This is related to Trump suing 60-Minutes because of how they edited their interview with Harris. I never realized such a lawsuit was even possible; are TV shows not allowed to edit what they show?
Blatant breach of the 1st Amendment, but hey, who cares anymore? The judiciary should summarily dismiss any case brought on by the Trump administration until they comply with court orders.
TV shows are certainly allowed to edit what they show.
Also, anyone is allowed to sue anyone for anything. I could sue you for posting that comment on Hacker News. If the lawsuit has no basis in law then they will lose. BUT -- 60 Minutes is owned by CBS which is owned by Paramount which might want to sell itself which requires government approval. And even if they didn't need government approval for that sale, it has become abundantly clear that the current administration is willing to ignore laws and restrictions when needed to punish journalists they don't like. So it is in the interests of Paramount to settle the lawsuit (likely through mediation) for a large sum of money.
In essence, it is a way for the President to demand bribe money from large corporations in exchange for not using his power to punish them. And the US legal system does not have a mechanism for stopping it IF those who are sued are not willing to stand up to the President for as long as a lawsuit takes (likely several years and vast sums of litigation costs).
As a libertarian every one of these cases of presidential abuse of power looks like a great opportunity to limit presidential power. In this case the executive discretion to block mergers. Every time non libertarians on both sides tell me that this is essential power, and we just need the right people in charge. How is that working out for you?
To me the greater threat is that one side or the other will succeed in always putting the "right" people in charge.
The libertarian position is highly anti-democratic. If the people vote for a lynch mob, they should get it, and the nebulous pollution of democracy through "my limitations on democracy are better than yours" do not sell well with the public who see a reduction in presidential power as a reduction in their own power.
If you're trying to change this in the USA, you've already lost. The people only learn through experience. Best to just move to Argentina or something where the pendulum is swinging the other way.
The Peter Thiel-brand of libertarianism is utopian, techofeudual, illiberal, and amoral. To be fair, Ezra Klein's "Abundance" neo-neoliberalism also exhibits themes of utopian techofeudalism, illiberalism, and amorality too. Neither of these movements have any sense of self-awareness or American history, but they are extremely popular with billionaires through decamillionaires who promote them to the detriment of ordinary Americans.
I suspect the revolution will not be televised, and AOC will be POTUS in 2029 should things keep going as they are. Maybe an American Nero or Caligula would happen in 2031 as yet another underdamped ideological over-reaction, but I hope not.
You say "Neither of these movements have any sense of self-awareness or American history"
And then, without a shred of irony, suggest that a progressive, non-white, woman, will be president soon.
The "pendulum swinging" theory that a lot of people are clinging to is nonsense. It presupposes that this hard right movement is a reaction to some previous left swing, and there will be a hard left swing.
But there is no previous left swing. There's been consistent rightward movement in the US since the Civil Rights Act. The republican party suffered after Nixon admitted to doing some crime and the republican party has taken every effort to ensure that would never happen again, and they have wildly succeeded.
Bush Jr suffered no punishment for explicitly waging illegal wars against sovereign nations. Trump received no punishment for blatant self-enrichment and the 170 republican house reps that voted to ignore the 2020 election did not face any punishment either. Reagan hasn't even had his legacy tarnished despite being pretty much solely responsible for the economic pain rural americans feel, ignoring the AIDS epidemic even after the committee he made told him how to improve the situation, destroyed our tax revenue, helped spur an every decade economic crisis, kneecapping any chance we had of preventing climate change from being a problem, and spent money we never had on boondoggles that never had a chance of success like SDI.
The people who insist DEI are a real problem will never vote for AOC. They've all lapped up the right wing propaganda with absolutely no self reflection, and believe "The left has gone too far" by..... investing the the country's infrastructure and not spending 24/7 screaming about the terrors of trans people.
The general public gets their opinion of democrats from right wing propaganda. People who historically would support democrats and explicitly support things democrats push for have chosen to get all their info from republicans.
It's not democrats passing bills that legislate who is allowed to use which bathroom, but it is somehow democrats that have "gone too far".
