Former Vice-President Kamala Harris is no stranger to controversy, as evidenced by the recent settlement between Paramount, the parent company of CBS, and former US President Donald Trump. The lawsuit was in response to an interview CBS broadcast with Harris this October, that was alleged by Trump to be misleadingly edited to influence the election in Democrats’ favor. Settlement to this lawsuit, strangely, is slated to be $16 million for Trump’s prospective presidential library, rather than an apology or a reversal of whatever harm was supposedly done.
The lawsuit, a whopping $10-billion claim initially, was made on the grounds that the ’60 Minutes’ news program output was unfairly edited to skew perceptions about the Democratic party. Harris was the Democratic candidate following then-President Joe Biden’s unexpected exit from the race. The enormity of Trump’s claim seems to underscore the desperation behind his allegations, which he later escalated to a shocking $20 billion in a complaint submitted in February.
Paramount’s decision to settle is curious given the timing amidst the need for approval from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for an $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media. Could desperation be a driving force in Paramount’s choice to settle a meritless lawsuit, as was suggested by FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez? This saga unfolds as Trump, during his tenure and on the campaign trail, has been advocating for withdrawal of CBS’ broadcasting licenses. This appears to be mere blustering from the former President, considering the FCC, an independent agency, issues licenses for individual broadcast stations rather than networks.
Under a cloud of suspicion, CBS aired two versions of the so-called controversial interview. Harris seemingly delivers varying responses to identical questions about the Israel-Hamas war. Yet, CBS and some external groups argue that this is merely a standard editing procedure common to television interviews. CBS had defiantly claimed the lawsuit was entirely without merit before deciding on the puzzling route of settlement.
Senator Ron Wyden voiced what many suspected, suggesting that Paramount’s payment to Trump was a desperate bid for merger approval. Some envisage that this move could embolden Trump to increase his attacks on the media, threatening lawsuits and intimidation tactics, a concern voiced by Senator Bernie Sanders. There are rumbles in the Senate as Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren said she intends to propose rules limiting donations to incumbent presidents’ libraries.
Senator Ed Markey did not mince words in his opinion of the deal, stating it carried the stench of political interference. In stark contrast, Trump’s legal team readily accepted the settlement. As a part of the terms, they agreed that 60 Minutes should release transcripts of interviews with future U.S. presidential candidates, albeit subjected to requisite redactions for legal or national security concerns.
Paramount defended its decision to settle during its annual shareholders meeting, with Co-CEO George Cheeks claiming the company opted for settlement to bypass the potentially unpredictable costs of a legal defense. The risk of a detrimental judgment that could potentially inflict significant financial or reputational damage, as well as the upheaval of an extended legal imbroglio, were other considerations.
The lawsuit garnered attention as it took a novel route, claiming that CBS’s editing of the interview contravened the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The Act outlaws false, misleading, or deceptive practices in commerce. Some media advocacy groups fear that Trump’s unusual usage of such legislation against media groups could circumvent established press protections. Under current law, media outlets can only be held accountable for defamation against public figures if they knowingly or should have known the content they published was false.
Throughout his tenure and even beyond, Trump was known to express vehement criticism at the media, frequently dismissing unfavorable coverage as ‘fake news’. Trump’s brush with lawsuits doesn’t stop here. In December, he initiated a lawsuit against the Des Moines Register newspaper and its former leading pollster over a poll published on November 2. In this poll, Harris was predicted to take a three-point lead over Trump in Iowa.
The lawsuit called for unspecified damages and an injunction to prevent the Des Moines Register from continuing what Trump claims to be deceptive practices relating to polling. Nonetheless, the Des Moines Register stood by its reporting integrity, stating that the lawsuit was baseless. Such zealous litigation could be deemed as an aggressive ploy aimed at quelling free press.
In a surprising turn of events, Trump dropped the federal lawsuit on June 30, choosing to refile it in an Iowa state court instead. His pursuit of legal action sends a clear message of his disdain towards segments of the media that he perceives as hostile. As this legal saga illustrates, the tension between Trump and not just the Democratic Party but also media entities continues to ripple through the American political landscape.
Meanwhile in the political sphere, Kamala Harris’s ascend to the candidate position following Biden’s departure from the race was itself a moment of curiosity. This lawsuit and its ensuing settlement further cast a shadow of questions, such as the motivations behind CBS’s decision to settle and the potential for such settlements to be manipulated for political gain.
In conclusion, even in the immediate aftermath of a presidential term colored by relentless criticism and countless legal battles, the Trump era continues to be a source of intense debate and controversy. This lawsuit and its fallout serve as additional examples of the tension between the former president and media establishments. Moreover, it sets a concerning precedent for future media mandates, as well as offering a damning indictment of the political practices of the Democratic Party with Harris at the forefront.