Taking a lot of flack over this one so I figured I’d respond: If I sound animated about this, it’s because I am. This is an extremely important case, and part of a pattern on the part of this administration of intimidating media, law firms, and critics.
To answer some of the allegations in the comments: No 60 Minutes didn’t change which question Kamala Harris was answering with their edit. The two clips CBS aired — one in a teaser for the 60 Minutes interview during Face the Nation, and the other during the actual 60 Minutes interview — were both part of Harris’ longer response to the same question.
That question from Bill Whittaker was more of a follow-up prompt. He said, “...it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. The Wall Street Journal said that he — that your administration has repeatedly been blindsided by Netanyahu, and in fact, he has rebuffed just about all of your administration's entreaties.”
And here’s Harris’ whole, unedited response, which you can read for yourself at this link:
“Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we’re not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”
In the teaser, Face the Nation used a clip that said: “Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.”
In the actual interview, 60 Minutes used the rest of the response: “We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”
You can love that editing or hate it, but it is standard practice in the industry to do this sort of thing for reasons of both length and clarity. Fox certainly edits Trump to showcase his less rambling quotes and present the best version of him they can.
Yes, the research is quite clear that mainstream media leans decidedly to the left. I have been one of many people over the years who have said so. I have no idea whether a pro-Harris media bias drove CBS’s decision-making on those edits — but I do know it doesn’t matter, because all of this discussion misses the key point that this is clearly First Amendment–protected speech on the part of the press.
60 Minutes was well within its rights to make the edits it made. The Trump administration seems to have known it had a weak legal case, so it began taking other routes to getting what it wanted — and Skydance’s merger with Paramount seemed to be in limbo until the matter was settled.
That alone should be a major scandal.
The dissenting FCC Commissioner, Anna Gomez, described the timeline (emphasis added):
“Here’s what we know. The president pressured Paramount over the ‘60 Minutes’ segment. The FCC pressured CBS over the ‘60 Minutes’ segment. And it wasn't until we saw both the settlement of the president's lawsuit and also the concessions that you mentioned to eliminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and to install a medium monitor that will basically self-censor CBS’s content, that this deal was approved.
Then the settlement drops, and it’s not just the $16 million fine — it balloons to $36 million once Trump starts bragging about all the “free advertising” he’s supposedly getting. Read about that here:
That’s because, in a side deal, the CEO of the company acquiring CBS’ parent company reportedly agreed to run millions of dollars’ worth of public service announcements promoting administration priorities. Again, read about that here:
To make matters worse, the administration also demanded CBS add a “bias ombudsman.” That’s the kind of business decision the government shouldn’t be in a position to make.
And Trump’s treatment of CBS, Skydance, and Paramount is not some kind of anomaly. It’s more of an M.O. The lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal is just one example of exactly what the South Park boys were mocking Trump for. Another is the absolutely outrageous case against the Iowa pollster Ann Selzer, which FIRE is currently litigating.
So far, Ann’s been the only person really willing to stand up, and that’s only been possible thanks to FIRE.
Look, I’m second to no one when it comes to challenging authoritarianism on the left. I’ve written books about it. I’ve spoken about it for countless hours onstage, on podcasts, in classrooms, at conferences, at work, and at home.
Watching people’s knees jerk because I’m calling out authoritarianism on the right is not okay. If you’re looking for someone who only punches in one direction, I’m not your guy. If you believe the First Amendment only applies when it benefits you, or when your side’s in power, then you don’t believe in it at all.
"...The concepts[1st Amendment ] that undergird the United States are sublime and they require the ability to comprehend complex subjects. Complexity and freedom, they're linked together. And what Donald Trump stands for is in this world of complexity, a simple tragic lie which says that you can get ahead by blaming someone else. And what
Trump has built is a cult of grievance. He is well and truly the American Nero. And so no doubt Nero needs a ballroom to fiddle in...."
When Benjamin Franklin was once asked what type of government the Constitutional Convention adopted, his cautionary response was, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
I enjoyed your post, it was nice to see the efforts of South Park highlighted. And more importantly, seeing someone call out those who threaten free speech regardless of which party they belong to has been inspiring.
You’re taking a lot of flak on this one *not* primarily because of the criticism of the Trump Administration and the settlement. I was glad to read about the details and agree with at least 80% of the criticism Trump received in this piece, maybe more.
You’re taking flak because the piece as written was one-sided politically and pretended that CBS did nothing wrong at all.
Adam pretended that the edits were not done to help the Harris campaign.
OF COURSE THEY WERE.