>I never realized such a lawsuit was even possible; are TV shows not allowed to edit what they show?
This isn't 60 Minutes' first rodeo with this kind of thing. An earlier experience was so harrowing that it was turned into a film starring Al Pacino and Russell Crowe:
Since I can't post another comment owing to this submission first disappearing off the main page prior to being flagged for no apparent reason:
Corporate parent Paramount and its controlling owner, Shari Redstone, are seeking the approval of federal regulators to sell it to the son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison.
Joy. The censorship regime on HN lately has become grotesque. People should be ashamed.
I think the argument from Trump's lawyers is more subtle. Certainly editing is allowed-- but deliberately editing out poor answers could be seen as a donation to the campaign. Especially if it's not applied equally. Furthermore, it could be said to be infringing on the public's right to know by conspiring to withhold material facts.
I'm not saying I agree with any of this. Only that news organizations play with fire when they consciously abandon neutrality.
Certainly. TV shows can edit interviews, but there are limits to how much, especially when the editing could be considered defamatory, deceptive, or intentionally misleading in a way that harms someone’s reputation.
What Trump is alleging is a bit thin. He is saying that 60 Minutes edited the episode so much so that it favored her during the presidential campaign. The lawsuit claims that CBS's actions amounted to election interference.
I think that's really thin but I also don't think he intends to win this lawsuit. I mean seriously, $10bn? That's ludicrous. What the strategy may be is to draw out the attention and belief among his supporters that the media is biased, and to use the discovery process to prove it. Either way, it's embarrassing for 60 Minutes, embarrassing for their journalists, and could reveal things they did not want revealed. Who knows.
IANAL but I do work on public policy for over 12 years: This is building cases and decisions around the media and election interference. It is painting and building a long view case that the mainstream media is bias, and when they engage in perceived bias, that is election interference.
One more thing.. This also connects with the "Equal Time Rule" (also known as the Equal Opportunities Rule) which is part of Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934. It requires that if a broadcast station (TV or radio) gives airtime to one legally qualified candidate for public office, it must offer equal opportunities to all other candidates for the same office.
In Trumps case, 60 Minutes offered and engaged in airtime for Harris, but his claim might be that they deceptively then edited that video to favor her deprived him of his equal time, and created election interference.
We could get into the Fairness Doctrine but this is getting quite long; a Truman initiative, rescinded by Reagan.
I believe the media deserves criticism for its tendency to avoid uncomfortable stories; regardless of which political party they involve. News organizations often reflect a bias, and that bias tends to extend to the journalists they hire. It's difficult to trust the industry when I can’t tell whether a story is being reported because it's true, or because it aligns with someone's personal beliefs.
With so much of the media landscape controlled by large corporations I don’t trust, I find it nearly impossible to confidently assess the accuracy or intent behind what I’m being told. That leaves me with few options beyond relying on my instincts—which, admittedly, aren't always fully informed.
In my opinion, mainstream outlets should have scrutinized President Biden’s son and the president’s cognitive health more aggressively. While there are certainly outstanding journalists, it seems that many pursue stories that support their own political leanings rather than challenge them. I can only guess this is happening because journalism no longer attracts the best talent; declining financial incentives?
Yeah, I think you're right. Fragmentation essentially. The greater number of voices means greater cross scrutiny, but it also mean a harder fight for the same audiences. Still... Some people make a living on just a few thousand subscribers.
> In my opinion, mainstream outlets should have scrutinized President Biden’s son and the president’s cognitive health more aggressively.
The problem is that right-wing think tanks are constantly trying to spin the tiniest little controversies into full-blown media frenzies by way of sheer vitriolic repetition. This is not something I’ve seen the left do very much of — at least, not with any lasting success.
Both of these stories struck me as a lot of smoke without a fire, and any responsible newspaper would say as much. I should also point out that Biden consistently made a lot more sense in his speeches than Trump, and yet the “cognitive health” label stuck to one and not the other.
