The following is a lightly edited transcript of the July 21 episode of the
Daily Blast podcast. Listen to it here.
Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.
By now you’ve heard that CBS has cancelled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. What makes this even more troubling is that it comes just after Paramount, which owns CBS, settled a lawsuit with President Trump by paying out $16 million in what many are describing as functionally a bribe. CBS denies that it ended Colbert’s show to curry favor with Trump, claiming it’s a purely financial decision, but the firing comes after Colbert himself called the settlement with Trump a “big fat bribe.” And now Trump just praised the decision to fire Colbert in a vile attack he unleashed on Colbert which claimed he has no talent and can’t measure up to the brilliant minds of Fox News. We’re talking about all this today with Michael Sozan, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who recently had a good piece spelling out the dangers of Paramount’s settlement with Trump. Michael, good to have you on.
Michael Sozan: Good to be on with you, Greg. Thanks.
Sargent: Let’s back up a bit and start with Paramount’s settlement with Trump. This came after Trump sued CBS, accusing it of deceptive editing. It was a preposterous claim, and many legal experts said CBS would have won if it had litigated—but Paramount settled instead. Can you walk us through why that itself is so disturbing?
Sozan: That case was the flimsiest of cases from the very beginning when Donald Trump brought it. You might remember he sued for $20 billion with a “B,” which was just insane from the beginning. And all the legal experts had said, Look, of course, news entities have the First Amendment right to edit interviews the way that they want to. And so from the beginning, that suit should have been laughed out of court. And actually, Paramount itself—its lawyers continued to argue in court documents that this was an absurd case that wasn’t founded in the law at all. And Trump kept on it day after day, demanding that there be some settlement. And the parties did enter into settlement negotiations. It was reported that Paramount’s board was really actually worried and was discussing whether a settlement could amount to bribery. So they knew that it was a risk. Their shareholders and others—First Amendment people—were arguing, telling them, Please do not settle. They ultimately did anyway, just a few weeks ago, for at least $16 million.
Sargent: And Paramount had other potential reasons for settling, right? Can you talk about that side of it?
Sozan: Exactly right. And this is why some people were raising this issue of potential bribery. So there was, on the one hand, this lawsuit that Trump had brought that we just discussed. Simultaneously, unfortunately for Paramount-CBS, they are trying to get a merger approved by the Federal Communications Commission. That’s the agency that oversees telecommunications, media entities and their licenses. And the FCC is now run by a very close ally of Donald Trump named Brendan Carr. Brendan Carr had slowed down the merger proceedings and had accused CBS perhaps of engaging in news distortion from when it edited the 60 Minutes interview. So things were ground to a halt over at the FCC. And Carr was trying to say that the Trump lawsuit was not related, but most people thought obviously it was. The heads of Paramount really wanted to get this merger done, and they clearly saw—at least it appears to most of us—that settling the unrelated lawsuit with Trump would be a way to unlock the merger and finally get it approved by the FCC.
Sargent: It sure looks like that was a consideration, and the fact that Paramount itself was sensitive to the perception that it was bribing Trump by settling the lawsuit doesn’t help matters. I want to fast forward now to CBS’s decision to end Colbert’s show. The context is inescapable. It comes after Paramount decided to hand over $16 million rather than fight Trump. Democrats have been sharply raising questions about the decision. Senator Bernie Sanders, who’s an independent who caucuses with Democrats, for instance, pointed out that Colbert criticized the settlement, then added this, “Days later, he’s fired. Do I think this is a coincidence? No.” Michael, where are you on that? Do you think CBS ended Colbert’s show to curry favor with Trump? Or was it because Colbert had pointed out why it was so unseemly for Paramount to have settled with Trump? Or some combination? What do you think?
Sozan: Greg, I think that this raises a lot of troubling questions. This is a really bad look for CBS, and it sure looks like their decision to cancel Colbert’s show could be the result of more political pressure and censorship from Trump and his team. The reporters, others who work over at CBS, producers have been troubled by Paramount’s capitulation to Trump for a while now. And you might remember that the executive producer of 60 Minutes, the most respected news program out there, resigned a few months ago because he said that the heads of CBS and Paramount were pressuring him to change the way that 60 Minutes reports about Trump. Also shortly after that, the president of CBS News herself resigned under similar circumstances.
Now we have Stephen Colbert who spoke up on his show [and] said this looked like a “big fat bribe,” and three days later—merely three days later—his show is being canceled. And of course, Paramount said this cancellation had nothing to do with any of these larger issues; it was purely a financial decision for the network. But I should point out that from what I’ve read, Stephen Colbert is actually the most viewed late-night host out there, and his show does very well compared to other networks. So in my mind, again, this raises a lot of troubling questions, and I can see why there are members of Congress and others who are jumping on this.