But you’re also taking flak because the piece as written was in fact biased to the left, using left-coded language like the completely unnecessary, biased description of Carr as a Trump “loyalist.” This more than any single bit is indefensible “taking sides” stuff that you’ve always prided yourself on - and almost always succeeded in - not doing.
The mention of Trump suing the WSJ over what he claims is libelous untrue reporting is *surely* not in the same league with what was done in this deal, and is clearly only included to make a leftist anti-Trump point. You and Adam have no way of knowing that it was “carefully attributed and seems journalistically appropriate”. Are you now saying that a private citizen or a president should not sue over libel? Do you have evidence that Trump is lying about the document’s authenticity?
The most powerful obvious evidence that Trump is correct on this one is that if the note in question were legitimate, there is no way in hell that the Biden Administration wouldn’t have released it much earlier. But in any case, that suit has NOTHING to do with government First Amendment overreach.
The problems were not in the core of the piece about the Paramount deal/settlement. The problems were about the surrounding content and the clearly leftist anti-Trump in toto framing.
Your above defense of the core of the piece not only fails to acknowledge these problems with the piece, but 98% pretends that they don’t exist.
Please do keep up the great work.
Unfortunately this piece was not great work.
The fact that it might have been good work and probably net positive notwithstanding.
The more I learn about this (from more neutral sources), the more I see the evidence of a quid pro quo. The MSM seems to take the position that the existence of the settlement itself represents all of the evidence needed for a QPQ (how the settlement was arrived at matters greatly), and the Right media seems to rely solely on counterexamples that still beg the question.
The real evidence (smoking gun) of a QPQ is coming out in the details behind the settlement--how it came about, the negotiations, the otherwise-minor terms of the agreement--not the existence of the settlement itself.
You are generally right, but whether this is “standard practice” in media is irrelevant. Also, it would be insane to pretend that CBS isn’t totally biased and dishonest in everything they do. They have a right to be under the First Amendment, and if Trump used the govt to extort a settlement that is obviously terrible precedent and illegal. But let’s not pretend that Trump is wrong in his diagnosis of the media. Finally, is there a definitive piece where you or FIRE expressed similar levels of public outrage against the Censorship Industrial Complex? If so, I missed it and would like to read it.
Love this article. Unfortunately, a more fundamental issue is the ability of the FCC and the government to regulate these mergers, which gives them leverage.
I’m usually with you. And perhaps you are correct writ large on the Paramount settlement.
But my understanding is that CBS literally took the answer to A DIFFERENT QUESTION and inserted it as the answer to a question. You’re saying that is acceptable editing?
And perhaps you disagree with the law that forbids in-kind contributions by corporations to campaigns.
But with the not merely misleading but factually false editing done, can you really deny that the edited interview as posted was anything but an in-kind contribution to the Harris campaign?
The whole response was: "Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we’re not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end."
Face the Nation used: "Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region."
60 Minutes used: "We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end."
I think it’s still inexcusable what they did, but I agree it is less awful than my previous understanding.
Now since you were kind enough to respond for Greg to the first part, can you respond to the in-kind contribution question?
The interview was not an entertainment piece, it was done to affect who would become the most powerful person in the world. Are you really suggesting that it was more newsworthy for them to show the piece the way they did on TV? Is it not in fact obvious they did the 60 Minutes edit the way they did specifically to contribute to Kamala’s campaign success?
Again, I agree that most of the things in the settlement are bad. But the idea that CBS did nothing wrong given the special protections the press gets in our country (and which the entertainment world does not) and the law against in-kind contributions just doesn’t pass the sniff test. And yet this is what Greg’s piece claims.
I think the primary value of the edit was to CBS in making the segment shorter so they had more time for other things. If they didn't edit the response, she would have had more air time on the network. So this philosophy of edits-as-donations is a catch-22, because either you're donating "edits" or you're donating air time, and then the only way out is to avoid talking to candidates at all. All network television is edited. The wisdom or sufficiency of that practice as a larger philosophical question is interesting but it doesn't make what CBS did remarkable outside of the decision to do two different edits, which, while puzzling to me personally, doesn't strike me as having helped anyone.
Buying in to CBS's excuse of needing more time" tells me you don't understand editing, are extremely naive, or just trying to find a reason to fault Trump.
Film editing can be extremely misleading. Editors can easily make the interviewee look dishonest. (or a dishonest interviewee look honest).
Ok, first now you are just making a false claim. In fact not ALL interviews with candidates are edited. Many candidates wisely will refuse to do interviews that are edited. And some interviews are done live.
Second, I do agree with you that the “all or nothing” standard that every word must be presented is not appropriate.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the 60 Minutes edit in this specific case was highly inappropriate. To suggest it was “unremarkable” is in fact… remarkable.
Finally, since you clearly seem quite intelligent, your claim that the 60 Minutes edit - had no one found out about it because of the Face the Nation clip - “doesn't strike me as having helped anyone” - and more importantly, INTENDED to help Harris - is just absurd.
Which is very different than whether it rises to the level that Paramount should have paid a price for it, let alone the specific settlement reached.
It sounds like your problem isn't with CBS but the practice of television journalism writ large. Out of curiosity, which of these responses made Harris sound so much better than the other? Because I can't tell which one is supposed to have helped her.
The fact that Kamala Harris always sounds like Kamala Harris is not a problem that is easily solved. Donald Trump always sounding like Donald Trump is similar in nature. But it was stealth editing, which was not acknowledged, and they fought like hell to avoid releasing the transcript. That doesn't bother you? It sure as hell bothers me, no matter who is being protected. The face that you spun this into a Donald Trump Extortion racket was particularly disturbing. I don't know you, but I expected better from anyone that was collaborating with Greg. Perhaps my standards are too high.
“Because I can't tell which one is supposed to have helped her.”
Wait, what?
Your defense now is that the use of the last 3rd of the answer *only* DIDN’T help - and more importantly wasn’t made with the specific *purpose* of helping - her relative to using the whole answer, or only the first 2/3rds?!?
Your prior responses are legit on their face, even where I might disagree. But to claim that the 60 Minutes edit was done with any other purpose than to aid her campaign - and that you “can’t tell” - is just not remotely credible.
Even if you are right about the law and the settlement and whether the cure is worse than the disease.
The proper response to the 60 Minutes capitulation is to never watch a Paramount television station ever again (maybe now with the exception of Comedy Central).
I agree. They should have gone to trial and had their blatant disregard for even basic standards of journalism exposed. They chose not to, and I think we all understand why. And I will note for the record that First Amendment’s funniest defenders never saw fit to go after Biden when he was president.
Probably because it was too damn easy? They have shown actual courage pissing off both left and right and cording lawsuits from the famously litigious.
I understand the history and have always been a big fan. The Tom Cruise episode is a personal favorite, as is their spearing of Rob Reiner and Barbara Streisand. But to my knowledge they haven't gone after the left in a few years, which is curious even if it is "too damn easy" as you posit. But defending the South Park guys is one thing. Defending CBS News is pathetic and needs to be recanted.
What I do know is that people that will manipulate an interview to make a candidate look good will also manipulate an interview to make a candidate look bad. Apparently Greg and Adam think that is free speech. I don't. I actually think it is dystopian and sad. Mostly I am sad that Greg chose to publish this article--one more person I respected down the drain.
Agree. As a super free speech advocate, I'm very disappointed in Greg's ideological poisoning in this case. My ex-wife was an escapee from the USSR. She would acknowledge the manipulation of state media through manipulative editing, done exactly as CBS did.
Greg -- Re-litigate your thought process and do better.
People we respect can be wrong and make boneheaded errors. If we disown everybody who says something we disagree with then we've become the wokester left. And I'll say that I'm literally stunned at the content of this article. Stunned.
You seem to be missing the point that deliberately misrepresenting facts in order to influence people’s political opinions is different from satire. If South Park truly has anything to fear, then I’ll concede you’re right.
In the Wall Street Journal case, you neglected to mention that the reason Trump is suing is that he asserts that the letter is not legitimate - he never wrote it and it’s a fabrication. Both sides will need to produce their evidence to determine the truth, but if he actually didn’t write it, surely you don’t think it’s acceptable for media to publish fabricated information about a politician in a deliberate attempt to discredit him? And that suing them for doing so is somehow against free speech? Libel is not free speech.
"Companies like Comcast, Verizon, and Disney were already pressured into gutting their DEI programs."
I think a number of questions could be raised regarding this assertion. First of all, were these companies pressured into dropping DEI programs, or were they in fact happy to jump at any excuse to do so?
Also, my own understanding of DEI is that it involves blatantly illegal race-based discrimination. Granted, I am not a lawyer, so there could easily be shades of grey legality that I am unfamiliar with.
Nevertheless, the animating principle of DEI is, as the likes of Ibram Kendi have specifically argued, instituting present race-based discrimination in order to counter past race-based discrimination. But no matter which race it is directed at: race-based discrimination just isn't legal.
