New Jersey & Florida Gangster Finalizes $16M Shakedown of Paramount
34 views
Skip to first unread message
PGage
Jul 2, 2025, 2:25:09 AM7/2/25
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
“Paramount said late Tuesday that it has agreed to pay President Trump $16 million to settle his lawsuit over the editing of an interview on the CBS News program “60 Minutes,” an extraordinary concession to a sitting president by a major media organization.
Paramount said its payment includes Mr. Trump’s legal fees and costs and that the money, minus the legal fees, will be paid to Mr. Trump’s future presidential library.
As part of the settlement, Paramount said that it had agreed to release written transcripts of future “60 Minutes” interviews with presidential candidates. The company said that the settlement did not include an apology.
The deal is the clearest sign yet that Mr. Trump’s ability to intimidate major American institutions extends to the media industry.
Many lawyers had dismissed Mr. Trump’s lawsuit as baseless and believed that CBS would have ultimately prevailed in court, in part because the network did not report anything factually inaccurate, and the First Amendment gives publishers wide leeway to determine how to present information.
But Shari Redstone, the chair and controlling shareholder of Paramount, told her board that she favored exploring a settlement with Mr. Trump. Some executives at the company viewed the president’s lawsuit as a potential hurdle to completing a multibillion-dollar sale of the company to the Hollywood studio Skydance, which requires the Trump administration’s approval.”
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Bob Jersey
Jul 2, 2025, 6:37:27 AM7/2/25
to TVorNotTV
And I'd venture to guess that this still gives le gros orange carte blanche to fvck with late night, for example. B
PGage, July 2nd:
Mark Jeffries
Jul 2, 2025, 11:09:52 AM7/2/25
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
Do you think Kristi Noem is going to barge into the Ed with ICE agents during a taping to arrest Colbert to have him deported, then go to 30 Rock to arrest Seth Meyers and then to the "TDS" studio to arrest the Greatest F--king News Team Ever--all during actual tapings? It does seem to me that you're going to have angry audience members once they realize this isn't a gag and that a lot of bad stuff is going to go down and there will be bloodshed--or do they think that's what Fox News, Newsmax and OAN want?
Mark Jeffries
spotl...@gmail.com
spotl...@gmail.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/0c51a691-f004-483a-8fe3-690a1c2b09e0n%40googlegroups.com.
Jim Ellwanger
Jul 2, 2025, 11:53:39 AM7/2/25
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
Of all the things that are legitimate worries right now, I don't think the late-night hosts being arrested during tapings is one of them.
Although I do note that, if you ARE going to talk about the possibility, Stephen Colbert being forcibly taken to another country wouldn't be "deported," it would be a kidnapping (or an "extraordinary rendition," if you prefer that term).
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJ_uKi9-xwNTAX4nNF4D%3Dk3Tg%3DGw1cTqDZAj%2B7kx8LVWHnANHg%40mail.gmail.com.
Mark Jeffries
Jul 2, 2025, 1:09:20 PM7/2/25
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
Meanwhile, before CBS' decision was announced, the "60 Minutes" stars made it known they didn't want to see a settlement--this is from Oliver Darcy's paywalled Status newsletter:
While Paramount Global and Donald Trump negotiate behind the scenes with a mediator over a potential settlement that could decide the fate of the historic Hollywood studio, a very different kind of showdown has been unfolding inside the company—one that pits the "60 Minutes" correspondents against their corporate bosses.
In early May, as we first reported, all seven correspondents from the newsmagazine wrote to Paramount, CBS News’ parent company, requesting longtime staffer Tanya Simon be elevated to the role of executive producer. But, I've since learned from people familiar with the matter that the group of famed journalists—Lesley Stahl, Scott Pelley, Bill Whitaker, Anderson Cooper, Sharyn Alfonsi, Jon Wertheim, and Cecilia Vega—did not stop there.
In the note sent to Paramount co-chief executives George Cheeks, Brian Robbins, and Chris McCarthy, the seven journalists took a hard stance on Trump's lawsuit against "60 Minutes," according to people familiar with the matter. While acknowledging that mistakes have certainly been made over the years, I’m told they emphasized that the show has always corrected any errors transparently, in keeping with its determination to serve the public as an honest broker of news. But, they added, when they are factually correct, they must defend themselves from attack.
Then the group dropped the hammer.
They pointedly expressed concern that Paramount is failing to put up a fierce and unrelenting fight in the face of Trump’s lawsuit over the program’s Kamala Harris interview, which has been widely denounced by the legal community as baseless, according to the people familiar with the matter. They said Trump's allegations against the storied program are false and ripped his lawsuit as baseless. And they warned in no uncertain terms that if Paramount were to settle with Trump, it will stain the reputation of the company and undermine the First Amendment.
A spokesperson for Paramount previously declined to comment on the letter.
Nevertheless, the missive marks the first known instance of the "60 Minutes" correspondents taking a firm and unified stance on how they expect their parent company to respond to Trump’s lawsuit. While Stahl has publicly voiced alarm at the actions of Paramount, most of the correspondents have yet to comment on the matter. Instead, they’ve moved to engage with their bosses in private, and I’m told even made a pact against leaking information about their efforts to the press.
Regardless, while the group of iconic journalists made their case to the corporate overlords, the reality is that Paramount controlling shareholder Shari Redstone is eager to settle the lawsuit to clear the path for her deal to merge Paramount with David Ellison’s Skydance Media—a transaction that needs regulatory approval from the Brendan Carr-controlled Federal Communications Commission to close.
Indeed, on Monday, lawyers for Paramount and Trump said that they are in “advanced” settlement negotiations, asking the court to hold off on proceedings until Thursday. Redstone, surely, wishes to resolve the matter before Paramount’s annual shareholder meeting on Wednesday and the merger termination deadline on July 7.
