Following the agreement with Trump, CBS News employees express concern about future developments
In a move that has sparked controversy and raised concerns about the potential influence of the Trump administration on media companies, Paramount Global has settled a lawsuit with former President Trump. The settlement, which involves a payment of $16 million towards Trump's presidential library, has been met with criticism from various parties, including veteran journalism professor Al Tompkins, CBS News employees, Democratic lawmakers, press freedom advocates, and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
The tapes reaffirmed that Trump had a weak legal case in the lawsuit, which stemmed from a dispute over a segment on "60 Minutes." However, Trump's legal team has cast the settlement as an example of Trump holding the "Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit."
The settlement has been seen as a breach of the public trust by some CBS staffers, who view it as a surrender. Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, described the settlement as a "monument to Paramount's surrender."
The reported "side deal" between David Ellison, son of the billionaire Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, and Trump has intensified questions inside CBS News about how Ellison might approach owning the news division in the future. Ellison has been seen schmoozing near Trump at two different UFC matches earlier this year, stoking speculation that he was leaning on personal relationships to help get the merger approved.
Paramount has denied any knowledge of a "side deal" involving TV airtime for public service announcements promoting Trump-aligned causes. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has stated that behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated, implying that the settlement will encourage Trump to continue his lawsuits against the press.
The potential consequences for audiences when media outlets fold or yield to such pressures are significant. A loss of independent and critical journalism can lead to diminished access to impartial news and investigative reporting that holds power accountable. An erosion of democratic norms can result from a weakened or compliant press, allowing unchecked political power and misinformation to flourish. Amplification of polarization and misinformation can exacerbate societal conflicts, such as those between political factions and racial groups.
Historically, media companies have oscillated between capitulation and resistance in response to Trump's bullying. Al Tompkins, a veteran journalism professor, has emphasized the importance of transparency for journalists, stating that they should be "transparent about how you do what you do." The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board has criticized Trump for using government to intimidate news outlets that publish stories he doesn't like.
Trump's confrontational style, favoring intimidation and humiliation over dialogue, has reawakened opposition and mobilized mass protests across thousands of cities. This galvanized resistance both within the media landscape and in broader society, signaling that aggressive bullying can generate significant backlash.
In summary, the settlement between Paramount and Trump has raised concerns about the potential influence of the Trump administration on media companies and the independence of news organizations. The settlement, while not reflecting on the work of "60 Minutes" or CBS News according to Al Tompkins, has been criticized as a "monument to Paramount's surrender" by press freedom advocates. The consequences for audiences when media outlets fold or yield to such pressures can be profound, with potential impacts on democratic accountability and societal divisions.
The settlement between Paramount and Trump has prompted discussions about how business dealings between media companies and political figures might impact general news coverage and the integrity of investigative journalism. In the realm of politics, this event serves as a case study for the influence that war-and-conflicts, media, and politics can have on each other, particularly when it comes to the handling of general news.