And one of the only reasons that these companies did not face consequences earlier is because Democratic administrations would not use the federal government to go after programs favored by its very loud (even if tiny) activist class.
So, is it a bad thing to "pressure" companies to stop breaking the law?
Is racial discrimination really a part of their free speech rights?
Here's the real point about the KH - 60 minutes "edited response": Her 179 word salad response IS the point! Her verbal incompetence IS the point. Her ignorance on Middle East politics IS the point. The public deserves to see this in full view. The 20 word edited version is a clear violation of the public's right to see her exceptional incompetence.
It is disingenuous to equate CBS's editing as 'standard practice'. I defy anyone to provide an example on Fox news or other site that equates to this journalistic malpractice of 60 Minutes. The sports interview example is ludicrous and takes the reading audience as fools.
Is FIRE going the way of the ACLU? I see this and other recent articles as revealing FIRE's anti-Trump bias to the detriment of an intellectually honest pro-free speech agenda. To remain true to the mission of First Amendment advocates you must exercise reflection and reconsider your recent. No bias anywhere!
What bothers me here is that anyone CAN watch this episode (I did) but not everyone can stream “Super Best Friends”, “Cartoon Wars, Part I”, “Cartoon Wars, Part II”, “200”, and “201”. So it seems there are certain topics (and people) the networks/streamers are happy to satirize but others that are not allowed. I’m uncertain as to why this is not the bigger issue.
A bit of revisionist history here. The real story was that a candidate for the Presidency couldn't give a coherent answer to a question concerning the leader of a major ally. CBS edited it to make her look better, period. They foolishly got got by showing 2 answers on different shows thinking no one would notice. To pretend otherwise is naive.
As per Trump and WSJ, why sue claiming a fake if the WSJ could just produce the original in court. Seems the letter has less providence than the Van Gogh I bought at the flea market last week.
As for the skydance and the Paramount malarkey, I agree it is borderline: nice window you have, shame if someone tossed a brick through it. Sort of like Biden shaking down Ukraine to get the prosecutor off Burisma's case.
DEI is discriminatory, basing advancement on race or gender rather than merit was illegal and it needed to go on the trash bin of history.
I think we've made good progress in 6 months, but power corrupts, so I appreciate FIRE riding heard on the new team in DC.
OMG. Pour me some ‘woke’ whine. The interviews were edited. This is a common practice given the length of a show and the attention span of Americans.
The dear leader didn’t like it and Redstone’s daughter wanted the sale to go through. Now that this has all been weaponized the dear leader had to make a fuss. Paramount caved and is now willing to be tracked so that anything reflecting negatively on that POS can be flagged.
If he doesn’t go after South Park—something he’s shown no inclination to do in the decade plus they have been satirizing him—then was this whole scare piece for nothing?
I guess we need to make a bet: $100 to FiRE if Trump sues Paramount because of South Park; free legal representation for me in any upcoming first amendment case if he doesn’t. Fair?
As for the “extortion-industrial-complex” I take issue with the idea there’s a massive industry of people banking on government extortion. Compared to a military-industrial-complex, which does appear to manage huge swaths of the economy, this just looks like regular old opportunism. I remain to be convinced, but show the trend and I will.
Greg, are you going to jump into the fray, or are you going to leave it to Adam to flail about while attempting to defend this dumpster fire of an article.
Taking a lot of flack over this one so I figured I’d respond: If I sound animated about this, it’s because I am. This is an extremely important case, and part of a pattern on the part of this administration of intimidating media, law firms, and critics.
To answer some of the allegations in the comments: No 60 Minutes didn’t change which question Kamala Harris was answering with their edit. The two clips CBS aired — one in a teaser for the 60 Minutes interview during Face the Nation, and the other during the actual 60 Minutes interview — were both part of Harris’ longer response to the same question.
That question from Bill Whittaker was more of a follow-up prompt. He said, “...it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. The Wall Street Journal said that he — that your administration has repeatedly been blindsided by Netanyahu, and in fact, he has rebuffed just about all of your administration's entreaties.”
And here’s Harris’ whole, unedited response, which you can read for yourself at this link:
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/Transcript-Transcribed-Unedited-Interview-Footage-6-of-14.pdf
“Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we’re not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”
In the teaser, Face the Nation used a clip that said: “Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.”
In the actual interview, 60 Minutes used the rest of the response: “We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”
You can love that editing or hate it, but it is standard practice in the industry to do this sort of thing for reasons of both length and clarity. Fox certainly edits Trump to showcase his less rambling quotes and present the best version of him they can.
