This special edition of the magazine’s newsletter hosts a conversation between Jim Rutenberg, a writer at large who mainly covers the intersection of media and politics, and Michael Schmidt, who covers President Trump from The Times’s Washington bureau. They talked about a common theme in their reporting: what it looks like when a media organization targeted for criticism by the president capitulates to the demands of the administration. JIM RUTENBERG Over the past several weeks, as I worked on my story about the Trump administration’s attempt to control TV, my colleague Mike Schmidt and I both came to the conclusion that there may be no better example of how capitulation to Trump continues to play out than at CBS and “60 Minutes.” Mike, you’ve been covering President Trump’s retribution campaign. When I told you about my latest piece, you told me you saw direct parallels to your reporting. The one-year mark of Trump’s second term makes this a great week to ask you: What did you see? MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT Much of the attention is on Trump’s efforts to put perceived enemies like James Comey and Letitia James in prison and how those targeted by Trump have fought back. But just as important to the story is the other side of the coin: capitulation, which makes less noise, but is maybe just as important to how democracy functions. To me, there is no place that’s played out more dramatically than at CBS News and “60 Minutes.” RUTENBERG I feel like most people don’t appreciate that, in part, because it’s complicated and it involves a series of events that unspooled over more than a year. SCHMIDT You just traced through them in your magazine piece. Explain it to us. RUTENBERG To really understand it, we should rewind to the end of 2024, when Trump claimed “60 Minutes” did him dirty during the campaign by editing an interview with Kamala Harris to make her seem “more presidential.” That drew a complaint to the Federal Communications Commission from a Trump-friendly group called the Center for American Rights arguing that CBS had violated rules against so-called “news distortion.’’ Trump followed with a lawsuit ultimately seeking $20 billion from CBS and its parent company at the time, Paramount Global. SCHMIDT The lawsuit and complaint were widely seen as frivolous. But they mattered because Trump and his appointees were prepared to use their power unlike any previous administration, and they had massive leverage over CBS — leverage that would determine who would get billions of dollars and control of the network. RUTENBERG Paramount’s owner, Shari Redstone, was trying to sell the company to Skydance and was beyond eager to get it done. Trump had leverage because he would now be appointing his own political ally, Brendan Carr, to be the chairman of the F.C.C. and Carr would have final approval over a deal. Though Carr’s predecessor under Biden dismissed the “60 Minutes” complaint, Carr immediately restored it — and said it could factor into his decision on approval of the sale. SCHMIDT That’s quite an assertion of power over a media organization. What did Redstone and CBS do? RUTENBERG For decades, largely out of principle, media organizations have pushed back on any type of government oversight into their journalism. But in this case, Redstone and CBS began to capitulate in ways we’d never seen before. In response to an order from the F.C.C., CBS released transcripts and video of the unedited Harris interview, which CBS had refused to share publicly during the campaign, as Trump had been demanding. SCHMIDT Did that take care of it? RUTENBERG It did not. The pressure from the F.C.C. continued and the capitulation continued. The F.C.C. set conditions on the buyer, Skydance, which we should note is led by David Ellison, whose father, Larry Ellison, helped finance the deal and is personally close with the president. If Skydance wanted to buy CBS, it had to pledge that CBS would provide “unbiased” news, apparently as defined by the Trump administration. Skydance had to agree to appoint an ombudsman to monitor its news for bias. And it had to agree that it would never employ diversity and inclusion standards in hiring. SCHMIDT Again, those are typically extraordinary asks of a media company in the United States. RUTENBERG It was highly unusual to say the least. But Skydance agreed to the terms and, to top it off, Redstone, around that time, settled Trump’s lawsuit for $16 million, even though legal experts said Trump had no real claim. Carr signed off on the deal, but he also made it clear he would make sure Skydance lived up to its commitments. SCHMIDT So how did this lead to changes at CBS and “60 Minutes”? RUTENBERG Well, two things happened after all of this. Skydance brought in the opinion journalist Bari Weiss, who formerly worked here at The Times and was known for her frequent criticism of progressives and the mainstream media, to run CBS News. Trump expressed initial approval. But in December, he complained that “60 Minutes” was treating him “worse” under Skydance. Shortly afterward, Weiss made a last-minute decision to hold a “60 Minutes” segment exploring the administration’s harsh treatment of Venezuelan deportees. SCHMIDT Do we know that this was because of Trump’s complaint? RUTENBERG Weiss has said she determined independently that the segment needed work, and that she and her leadership team are not out “to score points” with either side of the political spectrum. The “60 Minutes” piece finally ran this past Sunday — just as our colleagues Michael Grynbaum and Benjamin Mullin broke a new story that the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told Weiss’s handpicked evening news anchor, Tony Dokoupil, that Trump would sue CBS if the network didn’t run Dokoupil’s interview with Trump unedited. Dokoupil assured her that’s the way it would go; CBS said the network had made the decision to run the interview unedited when it was booked. But I should mention another wrinkle: Skydance is now trying to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — which owns the movie studio Warner Bros. Pictures as well as CNN — and would again need Trump’s approval if it succeeded in landing a deal. And I think this all gets to what your own Spidey sense is telling you about the broader retribution campaign you’ve been covering, right? SCHMIDT At the most basic level, whatever’s at play and however CBS is being managed or whatever is motivating their decisions, the compliance CBS showed with the administration’s demands ensures that everything they do going forward will be looked at through the lens of their initial capitulation. Dokoupil’s entire approach to his new role as the anchor of “CBS Evening News” has been widely criticized. Was it because of the perception that the network is Trump-friendly? Or was it because of how he performed? As my father was would say: Where does the sky begin? Stay in touch: Like this email? Forward it to a friend and help us grow. Loved a story? Hated it? Write us a letter at magazine@nytimes.com. Did a friend forward this to you? Sign up here to get the magazine newsletter. For narrated versions of our articles and more audio journalism, download New York Times Audio, a new iOS app available for news subscribers.
|
