Paramount Shouldn't Fold to Trump
Settling Trump’s CBS lawsuit won’t buy peace—it will sell out press freedom.

On February 1, 2004, I was watching Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake wind up the Super Bowl halftime show and thought I saw something odd. Being not only a First Amendment and communications lawyer but also having been a TiVo early adopter, I scrolled back and confirmed: Monday was going to be a busy day.
Almost immediately, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was investigating CBS for what became known as "Nipplegate." The network then turned to my boss, who enlisted my help, to defend against indecency charges. Years of opposition before the agency and in appeals court followed. During that time, the FCC also proposed to fine CBS even more for an episode of Without A Trace with a scene depicting a teenage hook-up party, which the commission claimed was impermissible under its indecency standards.
Eventually, the network prevailed in court, and the FCC had to cut CBS a check returning the fines it had paid for the halftime show. (The Without a Trace matter ultimately got dropped.)
Now CBS is back in the news. Less than two weeks into President Donald Trump's second term, the network's parent company Paramount is considering settling his lawsuit claiming CBS' coverage of the presidential campaign—and, in particular, an allegedly deceptively edited interview with Kamala Harris—was unfair and somehow harmed him. Reports have tied this possible settlement to Paramount's planned merger with Skydance, which Paramount shareholders fear the new administration could try to block or delay.
Notably, this also comes against a backdrop of President Trump's appointed FCC Chairman Brendan Carr rattling his saber at broadcast networks that have earned the president's ire.
Shortly before the inauguration, under the guidance of its former, Joe Biden–appointed chair, the FCC dismissed complaints against ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC regarding broadcasts during the campaign—including CBS' 60 Minutes Harris interview. In doing so, the FCC emphasized the importance of honoring CBS' editorial discretion and broadcasters' First Amendment right to report on matters of public concern as they see fit. But Trump's handpicked successor has indicated the FCC will reconsider that dismissal, along with the NBC and ABC dismissals (but not the Fox dismissal, unsurprisingly).
Freedom of the press protects journalists and the news media in publishing information—especially in the political sphere—free from official censorship. In that way, a free press serves a vital role as the "Fourth Estate" in our democratic society, keeping citizens informed so that individuals may oversee their government's actions. As Ida B. Wells stated, "The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press."
That's why it's concerning that CBS would go to the mattresses over a halftime show for a game it gets once every fourth year, or even a bread-and-butter scripted show like Without a Trace, but would capitulate when it comes to its news and political coverage. Already the network is reportedly poised to comply with an FCC demand for the transcript and camera feeds from the 60 Minutes interview.
When parties to legal disputes resolve them with monetary payments rather than seeing them through to a decision, it is often said they are "buying peace." Here, there is no peace to be bought, at least not without reassurance from the courts that CBS can cover political matters as its editorial discretion dictates, no matter how much it might displease the president or his appointees.
Let's be clear: Paramount isn't buying peace—it's only buying CBS a four-year supply of lube.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
CBS is, at BEST, a stenography coalition.
Journalism died there decades ago.
Did CBS executives collude with Janet Jackson? And would a lawsuit discovery uncover that in writing? If so, the situations are not at all similar.
You'd think a lawyer who specializes in "communications" would know that [and of course he does].
#47 anti Trump article [including several rewrites that aged poorly after 3 or 4 hours] today, and they say media is biased!
Tits=lying.
Some sure do.
Are you saying Janet's were fake?
I only saw the censored version so no good way to tell.
No mention of the strategic motive of avoiding discovery.
No mention of what a fucked up judicial system we have. Implement loser pays, and for every cost, not just attorney fees (gee, aren't you guys special) and I might think a little more highly of your opinion.
FIRE does a lot of good work -- for lawyers. But that's like praising nurses for the rabies jabs they administer while forgetting that something better might actually be better.
And ETA: no mention of a lawyer's incentive to sell more billable hours.
Resist we much.
Did CBS violate campaign finance laws?
It was at the very least an in kind contribution.
Freedom to show nipples is good. Freedom to cast oneself as presenting news, and then presenting lies in its place, without even having to admit it, is bad. Showing nipples is a victimless crime. Showing falsely what Kamala Harris said is not victimless.
You might as well try to twist the right to keep and bear arms into the right to shoot people.
Doesn't even rise to the level of false equivalence.
And, once again people, we have the self-identified "general counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression" failing to make this distinction.
I thought that was the right to keep bears in your trunk. Have I been misreading this the whole time?
Read the column. Author believes that lying to us is fine. Ignored column. Ignored author. This is where freedom dies.
"In that way, a free press serves a vital role as the "Fourth Estate" in our democratic society, keeping citizens informed so that individuals may oversee their government's actions."
Yeah but that's not what CBS did. In fact they did the opposite. They intentionally misinformed citizens denying the them the ability to oversee their government actions. Fortunately nobody believes these propagandists. They know they're lying. We know they're lying. They know we know they're lying. And we all know the rest.
Yeah but that's not what CBS did. In fact they did the opposite
This. The amount of lying being done by the establishmentarian writers here is sickening.