Yes, the research is quite clear that mainstream media leans decidedly to the left. I have been one of many people over the years who have said so. I have no idea whether a pro-Harris media bias drove CBS’s decision-making on those edits — but I do know it doesn’t matter, because all of this discussion misses the key point that this is clearly First Amendment–protected speech on the part of the press.
60 Minutes was well within its rights to make the edits it made. The Trump administration seems to have known it had a weak legal case, so it began taking other routes to getting what it wanted — and Skydance’s merger with Paramount seemed to be in limbo until the matter was settled.
That alone should be a major scandal.
The dissenting FCC Commissioner, Anna Gomez, described the timeline (emphasis added):
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trumps-censorship-and-control-campaign-threatens-press-freedom-fcc-commissioner-says
“Here’s what we know. The president pressured Paramount over the ‘60 Minutes’ segment. The FCC pressured CBS over the ‘60 Minutes’ segment. And it wasn't until we saw both the settlement of the president's lawsuit and also the concessions that you mentioned to eliminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and to install a medium monitor that will basically self-censor CBS’s content, that this deal was approved.
Then the settlement drops, and it’s not just the $16 million fine — it balloons to $36 million once Trump starts bragging about all the “free advertising” he’s supposedly getting. Read about that here:
https://au.variety.com/2025/biz/news/trump-unconfirmed-claim-skydance-20-million-advertising-psas-paramount-deal-25478/
That’s because, in a side deal, the CEO of the company acquiring CBS’ parent company reportedly agreed to run millions of dollars’ worth of public service announcements promoting administration priorities. Again, read about that here:
https://nypost.com/2025/07/02/media/how-secret-side-deal-helped-seal-paramounts-16m-settlement-with-trump/
To make matters worse, the administration also demanded CBS add a “bias ombudsman.” That’s the kind of business decision the government shouldn’t be in a position to make.
And Trump’s treatment of CBS, Skydance, and Paramount is not some kind of anomaly. It’s more of an M.O. The lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal is just one example of exactly what the South Park boys were mocking Trump for. Another is the absolutely outrageous case against the Iowa pollster Ann Selzer, which FIRE is currently litigating.
So far, Ann’s been the only person really willing to stand up, and that’s only been possible thanks to FIRE.
Look, I’m second to no one when it comes to challenging authoritarianism on the left. I’ve written books about it. I’ve spoken about it for countless hours onstage, on podcasts, in classrooms, at conferences, at work, and at home.
Watching people’s knees jerk because I’m calling out authoritarianism on the right is not okay. If you’re looking for someone who only punches in one direction, I’m not your guy. If you believe the First Amendment only applies when it benefits you, or when your side’s in power, then you don’t believe in it at all.
You do a great job calling out BS on both sides and that’s invaluable to society - thanks Greg
https://youtu.be/A0Ac9a7mO4k?t=394
"...The concepts[1st Amendment ] that undergird the United States are sublime and they require the ability to comprehend complex subjects. Complexity and freedom, they're linked together. And what Donald Trump stands for is in this world of complexity, a simple tragic lie which says that you can get ahead by blaming someone else. And what
Trump has built is a cult of grievance. He is well and truly the American Nero. And so no doubt Nero needs a ballroom to fiddle in...."
When Benjamin Franklin was once asked what type of government the Constitutional Convention adopted, his cautionary response was, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Keep up the good work, Greg!
I enjoyed your post, it was nice to see the efforts of South Park highlighted. And more importantly, seeing someone call out those who threaten free speech regardless of which party they belong to has been inspiring.
Sorry to hear the comments have been harsh.
👏👏👏👏
You’re taking a lot of flak on this one *not* primarily because of the criticism of the Trump Administration and the settlement. I was glad to read about the details and agree with at least 80% of the criticism Trump received in this piece, maybe more.
You’re taking flak because the piece as written was one-sided politically and pretended that CBS did nothing wrong at all.
Adam pretended that the edits were not done to help the Harris campaign.
OF COURSE THEY WERE.
But you’re also taking flak because the piece as written was in fact biased to the left, using left-coded language like the completely unnecessary, biased description of Carr as a Trump “loyalist.” This more than any single bit is indefensible “taking sides” stuff that you’ve always prided yourself on - and almost always succeeded in - not doing.
