Paramount agrees to $16M settlement with Trump

    0
    1

    NEW YORK โ€” Paramount Global has opted to settle a high-profile lawsuit with former President Donald Trump by agreeing to pay $16 million. This case, centered around the editing practices at CBSโ€™s acclaimed โ€œ60 Minutes,โ€ has caught the attention of the nation, particularly as it poses the question of whether a major corporation will support its journalists when pitted against a figure as polarizing as Trump. The repercussions of this decision are expected to resonate for some time, with dissatisfaction growing among journalists, and a U.S. senator calling for further investigation into potential breaches of bribery laws. Amid this, Paramount is eager to resolve the controversy as it seeks approval for a merger.

    Paramount, which counts CBS among its holdings, articulated that the funds from the settlement will contribute to Trumpโ€™s forthcoming presidential library and also cover his legal expenses. Notably, Paramount refrained from issuing an apology or expressing regret concerning the disputed segment. The settlement was made public just before the companyโ€™s Wednesday morning meeting with shareholders.

    Originally, Trumpโ€™s legal representatives maintained that he suffered โ€œmental anguishโ€ following a โ€œ60 Minutesโ€ interview in which his Democratic opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, participated. The legal battle, initiated by Trump with a claim for a staggering $20 billion, focused on the editing of responses Harris gave during the interview segment. Critics, including legal professionals, largely dismissed Trumpโ€™s allegations.

    The crux of the dispute lay in the showโ€™s editing decisions. During an exchange with Bill Whitaker, Harrisโ€™s remarks on Israel were edited for brevity. Trump contended this manipulation favored Harris, a claim CBS had attempted to dismiss in court. A subsequent inquiry by the Trump-appointed FCC chief further complicated the matter as it interacted with Paramountโ€™s merger efforts with Skydance Media.

    During the shareholdersโ€™ meeting, Paramountโ€™s Co-CEO, George Cheeks, elucidated that businesses frequently settle lawsuits to evade excessive legal expenses and trial unpredictability, emphasizing that settlements support companiesโ€™ goals by allowing them to maintain focus. Trumpโ€™s legal team, however, hailed the settlement as a triumph. In stark contrast, CBS News personnel widely condemned Paramountโ€™s management and expressed their disapproval.

    Former CBS show producer Rome Hartman stated that Paramountโ€™s decision was a significant betrayal of CBS News and โ€œ60 Minutes.โ€ Journalists at CBS stood in opposition to the settlement for months. Key figures like CBS News President Wendy McMahon and โ€œ60 Minutesโ€ Executive Producer Bill Owens resigned in protest earlier in the year. Prominent correspondents voiced their concerns in letters challenging the companyโ€™s decision.

    Meanwhile, the Writers Guild of America East argued that the settlement jeopardizes journalistic integrity. Despite evidence supporting CBSโ€™s editorial choices and interview accuracy, Paramount chose settlement over pursuing litigation, according to FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez. Senator Elizabeth Warren has demanded an inquiry, citing concerns over potential bribery implications.

    As part of the designated agreement, Paramount will ensure future transparency by releasing complete transcripts of โ€œ60 Minutesโ€ interviews with presidential candidates. This marks a departure from the showโ€™s previous policy of withholding such records until much later.

    In conclusion, this settlement represents a significant moment for the revered news program, highlighted by โ€œ60 Minutesโ€ now continuing without leadership amid the mergerโ€™s pending approval. Correspondents advocate for internal promotion, suggesting Tanya Simon for the position. This scenario echoes similar settlements like those with ABC News and Meta in past Trump-related lawsuits, raising questions about potential forthcoming actions. The Freedom of the Press Foundation has criticized the settlement, suggesting plans to challenge it legally, although details remain sparse.