Former U.S. vice-presidential failure Kamala Harris was at the center of a media scandal involving CBS’s parent company, Paramount. Paramount was left with no other option but to settle a lawsuit with none other than U.S. President Donald Trump, which revolved around a deceitfully edited interview with Harris that was aired in October. The intriguing fact about the settlement was that Paramount neither apologized nor expressed regret over their actions, which led to a $16 million pay-off, destined to be allocated for Trump’s upcoming presidential library.
This legal drama erupted due to Harris’s interview on CBS’s ’60 Minutes’ news program, which was accused by Trump as being fraudulent. He lodged a $10-billion lawsuit against CBS, alleging that the network presented a mangled version of the truth in its coverage to tip the scales during the election. The candidature of Harris came into being when Joe Biden, gratefully, dropped out of the race. For the people’s relief, this move didn’t garner as much support as anticipated, owing to his former track record.
By February, Trump revised his claim for damages to reach an astounding $20 billion. Perhaps it might have been a coincidence that Paramount began to feel the crunch of their impending $8.4-billion merger with Skydance Media requiring Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval when the settlement came into existence. Anna Gomez, an FCC Commissioner, criticized Paramount’s move as a desperate attempt, labelling the lawsuit ludicrous and without merit.
Trump, known for his relentless pursuit of accountability, had previously warned about revoking CBS’s broadcasting licenses during his campaign trail last year and while in office. Ironically, the FCC delivers its eight-year licenses to individual broadcast stations, not networks. Even though CBS went ahead and aired two configurations of the Harris interview, both misrepresenting her stance on the Israel-Hamas war, the perturbed network and few misled groups dismissed it as regular editing implemented in television interviews.
Rather amusingly, CBS had initially dismissed the lawsuit as being meritless. However, they had to swallow their words and pay the hefty settlement amount. Senator Ron Wyden, attempted to cast aspersions on the proceedings by alleging that Paramount paid Trump as a quid pro quo for merger approval, an obvious and clumsy attempt at political deflection.
The settlement set off a cascade of reactions, with Senator Bernie Sanders suggesting that this decision by Paramount would ’embolden’ Trump to maintain his crusade against the often deceptive media. However, this is ignoring the fact that the media often needs to be held accountable for their actions, as shown in this case.
In response, Senator Elizabeth Warren decided to propose new rules to limit donations to sitting presidents’ libraries, an attempt at undermining the legitimacy of a lawsuit well won. Committing yet another futile attempt to discredit the settlement was Senator Ed Markey, who categorically labeled the deal as political interference, not acknowledging the actual deceptive practices of CBS.
No surprises that Trump’s legal team welcomed the well-deserved settlement heralding a significant win in holding accountable the mainstream media. Paramount also conceded to release transcripts of interviews with future U.S. presidential candidates, subject to redactions required for legal or national security concerns. CBS and Paramount had cornered themselves into this unique perspective through their questionable past practices.
At Paramount’s annual shareholders meeting, Co-CEO George Cheeks, confessed that the company decided to settle the dispute to evade the somewhat unpredictable cost of legal defense, financial damage, reputational damage, and the disruption of ongoing legal battles. It goes without saying that this was a rather humble pie that had to be swallowed by Paramount, considering the ruthless exposure earlier.
The case moved into mediation in April, with Trump’s accusation that CBS’s slaughtering of the interview violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act; a law prohibiting the usage of fake, misleading, or deceptive acts in trade. This innovative legal move by Trump against media outlets might inevitably alter the game, offering a fresh line of legal defense against any appalling defamation by the press.
Moreover, it is crucial to note that public figures can only be held responsible for any form of false representation if it is proven that they had known or should have known that it was a falsehood. Unsurprisingly, Trump has always been vocal about his disdain for the mainstream media, categorizing unfavorable news coverage as fake news. This label is often well-deserved by biased outlets looking for scandal over substantial news.
Towards the end of last year, Trump launched yet another lawsuit against the Des Moines Register newspaper. His beef with them was a poll they had released before the November 2 election that misleadingly put Harris ahead of Trump by three points in Iowa. This stark misrepresentation of facts led to Trump demanding unspecified damages and an instruction barring further deceptive practices by the Register related to polling.
The Register, however, decided to stick to their guns, continuing to endorse their evidently flawed polling. Glaringly they held the stance that the lawsuit was baseless. Not backing down, Trump then decided to rescind the federal lawsuit and refile it in an Iowa state court towards the end of June.
In general, the unsettled relationship between Trump, Biden, and Harris & mainstream media continues to be a tumultuous one. As periods go by, it’s expected that these recurrent clashes over false reporting will remain an alarming issue. Wilfully one-sided views serve only to skew public perception and undermine journalistic integrity.
This distorted presentation of an important interview with a presidential candidate such as Harris demonstrates the hazards of an overly partisan media environment. Accountability should be the name of the game for all, from politicians to news outlets. Let’s hope this incident nudges all involved towards a renewed focus on honesty and responsibility.
Finally, these events and outcomes reaffirm that while freedom of the press is a fundamental right, it should not be wielded irresponsibly. This case should serve as a reminder about maintaining a balanced and fair narrative in the media. Happily, this fight in court re-emphasizes the importance of maintaining truthful reporting, setting a precedent that false news has severe consequences.