The mention of Trump suing the WSJ over what he claims is libelous untrue reporting is *surely* not in the same league with what was done in this deal, and is clearly only included to make a leftist anti-Trump point. You and Adam have no way of knowing that it was “carefully attributed and seems journalistically appropriate”. Are you now saying that a private citizen or a president should not sue over libel? Do you have evidence that Trump is lying about the document’s authenticity?
The most powerful obvious evidence that Trump is correct on this one is that if the note in question were legitimate, there is no way in hell that the Biden Administration wouldn’t have released it much earlier. But in any case, that suit has NOTHING to do with government First Amendment overreach.
The problems were not in the core of the piece about the Paramount deal/settlement. The problems were about the surrounding content and the clearly leftist anti-Trump in toto framing.
Your above defense of the core of the piece not only fails to acknowledge these problems with the piece, but 98% pretends that they don’t exist.
Please do keep up the great work.
Unfortunately this piece was not great work.
The fact that it might have been good work and probably net positive notwithstanding.
Respectfully.
Aren't Rupert Murdoch and the WSJ fighting Trump vs. settling?
The more I learn about this (from more neutral sources), the more I see the evidence of a quid pro quo. The MSM seems to take the position that the existence of the settlement itself represents all of the evidence needed for a QPQ (how the settlement was arrived at matters greatly), and the Right media seems to rely solely on counterexamples that still beg the question.
The real evidence (smoking gun) of a QPQ is coming out in the details behind the settlement--how it came about, the negotiations, the otherwise-minor terms of the agreement--not the existence of the settlement itself.
You are generally right, but whether this is “standard practice” in media is irrelevant. Also, it would be insane to pretend that CBS isn’t totally biased and dishonest in everything they do. They have a right to be under the First Amendment, and if Trump used the govt to extort a settlement that is obviously terrible precedent and illegal. But let’s not pretend that Trump is wrong in his diagnosis of the media. Finally, is there a definitive piece where you or FIRE expressed similar levels of public outrage against the Censorship Industrial Complex? If so, I missed it and would like to read it.
Trump is wrong in his diagnosis of the media, and his censorious instinct is one of many dangers he poses to the nation.
Love this article. Unfortunately, a more fundamental issue is the ability of the FCC and the government to regulate these mergers, which gives them leverage.
I’m usually with you. And perhaps you are correct writ large on the Paramount settlement.
But my understanding is that CBS literally took the answer to A DIFFERENT QUESTION and inserted it as the answer to a question. You’re saying that is acceptable editing?
And perhaps you disagree with the law that forbids in-kind contributions by corporations to campaigns.
But with the not merely misleading but factually false editing done, can you really deny that the edited interview as posted was anything but an in-kind contribution to the Harris campaign?
Or does violation of the law not matter?
Yet you mention neither of these things.
It wasn't a different question, is the thing--Harris gave a long answer to the question; one producer used the first two-thirds, and one producer used the last third, of the response. But both were answers to the same question, page eight of the transcript here: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/Transcript-Transcribed-Unedited-Interview-Footage-6-of-14.pdf
If true, I would concede this makes it marginally less worse.
Can you be more specific than just “page 8”?
Which part did the first producer use, and which part did the 2nd producer use?
The whole response was: "Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we’re not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end."
Face the Nation used: "Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region."
60 Minutes used: "We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end."
Thanks much for that.
I think it’s still inexcusable what they did, but I agree it is less awful than my previous understanding.
Now since you were kind enough to respond for Greg to the first part, can you respond to the in-kind contribution question?
The interview was not an entertainment piece, it was done to affect who would become the most powerful person in the world. Are you really suggesting that it was more newsworthy for them to show the piece the way they did on TV? Is it not in fact obvious they did the 60 Minutes edit the way they did specifically to contribute to Kamala’s campaign success?
Again, I agree that most of the things in the settlement are bad. But the idea that CBS did nothing wrong given the special protections the press gets in our country (and which the entertainment world does not) and the law against in-kind contributions just doesn’t pass the sniff test. And yet this is what Greg’s piece claims.
I think the primary value of the edit was to CBS in making the segment shorter so they had more time for other things. If they didn't edit the response, she would have had more air time on the network. So this philosophy of edits-as-donations is a catch-22, because either you're donating "edits" or you're donating air time, and then the only way out is to avoid talking to candidates at all. All network television is edited. The wisdom or sufficiency of that practice as a larger philosophical question is interesting but it doesn't make what CBS did remarkable outside of the decision to do two different edits, which, while puzzling to me personally, doesn't strike me as having helped anyone.
Buying in to CBS's excuse of needing more time" tells me you don't understand editing, are extremely naive, or just trying to find a reason to fault Trump.
