Late last Tuesday, the mother corporation of CBS, Paramount, reluctantly settled a lawsuit brought on by US President Donald Trump. The case pertained to an interview conducted with Kamala Harris, once Vice President, aired by the network in October. Despite humbly accepting to pay shekels in the sum of $16 million, a clear victory for Trump, Paramount withheld any expression of regret or apology.
Following accusations of deceptive editing and undue favoring of the Democratic Party during the interview, Trump originally sought a staggering $10 billion compensation from CBS in October. This figure was later amended in February, with Trump raising his claim to a whopping $20 billion.
Interestingly, the settlement coincided with Paramount’s ongoing efforts to secure approval from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for its $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media. This triggered allegations of desperation from FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, who insinuated that Paramount was attempting to resolve an unmerited lawsuit out of urgency, rather than facing true fault.
Something to highlight here is the history of confrontations Trump has had with CBS. Driven presumably by disappointment with their conduct, Trump has consistently advocated for the revoking of CBS’s broadcasting licenses both during his campaign trail and presidency.
Indeed, Trump’s battle with CBS is further compounded by an interview involving Harris, aired twice by the network, in which her responses to questions regarding the Israel-Hamas war differ each time. CBS and certain circles have diffused these editing discrepancies as common practice in television interviews, drawing attention away from any unsavory manipulation of content.
Unsurprisingly, this controversial lawsuit raised eyebrows among senators. Senator Ron Wyden expressed a cynicism shared by many, insinuating that Paramount had essentially paid Trump for merger approvals. Moreover, Senator Bernie Sanders expressed fear that the settlement could inspire Trump to ramp up his assault on the media.
Negative repercussions of the settlement could extend beyond just media intimidation. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed restrictive measures on donations to sitting presidents’ libraries, fueling concerns about political maneuvering. More in this vein, Senator Ed Markey voiced his suspicions on the deal being tainted with political influence.
The Trump legal team, however, found cause to celebrate given the settlement agreement. Meanwhile, Paramount made placating gestures through its announcement to release redacted transcripts of future U.S. presidential candidate interviews aired on 60 Minutes, ostensibly to cater to legal or national security concerns.
In a recent shareholder conference, Paramount’s Co-CEO, George Cheeks, justified settling the lawsuit. Citing unpredictable legal fees and the possible financial and reputational fallout from a contrary judgment, he also pointed out Paramount wanted to circumvent potential disruption brought on by a continued legal wrangle.
Trump’s legal offensive was potentially groundbreaking on two fronts: first, his accusations against CBS were grounded on the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, making it illegal to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in commerce. The invocation of such a law against news outlets could potentially expose an avenue through which legal protections for the press can be circumvented.
Furthermore, Trump had previously shown a propensity to confront media houses that issued unfavorable coverage, often branding them producers of fake news. Notably, this pattern continued with Trump’s legal battle against the Des Moines Register newspaper and its former top pollster, following a poll published that showed Harris leading Trump in Iowa.
The specifics of Trump’s lawsuit sought unspecified damages and an order that would prevent the Des Moines Register from indulging in deceptive and misleading acts and practices concerning polling. The Des Moines Register defended their cause by standing by its reporting, dismissing Trump’s lawsuit as baseless.
This altercation took an unexpected turn at the end of June when Trump decided to retract the federal lawsuit and refile it within an Iowa state court. This tactic presumably aimed to work around certain legalities and secure a more favorable outcome.
While each legal action by Trump may seem isolated, they form a coherent narrative of his driven campaign against media misconduct. It behooves the media to exercise caution when portraying public figures like Trump if they’re to avoid entering the choppy waters of litigation involving accusations of deceptive practices.