CNN’s Brian Stelter touted that CBS lawyers sent a “blunt letter” on Wednesday to Trump’s legal counsel Edward Paltzik, refusing to bend to public demands for the release of a full transcript of its sneakily edited Kamala Harris interview with Bill Whitaker on 60 Minutes.
CBS News senior vice president for legal affairs Gayle Sproul insisted the First Amendment “fiercely protects” their work on 60 Minutes. Sure, but that included Dan Rather’s freedom to use phony documents in an attempt to smear George W. Bush in 2004. Today it applies to CBS deciding to lead its evening newscast with anonymously sourced smears of Donald Trump.
“For that reason,” Sproul argued, Trump has no legal basis to sue, “and I note that you do not identify one,” Sproul wrote. “Nor is there any legal basis for your demand that we provide you with the unedited transcript of the interview, which we decline to do.”
In a two-page response obtained by CNN, Sproul wrote that Paltzik’s letter was “based on the faulty premise that 60 Minutes distorted its interview” with Harris “in order to present her in a positive light.” Banish the thought!
The CBS lawyer claimed “the interview was not doctored” and the newsmagazine “did not hide any part of the Vice President’s answer to the question at issue.” That’s not entirely true, since the word-salad portion shown on Face the Nation was hidden from viewers of the Monday night election special.
Sproul also cited case law and insisted there was nothing special in this latest interview. “Editing is a necessity for all broadcasters to enable them to present the news in the time available, and that is what 60 Minutes did here, as it does with its other reports,” she wrote.
Stelter sympathized with CBS not wanting to bend to Trump: “From the network’s point of view, caving to Trump’s demands to see the unedited interview transcript would break with precedent, suggesting that a powerful politician can bully a news organization into doing whatever he wants.”
Stelter complained in his “Reliable Sources” newsletter that “In an environment of low-to-no trust in institutions, even routine editing decisions are ripe for exploitation and conspiratorial renderings. That's what happened to CBS News this month.”
