The Paramount Settlement is an Abject Lesson in Cowardice
Shari Redstone shows how little she cares about democracy.
In a flagrant act of journalism, CBS News aired an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris on “60 Minutes” last October. The interview was edited, as interviews typically are, and Harris faced tough questions on the economy, immigration policy, and unrest in the Middle East. The segment drove some negative headlines for her campaign, as well as some positive ones.
Donald Trump proceeded to have a meltdown.
He posted on Truth Social that “the producers of 60 Minutes sliced and diced (‘cut and pasted’) Lyin’ Kamala’s answers to questions” in an effort that was “possibly illegal” to make her look “more Presidential.” In his rambling post, he also threatened regulatory retaliation against CBS, suggesting the network’s “News Division,” which “must be licensed,” had crossed a legal line.
Trump then filed a lawsuit against CBS News’ parent company, Paramount Global, alleging that “CBS used its national platform on 60 Minutes to cross the line from the exercise of judgment in reporting to deceitful, deceptive manipulation of news.” It was a transparently ridiculous case, and one that just about every neutral observer agreed would be laughed out of court. But Trump strategically sued the New York-based Paramount in Amarillo, TX, where his arguments would be heard by a judge he had personally appointed.
Five days later, Trump was elected President, and the legal calculus changed. Paramount and its chairwoman, Shari Redstone, chose to cave. Today, the company announced a $16 million settlement, in which the vast majority of that money would go to Trump’s presidential library (the same entity that will take ownership of his “gifted” Qatari 747 when his term ends). Paramount and Redstone also agreed to release full transcripts of presidential interviews going forward, effectively allowing Trump to dictate how news organizations conduct journalism.
Make no mistake: This isn’t about journalistic integrity, or “60 Minutes’” editorial choices, or even the Harris interview. This is about Paramount having business before the federal government, and the company deciding that paying Donald Trump millions of dollars is an acceptable way to get his assistance.
Paramount Global is in the process of merging with Skydance Media to form a new entity worth an estimated $28 billion. Just days after Trump took office, his Federal Communications Commission announced an investigation into Paramount relating to the “60 Minutes” segment, citing “potential news distortion” and First Amendment concerns—a breathtaking act of doublespeak given that using government power to punish news organizations for their editorial choices is precisely what the First Amendment prohibits.
Under any other president and any other FCC, this would be a non-issue. News organizations are allowed to edit interviews—in fact, they do it every day—and government agencies don’t investigate them for it. But under Trump, even the most basic journalistic practices are treated as potential crimes when they displease the president.
Redstone’s and Paramount’s capitulation sends a chilling message: If a media giant with billions of dollars, world-class legal teams, and its own global news platform won’t fight Trump’s transparently ridiculous lawsuit, then who will?
It's hard to imagine anyone in a better position to resist Trump’s overreach. The company has unlimited resources, an absurd case against it, and ironclad First Amendment protections. CBS could have used its own airwaves to expose Trump's authoritarian tactics in real time. Instead, Redstone chose to pay off the bully and hope he leaves her alone.
And he probably will. The Paramount-Skydance deal will probably get approved, and Redstone, who inherited this media empire, will get even richer by selling out the journalistic values that CBS once stood for. But her surrender has taught Trump that his attacks, no matter how craven, will be rewarded with millions of dollars and total submission.
What shouldn’t get lost in all of this is the fact that, while multi-billion dollar companies cave to authoritarianism, ordinary Americans are showing extraordinary courage. They are speaking out at protests and town halls, organizing in their communities, and volunteering to defend American democracy.
This moment reveals our choice clearly: we can follow Redstone’s path of profitable capitulation, of giving in to get by. Or we can resist by doing what she wouldn’t—raising our voices, taking a stand, and fighting back. If America’s media elites won’t defend democracy when they have every advantage, then it’s up to the rest of us.
Sarah Matthews is an Advisory Board Member and Spokeswoman for Home of the Brave, a new project dedicated to telling the human stories of people harmed by Donald Trump’s disastrous second-term agenda.
I had cancelled Paramount+ in protest of what Shari Redstone was about to do. It’s not too late for everyone to cancel subscriptions, her merger hasn’t gone thru yet. If done en-masse it would send a message. The Tesla protests got the shareholders attention. I’m starting to think a general strike is in order.
Redstone will regret her capitulation some day. I don't believe Trump is through punishing corporate media. He and his DOJ will keep an eye peeled for other ways of threatening and extorting. What a grift, as good as those golden sneakers and foul cologne.