Law CBS pays out (settles) for election interference

[calavera2]

I'm talking about you and people like you, obviously. Are you on the spectrum? Can't follow simple sentences or something?

Sure thing Maganadian

 

[ShadowRun]

Translation: The administration is extorting Paramount to make sure their merger is approved. They're still fuckin cowards, considering this lawsuit would have been laughed out of court.

Another constitutional crisis on our hands , so much crisis it can fill the oceans

 

[jk7707]

Another constitutional crisis on our hands , so much crisis it can fill the oceans

You don't need you to highlight how much deeper Trump's cock has slid down your throat. We already know.

 

[ShadowRun]

You don't need you to highlight how much deeper Trump's cock has slid down your throat. We already know.

Always with the dick jokes with cucks, it’s ok at least your girls bull voted for trump

 

[jk7707]

Always with the dick jokes with cucks, it’s ok at least your girls bull voted for trump

No. I gave you a chance to respond with something substantive. But you are clearly incapable.

 

[ShadowRun]

No. I gave you a chance to respond with something substantive. But you are clearly incapable.

Bullshit loser all you said was orange dick … you’re low IQ would of been banned already but we feel bad for you’re mental health issues dude

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

What the fuck are you talking about you cucked Canadian

What the hell dude ha ha, this is the war room I suppose!

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Translation: The administration is extorting Paramount to make sure their merger is approved. They're still fuckin cowards, considering this lawsuit would have been laughed out of court.

LOL

This is coming from the crowd who was screeching about Russian interference for years. You guys are full of shit and now we see the reaction when the indictment goes in the opposite direction.

"It's extortion! The poor corporation shouldn't have to pay!" Said the leftist cuck.

 

[calavera2]

What the hell dude ha ha, this is the war room I suppose!

I'm being too friendly I suppose... lots of these weird ass cucknadians in the war room...

 

[BFoe]

LOL

This is coming from the crowd who was screeching about Russian interference for years. You guys are full of shit and now we see the reaction when the indictment goes in the opposite direction.

"It's extortion! The poor corporation shouldn't have to pay!" Said the leftist cuck.

You seem confused about the details here. There was no indictment, this wasn’t a criminal case. It was a lawsuit. And the laws Trump accused CBS of breaking have nothing to do with election interference. Trump claimed that CBS’s editing of Kamala’s interview caused him to”mental anguish” and damaged his statutes as a “content creator.” It’s frivolous AF.

Trump suffered 'mental anguish' from disputed CBS News interview with Harris, lawyer says

Donald Trump's lawyer says that the president suffered “mental anguish” from CBS News' editing of an interview last fall with his Democratic election opponent Kamala Harris.

apnews.com

It is such a lazy tactic to avoid rebutting the actual articles by criticizing the sources. Plus, you're using a website that claims CNN is Left-Center. lmao at this hot garbage tail tuck.

If the sources in question are known to be wildly unreliable, then what is the sense of putting all the time and effort in to fact check and independently verify them? I do the same thing with unreliable, far left outlets.

Look at some of this biased garbage you posted, like the Hunter Biden laptop. The real story there is: the NY Post ran a story that they could not fact check or verify in the slightest. Aside from sounding outrageous, the authenticity of the laptop wasn’t verified at the time, the chain of custody of the laptop wasn’t known, the contents of the laptop weren’t verified by the Post’s to be Hunter’s, and the computer repair shop owner was legally blind and couldn’t even identify the guy that dropped off the laptop as being Hunter Biden.

Fox was originally approached with the story and they turned it down. The NY Post ran it without any byline because no reporter was willing to put their name on it. The story may have turned out to be true quite awhile later, but that is luck, it’s not good journalism. NY Post didn’t verify shit before running that story. News outlets didn’t actually begin verifying its contents until 2021, Washington Post independently verified it in March 2022, and CBS later that year after they finally received a copy of the hard drive from the computer shop owner (the reason for the delay was legal action taken by Hunter Biden).
You are aware that CBS didn’t wait 2 years to report on it, right? They reported it in October 2020.

Because it eventually turned out to be true, you guys treat it like some triumph of investigative journalism. It wasn’t. A salacious and unverified story dropped in their lap and they ran it without vetting it.

—Coverage of Trump’s cabinet largely negative? My goodness, I wonder why? Many of them are wildly unqualified. We have an anti-vax CTer in charge of HHS, a fucking pro wrestling executive in charge of education, a Fox commentator with an alcohol problem and sexual assault accusations in charge of defense (and he shared attack plans on a public app like the liability he is), a former Senator with no intelligence experience and a history of troubling foreign policy stances as Dir of Intelligence, he tried to get a dude who solicited sex with minors to be AG… I could go on. Trump has 13 fucking billionaires in his cabinet.
What kind of coverage are you expecting?

I understand that telling you that these sources aren’t worth my time is dismissive—but these sources aren’t worth my time. I’ve written a novel just talking about 2 things, I’m not going to waste my time trying to independently verify wildly biased and unreliable media outlets. Sorry not sorry.

 

[Islam Imamate]

If it's standard procedure, they should have plenty of examples to provide of them editing Presidential candidates' answers for "brevity." They didn't, because they knew what they did. They just didn't expect Trump to win.

They have though and in fact they've probably done more egregious edits in other interviews and didn't get sued for it. For example here's an interview with Obama from 2016 where two questions and responses were edited out of the segment that was aired. In a 2012 interview during that year's presidential campaign a question and response about Benghazi was edited out and generated controversy.

If we look more broadly outside their interviews of presidents and presidential candidates they once interviewed Sean Hannity who was upset with the nature of the edits to their conversation. And yet no one in these aforementioned cases would've ever thought to sue the network over these instances because to do so would be absurd.

Again, it's your opinion that's what's happening here. You're free to have it, however uninformed it may be.

You weren't even aware of the merger angle to the story but I'm the uninformed one?

You're falling apart here. If it was an unfounded conspiracy, they woldn't be shelling out $16 million dollars. It doesn't require a lot of critical thinking. Stop getting your talking points from Reddit.

Again you're ignoring the context of the merger. Even if you want to say the merger isn't relevant, even though every good faith observer sees more than enough reason to think it is, the settlement included no admission of wrongdoing and executives justified the settlement to their shareholders as a way to avoid a costly legal battle.

Yet you can't explain why they edited the actual aired interview to make Kamala appear as a more coherent speaker.

I did though, multiple times. Its for clarity and brevity.

More specifically if you have a ~40 minute time slot but your interview is closer to ~50 minutes you have to shave something off to get it to fit into the time slot. In general news orgs try to include if not all the questions and answers then as many as possible and will whittle down the questions and responses to get them to fit. If there's 20 questions/responses you try to shave off 30 seconds from each to cut those 10 minutes need for the piece to fit the time slot.

 

[jk7707]

LOL

This is coming from the crowd who was screeching about Russian interference for years. You guys are full of shit and now we see the reaction when the indictment goes in the opposite direction.

"It's extortion! The poor corporation shouldn't have to pay!" Said the leftist cuck.

What indictment?

 

[cincymma79]

Or so far right, everyone else is on your left.


Did you see how far right those sources were he posted? I don’t get info from any source that skews to the left as far as his do to the right.

put your red lipstick on for your rally

 

[Confucamus]

They have though and in fact they've probably done more egregious edits in other interviews and didn't get sued for it. For example here's an interview with Obama from 2016 where two questions and responses were edited out of the segment that was aired. In a 2012 interview during that year's presidential campaign a question and response about Benghazi was edited out and generated controversy.

If we look more broadly outside their interviews of presidents and presidential candidates they once interviewed Sean Hannity who was upset with the nature of the edits to their conversation. And yet no one in these aforementioned cases would've ever thought to sue the network over these instances because to do so would be absurd.

Questions and their responses were removed, but did they ever completely change the answer posed to a question to make a candidate seem more coherent?

You weren't even aware of the merger angle to the story but I'm the uninformed one?

How do you know that?

Again you're ignoring the context of the merger. Even if you want to say the merger isn't relevant, even though every good faith observer sees more than enough reason to think it is, the settlement included no admission of wrongdoing and executives justified the settlement to their shareholders as a way to avoid a costly legal battle.

Not to get into whatabaoutism, but so did Trump's housing discrimination lawsuit but you guys still contend he was guilty. Your consistency is really in question here. As far as the merger being the reason, this is your opinion. It's not a bad one, honestly. It could be true. But you're saying it's "obvious" and treating it as fact. Even going as far as saying anybody who doesn't share your opinion isn't acting in "good faith." At this point, it appears you won't give any time to anything that contradicts what you want to be true about this and we're not going to come to an understanding.

I did though, multiple times. Its for clarity and brevity.
More specifically if you have a ~40 minute time slot but your interview is closer to ~50 minutes you have to shave something off to get it to fit into the time slot. In general news orgs try to include if not all the questions and answers then as many as possible and will whittle down the questions and responses to get them to fit. If there's 20 questions/responses you try to shave off 30 seconds from each to cut those 10 minutes need for the piece to fit the time slot.

