Movies

‘Spineless capitulation.’ Paramount faces backlash over its $16-million Trump settlement

BBG News

I wholeheartedly disagree with Paramount Global’s choice to part with $16 million in settlement for former President Trump’s lawsuit concerning the editing of “60 Minutes.” In my opinion, this action appears as a weak surrender, undermining the very principles that uphold U.S. press freedoms.

On Tuesday evening, Paramount reached a groundbreaking agreement with President Trump to conclude a $20-billion lawsuit that Trump had filed against CBS News. The president won’t receive any payment from this settlement, either directly or indirectly, according to Paramount. Instead, the money will be utilized to cover Trump’s legal expenses and contribute towards establishing his presidential library in the future.

Leaders at Paramount are optimistic that the settlement will smooth the way for Trump-designated authorities to approve the company’s $8-billion acquisition by David Ellison’s Skydance Media. Their goal was to reduce any potential friction with the President.

On Wednesday, some journalists and others argued that the settlement could encourage further attacks from Trump and his supporters against media outlets. Some critics deemed it a blemish on the honorable history of CBS News, a network once home to courageous journalists like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and Mike Wallace.

Clayton Weimers, head of Reporters Without Borders USA, expressed disappointment with Paramount’s choice in a statement. He believed that Shari Redstone and the Paramount board should have supported CBS journalists and upheld press freedom principles over Trump’s minor legal attacks. Instead, they opted to appease Trump.

Hollywood Inc.

Previously, President Trump initiated a 20-billion-dollar legal action, asserting that the ’60 Minutes’ interview featuring then-Vice President Kamala Harris had been manipulated to present her favorably. Trump argued that the news segment was potentially damaging for the election.

Trump’s legal team enthusiastically announced the settlement, stating: “President Donald J. Trump secures another victory for the American public by holding the biased media responsible yet again for their mistakes and deception.

Bob Corn-Revere, head of the First Amendment advocacy group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, expressed a differing opinion, warning that broader consequences might ensue.

In a statement, Corn-Revere commented: “A chilly gust swept through every newsroom. While Paramount may have concluded this case, it seems to suggest that the government could assume the role of the media’s top editor.

Commissioner Anna M. Gomez, the sole Democratic member of the committee, stated that the agreement was essentially an attempt by Paramount to win favor with the Administration and obtain approval for a significant transaction under review at the Federal Communications Commission by making this concession.

At this point, we’re setting a potentially risky pattern regarding the 1st Amendment, which ought to worry those who appreciate a self-governing media,” Gomez expressed.

Hollywood Inc.

For Subscribers

Trump, ‘60 Minutes’ and corruption allegations put Paramount on edge with sale less certain

Three Democratic senators in the Senate have expressed concern that any payments made to Trump might breach federal anti-bribery regulations if they result in preferential treatment from regulators. They also stated that the business transactions between Paramount and Trump suggest substantial issues regarding potential corruption and inappropriate behavior.

For several months, Paramount executives have been in a dilemma regarding the best approach to deal with Donald Trump’s $20-billion lawsuit. This ongoing conflict led to the resignation of two high-ranking CBS News officials who stood firm amidst the situation, especially as “60 Minutes” continued to broadcast stories scrutinizing Trump’s policies and conduct.

Reporters found it distressing that the board opted to resolve the issue instead of standing up for First Amendment rights.

CBS News employees harbored concerns that they might have to issue an apology for actions they believed were innocent, but it turned out that the settlement, brokered by a mediator, did not mandate any apologies.

Hollywood Inc.

According to Mario Gabelli, a seasoned Paramount shareholder, they need to secure approval for [the deal]. Gabelli and others are excited for a fresh start, yet the Skydance agreement has become an uncertain journey instead.

The disagreement started in October as CBS aired distinct parts of Vice President Kamala Harris’ response to a question regarding the Biden administration’s decreasing influence with Israel’s prime minister, which they had broadcasted differently.

On “Face the Nation” broadcast, Harris’s answer to a question seemed unclear. However, on “60 Minutes” the following day, they showed another part of her response which came across as clear and direct.

CBS has acknowledged editing Harris’ answer.

Trump and his conservative allies argued that CBS had tampered with the edits, suggesting they were trying to make Kamala Harris seem more assertive to boost her appeal to voters. Trump labeled these edits as instances of meddling in the election process.

CBS has long denied such claims.

During their shareholder gathering on Wednesday, Paramount Co-CEO George Cheeks stated that settlements serve as a means for businesses to steer clear of being entangled in “prolonged doubt and diversion.

In my viewpoint, businesses frequently choose to settle disputes rather than engage in lengthy litigation for several reasons. Firstly, legal fees can be incredibly expensive and hard to predict. Secondly, an unfavorable verdict might lead to severe financial or brand image repercussions. Lastly, prolonged court battles may disrupt the normal flow of business operations.

That rationale did little to mollify detractors who alleged that Trump’s complaints were thin.

In simpler terms, according to Seth Stern, who oversees advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, this settlement by Paramount will go down as one of the most disgraceful instances where the press conceded to a president in history.

Paramount said the agreement with Trump included a release from threatened defamation claims.

But it’s not clear that Paramount’s headaches will go away.

Three Democratic U.S. Senators – Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders from Vermont, and Ron Wyden from Oregon – are interested in examining the reasoning behind Paramount’s actions more closely.

In May, senators wrote a stern warning to Redstone, Paramount’s major stakeholder. They expressed concern that any potential settlement might appear as offering a bribe to influence an elected official in order to secure lenient regulation for the Skydance merger.

Warren stated on Wednesday that this situation appears to be blatant bribery. I’m advocating for a thorough examination to determine if any laws against bribery have been violated.

In simpler terms, Senator Wyden wrote that if Democrats regain control, he would be one of the first to demand federal indictments. Meanwhile, he suggests that state attorneys should hold accountable the corporate executives who compromised our democratic system, by bringing them to trial.

Hollywood Inc.

On Thursday, Paramount requested a federal judge in Texas to discard a $20-billion lawsuit against them. In a separate move, they’ve consented to involve a mediator for examining the case.

Some reporters expressed concern that the settlement might create a climate of self-censorship, especially among media outlets with limited financial resources or ongoing matters before the federal administration.

Smaller newsrooms, much like CBS News, might endure financial difficulties due to similar legal challenges, but these organizations could potentially teeter on the edge of collapse,” Tim Richardson, director of journalism and disinformation at the nonprofit PEN America, remarked in a statement.

“The danger is clear,” Richardson said, calling the settlement a “spineless capitulation.”

Empowered politicians and influential figures might now have greater liberty than before, using lawsuits as a tool and applying regulatory pressures, with the intent of silencing or censoring independent news outlets.

Read More

2025-07-02 22:01

Previous post “Unexpectedly great” crime series with Harlan Coben actor among starry cast is now streaming free
Next post The Last of Us suffers major shakeup as co-creator and executive producer step down: “Now is the right time”