Hold onto your hats, folks—President Donald Trump is swinging for the fences with a staggering $20 billion lawsuit against CBS News over what he calls “election interference” in a manipulated “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.
According to Fox News, this legal showdown centers on claims that CBS News doctored Harris’ responses to a key question, airing different answers in separate broadcasts to paint a rosier picture of her performance.
Let’s rewind to the interview in question, where “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker pressed Harris on why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to ignore the Biden administration’s stance. Harris stumbled through a rambling reply in a preview clip on “Face the Nation,” earning flak for what critics dubbed a “word salad.” Yet, in a primetime special, CBS aired a tidier, more polished response to the very same question.
Critics pounced, accusing CBS News of playing cleanup crew for the Democratic nominee by selectively editing her answers to dodge public backlash. Raw footage and transcripts, later released by the FCC, confirmed that both clips came from a single, lengthy response, split conveniently into halves for different broadcasts. Well, isn’t that a neat trick for a network once known for journalistic rigor?
Trump’s lawsuit doesn’t just cry foul; it drags CBS back to its past, citing a 1976 standards document penned by then-president Richard Salant during the Walter Cronkite era. That 76-page guide, particularly on page 58, stresses editing must reflect reality without distortion—something Trump’s camp argues CBS blatantly ignored. If Cronkite, the “most trusted man in America” per 1970s polls, were alive today, one wonders if he’d approve of this creative cut-and-paste job.
Salant himself wrote in 1976, “The objective of the editing process is to produce a clear and succinct statement.” But clarity seems to have taken a backseat when CBS decided which half of Harris’ answer suited their narrative best. Call it modern journalism, or just call it convenient—either way, it’s a far cry from the golden age of network news.
Back in Cronkite’s day—when he helmed “CBS Evening News” from 1962 to 1981—accuracy and objectivity weren’t just buzzwords; they were gospel. His Associated Press obituary in 2009 hailed him for “valued accuracy, objectivity and understated compassion.” Would today’s CBS editors pass muster under that unflinching gaze?
Salant, who launched “60 Minutes” and died in 1993, was no slouch either, credited by The New York Times for “raising professional standards” at CBS. His 1976 guide even mandated that excerpts in broadcasts maintain their original order unless noted otherwise. So, when CBS juggled Harris’ words across shows, were they honoring that legacy, or tossing it out the window?
CBS News, for its part, denies any shenanigans, standing firm by its broadcast and reporting practices. When pressed by Fox News Digital about whether Cronkite-era standards still apply, the network stayed mum. Perhaps they’re too busy in mediation with the parent company, Paramount, to draft a response.
Speaking of mediation, Trump, CBS, and Paramount are currently hashing things out, with a mediator recently floating a $20 million settlement to end this $20 billion legal saga, per the Wall Street Journal. Last month, Trump turned down a $15 million offer from Paramount, holding out for at least $25 million—oh, and an apology. Turns out, standing on principle can come with a hefty price tag.
Paramount, however, isn’t in the mood to say “sorry,” according to the same report. It’s a classic standoff: one side wants accountability, the other wants to move on without admitting fault. Who blinks first in this high-stakes game?
Let’s not forget the bigger picture here—trust in media is already on life support for many Americans, and stunts like this don’t help. When a network once led by Cronkite, a man who topped trust polls by double digits over politicians in the 1970s, gets accused of playing fast and loose with the truth, it’s a gut punch to viewers who just want the facts.
The Harris interview editing isn’t just about one broadcast; it’s a symptom of a deeper rift between legacy outlets and a skeptical public. If CBS can’t adhere to its historical benchmarks—standards Salant and Cronkite championed—why should anyone take their word at face value? It’s a question worth asking, even if the answer stings.
Trump’s lawsuit, whether it settles or drags on, shines a spotlight on how far some believe journalism has strayed from its roots.
Maybe it’s time for networks to dust off those old guidelines and remember that integrity isn’t just a nostalgic buzzword—it’s the bedrock of their craft. After all, rebuilding trust might be the hardest edit of all.
