After settling with Trump, CBS News staffers fear what comes next
But this convoluted episode is really more about the plaintiff, President Trump, than about Paramount.
'It is odd to call this a 'settlement' when the result of it is so unsettling,' veteran journalism professor Al Tompkins remarked.
Employees at CBS News, which produces '60 Minutes,' feel the same way. 'There is great fear about what comes next,' a CBS News staffer told CNN on condition of anonymity.
Even though Trump's '60 Minutes' lawsuit is now history, his bullying tactics will continue to challenge media companies for the foreseeable future.
Get Reliable Sources newsletter
Sign up here to receive Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter in your inbox. 'Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated,' the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said Wednesday. '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.'
For newsrooms and other organizations targeted by Trump, the question becomes, fight or fold? One follow-up question might be: How do audiences react to outlets that fold?
When Trump first sued CBS last fall, Rebecca Tushnet, the Frank Stanton professor of First Amendment law at Harvard Law School, told CNN the suit was 'ridiculous junk and should be mocked.'
Tushnet – whose professional home is under multifaceted assault by the Trump administration – said in a follow-up exchange on Wednesday that Paramount's decision to settle was disappointing.
'The individual incentive in a budding authoritarian state is always to capitulate; that's the point of imposing costs on speech,' she said. 'It's disappointing that so many of our institutions are folding especially when individual citizens can see very clearly the dangers of this path.'
Some CBS staffers have expressed similar views. Former CBS News correspondent Armen Keteyian echoed current staffers when he wrote on X, 'This Paramount settlement is the nadir for the network — a breach of the public trust Murrow, Cronkite, Hewitt and thousands of us worked decades to build.'
Democratic lawmakers also heaped criticism on Paramount for settling; Sen. Elizabeth Warren said 'this looks like bribery in plain sight,' and Sen. Ron Wyden condemned the 'corporate execs who sold out our democracy,' promising action 'when Democrats retake power.'
The bribery allegation stems from the fact that Paramount is trying to get the Trump administration to approve its pending merger with Skydance Media. Paramount insists that the settlement is not related to the FCC merger review process.
Trump, however, recently spoke about the '60 Minutes' lawsuit and the merger hold-up as if they were self-evidently connected.
When a reporter asked Trump what was holding up the merger on June 18, Trump answered by praising Skydance CEO David Ellison, then immediately repeated his talking points about the lawsuit. 'They're working on a settlement now,' he said.
According to the terms of the settlement, which were announced late Tuesday night, Trump will drop the suit in exchange for $16 million toward his presidential library. The financial terms mirror the deal that Disney's ABC struck with Trump last December.
'Trump's presidential library will be a permanent monument to Paramount's surrender,' remarked Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
Other press freedom advocates called the CBS parent's decision a 'spineless' and 'shameful' capitulation.
Veteran media reporter Paul Farhi said on X that it was 'fascinating how Paramount has borne the bulk of the criticism for agreeing to this payoff. As if Trump is a passive bystander who played no role.'
The conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, focused on Trump's conduct in a sharply critical piece on Wednesday night.
'The President is using government to intimidate news outlets that publish stories he doesn't like,' the Journal wrote. 'It's a low move in a free country with a free press.'
Trump, who on Wednesday was focused on his sweeping agenda bill, has yet to personally weigh in on the Paramount settlement. But a spokesman for his legal team cast the deal as an example of him holding 'the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit.'
The supposed 'wrongdoing' in this case, however, was just an edit to a '60 Minutes' interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris last fall.
Trump seized on the clunky editing of one particular question and answer, but TV networks edit interviews all the time, and those editorial decisions are protected under the First Amendment.
One takeaway for journalists is to be 'transparent about how you do what you do,' Tompkins said.
CBS resisted calls to release the full transcript of the Harris interview last fall, but eventually shared the transcript and tapes amid mounting political pressure.
The tapes reaffirmed that Trump had a weak legal case. But the lawsuit gave him leverage over Paramount — and potentially Skydance, the CBS-owner-in-waiting, as well.
David Ellison, son of the billionaire Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, was seen schmoozing near Trump at two different UFC matches earlier this year, stoking speculation that he was leaning on personal relationships to help get the merger approved.
On Wednesday, Paramount pushed back on a New York Post report about a 'side deal' between Ellison and Trump involving TV airtime for public service announcements promoting Trump-aligned causes.
'Paramount has no knowledge of any promises or commitments made to President Trump other than those set forth in the settlement proposed by the mediator and accepted by the parties,' the company said.