There's more ways to shave time off an interview than changing a candidates answer completely. Why didn't they just remove the question and the answer together like you stated is normal practice?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Questions and their responses were removed, but did they ever completely change the answer posed to a question to make a candidate seem more coherent?

They didn't completely change her answer and in fact they aired the rambling answer in the ad for the segment. If they wanted to protect her by editing they part out then why did they use that clip for the ad? You still haven't explained that.

How do you know that?

I don't know but I figure.

Not to get into whatabaoutism, but so did Trump's housing discrimination lawsuit but you guys still contend he was guilty. Your consistency is really in question here. As far as the merger being the reason, this is your opinion. It's not a bad one, honestly. It could be true. But you're saying it's "obvious" and treating it as fact. Even going as far as saying anybody who doesn't share your opinion isn't acting in "good faith." At this point, it appears you won't give any time to anything that contradicts what you want to be true about this and we're not going to come to an understanding.

It's very obvious that the reason Paramount settled was not because Trump's case had any merit because it doesn't. Whether they settled for the merger or just to avoid a costly lethal fight with a vindictive president they were clearly extorted.

There's more ways to shave time off an interview than changing a candidates answer completely. Why didn't they just remove the question and the answer together like you stated is normal practice?

I stated the opposite, that normal practice is to include as many questions and answers as possible. And I bet had they removed the question and answer entirely Trump would've sued for that as well and you'd be here justifying it. Personally I think the editing of Obama's Benghazi answer from the 2012 interview on the surface strikes me as far more egregious and even then I couldn't imagine someone successfully suing CBS for that.

 

[Confucamus]

They didn't completely change her answer and in fact they aired the rambling answer in the ad for the segment. If they wanted to protect her by editing they part out then why did they use that clip for the ad? You still haven't explained that.

I don't need to. Ads don't need to tell the whole story. Just enough to draw you in. You haven't explained why they'd use it for an ad but not the ACTUAL interview where people wanted to see Kamala's answers. Again, this existed in a context where Kamala was facing massive criticism for not taking any interviews with questions.

I don't know but I figure.

So, again presenting opinion as fact?

It's very obvious that the reason Paramount settled was not because Trump's case had any merit because it doesn't. Whether they settled for the merger or just to avoid a costly lethal fight with a vindictive president they were clearly extorted.

A multi billionaire extorting a company for $16 million? Believe what you want, brother. It's "obvious" to you because you want that to be the story. We can agree to disagree.

I stated the opposite, that normal practice is to include as many questions and answers as possible. And I bet had they removed the question and answer entirely Trump would've sued for that as well and you'd be here justifying it.

This doesn't make sense. A question AND a response being edited out of an aired interview is a bit different than editing in a different answer to the question asked.

Personally I think the editing of Obama's Benghazi answer from the 2012 interview on the surface strikes me as far more egregious and even then I couldn't imagine someone successfully suing CBS for that.

We'll never know because nobody tried.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I don't need to. Ads don't need to tell the whole story. Just enough to draw you in. You haven't explained why they'd use it for an ad but not the ACTUAL interview where people wanted to see Kamala's answers. Again, this existed in a context where Kamala was facing massive criticism for not taking any interviews with questions.

I have explained why, over and over again. They edit all their interviews for clarity and brevity and specifically to fit the time slot. 60 Minutes is not a podcast, the aired program is never an unedited interview.

So, again presenting opinion as fact?

I'm assuming and you've done nothing to make me rethink that assumption.

A multi billionaire extorting a company for $16 million? Believe what you want, brother. It's "obvious" to you because you want that to be the story. We can agree to disagree.

He's extorting them to punish them for publishing something he didn't like, that's what authoritarian leaders do. Same reason he's suing Ann Seltzer but let me guess, you also think that was "election interference" don't you?

This doesn't make sense. A question AND a response being edited out of an aired interview is a bit different than editing in a different answer to the question asked.

Wait, you think they edited in a different answer to the question asked? That's not what happened at all, they merely edited part of her answer out but they didn't substitute a different answer to the question asked.

We'll never know because nobody tried.

Nobody tried because it'd be completely baseless as pretty much every legal analyst whose examined the merits of the case.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

What indictment?

It's figurative language shit for brains.

 

[BFoe]

It's figurative language shit for brains.

I’m not trying to be pedantic, but it isn’t really figurative. An indictment has a meaning, and its meaning applies to criminal cases and not civil ones.

 

[Scott Stapp]

I had no idea you could sue for election interference in a civil court.