Trump sues CBS over Kamala Harris '60 Minutes' interview

[Claira]

WASHINGTON, Oct 31 (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump sued CBS on Thursday over an interview of his Democratic rival Kamala Harris aired on its "60 Minutes" news program in early October that the lawsuit alleged was and misleading, according to a court filing.

The complaint, filed in federal court in the Northern District of Texas, alleges that the network aired two different responses from Harris responding to a question about the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-sues-cbs-over-kamala-harris-interview-2024-10-31/

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

El Trumpo is suing … because they edited for brevity her interview. 
Matey, you take the sermonisation of nonsequtors to epochal levels. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

Depends, if they are actually taking answers from one question and then pasting them in to answer another question to misrepresent what they believe, that is very very dishonest. But from what I get, this seems to be a pretty standard practice from the left wing media to cut and paste answers to suit their narrative, so I don't know if doing so is actually illegal. I certainly hope it's illegal, but based on the complete lack of previous prosecutions when media personalities and/or institutions have done it, it sadly seems to be an acceptable media practice. 

[pellinore]

In 2016 those of us in Europe could have a wry laugh at the moron Trump being elected as POTUS. Not any more- he is a danger to everyone. The whole world will sign in relief if the idiot is consigned to ignominious history in just 5 days time.

[+susieice]

Trump is going to be filing a whole lot of lawsuits. That's just how it is.

[ExpandMyMind]

59 minutes ago, susieice said:

Trump is going to be filing a whole lot of lawsuits. That's just how it is.

Are you not completely exhausted by it all?

All he does is moan and b**** and insult and blame and sue. That's his entire personality.

I'm really hoping he just goes away forever. I can't take this crap all over my social media all the time.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 hour ago, pellinore said:

In 2016 those of us in Europe could have a wry laugh at the moron Trump being elected as POTUS. Not any more- he is a danger to everyone. The whole world will sign in relief if the idiot is consigned to ignominious history in just 5 days time.

I burst out laughing when I woke up to an HRC loss. Felt like I'd just entered Idiocracy.

It's not very funny anymore. 

[+Razman]

4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Are you not completely exhausted by it all?

All he does is moan and b**** and insult and blame and sue. That's his entire personality.

I'm really hoping he just goes away forever. I can't take this crap all over my social media all the time.

Edited October 31 by Razman

[+Razman]

1 hour ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Depends, if they are actually taking answers from one question and then pasting them in to answer another question to misrepresent what they believe, that is very very dishonest. But from what I get, this seems to be a pretty standard practice from the left wing media to cut and paste answers to suit their narrative, so I don't know if doing so is actually illegal. I certainly hope it's illegal, but based on the complete lack of previous prosecutions when media personalities and/or institutions have done it, it sadly seems to be an acceptable media practice. 

They do this for time constraint reasons , its been going on for years , Fox and others do it as well. Trump just bitches and complains louder.

fox edits trump interviews - Google Search

Edited October 31 by Razman

[+Razman]

If i was 60 minutes , i would right away counter sue him for 10 billion.

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, Razman said:

If i was 60 minutes , i would right away counter sue him for 10 billion.

"Former President Trump’s repeated claims against 60 Minutes are false," a CBS News spokesperson said. "The lawsuit Trump has brought today against CBS is completely without merit and we will vigorously defend against it."

 

Indeed, I honestly hope they successfully counter sue for double that. 

I don't think that's what it's about though. The race is crazy tight according to polls and this is the sort of poor me persecuted Trump tactic he uses to wind up stupid people into screaming about witchhunts again.

I'd say it's an attention getting strategy to try to get some poor me votes at the last second. Free publicity. Stupid people will fall for it. 

[Hankenhunter]

Well, there's another batch of lawyers that aren't going to get paid again.

[+Link of Hyrule]

37 minutes ago, Razman said:

They do this for time constraint reasons , its been going on for years , Fox and others do it as well. Trump just bitches and complains louder.

fox edits trump interviews - Google Search

Editing answers for time brevity is one thing, cutting the interview so badly that they use different questions and then paste your reply as if you were responding to that question when you were replying to a different question altogether. For example, a few years ago after the Christchurch massacre, Australian comedian Jim Jeffries aired an interview with right winger Avi Yemini. Not only did they air the footage in response to the Christchurch shooting, when the interview had been filmed months before, but they also cut his answers from one answer and put it in as a response to another answer (the article claims Yemini didn't release the footage where he actually said it, but he did - it was just on Yemini's patreon subscribers so you had to pay money to access what the original said. I donated to Yemini as a way to access the video, the actual quote that was quoted was in context of an entirely different question, when Jeffries asked him "if you were a border agent, and you heard a heartbreaking story about a refugee family who made it to your checkpoint after escaping all sorts of violence, would you let them through", and his response was "Honestly, if it was just me I probably would, but that's not how it works. It's nice to think that we can help as many people as possible, but if I made an exception in this one case and every other border agent also made similar exceptions then we will have a flood of new migrants coming in - when we import this culture..." and this is where the quote came from. Totally different response, deceptively edited to make Yemini appear to be a bigot attacking Islam in the wake of the Christchurch massacre. Wouldn't it have been a much better interview if, when asked "what gives anyone the right to tell someone when and where they can't live", to which he responded, "borders and governments". 