Sargent: Yeah, it’s really hard to see it as purely a financial decision. Into all this, Trump steps in and unleashes this vile attack on Colbert. I’m going to read it, “I absolutely love that Colbert’ got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. Has even less talent than Colbert! Greg Gutfeld is better than all of them combined, including the Moron on NBC who ruined the once great Tonight Show.” Michael, Trump doesn’t even pretend he’s making an actual judgment on Colbert. Colbert has criticized him, therefore he has no talent. The best TV host is the Fox guy who unfailingly praises him with North Korea–like obsequiousness. The shamelessness of it is almost impossible to even express in words. Your thought on it?
Sozan: Trump these days is feeling unshackled to say whatever he wants. He’s being unabashed when these firings happen, when censorship happens, or, in fact, when he’s able to get media entities to settle big lawsuits with him. He was recently asked about the 60 Minutes lawsuit that was settled by Paramount and the merger holdup, and the way he answered the question as if they were self-evidently connected.… So on June 18, a reporter asked him, “What was holding up the merger?” And he answered by praising the CEO of the company that was going to merge with Paramount and then immediately launched into his talking points that he had used before about the lawsuit. And he said flat out, They’re working on a settlement now. So he drew the linkage between the lawsuit and the merger. He was just asked about the merger. He wasn’t asked about the settlement. But he, in the same answer, put them together. And you know what, I think if I were his FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, I’d be really embarrassed and mortified about that. Carr himself has tried to keep those apart and separate for obvious reasons, and Trump lumped them right back together.
Sargent: So Michael, I think what you’re getting at is an important point that’s often overlooked in discussions of all this. Trump wants it to be understood that his pressure on the media is having an effect. He wants the direct link to be drawn. He wants that because he wants other media organizations and other would-be critics to fear pressure from him along these lines. He’s very explicit about it all in a way that, as you say, Brendan Carr probably wouldn’t want to be, but he isn’t just accidentally blurring this stuff out. The open and shameless nature of what Trump is doing is the thing. It’s deliberate. He wants these links to be drawn explicitly because he wants others in a position to criticize him or report aggressively on him to fear similar outcomes. Your thoughts on that?
Sozan: That’s exactly right. This is really one of the tools right out of the authoritarian playbook. This is something that authoritarians around the world do. They assail media companies [and] bully reporters into submission so that their own preferred narrative can be spread more easily and fewer people to stand up to them. Trump, interestingly, is more unabashed about it—just out in the open about it—than some leaders in other countries are. Some leaders have tried to do things a little more quietly under the surface. But Trump, I think, revels in being what he thinks is a winner and making the media companies into losers. And it helps him set his narrative that he’s a very powerful person.
And really, Greg, he’s been on a roll over the past several months when he’s been assailing the media companies. He got a big settlement out of ABC. He now has the Paramount-CBS settlement. He just led a successful fight to defund NPR and PBS. We can go on and on. He banned Associated Press from the White House briefing room. He’s now threatening to sue The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch, which really, as we know, Murdoch has been an ally. And we can even bring in further examples that have been going on for several months. So I think he feels he’s on a roll here, and there’s no reason for him to try to be quiet about it.
Sargent: It’s worth pointing out, in addition to that, that we’re only six months into the Trump administration and the pattern is already starting to become clear. Trump’s lawsuits and his threats and his use of the state against the media are clearly having an effect. As you pointed out, this is a standard tactic of some of the authoritarian regimes around the world. I would add to what you said that these regimes are things that Trump and his supporters openly admire already and have openly said is a model for their own regime.
Sozan: Remember when Hungary’s autocratic leader Viktor Orbán visited Trump at Mar-a-Lago? And they’ve had multiple meetings. Within the past couple of years, the conservative CPAC had one of its big events over in Hungary. They are shameless about the fact that they admire some of these authoritarian plays from around the world. And Orbán is a perfect example of somebody who has neutered the press in his own country and really been able to shape a narrative that’s allowed him to stay in power for many, many years. I wouldn’t be surprised if they continue—if Trump and Orban and other authoritarian-minded leaders trade tips behind the scenes. I’m sure their staffers are talking all the time. So that is one of the dynamics here, I would think.
