One by one, the lords of the media are kissing Trump’s ring. ABC paid him $15 million because George Stephanopoulos interviewed Trump and said that Trump had been convicted of rape by a New York jury. Trump said it was false and he was defamed. ABC could have fought the suit, but instead it paid Trump $15 million plus $1 million for his Inauguration.
Mark Zuckerberg was sued by Trump for suspending his Facebook account after the insurrection four years ago. After Trump was re-elected, Zuckerberg settled for $25 million.
Trump sued “60 Minutes,” claiming that its interview with Kamala Harris had been edited in a way that helped her campaign. Shari Redstone, who owns the company that owns CBS, is in talks with Trump to settle.
Oliver Darcy, media critic, wrote:
The journalists at CBS News are livid at Paramount Global boss Shari Redstone over the company’s move to engage in settlement talks with Donald Trump.
Paramount, which is trying to complete a merger with David Ellison’s Skydance Media, is now in active discussions with the Trump team to strike a settlement that would put an end to an absurd lawsuit the then-candidate filed against the news network, as first reported by The New York Times Thursday evening. Trump filed the lawsuit in October over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris, preposterously alleging that the newsmagazine program engaged in “deceitful” editing that disadvantaged him in the race.
Most legal experts swiftly dismissed Trump’s lawsuit as nothing more than a naked attempt to bully the news network. That is still the overwhelming position of the legal community. As the well-respected First Amendment attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. told me Thursday evening, “There is absolutely no reason, from a legal perspective, for CBS to settle — this is a ridiculous case.”
Maybe she won’t pay off Trump, but if she did, it would be humiliating for “60 Minutes,” which almost always edits interviews. Since he won the elections, Trump can’t show any damages.
But now you can understand why Trump loves to sue. He’s filed thousands of lawsuits in his life. He’s making millions by suing, all the while getting the major media to grovel before him and watch their step with their coverage of him.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
It’s very likely that ABC would have lost that suit. Trump was not, in fact “convicted” of rape because it was not a criminal trial. He was held liable in a civil trial. For Joe Average Public, it’s a distinction without a difference, but a purported long time journalist like Stephanopoulos could be expected to know the difference and use the terms correctly.
60 Minutes could also have lost because they cleaned up Harris’s very awkward answer to eliminate a lot of hesitation and confusion and, in fact, used part of her answer to a whole different question.
LikeLike
We will never know because there was no trial. Media experts say that ABC would have won at trial because 1) the judge made a statement saying that the judgment against Trump was no different from rape.
Wikipedia:
“Carroll’s accusation against Trump was more severe than the accusations made by other women. Regarding the jury verdict, the judge asked the jury to find if the preponderance of the evidence suggested that Trump raped Carroll under New York’s narrow legal definition of rape at that time, denoting forcible penetration with the penis, as alleged by the plaintiff;[d] the jury did not find Trump liable for rape and instead found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration.[e] In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll’s accusation of rape is “substantially true”.”
2) ABC might have won on free speech grounds.
Question, Dienne. You say that Trump did not rape Carroll. Judge Kaplan did not agree with you. Apparently, Trump confronted Carroll in the dressing room, pulled aside her panties, and pushed his fingers into her vagina.
The judge said this was rape. You say it’s not.
As for “60 Minutes,” they typically interview a subject for 45 minute to an hour. They them edit the interview so it fits into their 15-20 minute time slot.
They exercise professional editorial judgement about what portion to use.
Since Trump won the election, how was he damaged by the 60 Minutes interview?
Trump has filed literally thousands of lawsuits. Many people can’t afford to defend themselves, so they withdraw their own claims (eg, Trump’s failure to pay their bills). At this time, his lawsuits are a form of protection racket. He gets paid millions to withdraw the suit.
LikeLike
You’re right we’ll never know, but I think it’s obvious that any of these outlets would relish taking Trump down in court and would not hesitate to proceed to trial if they were confident they could win. I’m guessing it was their respective legal departments that decided settlement was the best option – when you pay a bunch of people $600+ per hour for legal advice, you listen to what they say.
LikeLike
Nonsense.
The people who own the networks want to placate Trump because he is a dangerous enemy. He is President and he can veto corporate mergers.