A spokesperson for Ellison had no comment on the matter, and there is no evidence of any such deal.
But the report only intensified questions inside CBS News about how Ellison might approach owning the news division in the future.
While journalists at '60 Minutes' and across CBS News are concerned about the situation, they ultimately want to move on and continue doing their jobs.
'This settlement is not a reflection on the essential and bold work of 60 Minutes of CBS,' Tompkins told CNN. 'It is a reflection of a vindictive president and corporate heads who did not value one of the fundamental principles that underpin the ownership of a news organization.'
'That principle,' he said, 'is stated as the second tenant of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics: Act Independently.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
24 minutes ago
- Fox News
Democrats frustrated over lack of a heads-up from Hakeem Jeffries on delaying Trump's spending bill
Democrats were flustered that they didn't get a heads-up that Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries would delay President Donald Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" on Thursday with an hours-long speech on the House floor. "No one is upset Hakeem wanted to do this, but to not tell members, 'be prepared, book multiple flights, be flexible,'" a House Democrat told Axios, who was reportedly upset about the challenge of rebooking flights so close to the Fourth of July. Another House Democrat told Axios that a "heads up would have been nice." On Thursday afternoon, Jeffries beat the record for a House floor speech, speaking for eight hours and 44 minutes, starting before 4 a.m. and ending around 1:30 p.m. Jeffries went over the record previously held by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., which was eight hours and 32 minutes. During his remarks, the minority leader read from a binder that he said had stories of people who could lose their Medicaid coverage under Trump's spending bill that were compiled from constituents of states that have Republican lawmakers. "I think it's important for the American people to process… SNAP on average provides $6 per day," Jeffries said. "At the same time, Elon Musk, his federal contracts, as we understand it, amount to $8 million per day. Mr. Speaker, if Republicans were really serious about targeting waste, fraud and abuse in the United States of America, start there – $8 million per day, start right there." Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill," which passed the House on Thursday afternoon after Jeffries yielded the floor and now awaits the president's signature, advances his border security measures and permanently extends the income tax brackets lowered by his 2017 Tax Cuts Jobs Act (TCJA).
Bloomberg
25 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
If the Job Market's So Good, Why Do We Feel So Bad?
This is Bloomberg Opinion Today, the churn and growth opportunities that we expect from Bloomberg Opinion's opinions. Sign up here. Today was Jobs Day, which is weird, because it's not the first Friday of the month. It's the first Thursday of the month, but since tomorrow is a federal holiday — happy 249th birthday, Uncle Sam! — we got the data a day early. Jonathan Levin — and nearly every other Fed-watcher on the planet — was pleasantly surprised by June's unemployment rate of 4.1%, a number that he says is 'just about as good as it gets.'
Politico
25 minutes ago
- Politico
Judges are still broadly blocking Trump policies despite the Supreme Court's injunction ruling
Moss, an Obama appointee, emphasized that his decision was not one of the now-verboten injunctions. Instead, it relied on two alternative routes the Supreme Court acknowledged remained available for those challenging Trump's policies: class actions, which allow large groups to band together and sue over a common problem, and the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that permits courts to 'set aside' federal agency actions that violate the law, including rules, regulations and memos laying out new procedures. The ruling by Moss drew intense outrage from the Trump administration, which accused the judge of going 'rogue' and violating the Supreme Court's intentions. Hours later, U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, ordered federal health officials to restore hundreds of web pages containing gender-related data that officials took down pursuant to a Trump executive order cracking down on 'gender ideology.' He described the move as an example of federal officials 'acting first and thinking later.' Despite the nationwide implications of his ruling, Bates emphasized that the APA allows courts to effectively undo unjustified agency action, adding that even the Justice Department did 'not argue that more tailored relief is even possible here, let alone appropriate.' The judge also left open the possibility that officials could go back to the drawing board and find a lawful way to restrict content related to so-called 'gender ideology.' And in Massachusetts, Reagan-appointed U.S. District Judge William Young was careful to emphasize that his expansive ruling restoring health research grants — cut following the same executive order cited by Bates — was nonetheless tailored only to provide relief to the organizations that sued. Like Bates, Young's ruling relied on the APA. 'Public officials, in their haste to appease the Executive, simply moved too fast and broke things,' Young wrote. In short, the Supreme Court's ruling on nationwide injunctions may be the tectonic shift that wasn't. Despite the extraordinary potential to reshape the judiciary, its immediate impact — particularly in the innumerable challenges to Trump's effort to single-handedly slash and reshape the federal government — may be limited.
