In terms of risk-shifting, buyers need to be prepared for increased trade diligence and exclusions to coverage in representation and warranty policies. Diligence efforts now include a closer eye toward trade, including navigating trade regulations, reviewing potential short-term and long-term tariff implications, and evaluating potential antidumping risks. With respect to representation and warranty insurance, buyers should expect insurers to exclude tariff exposure from coverage, which could lead to sellers having to absorb more post-closing risk if buyers insist on indemnification coverage from sellers to close the gap. In conclusion, during the first two quarters of 2025, we have seen how the uncertainty around tariffs is having profound implications on the M&A market, influencing company valuations, assessments of targets and investment focus, deal structure and risk shifting, and overall market dynamics. As businesses adapt to changing trade policies, understanding the tariff landscape and having M&A advisors who are familiar with these challenges is critical for companies focused on inorganic growth. Staying informed about the potential risks and opportunities associated with tariffs can help businesses make strategic decisions that bolster their competitive positioning in a global economy. To learn more about King & Spalding's global M&A practice, please visit With nearly 140 years of service, King & Spalding is an international law firm that represents a broad array of clients, including half of the Fortune Global 100, with 1,300 lawyers in 24 offices in the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Michelle Stewart represents public and private companies, including private equity firms and their portfolio companies, in M&A and other strategic corporate transactions, including acquisitions, divestitures, carveouts and minority investments. Stewart counsels clients in a variety of industries, including in the technology, financial services, industrial, health care, food and beverage, logistics and manufacturing sectors. Baylie Evans' practice focuses on mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, strategic corporate transactions, and general corporate and governance matters. Evans works across a range of sectors, including consumer services, business services, health care, industrial, technology, hospitality, logistics and manufacturing sectors.
Wall Street Journal
10 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Podcast: U.S. Doubles Steel and Aluminum Tariffs to 50%
President Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum imports jumped to 50% overnight. Industry players have warned the move could result in price increases and shortages. 🎧 Listen here to this What's News podcast, which also covers the Federal Reserve's move to lift the cap on Wells Fargo's assets.
Washington Post
11 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Let us count the 3,515 ways in which Democrats are lame
Everybody has advice for the Democrats. Especially Democrats. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said over the weekend that it's time for Democrats 'to be a little meaner.' Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, appearing at the same South Carolina event as Walz, said Democrats must 'become the party of 'yes' and 'now.'' Last week, former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel told the Wall Street Journal that Democrats need to move to the center and stop being so 'toxic' and 'weak and woke.' This followed former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg's admonition that Democrats need to reach 'people who don't think like us,' strategist James Carville's instructions that Democrats stop using words such as 'equity' and oligarchy,' and Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin's assertion that the Democrats need to find 'alpha energy.' Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Many in the punditocracy have joined the game, using the Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson book to say 'Democrats need to learn from the Biden cover-up fiasco' and 'Democrats need to take ownership of the fact that they totally screwed up on Biden.' On Tuesday, Politico's Elena Schneider reported on the launch of a new Democratic think tank whose founder thinks Democrats 'need to break down ideological lanes and reject interest group agendas.' With so many things they 'need' to do, the Democratic Party's to-do list is getting exceedingly long. How long? A Nexis search finds 3,515 instances of phrases demanding 'Democrats need to' and 'Democrats must' in news articles and transcripts over the past three months, and another 3,680 instances of the more lenient admonition 'Democrats should.' A search of the Factiva database also finds these phrases by the thousands. There are apparently no contribution limits on free advice to the party. More of these helpful recommendations pour in every day from Democratic politicians, journalists, pundits, strategists, activists — and Fox News anchors, whose concern for the party's well-being is touching. Among the more compelling pieces of advice I came across: Story continues below advertisement Advertisement 'Democrats need to reconnect with 'young men' who just want to 'get laid and have fun.'' 