If that is allowed in journalism, I imagine it wouldn't be overly crazy to totally upheave a section of quote and add it to a different question. But if this was just an edited answer (rather than a wholesale copy-paste job), then it's a different issue to the one that I raised. 

[+Razman]

7 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Editing answers for time brevity is one thing, cutting the interview so badly that they use different questions and then paste your reply as if you were responding to that question when you were replying to a different question altogether. For example, a few years ago after the Christchurch massacre, Australian comedian Jim Jeffries aired an interview with right winger Avi Yemini. Not only did they air the footage in response to the Christchurch shooting, when the interview had been filmed months before, but they also cut his answers from one answer and put it in as a response to another answer (the article claims Yemini didn't release the footage where he actually said it, but he did - it was just on Yemini's patreon subscribers so you had to pay money to access what the original said. I donated to Yemini as a way to access the video, the actual quote that was quoted was in context of an entirely different question, when Jeffries asked him "if you were a border agent, and you heard a heartbreaking story about a refugee family who made it to your checkpoint after escaping all sorts of violence, would you let them through", and his response was "Honestly, if it was just me I probably would, but that's not how it works. It's nice to think that we can help as many people as possible, but if I made an exception in this one case and every other border agent also made similar exceptions then we will have a flood of new migrants coming in - when we import this culture..." and this is where the quote came from. Totally different response, deceptively edited to make Yemini appear to be a bigot attacking Islam in the wake of the Christchurch massacre. Wouldn't it have been a much better interview if, when asked "what gives anyone the right to tell someone when and where they can't live", to which he responded, "borders and governments". 

If that is allowed in journalism, I imagine it wouldn't be overly crazy to totally upheave a section of quote and add it to a different question. But if this was just an edited answer (rather than a wholesale copy-paste job), then it's a different issue to the one that I raised. 

Did you check out any of the edits Fox did for Trump? Makes the Harris one look tame.

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, susieice said:

Trump is going to be filing a whole lot of lawsuits. That's just how it is.

The bureaucracy in DC sued him every time he tried to make a decision, even those within his power for executive orders.  Sauce for the goose, eh?

[+Link of Hyrule]

21 minutes ago, Razman said:

Did you check out any of the edits Fox did for Trump? Makes the Harris one look tame.

I haven't seen any edits for Trump or Harris, I'm just making a general response to the concept of editing answers and under what circumstances it would cross boundaries. If this is just editing quotes for brevity, I've got nothing against that kind of edit. If they're taking answers from one question and applying it to other questions, then I have issues, and that DOES go for Trump too, if someone's switching his answers or changing entire questions to make him appear better (or worse) then that is wrong. 

I'm not certain which is which in this case, but it should be illegal and up for prosecution if that happens. Trump or Harris doesn't matter.  But as it happens semi frequently without prosecution I don't know what the law specifically says. 

Edited November 1 by Link of Hyrule

[+susieice]

27 minutes ago, and-then said:

The bureaucracy in DC sued him every time he tried to make a decision, even those within his power for executive orders.  Sauce for the goose, eh?

Sounds like he'll be getting sued some more.

[+susieice]

16 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I'm not certain which is which in this case, but it should be illegal and up for prosecution if that happens. Trump or Harris doesn't matter.  But as it happens semi frequently without prosecution I don't know what the law specifically says. 

I wonder if anyone does or cares. It's just whatever people want to scream and demand to be believed.

[ExpandMyMind]

32 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I haven't seen any edits for Trump or Harris, I'm just making a general response to the concept of editing answers and under what circumstances it would cross boundaries. If this is just editing quotes for brevity, I've got nothing against that kind of edit. If they're taking answers from one question and applying it to other questions, then I have issues, and that DOES go for Trump too, if someone's switching his answers or changing entire questions to make him appear better (or worse) then that is wrong. 

I'm not certain which is which in this case, but it should be illegal and up for prosecution if that happens. Trump or Harris doesn't matter.  But as it happens semi frequently without prosecution I don't know what the law specifically says. 

Unfortunately, The Fairness Doctrine was abolished by Republicans like 40 years ago or something, so there is nothing illegal happening.

Basically, Republicans made the media in the US what it is today. Before the Fairness Doctrine was abolished, there was true debate and each side was required by law to have an equal opportunity to put forth their argument. You had actual news and debate instead of pure propaganda.