Redstone seems poised to get her wish. Unfortunately for the “60 Minutes” correspondents and those who support a strong free press, the matter is caught between Redstone’s desire and need for corporate consolidation, the autocratic politics of the Oval Office occupant, and the principles of hard-hitting journalism. Unfortunately, in such instances, it is rarely the lofty values of reporting that wins out.
In early May, as we first reported, all seven correspondents from the newsmagazine wrote to Paramount, CBS News’ parent company, requesting longtime staffer Tanya Simon be elevated to the role of executive producer. But, I've since learned from people familiar with the matter that the group of famed journalists—Lesley Stahl, Scott Pelley, Bill Whitaker, Anderson Cooper, Sharyn Alfonsi, Jon Wertheim, and Cecilia Vega—did not stop there.
In the note sent to Paramount co-chief executives George Cheeks, Brian Robbins, and Chris McCarthy, the seven journalists took a hard stance on Trump's lawsuit against "60 Minutes," according to people familiar with the matter. While acknowledging that mistakes have certainly been made over the years, I’m told they emphasized that the show has always corrected any errors transparently, in keeping with its determination to serve the public as an honest broker of news. But, they added, when they are factually correct, they must defend themselves from attack.
Then the group dropped the hammer.
They pointedly expressed concern that Paramount is failing to put up a fierce and unrelenting fight in the face of Trump’s lawsuit over the program’s Kamala Harris interview, which has been widely denounced by the legal community as baseless, according to the people familiar with the matter. They said Trump's allegations against the storied program are false and ripped his lawsuit as baseless. And they warned in no uncertain terms that if Paramount were to settle with Trump, it will stain the reputation of the company and undermine the First Amendment.
A spokesperson for Paramount previously declined to comment on the letter.
Nevertheless, the missive marks the first known instance of the "60 Minutes" correspondents taking a firm and unified stance on how they expect their parent company to respond to Trump’s lawsuit. While Stahl has publicly voiced alarm at the actions of Paramount, most of the correspondents have yet to comment on the matter. Instead, they’ve moved to engage with their bosses in private, and I’m told even made a pact against leaking information about their efforts to the press.
Regardless, while the group of iconic journalists made their case to the corporate overlords, the reality is that Paramount controlling shareholder Shari Redstone is eager to settle the lawsuit to clear the path for her deal to merge Paramount with David Ellison’s Skydance Media—a transaction that needs regulatory approval from the Brendan Carr-controlled Federal Communications Commission to close.
Indeed, on Monday, lawyers for Paramount and Trump said that they are in “advanced” settlement negotiations, asking the court to hold off on proceedings until Thursday. Redstone, surely, wishes to resolve the matter before Paramount’s annual shareholder meeting on Wednesday and the merger termination deadline on July 7.
Redstone seems poised to get her wish. Unfortunately for the “60 Minutes” correspondents and those who support a strong free press, the matter is caught between Redstone’s desire and need for corporate consolidation, the autocratic politics of the Oval Office occupant, and the principles of hard-hitting journalism. Unfortunately, in such instances, it is rarely the lofty values of reporting that wins out.
And Darcy was right.
Mark Jeffries
spotl...@gmail.com
spotl...@gmail.com
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/A752FBF4-DC12-4423-85BD-F4EBEB032D58%40ellwanger.tv.
John Edwards
Jul 2, 2025, 2:06:37 PM7/2/25
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
No, and Paramount rolling over shows that it's unnecessary. All the sentient Cheeto has to do is sabre-rattle in the direction of something the parent company wants, and they have shown that they will bend and submit.
John
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJ_uKi9-xwNTAX4nNF4D%3Dk3Tg%3DGw1cTqDZAj%2B7kx8LVWHnANHg%40mail.gmail.com.
John Edwards
"You can insure against the weather, but you can't insure against incompetence, can you?" - Phil Tufnell
"You can insure against the weather, but you can't insure against incompetence, can you?" - Phil Tufnell
PGage
Jul 2, 2025, 4:27:05 PM7/2/25
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
One of the things this illustrates (though already well known of course) is how irrelevant television news operations have become. Not that long ago (within the adult lifetimes of most of the people on this list) the News Division was one of the diamonds in the Tiffany Crown of CBS. For anyone trying to acquire CBS, the credibility of the News Division would have been a primary asset. Today, obviously, the market values the credibility of a network news division at just about zero. Paramount owners (current and proposed) would rather whore out their news division than do anything to support it.
It’s been a long decline, and for many on this list the expiration date for TV News came a long time ago, but for me it will forever be the date of this agreement.
Sent from Gmail Mobile
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJLXtMKpTdNYMmTJnDz2f_u2yVRod8_g7g6vsE%3DJOKW9Cow-WQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Bob Jersey
Jul 2, 2025, 8:41:16 PM7/2/25
to TVorNotTV
Any such intervention won't occur while tape is rolling, of course. Agents will first contact the applicable network security, read the proverbial "riot act" to them, and methodically shut down all ops before spectators are let in... whether other media will be on hand to catch hosts, etc. being hauled away, is a good question... B
Mark Jeffries, to moi, July 2nd:
Doug Eastick
Jul 3, 2025, 9:25:17 AM7/3/25
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
Bob wrote: "Any such intervention won't occur while tape is rolling, of course. ".
I disagree. I think it is entirely possible that the stupidest administration EVER, that does the stupidest things EVER, would decide to roll into a live studio with armed people and nab a host on tape. Heck, the stupidest people ever would even record it themselves and post the video on the government socials to demonstrate they are in control.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/f591a820-5a87-4d9f-b5e3-d2e0804c9811n%40googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages