Last October, Trump filed the lawsuit alleging CBS had deceptively edited an interview with Harris to “tip the scales in favor of the Democratic party.” The suit centered on two edited versions of Harris’s comments about Israel’s war on Gaza — one aired on Face the Nation, the other on 60 Minutes. Trump’s legal team claimed the difference shielded Harris from political backlash, turning her “word salad” into a more favorable response.

Subscribe

CBS called the lawsuit “completely without merit.” They said the edits were made for time — standard practice in television journalism. But in the end, it didn’t matter. Paramount paid up, and that’s what will stick.

Trump’s team, of course, immediately declared it a “win for the American people” against the “fake news media.” This is what happens when you reward baseless attacks with cash. You reinforce the lie that legitimate journalism is a partisan weapon — and worse, you embolden the next attempt to muzzle the press.

What makes this even more irritating is the backdrop. Just last year, Vice President Harris sat down with CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell for what would be her final major interview as a candidate — and tried to warn the public about Project 2025, the far-right plan to remake the U.S. government into an authoritarian playground.

What did O’Donnell do? She shut Harris down. Redirected her. Treated the warning as partisan noise rather than an existential threat. And when Trump claimed he didn’t know anything about Project 2025? That answer went virtually unchecked.

Fast forward to today, and policy watchdogs have tracked nearly half of Project 2025’s proposals already being implemented by Trump’s team. But that’s commentary for another day.

Journalism Caved — Again

As a former network producer, I’ve seen this dynamic up close. I’ve worked in newsrooms where “If it bleeds, it leads” wasn’t just a saying — it was a mandate. During Trump’s first campaign, we aired his rallies wall to wall, even in the primaries, even when there was no news value. Entire hours of airtime were consumed by what Trump said about things, not what he did. Unless there was a mass shooting or a hurricane, nothing else made it into the rundown. We justified it by saying he was entertaining, that people were watching. But what we were doing was selling our complicity.

Back then, the argument was “ratings.” Today, it’s “reputational risk.” Either way, it’s a refusal to fight for journalism. And this isn’t just some abstract loss. It’s material. Legal precedent gets shaped. Dangerous narratives get validated. Audiences lose trust.
Now, the same press that propped him up is stunned that he’s coming for their necks. They want to put the genie back in the bottle — but that genie was never magic to begin with. It was a PR machine with a gold-plated elevator and a Twitter account.

What Press Freedom?

First Amendment legend Floyd Abrams said it best:

“The agreement of Paramount to pay any settlement amount to Donald Trump based on a 60 Minutes broadcast that was both journalistically responsible and fully protected by the First Amendment is an ominous blow to press freedom in our nation.”

James Goodale, who stood up to Nixon as The New York Times general counsel, was just as blunt:

“It’s a sad day for journalism when the corporate owners of major news broadcasters are unwilling to fight back against baseless lawsuits by politicians.”

And Seth Stern from Freedom of the Press Foundation put the nail in the coffin:

“CBS and other corporate-owned news outlets are full of great journalists who deserve ownership that won’t throw them under the bus to make a buck.”

Let’s be clear: these executives aren’t just settling to protect the company. They’re protecting business interests, potential mergers (hello, Skydance Media), and access to power.

The Press Made This Bed — Now It's Lying In It

What’s happening right now — Trump suing CBS, Fox settling with Dominion, billionaires swallowing legacy outlets whole — isn’t new. It’s the result of decades of complicity. Of newsroom leaders mistaking access for accountability. Of executives who chose neutrality when the moment demanded clarity.

The press helped launder Trump’s lies under the guise of “objectivity.” It gave him unchecked airtime, false equivalencies, and talking heads who acted more like PR agents than journalists. Now those lies have legal teeth — and a $16 million check to back them up.

Let’s be clear: this settlement wasn’t about whether Kamala Harris gave a meandering answer or if CBS trimmed too many seconds. It was about the message it sends when a major news organization flinches in the face of a bully’s lawsuit.

It tells the public that truth is negotiable. That power can be bought and spun. That if you’re loud, rich, and shameless enough, even the institutions meant to hold you accountable can fold.

The Society of Professional Journalists said it plainly:

“By settling, Paramount sends a message to future political candidates and officeholders that even baseless threats can be financially rewarded. This weakens the press’s ability to report fearlessly.”

They’re right. But that message has already been received — loud and clear.

So where do we go from here?

We stop pretending that billion-dollar media companies will save us. We stop mistaking neutrality for courage. And we start investing in independent newsrooms that don’t answer to shareholders, but to the public good.

Support outlets that take risks. Share stories that challenge power. Defend reporters who refuse to be silenced. And understand this moment for what it is: a signal flare.

Trump didn’t win this lawsuit. He didn’t even need to. The $16 million wasn’t about justice. It was about submission.

And if we don’t wake up and quick, we’ll be watching the obituary of the free press, produced by the very networks that once swore they’d defend it.

Press the Truth with Jennifer Matthews is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe