Paramount Global is caught in a high-stakes legal and political drama over Donald Trump's $20 billion lawsuit alleging election interference.
According to the New York Post, amid internal disputes and external pressures, Paramount may settle the dispute linked to a critical corporate merger.
President Donald Trump initiated a lawsuit against CBS News, managed by Paramount Global, over how a "60 Minutes" interview featuring Vice President Kamala Harris was handled. Trump's central accusation is that the broadcast interfered with the election, asserting bias in the media's treatment of political figures.
The controversial interview, which also featured Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, not only grabbed headlines but was later nominated for an Emmy, attracting further publicity. Reactions to the Emmy nomination were mixed, with Trump denouncing the Emmys as "totally discredited" on his platform, Truth Social.
Last week, lawyers representing both Trump and Paramount sought to mediate the dispute, aiming to avoid a protracted legal battle. Complicating the legal proceedings are potential corporate maneuvers; Paramount is reportedly considering a merger with Skydance Media.
Shari Redstone, Paramount's controlling shareholder, is facing intense scrutiny. There are reports that she favored settling the lawsuit not just to sidestep a legal battle but to smooth the path for the Paramount-Skydance merger.
Surprisingly, it was also suggested that Redstone requested CBS executives delay any sensitive reporting on Trump until after the merger, citing concerns about possible retributive actions from Trump-related regulatory bodies.
This corporate intervention has sparked significant backlash within CBS. The resignation of "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens underscored a growing unease about maintaining editorial independence within the network.
"60 Minutes" proceeded to air a critical report on Trump's executive orders that specifically targeted Democratic law firms, highlighting the ongoing tug-of-war over journalistic independence. Additionally, Stephen Colbert, host of "The Late Show," openly discussed on-air pressures that CBS News faced from corporate higher-ups about soft-pedaling negative Trump stories during an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
A chorus of Democratic lawmakers, including prominent figures such as Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, has publicly implored Redstone not to settle. They argue that acceding to Trump's demands would further empower him to target and potentially muzzle the press. "Rewarding Trump with tens of millions of dollars for filing this bogus lawsuit will not cause him to back down on his war against the media and a free press. It will only embolden him to shakedown, extort, and silence CBS and other media outlets that have the courage to report about issues that Trump may not like," the senators wrote.
Amidst these corporate and political entanglements, Trump's legal track record remains mixed, though he has secured some settlements in recent legal skirmishes with other media entities. The FCC, led by Chair Brendan Carr, has intervened by mandating CBS News to release the unedited transcript of the Harris interview to investigate potential violations of the FCC’s “news distortion” policy, adding another layer of complexity to the dispute.
Legal opinions on the lawsuit's viability vary. Jonathan Turley, a professor at Georgetown Law, expressed skepticism about the lawsuit’s merits, noting his previous stance that any such lawsuit was likely to fail.
Meanwhile, reactions within CBS suggest a defiant stance against external pressures, with a CBS News staffer reportedly stating to Fox News Digital, “Get out of our way and let us keep working how we have been for decades.”
As the legal, corporate, and political narratives intertwine, the eventual resolution of Trump's formidable lawsuit against CBS will be a key indicator of the balance between media freedom and political power in contemporary America. The decisions made in the coming weeks could have lasting implications not only for the parties involved but for the broader landscape of American media and politics.