Film editing can be extremely misleading. Editors can easily make the interviewee look dishonest. (or a dishonest interviewee look honest).
“All network television is edited.”
Ok, first now you are just making a false claim. In fact not ALL interviews with candidates are edited. Many candidates wisely will refuse to do interviews that are edited. And some interviews are done live.
Second, I do agree with you that the “all or nothing” standard that every word must be presented is not appropriate.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the 60 Minutes edit in this specific case was highly inappropriate. To suggest it was “unremarkable” is in fact… remarkable.
Finally, since you clearly seem quite intelligent, your claim that the 60 Minutes edit - had no one found out about it because of the Face the Nation clip - “doesn't strike me as having helped anyone” - and more importantly, INTENDED to help Harris - is just absurd.
Which is very different than whether it rises to the level that Paramount should have paid a price for it, let alone the specific settlement reached.
You clearly don't get it. You ask questions and accept the answers. Period. Full stop
It sounds like your problem isn't with CBS but the practice of television journalism writ large. Out of curiosity, which of these responses made Harris sound so much better than the other? Because I can't tell which one is supposed to have helped her.
The fact that Kamala Harris always sounds like Kamala Harris is not a problem that is easily solved. Donald Trump always sounding like Donald Trump is similar in nature. But it was stealth editing, which was not acknowledged, and they fought like hell to avoid releasing the transcript. That doesn't bother you? It sure as hell bothers me, no matter who is being protected. The face that you spun this into a Donald Trump Extortion racket was particularly disturbing. I don't know you, but I expected better from anyone that was collaborating with Greg. Perhaps my standards are too high.
“Because I can't tell which one is supposed to have helped her.”
Wait, what?
Your defense now is that the use of the last 3rd of the answer *only* DIDN’T help - and more importantly wasn’t made with the specific *purpose* of helping - her relative to using the whole answer, or only the first 2/3rds?!?
Your prior responses are legit on their face, even where I might disagree. But to claim that the 60 Minutes edit was done with any other purpose than to aid her campaign - and that you “can’t tell” - is just not remotely credible.
Even if you are right about the law and the settlement and whether the cure is worse than the disease.
And why did they ask the same question twice unless the first answer was so unsatisfying that they (as hopeless partisans) knew they couldn't use it?
So splicing together an answer was totes cool in your opinion?
The proper response to the 60 Minutes capitulation is to never watch a Paramount television station ever again (maybe now with the exception of Comedy Central).
CBS: Goodbye
MTV: Goodbye
Paramount: Not Interested
I agree. They should have gone to trial and had their blatant disregard for even basic standards of journalism exposed. They chose not to, and I think we all understand why. And I will note for the record that First Amendment’s funniest defenders never saw fit to go after Biden when he was president.
Probably because it was too damn easy? They have shown actual courage pissing off both left and right and cording lawsuits from the famously litigious.
I understand the history and have always been a big fan. The Tom Cruise episode is a personal favorite, as is their spearing of Rob Reiner and Barbara Streisand. But to my knowledge they haven't gone after the left in a few years, which is curious even if it is "too damn easy" as you posit. But defending the South Park guys is one thing. Defending CBS News is pathetic and needs to be recanted.
What's funny about this South Park episode is that the usual suspects on both sides are wailing and gnashing their teeth.
That only means that they hit the bullseye.
Why did CBS manipulate and edit the Kamala interview? I guess we all know why. Just more evidence that we cannot trust our media. Pretty sick.
What I do know is that people that will manipulate an interview to make a candidate look good will also manipulate an interview to make a candidate look bad. Apparently Greg and Adam think that is free speech. I don't. I actually think it is dystopian and sad. Mostly I am sad that Greg chose to publish this article--one more person I respected down the drain.
Agree. As a super free speech advocate, I'm very disappointed in Greg's ideological poisoning in this case. My ex-wife was an escapee from the USSR. She would acknowledge the manipulation of state media through manipulative editing, done exactly as CBS did.
Greg -- Re-litigate your thought process and do better.
People we respect can be wrong and make boneheaded errors. If we disown everybody who says something we disagree with then we've become the wokester left. And I'll say that I'm literally stunned at the content of this article. Stunned.
I do boneheaded things all the time. And then (generally) I apologize. If Greg and Adam admit this was a foolish take, I am all ears.
Huzzah!
You seem to be missing the point that deliberately misrepresenting facts in order to influence people’s political opinions is different from satire. If South Park truly has anything to fear, then I’ll concede you’re right.