Fox has even argued in court that they're not a news organisation in situations with talking heads (like 60 minutes type interviews and shows) and are instead entertainment, and that no one would or should take what they say as fact.

Keep voting for Republicans though. I'm sure they'll make something in the US better eventually.

Also, I think Raz posted a link to the edits made for Trump. They basically edited out most of his incoherent rambling and conspiracy theories, from what I read about it.

What was it 60 minutes was supposed to.habe done?

Edited November 1 by ExpandMyMind

[+Razman]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

What was it 60 minutes was supposed to.habe done?

As far as i know they shortened one of her answers. In actuality they were sharing some of the interview with one of their affiliates( Face the Nation ), and gave them a longer version of one of her answers , but between their edit and the other part of it they gave to their affiliate , it was the entire answer. I think. They did not release the full transcript which Trump demanded.   I mean to me , it didn't seem like that big a deal as he is making it , but i am not running for an office either , i think Trump is pretty unhinged these days (if he dont win , he could be in a lot of trouble). The statement below is from CBS , but if you want to know more we can go right to the lions mouth at Fox. Careful there though , as far right as they are it could be embellished. If you look past the actual complaint , it says in short , what was asked and said.

“Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response,” the “60 Minutes” statement reads. “When we edit any interview, whether a politician, an athlete, or movie star, we strive to be clear, accurate and on point. The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21-minute-long segment.”

Trump sues CBS News for $10 billion alleging 'deceptive doctoring' of Harris' '60 Minutes' interview | Fox News

 

Edited November 1 by Razman

[+Razman]

Longer Harris answer--- I mean , in any case , it's seems that everything she said is known. At least to that answer.It seems they gave the longer answer to Face the nation. I believe , its a bit confusing.

Harris gave a rare sit-down interview on CBS’ "60 Minutes" Sunday, where Bill Whitaker asked whether the U.S. has any "sway" over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the war against Hamas continues. Monday marks one year since the brutal terrorist attack on Israel that sparked the war in Gaza.

"The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles that were just meant to attack the Israelis and the people of Israel. And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents, Iran, I think that it is without any question, our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks," Harris responded.

 

She continued, "Now the work we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles, which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages and create a cease-fire. And we’re not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel and in the region, including Arab leaders."

Edited November 1 by Razman

[Will Due]

[psyche101]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Unfortunately, The Fairness Doctrine was abolished by Republicans like 40 years ago or something, so there is nothing illegal happening.

Basically, Republicans made the media in the US what it is today. Before the Fairness Doctrine was abolished, there was true debate and each side was required by law to have an equal opportunity to put forth their argument. You had actual news and debate instead of pure propaganda.

Ah, blame the Republicans  

 

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Fox has even argued in court that they're not a news organisation in situations with talking heads (like 60 minutes type interviews and shows) and are instead entertainment, and that no one would or should take what they say as fact.

You forgot to address the fact that the lawyers watching along as Tucker Carlson/Fox News made the argument that no one should take their word as fact were calling Tucker's argument the "Maddow Defence" because a year before Tucker won his case, Rachel Maddow was taken to court by OAN for calling them "literally paid Russian propaganda", turns out the judge sided with Maddow, so if Tucker won it was only because Maddow paved the way for it to happen first - Carlson was just using the "Maddow Defence" (the judge in both cases even used virtually identical wording - reasonable viewers would recognise that Maddow/Carlson host segments that include opinion pieces). But check the headline - isn't it interesting that basically every single news article written about Tucker Carlson framed the decision in terms of "judge declares viewers don't turn to Tucker Carlson for facts" (eg, NRP source, Business Insider Source) when the legal justification for Rachel Maddow was virtually identical and yet the headlines virtually all frame the story as "Rachel Maddow wins defamation suit" (see Deadline source above, or Axios Source, or virtually any news network covering it). 

This is why no one trusts the media, thanks for bringing it up to compare  

 

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Keep voting for Republicans though. I'm sure they'll make something in the US better eventually.

Also, I think Raz posted a link to the edits made for Trump. They basically edited out most of his incoherent rambling and conspiracy theories, from what I read about it.

What was it 60 minutes was supposed to.habe done?

I haven't seen the edits in either video, as said I am making general statements about the value of editing - if this was just removing lines for the sake of brevity, I have zero issue with either party having such done to them. If they answer one question and then have their answer uplifted and transplanted into a different question altogether then I have an issue with that. The article from the OP wasn't absolutely clear on this, and since I really don't care enough either way about it, I just offered some general principles under which I would determine whether it was an appropriate or inappropriate edit. 

Edited November 1 by Link of Hyrule

[+Razman]

Odd thing , some have called her answer word salad (longer answer), but to me it seems like the Longer answer from Harris was a pretty good answer in general. I mean , i don't see anything really off about it.