Media Companies Like Paramount Should Think Twice Before Settling With Trump

This article is part of TPM Cafe, the House of TPM for opinion and analysis of the news.

Paramount Global, which has CBS News, recently made a perilous decision to settle the trial that Donald Trump brought against them last year. Trump’s costume said CBS 60 minutes illegally published an interview with Kamala Harris to harm his chances in the 2024 presidential race. Before setting up, Paramount validly argued that Trump’s legal theories were baseless and violated the rights of the company’s first amendment. However, the Conglomerate of the Media settled the pursuit for $ 16 million, which he would pay at the Trump presidential library more other costs, although Trump said that the regulations were worth double this sum. The decision to settle the board of directors of Paramount has enormous legal and reputation risks – including potential corruption accusations – while degrading independent investigation journalism on which the Americans rely.

Many legal experts agreed at the beginning that Paramount had a solid defense, citing constitutional protections to make editorial decisions. But the choice of the company to adjust the adjustment seems to have resumed an unsuccessful merger of $ 8 billion with Skydance Media. If the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), led by Trump Ally Brendan Carr, does not approve of this merger by October, the agreement could collapse and the chairman of the board of directors Shari Redstone could lose a payment of $ 2 billion.

While Trump and Car’s lawyers deny that the trial is linked to these FCC procedures, Paramount’s staff seemed to see a link, just like Trump himself. And while the board of directors of Paramount struggled to face corruption accusations if it settled the trial, the internal pressures for CBS News to provide more favorable coverage of Trump have triggered a major internal discord, resulting in two resignations of major news divides.

Paramount was found in a difficult situation, without a doubt. But the serious risks of setting up with Trump are bad for the company, its shareholders and its employees – and it represents a dangerous sign for democracy. These issues are clear in the potential legal risks that Paramount is always confronted with the post-establishment.

First, three American senators-Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR)-warned Redstone in a letter of May 19 which, under the federal law, paying Trump to help finalize the approval of the merger could potentially be with a civil servant. Such a burden has a limitation period of five years. Senators have suggested that any “scheme of the favor of the Trump administration compromises journalistic independence and raises corruption problems. Immediately after the settlement, Wyden rejected these questions and asked the state prosecutors to prosecute criminal charges, while Warren called for an investigation.

State problems have also surfaced. In California, two powerful senators who president of the relevant committees have already launched an investigation, inviting two former CBS leaders to testify. Legislators have suggested that a regulation could violate California’s laws against, for example, unjust competition and the abusive use of works funds, while penalizing competitors who resist political interference, distorting the media market and cooling investigative journalism that Californians depend.

In addition to that, Paramount shareholders have already threatened legal action. The press of the press of the press, which owns Paramount Stock, has promised to continue the company if it had settled with Trump and recently hired two powerful lawyers in preparation. On June 5, the non -profit organization declared to the board of directors of Paramount that a regulation could cause “catastrophic” damage to the company and destroy the value of shareholders. They also declared that a regulation could illegally violate the functions of care and loyalty of the board of directors to shareholders, constitute corruption and violate anti -competition laws in several states – which could multiply legal costs and responsibility.

Other long -term dangers abound. For example, a future president could take a very different look at the question that Trump. A future congress could hold high -level hearings and refer the question of the investigation of the Ministry of Justice. A future DOJ could investigate the potential revocation, including the corruption angle. An FCC under the management of a new president could also launch investigation procedures. And the lawyers involved in the regulations could face disciplinary procedures or a radiation from the State if there is a conclusion that they acted illegally or not.

Aside from the legal risks, the CBS News confidence mark and its credibility with the American people probably crap. More broadly, the colony represents another example of independent media companies which accelerate an administration which seems determined to weaken the perceived enemies. As a conservative editorial committee Wall Street Journal wrote: “The president uses the government to intimidate the media that publishes stories that he does not like. It is a low movement in a free country with a free press.”