Did you read my comment? Judge Kaplan said that what Trump did to Carroll was the same as rape.
If a man accosted you, ripped off your panties and stuck his fingers in your vagina, what would you call it?
ABC would have undoubtedly won in court, based on judge Kaplan’s words and actions (he threw out a lawsuit claiming what Trump did should not be called tape.)
CBS certainly would have won in court. 60 minutes ALWAYS edits interviews. How was Trump damaged?
LikeLike
It’s not nonsense, Diane, it’s legal procedure. What you describe is rape, yes, but the problem is in proving it. Civil courts have a different burden of proof than criminal courts, which is why an experienced commentator like Stephanopoulos can’t say that Trump was “convicted”, only “held liable”. Again, it was probably the legal department that made the call not to go to trial.
LikeLike
Nope, it was not the legal department. It was corporate. CBS is trying to make a deal with Paramount. Trump has the power to block the deal. Paying him off would protect the bottom line.
As I reminded you, Judge Kaplan said that the crime was rape. Journalists orgs were furious that ABC didn’t protect freedom of the press and speech.
LikeLike
The problem with such lawsuits is still about truth-telling. If 60 Minutes told the truth about Trump, or even didn’t hide it in their normal editing process, and that truth exposed some aspect of Trump’s depravity to all, then wouldn’t a news organization (especially) be wrong to engage in “sane washing,” especially out of fear of retribution?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s just way of paying a bribe — for the usual reason of expecting a quid pro quo (fat chance) — but denying it’s a bribe.
LikeLike
It’s not a bribe. The networks are not bribing Trump. Its protection money. The mobsters used to say, pay me every week and I’ll make sure no one breaks your windows.
By paying Trump, they can be sure that he will not harass them and block corporate mergers.
LikeLike
First, unless a person has experienced that kind of assault, that person cannot know what kind of psychological damage it can do–for YEARS. Rape Schmape–it’s horrible and does not get better.
Second, insofar as “the networks” are giving in to Trump’s despicable tactics, they are exposing their heretofore hidden hypocrisy . . . the bifurcation of their principles–they are trashing journalistic for corporate capitalist principles by claiming the former while living the later.
I suggest the money is not the thing–the reputation for journalistic integrity IS. CBK
LikeLike
Exactly, Diane. This is the slow path to Authoritarianism by a million little cuts. He/They are able to use the millions that are being swindled from all of his cult members to buy his bibles, hats, coins, & other cons too numerous to list here. Add to that the millions contributed by the tech bros & other oligarchs. He can spend endlessly on frivolous & phony lawsuits against anyone, individuals or corporations, that crosses him. I’m just waiting for his surrogate Brown Shirt types to march into a studio like Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, Rachel Maddow et. al. & drag them off the stage daring anyone to do anything about it. Maybe then we’ll finally realize that we’re living in an Authoritarian Oligarchy.
LikeLike
Fear of retribution by regulators and enforcers. It’s obscene.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree Diane. Mass media is kissing the ring out of fear. Smells like fascism to me.
LikeLike
Fascism, mobster-style
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It’s very likely that ABC would have lost that suit.”
“60 Minutes could also have lost because they cleaned up Harris’s very awkward answer to eliminate a lot of hesitation and confusion and, in fact, used part of her answer to a whole different question.”
Now that a legal expert has chimed in, what is there really to discuss? Case closed.
I guess that means Kamala Harris has the same excellent grounds to sue every broadcaster that edited Trump’s appearances to make him look better?
CNN 10/4/24: “Fox News edited Trump’s rambling answers and false claims in barbershop interview, full video shows”
“Fox edited out many of Trump’s rambling comments and false claims. Participants had to repeatedly follow up when Trump meandered away from the original point of their questions.
….One of the most telling parts of the dialogue began when an audience member asked Trump about finding a way to eliminate federal taxes in the future. On Fox, Trump was shown immediately answering affirmatively: “There is a way.”
But that response from Trump actually came more than seven minutes later, after Trump (and Jones) brought up other topics, including inheritances, the Keystone Pipeline, Ronald Reagan, Russia, and transgender sports players. Trump had to be nudged back on track several times by the unnamed audience member, who kept circling back, apologetically, and said “I wasn’t able to finish my question.” After he repeated his tax inquiry yet again, Trump said “there is a way.”
I will never understand why someone is so quick to jump to the defense of Trump – a man whose accuser testified under oath, under penalty of perjury, with Trump’s lawyers free to cross-examine her and impeach her testimony – who is also so quick to condemn Democrats as sexual predators if a woman who hasn’t made those charges under penalty of perjury or been cross-examined says so.
ABC could have fired George S if they really believed his comment was actionable. But perhaps they were afraid of what a George S. lawsuit would unveil.
I don’t recall anyone telling George W. Bush he had the right to sue CBS News because Dan Rather got fooled by some fake letters. Can Barack Obama sue Fox News for all their lies about his birth certificate now?
The settlement isn’t about the networks’ legal jeopardy – it is about currying favor with Trump.
LikeLike
No one but the pros at 60 Mjnutes know what edited out.
It’s irrelevant. As I said, the interviews are much longer than what appears in the Final Cut. That’s called editing. The case would be laughed out of court.
LikeLike
Dan Rather wrote about Trump’s lawsuit against CBS.
It’s worth reading.
https://open.substack.com/pub/steady/p/heartbreak-for-cbs-news?r=rls8&utm_medium=ios
Among other things, he wrote:
Back in October, “60 Minutes” requested sitdown interviews with both presidential candidates, as it has done for decades. Kamala Harris agreed. Donald Trump did not, claiming he was still waiting for an apology from correspondent Lesley Stahl. In the interview that aired on October 7, Harris answered a question about the war in Gaza. In a promo clip, a different part of that answer was used.
That is called editorial discretion. When an interview is not aired live, the interviewee knows that the journalists producing the final piece will use part, not all, of the interview. They make choices, just as print reporters do when writing a story.
Trump sued CBS News on October 31, six days before the election, alleging “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive and substantial news distortion.”
CBS News said in a statement that “the interview was not doctored.” And that “it did not hide any part of” Harris’s answer.
The suit had all the hallmarks of a public relations stunt. Trump was suing for a whopping $10 billion. That’s not a typo. The suit was filed in Texas because his lawyers were trying to use an antiquated state law. And guess who got the scoop on the story? Fox.
Legal experts called it “laughable,” “frivolous,” and “ridiculous junk.”….
Paramount is in the midst of a multimillion-dollar merger, which needs approval by the Federal Communications Commission, now run by Trump’s appointee. And Shari Redstone, Paramount’s controlling shareholder and board member, stands to make billions if the deal goes through. See where this is going?
LikeLike
I agree but we no longer live in a normal democracy. We live in an authoritarian state where what CBS is doing – legalized corruption – is now acceptable and normalized.
Trump, as an authoritarian leader, now can sue ANY corporation on the most ridiculous grounds like “they ran an interview with someone I don’t like so I deserve money! They hired someone I don’t like so I deserve money!” The corporation, wanting to curry favor, immediately pays they authoritarian leader tens of millions of dollars. Suddenly the payoff is “legal”.
Even dienne77 approves! Maybe Putin can sue CBS next! I hear CBS edits interviews with people Putin doesn’t like, so apparently that means Putin has a good case and CBS handing over money to him would definitely not be a bribe at all. Putin could win!
We know exactly how CBS would respond to a lawsuit by a Democrat who decided they didn’t like an interview with a third party that CBS broadcast and claimed to suffer great harm because there were edits anywhere in the interview – laugh it out of court. Only a kangaroo court – which may very well describe what the US legal system has descended to with Trump’s appointments – would give a politician standing to demand raw footage from any tv station of any interview the news station conducted with a political rival. Totally absurd. But since it is Trump, this is normalized as just Trump being Trump, pushing boundaries, but no biggie, in the complicit media of the US of Trump.
Trump could make up any pretext to sue any corporation and the company could “settle” – i.e. give Trump tens of millions of dollars for nothing.
And the same voices here would defend Trump’s actions just like they will never acknowledge Trump is a rapist, but do call Democrats like Biden rapists despite the accusations never being proven in any courtroom.
LikeLike