I mean, I'm sure the author of this article would feel exactly the same way about the situation if CBS had taken the interview footage and edited it to make Kamala look even dumber. Or even just replaced her responses with unhinged AI hallucinations. And then still billed it as a factual interview with a candidate for the American presidency. Right?
Imagine if they did that with daddy Koch.
^
MSM, which was already well down the tunnel of liberal progressive narrative, fully broke in 2016. And now we're watching it self autopsy.
While ABC/NBC/CBS are basically arms of the Democratic party (much like Fox News and the Republican), there is at least a pretense of independence.
The discovery in this lawsuit would probably shatter any pretense.
Which of course is why they will self contort, obfuscate, and oppose in any possible manner to keep it from the light of day. It's as though you've known something to be the case for a long time, but as with Soviet propagandists of the 20th Century, they can just keep stone walling as if it wasn't; but if the cloak of deceit is actually removed so that only a self imposed schizophrenia can pretend it isn't? That would be beautiful.
The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press
Then libertarianism is truly hopeless.
Without the press to educate us, we would never have known that the Central Park Five and the Duke Lacrosse players were guilty, that Jackie Coakley and Crystal Mangum were truth-tellers, that more women were beaten on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day of the year, that day care centers were run by Satan-worshipping child molesters, that the Russians colluded with Trump to steal the 2016 election, that the Hunter Biden laptop was a classic Russian disinformation operation…
Hey wait a minute…
“and, in particular, an allegedly deceptively edited interview with Kamala Harris”
Allegedly, huh?
In that way, a free press serves a vital role as the "Fourth Estate" in our democratic society, keeping citizens informed so that individuals may oversee their government's actions
It doesn't change the conclusion, but we should all recognize this as bullshit by now. The media functions as a campaign arm for its preferred political party and as such actively and intentionally misinforms the public more than it informs them. It should be embarrassing people continue to reveal this level of naive blather.
CBS edited the fucking answers for crying out loud this is like the thirty-seventh time you guys got this wrong just fucking stop
your piece should be about how CBS news has lasted for 100 years or whatever on zero actual credibility but we already all know this
They were moderating in good faith.
lol thank you for the larf ... idk about this general counsel author guy
Ronnie London
Once again, people, FIRE(xpression) is not your friend.
Maybe the DNC White House didn't want Paramount to dump their secret Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc... censorship memo's all over the internet???
Abolish the FCC
No, they shouldn't fold - I want to see the discovery.
But that's why they will fold - they don't want me to see the discovery.
Yep.
The golden rule 2.0: do unto others what they have done to you.
Democrats demanded government "truth" checks of media. Seems like they should welcome the reciprocity.
One more TDS-addled slimy pile of shit.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
In doing so, the FCC emphasized the importance of honoring CBS' editorial discretion and broadcasters' First Amendment right to report on matters of public concern as they see fit.
And I have no objections to that... as long as they properly label the results as fiction.
Would you feel the same way if they had taken the interview with Kamala and edited it to make her look even dumber?
Yes, It's common knowledge that "news" shows routinely edit interviews and take things wildly out of context to pursue a particular agenda. It's hardly limited to politics, so unless you're similarly outraged about other stories, get over it.
In that way, a free press serves a vital role as the "Fourth Estate" in our democratic society, keeping citizens informed so that individuals may oversee their government's actions.
"We're vital! We keep the citizens informed!"
Sincerely,
-Pravda, Xinhua, KCNA, Granma, etc.
Just because they're press doesn't mean they're free press, Ronald. They're not the Fourth Estate when they're working hand-in-glove with the First, Second, and/or Third Estate to push their narratives and peddle their lies.
I don't like this at all. However, you have to look at the established recent precedent. We have legal statement that signing an NDA about an affair is election interference. Under that standard, hiding anything at all qualifies.
I don't see how this is so far beyond the pale given what we've seen. If they had done the same thing with the intent of making Trump look foolish (by flopping responses to make it look incoherent), it would definitely count as interference.
The real question is how much editing is allowed WITH THE CONSENT of the party interviewed? And I don't see how you can state that Trump is guilty and 60 minutes isn't.
I would definitely prefer a setting where both these cases were tossed. But this is the standard we have.
But that is only a precedent if a state courts decides that a federal election violation has occurred, and decides to upgrade misdemeanors to felonies based on the apparent commission of another crime that no one was charged or convicted of.
Whatever happened to "a private company can do what they want"?
Pretty sure a private company can commit crimes, and election interference would be (checking my notes) a crime, right? Or at the very least cause harm to a candidate running for office through interference?
Signing a legal NDA is election interference but misleading the entire electorate by editing the answers of a candidate to make her less idiotic isn't?
Ah, the old "Fourth Estate" canard. What the republic needs is information, not 'journalists' with their NPD imaginary gatekeeper's halos. And I'm pretty sure that Janet Jackson's nipple didn't slander anybody.
I agree they really shouldn't cave. Once you pay the Danegeld, there's no getting rid of the Dane.