In the Wall Street Journal case, you neglected to mention that the reason Trump is suing is that he asserts that the letter is not legitimate - he never wrote it and it’s a fabrication. Both sides will need to produce their evidence to determine the truth, but if he actually didn’t write it, surely you don’t think it’s acceptable for media to publish fabricated information about a politician in a deliberate attempt to discredit him? And that suing them for doing so is somehow against free speech? Libel is not free speech.
I'm curious about this point:
"Companies like Comcast, Verizon, and Disney were already pressured into gutting their DEI programs."
I think a number of questions could be raised regarding this assertion. First of all, were these companies pressured into dropping DEI programs, or were they in fact happy to jump at any excuse to do so?
Also, my own understanding of DEI is that it involves blatantly illegal race-based discrimination. Granted, I am not a lawyer, so there could easily be shades of grey legality that I am unfamiliar with.
Nevertheless, the animating principle of DEI is, as the likes of Ibram Kendi have specifically argued, instituting present race-based discrimination in order to counter past race-based discrimination. But no matter which race it is directed at: race-based discrimination just isn't legal.
And one of the only reasons that these companies did not face consequences earlier is because Democratic administrations would not use the federal government to go after programs favored by its very loud (even if tiny) activist class.
So, is it a bad thing to "pressure" companies to stop breaking the law?
Is racial discrimination really a part of their free speech rights?
Not as far as I know.
Here's the real point about the KH - 60 minutes "edited response": Her 179 word salad response IS the point! Her verbal incompetence IS the point. Her ignorance on Middle East politics IS the point. The public deserves to see this in full view. The 20 word edited version is a clear violation of the public's right to see her exceptional incompetence.
It is disingenuous to equate CBS's editing as 'standard practice'. I defy anyone to provide an example on Fox news or other site that equates to this journalistic malpractice of 60 Minutes. The sports interview example is ludicrous and takes the reading audience as fools.
Is FIRE going the way of the ACLU? I see this and other recent articles as revealing FIRE's anti-Trump bias to the detriment of an intellectually honest pro-free speech agenda. To remain true to the mission of First Amendment advocates you must exercise reflection and reconsider your recent. No bias anywhere!
What bothers me here is that anyone CAN watch this episode (I did) but not everyone can stream “Super Best Friends”, “Cartoon Wars, Part I”, “Cartoon Wars, Part II”, “200”, and “201”. So it seems there are certain topics (and people) the networks/streamers are happy to satirize but others that are not allowed. I’m uncertain as to why this is not the bigger issue.
A bit of revisionist history here. The real story was that a candidate for the Presidency couldn't give a coherent answer to a question concerning the leader of a major ally. CBS edited it to make her look better, period. They foolishly got got by showing 2 answers on different shows thinking no one would notice. To pretend otherwise is naive.
As per Trump and WSJ, why sue claiming a fake if the WSJ could just produce the original in court. Seems the letter has less providence than the Van Gogh I bought at the flea market last week.
As for the skydance and the Paramount malarkey, I agree it is borderline: nice window you have, shame if someone tossed a brick through it. Sort of like Biden shaking down Ukraine to get the prosecutor off Burisma's case.
DEI is discriminatory, basing advancement on race or gender rather than merit was illegal and it needed to go on the trash bin of history.
I think we've made good progress in 6 months, but power corrupts, so I appreciate FIRE riding heard on the new team in DC.
Dick Minnis
removingthecataract.substack.com
OMG. Pour me some ‘woke’ whine. The interviews were edited. This is a common practice given the length of a show and the attention span of Americans.
The dear leader didn’t like it and Redstone’s daughter wanted the sale to go through. Now that this has all been weaponized the dear leader had to make a fuss. Paramount caved and is now willing to be tracked so that anything reflecting negatively on that POS can be flagged.
So what exactly is the angst?
If he doesn’t go after South Park—something he’s shown no inclination to do in the decade plus they have been satirizing him—then was this whole scare piece for nothing?
I guess we need to make a bet: $100 to FiRE if Trump sues Paramount because of South Park; free legal representation for me in any upcoming first amendment case if he doesn’t. Fair?
As for the “extortion-industrial-complex” I take issue with the idea there’s a massive industry of people banking on government extortion. Compared to a military-industrial-complex, which does appear to manage huge swaths of the economy, this just looks like regular old opportunism. I remain to be convinced, but show the trend and I will.
Greg, are you going to jump into the fray, or are you going to leave it to Adam to flail about while attempting to defend this dumpster fire of an article.