The hypocrisy exhibited by the right is crazy: issues with Democrats are blown far out of proportion while the same or even more severe issues are nothingburgers when committed by Republicans. I do agree Biden's cognitive health should have been looked at more, but Trump's got serious problems that also aren't being given enough airtime.
This reminds me of an article in Le Monde (a French newspaper) where they discussed photos of Trump and B Johnson (UK prime minister at that time).
The newspaper does not like either of them but shown how the photo of Trump was manipulated: your could see him and the Japanese PM feeding fish in a temple. The Japanese PM was using two fingers to throw crumbles while Trump turned around his box shaking out the contents. Stupid illiterate Americans and what not.
They than explained that in the whole video of the event both were doing the same thing (two fingers and delicate crumbles, picture of the PM), the PM finished and shaked empty the box. Trump had a look and followed the lead. Picture of Trump.
I liked the fact that despite not liking Trump, they took this example of press manipulation.
The other one was a picture of Johnson putting his feet on a historical table in the Elysée palace when discussing with Macron. Stupid illiterate Brits and what not.
The full video showed that they were joking before the official meeting about the table, Macron said that the height is perfect and Johnson jokingly feigned to put his feet and bam! the photo.
When the Wikileaks came to light, it is also interesting to see which media were invited to work on them.
> It's difficult to trust the industry when I can’t tell whether a story is being reported because it's true, or because it aligns with someone's personal beliefs.
23 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 69.3 ms ] threadAlso, anyone is allowed to sue anyone for anything. I could sue you for posting that comment on Hacker News. If the lawsuit has no basis in law then they will lose. BUT -- 60 Minutes is owned by CBS which is owned by Paramount which might want to sell itself which requires government approval. And even if they didn't need government approval for that sale, it has become abundantly clear that the current administration is willing to ignore laws and restrictions when needed to punish journalists they don't like. So it is in the interests of Paramount to settle the lawsuit (likely through mediation) for a large sum of money.
In essence, it is a way for the President to demand bribe money from large corporations in exchange for not using his power to punish them. And the US legal system does not have a mechanism for stopping it IF those who are sued are not willing to stand up to the President for as long as a lawsuit takes (likely several years and vast sums of litigation costs).
To me the greater threat is that one side or the other will succeed in always putting the "right" people in charge.
If you're trying to change this in the USA, you've already lost. The people only learn through experience. Best to just move to Argentina or something where the pendulum is swinging the other way.
I suspect the revolution will not be televised, and AOC will be POTUS in 2029 should things keep going as they are. Maybe an American Nero or Caligula would happen in 2031 as yet another underdamped ideological over-reaction, but I hope not.
And then, without a shred of irony, suggest that a progressive, non-white, woman, will be president soon.
The "pendulum swinging" theory that a lot of people are clinging to is nonsense. It presupposes that this hard right movement is a reaction to some previous left swing, and there will be a hard left swing.
But there is no previous left swing. There's been consistent rightward movement in the US since the Civil Rights Act. The republican party suffered after Nixon admitted to doing some crime and the republican party has taken every effort to ensure that would never happen again, and they have wildly succeeded.
Bush Jr suffered no punishment for explicitly waging illegal wars against sovereign nations. Trump received no punishment for blatant self-enrichment and the 170 republican house reps that voted to ignore the 2020 election did not face any punishment either. Reagan hasn't even had his legacy tarnished despite being pretty much solely responsible for the economic pain rural americans feel, ignoring the AIDS epidemic even after the committee he made told him how to improve the situation, destroyed our tax revenue, helped spur an every decade economic crisis, kneecapping any chance we had of preventing climate change from being a problem, and spent money we never had on boondoggles that never had a chance of success like SDI.
The people who insist DEI are a real problem will never vote for AOC. They've all lapped up the right wing propaganda with absolutely no self reflection, and believe "The left has gone too far" by..... investing the the country's infrastructure and not spending 24/7 screaming about the terrors of trans people.
The general public gets their opinion of democrats from right wing propaganda. People who historically would support democrats and explicitly support things democrats push for have chosen to get all their info from republicans.