'Democrats need to mirror how a herd of elephants at the San Diego Zoo responded to a recent earthquake.' 'Democrats need to point out that Florida Republicans support tooth decay.' 'Democrats should try flag-shagging.' 'Democrats need to start asking the real question: Are you not entertained?' With such a sound strategic plan, how could Democrats lose? Ostensibly, Democrats are coming in for such constructive criticism because of the party's low standing in public esteem. Only 34.7 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the party, compared with 58.3 percent holding an unfavorable view, according the RealClear Polling average. Yet the Republican Party isn't doing much better, with a 42 percent favorable rating and 52.6 percent unfavorable. And Democrats are actually leading in the 'generic ballot' (if the election were held today, which party's candidate would you vote for?) even though the RCP average includes silly polls such as Trump's favorite, Rasmussen. The real reason for the surfeit of why-Democrats-suck critiques is that Democrats themselves love to engage in anguished soul-searching. Republicans did an autopsy after their 2012 loss, summarily rejected all its recommendations and then won the next presidential election. But Democrats love self-loathing. As Semafor's Dave Weigel described it last week: '1) Dem focus groups say the party's brand is 'woke and weak.' 2) Rahm and Slotkin use high profile interviews to repeat the focus group findings. 3) Other Dems get asked why the party looks 'woke and weak.' This is peak message discipline.' I don't pretend to know what Democrats ought to be doing. I've written before that the party's future direction, and its future leader, will be determined not by Washington hacks but by the voters in the 2028 primary process. Until then, the party's most important jobs are to stop Trump's assaults on the rule of law and limit the suffering caused by his sabotage of the federal government. The navel-gazing is a waste of time. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Therefore, as a public service, I have read through the Democrats-are-lame critiques so you don't have to. These are the highlights, culled from transcripts and news reports from the last month containing the phrase 'Democrats need to': 'Democrats need to fight President Donald Trump everywhere.' 'Democrats need to work with President Donald Trump, not against him.' 'Democrats need to rail against Mr. Trump, Elon Musk and the billionaire class.' 'Democrats need to look to Donald Trump as an example.' 'Democrats need to embrace males with affection.' 'Democrats need to mansplain to men.' 'Democrats need to shore up their identity.' 'Democrats need to make sure they ditch the identity politics.' 'Democrats need to energize their base voters.' 'Democrats need to move to the middle.' 'Democrats need to build a broader coalition of groups.' 'Democrats need to persuade nonvoters.' 'Democrats need to be fearless.' 'Democrats need to be careful.' 'Democrats need to encourage more debate within their ranks, not less.' 'Democrats need to sort out infighting — and quickly.' Story continues below advertisement Advertisement 'Democrats need to fight more.' 'Democrats need to engage in deep introspection.' 'Democrats need to be forward-looking.' 'Democrats need to perform an autopsy.' 'Democrats need to listen to the voters.' 'Democrats need to have a frank conversation — with themselves.' 'Democrats need to develop an appealing economic message.' 'Democrats need to prioritize public safety.' 'Democrats need to offer solutions to our immigration challenges.' 'Democrats need to resolve organizational problems.' 'Democrats need to stop dithering about process and rules.' 'Democrats need to take control from the left wing elements of the party.' 'Democrats need to pay attention to the way Ocasio-Cortez … continues to be able to speak to so many millions of people.' 'Democrats need to jazz up their messaging — and fast.' 'Old Democrats need to quit — now.' Story continues below advertisement Advertisement In summary, Democrats don't attack Trump enough, except in cases where they attack him too much. They are too cautious and timid, unless they are too aggressive. They are too woke, while at the same time too centrist. There is too much bickering within the party, or not enough. They have the wrong policies, or perhaps it's the wrong message, or maybe the wrong leaders. Furthermore, Democrats need to 'build,' 'regroup,' 'go on the offensive,' 'find plausible candidates,' 'sound less judgmental,' 'rethink the words they use,' 'take a 'specific and granular' approach,' 'be ruthless,' 'expand the map,' 'break out of information silos,' 'nominate someone who is 'more mainstream,'' 'regain credibility,' 'aggressively rethink their future,' and 'change course.' Just to name a few. Whatever the problem actually is, Democrats are sure to figure it out. They just need to spend even more time navel-gazing: 'Democrats need to do some real soul-searching' and 'Democrats need to be particularly rigorous and introspective about why they are so unpopular.' Alternatively, they could pack it in with the introspection — and go out and win an election.
