The war on free speech
In his second inaugural address, President Trump said he would "stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.” Since then, Trump and his administration have used the full power of the federal government to curtail the free speech of one of the nation's most prominent media institutions: CBS News.
It started with a manufactured controversy.
On October 7, 2024, CBS News' 60 Minutes aired an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. During the interview, correspondent Bill Whitaker asked Harris whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was listening to the Biden administration. CBS News has released the full, unedited interview. Here is the relevant section:
Whitaker: But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. The Wall Street Journal said that he – that your administration has repeatedly been blindsided by Netanyahu. And in fact, he has rebuffed just about all of your administration’s entreaties.
Harris: Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region, by Israel, that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we’re not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.
The "controversy" is that on Face the Nation, CBS aired the question and the first half of Harris' answer: "Well Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region, by Israel, that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region." On 60 Minutes, CBS aired the question and the second half of Harris' answer: "We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end."
Before last November's election, Trump sued CBS, arguing its editing decisions constituted "election interference" and demanding $10 billion. (Trump subsequently revised his demand to $20 billion.) The theory was that the edit aired on 60 Minutes was manipulated to make Harris look better.
After taking office, Trump’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman, Brendan Carr launched an investigation that mirrors Trump's lawsuit. The FCC is considering whether CBS's actions violate its rules on “news distortion." It is an unprecedented investigation that departs from FCC policy since the 1960s. The agency has consistently held that "news distortion" means the gross misrepresentation of "a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect of the news report" — something that did not happen in 60 Minutes' edit of the Harris interview.
Nevertheless, Carr appeared on CNBC on Monday morning and said that CBS's actions could justify the FCC revoking its broadcast license.
"An easy victory for CBS"
Trump’s lawsuit against CBS is legally baseless. Trump alleges that CBS airing only a portion of Harris’ answer constitutes election interference. But it is common practice for news organizations to edit interviews for clarity and length, as long as the meaning is not changed. The case is a clear example of editorial judgement. Additionally, the supposed damages against Trump are unclear, considering that Trump won the election.
Trump is also targeting publications that report that the case lacks merit. At the end of April, Trump called for the New York Times to “be on the hook for their likely unlawful behavior” for reporting that “legal experts have called the suit baseless and an easy victory for CBS.” In a post on Truth Social, Trump argued that the article “makes them liable for tortious interference, including in Elections.”
Despite the fact that Trump’s lawsuit against CBS lacks merit, Shari Redstone, the chair of Paramount Global, CBS’s parent company, reportedly wants to settle the lawsuit to facilitate a merger between Paramount and Skydance Media, which requires approval from the FCC. Redstone, who has recused herself from deliberations about the lawsuit, will “reportedly pocket over $500 million” if the Trump administration allows the deal to go through.
The company has begun mediation and settlement talks with Trump. But some executives at the company are worried that settling such a baseless lawsuit could leave them open to allegations of bribery. According to the Wall Street Journal, executives are concerned that if the company settles, it could “expose directors and officers to liability in potential future shareholder litigation or criminal charges for bribing a public official.”
"Problematic" reporting on Trump
While a settlement with Trump might help Paramount get merger approval from the FCC, it is not the only concession Carr — who has worn a gold lapel pin shaped like Trump’s face — is looking for.
According to Bloomberg, Redstone has tried to temper CBS’s coverage of Trump to appease Carr. She stepped in after Trump called two 60 Minutes reports “fraudulent” in mid-April. Redstone asked to review the show’s upcoming segments about Trump and highlighted some that she thought would be problematic. While Redstone’s intervention did not result in 60 Minutes changing any of its planned programming, it did lead to the show’s long-time producer, Bill Owens, resigning.
The week after Owens’ resignation, 60 Minutes host Scott Pelley said live on the show, “Stories we’ve pursued for 57 years are often controversial, lately the Israel-Gaza war and the Trump administration… But our parent company, Paramount, is trying to complete a merger. The Trump administration must approve it. Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways.”
Paramount is also capitulating to the Trump administration’s anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) crusade.
In March, Carr gave a message to media companies during an interview with Bloomberg: “Any businesses that are looking for FCC approval, I would encourage them to get busy ending any sort of their invidious forms of DEI discrimination.” But even before this warning, Paramount was already at work to dismantle DEI programs that might hurt its chances at FCC approval.
According to an internal memo from February obtained by Variety, Paramount told employees that it would not “set or use aspirational numerical goals related to the race, ethnicity, sex or gender of hires” and that it would redirect funding from DEI initiatives to programs aimed at “building a high-performing and inclusive culture.”
On Sunday, Semafor reported that Paramount had decided to “delay and significantly alter” an initiative to encourage people to run for local office. The initiative was to be a partnership with three organizations that help inexperienced candidates: one progressive, one right-leaning, and one for veterans. According to Semafor, the project was sidelined because company officials feared that the FCC would not approve of Paramount partnering with partisan organizations.
I wish someone would sue Fox News for election interference.
This just leaves me speechless. Thank you, Judd, for reporting on this very important topic. This is why it's vital to have independent media such as Popular Information. Proud to support you.