It's not democrats passing bills that legislate who is allowed to use which bathroom, but it is somehow democrats that have "gone too far".
It's even more direct than that, CBS requires a license from the FCC to broadcast
If they were on the internet/cable with MSNBC and Fox News they would free to air their propaganda.
This isn't 60 Minutes' first rodeo with this kind of thing. An earlier experience was so harrowing that it was turned into a film starring Al Pacino and Russell Crowe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Insider_(film)
An excellent one, at that.
---
Since I can't post another comment owing to this submission first disappearing off the main page prior to being flagged for no apparent reason:
Corporate parent Paramount and its controlling owner, Shari Redstone, are seeking the approval of federal regulators to sell it to the son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison.
Joy. The censorship regime on HN lately has become grotesque. People should be ashamed.
I'm not saying I agree with any of this. Only that news organizations play with fire when they consciously abandon neutrality.
What Trump is alleging is a bit thin. He is saying that 60 Minutes edited the episode so much so that it favored her during the presidential campaign. The lawsuit claims that CBS's actions amounted to election interference.
I think that's really thin but I also don't think he intends to win this lawsuit. I mean seriously, $10bn? That's ludicrous. What the strategy may be is to draw out the attention and belief among his supporters that the media is biased, and to use the discovery process to prove it. Either way, it's embarrassing for 60 Minutes, embarrassing for their journalists, and could reveal things they did not want revealed. Who knows.
IANAL but I do work on public policy for over 12 years: This is building cases and decisions around the media and election interference. It is painting and building a long view case that the mainstream media is bias, and when they engage in perceived bias, that is election interference.
One more thing.. This also connects with the "Equal Time Rule" (also known as the Equal Opportunities Rule) which is part of Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934. It requires that if a broadcast station (TV or radio) gives airtime to one legally qualified candidate for public office, it must offer equal opportunities to all other candidates for the same office.
In Trumps case, 60 Minutes offered and engaged in airtime for Harris, but his claim might be that they deceptively then edited that video to favor her deprived him of his equal time, and created election interference.
We could get into the Fairness Doctrine but this is getting quite long; a Truman initiative, rescinded by Reagan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
...only hidden truths"~
With so much of the media landscape controlled by large corporations I don’t trust, I find it nearly impossible to confidently assess the accuracy or intent behind what I’m being told. That leaves me with few options beyond relying on my instincts—which, admittedly, aren't always fully informed.
In my opinion, mainstream outlets should have scrutinized President Biden’s son and the president’s cognitive health more aggressively. While there are certainly outstanding journalists, it seems that many pursue stories that support their own political leanings rather than challenge them. I can only guess this is happening because journalism no longer attracts the best talent; declining financial incentives?
I wish I knew how to fix this.
The problem is that right-wing think tanks are constantly trying to spin the tiniest little controversies into full-blown media frenzies by way of sheer vitriolic repetition. This is not something I’ve seen the left do very much of — at least, not with any lasting success.
Both of these stories struck me as a lot of smoke without a fire, and any responsible newspaper would say as much. I should also point out that Biden consistently made a lot more sense in his speeches than Trump, and yet the “cognitive health” label stuck to one and not the other.
The newspaper does not like either of them but shown how the photo of Trump was manipulated: your could see him and the Japanese PM feeding fish in a temple. The Japanese PM was using two fingers to throw crumbles while Trump turned around his box shaking out the contents. Stupid illiterate Americans and what not.
They than explained that in the whole video of the event both were doing the same thing (two fingers and delicate crumbles, picture of the PM), the PM finished and shaked empty the box. Trump had a look and followed the lead. Picture of Trump.
I liked the fact that despite not liking Trump, they took this example of press manipulation.
The other one was a picture of Johnson putting his feet on a historical table in the Elysée palace when discussing with Macron. Stupid illiterate Brits and what not.
The full video showed that they were joking before the official meeting about the table, Macron said that the height is perfect and Johnson jokingly feigned to put his feet and bam! the photo.
When the Wikileaks came to light, it is also interesting to see which media were invited to work on them.
This is a media literacy problem.