Sargent: Michael, as bleak as this all looks, one could also look at it somewhat differently. The pattern is clear: Trump’s bullying and threats are having an effect, and what we’re seeing is awful and lamentable. Yet at the same time, I’m not sure we can say that the media is, in some broader institutional sense, actually getting cowed. The reporting is very robust and aggressive a lot of the time, as we just saw with The Wall Street Journal’s big report on Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. I think in some ways we’re seeing the limits of what Trump can do. And by the way, when he boasts about the firing of Colbert like that or draws those connections openly, it’s because he wants us to think he’s successfully shutting down critics. He wants to project authoritarian power and cow us all into fear and acquiescence. But maybe it’s not actually working for him in a broader sense. There’s a danger, I think, in fixating on some of these individual moments—as awful as they are—and deciding that it’s more representative than it actually is. It does his work for him. Is that crazy?
Sozan: It’s not crazy. I’m glad every day that there are fearless journalists like yourself who are out there doing great, important work to shine the light on government corruption and all the other unconstitutional things that are happening. I’m probably just a little less optimistic than you are right now. That’s only because we’ve seen capitulation from some of the most hallowed brands, some of the most hallowed media companies around, whether it’s ABC or CBS with 60 Minutes. I think that those capitulations send a signal to others.
Now, granted, there are lots of other reporters and media entities doing their great work day in and day out. But every time I see another settlement, or every time I see another Stephen Colbert being fired, I think it’s chipping away at the power and importance of the media in ways that are disturbing. I think you’re right that it’s too soon to draw any conclusions. And luckily, there are many outlets that are continuing to do objective, really good reporting that so many Americans depend on. But man, I just feel like these have been some really lamentable points along the way.
Sargent: No question about it. I just think that there’s a danger in doing his work for him and inflating his power. By all means, it’s absolutely a very disturbing pattern. The big picture, though, seems to me to be somewhat nuanced. All that terrible stuff’s happening, but the reporting is very aggressive. And his approval rating is going down, down, down, right? We’re seeing the polls getting worse and worse for him, including on his core issue. By the way, I should point out that there’s been incredibly aggressive reporting on Trump’s authoritarian immigration crackdowns. And I suspect that that’s going to get worse for Trump, too, now that he’s got all this money for ICE to turn it into his own personal gestapo or whatever. The reporting is going to get incredibly aggressive on that and tell some really intense stories. And Trump can tweet all he wants. He’s not going to be able to hold that back. Am I again being too optimistic?
Sozan: No, your points are well-taken. It makes me think of an important point that we’ve heard from experts in authoritarianism around the world and in the U.S. One of the most effective ways for civil society and the media and others to fight back against an authoritarian is to just keep continuing on with business as usual and almost minimize the authoritarian, to say, Look, we’re all going on with it. We’re standing strong. We’re doing our thing. We’re going to get through this. We’re even going to find moments of joy. Our country is going to be on the right track again. And that is powerful in setting a national psyche where the nation can overcome a bad chapter of authoritarianism. So your point is well-taken. I think, six months in, we’re still seeing how it’s all playing out.
Sargent: What’s funny about all this is that what we’re seeing out there is that standing up to Trump actually works better than capitulating to him. That’s been the story on one front after another. The law firms that capitulate to Trump are getting hammered in the press and their public images are taking a huge hit. The law firms that stand up to him actually are being treated as heroes and [are] winning their cases in court. I don’t understand why these media companies are capitulating in these lawsuits. It’s just inexplicable to me. It seems like they just don’t really think their brand’s going to take a hit. But if they were to stand up to Trump, I would think their brand would flourish. Am I wrong? The story of this moment is that he can be resisted, not that you have to capitulate to him.
Sozan: Totally agreed. The first lesson in dealing with a bully is not to cower to the bully because they’ll just come back and bully you again and again. I think we saw that with Columbia University, which has given into Trump and he just asks for more and more. The law firms, especially that you mentioned.… The law firms that stood up to him are doing just fine. Not only are they winning in court, they’re attracting new clients. They’re doing great, and their reputations are being enhanced. And I think what we’re seeing with these media companies is [short-sightedness]. They think that if they settle, they can get him off their back—[and that] his attention span is short and he’ll turn to another person, another media company to bully. But I don’t think that’s happening.
And this is why, coming back to the topic that we started with, Stephen Colbert, I think Trump wanted another pound of flesh from Paramount-CBS even after the settlement. The merger is still pending. I think that he somehow.… And again, I don’t know this. I’m not behind the scenes. But because he dislikes Colbert so much and Colbert has continued to talk about Trump day in and day out in not flattering ways, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump sent a signal that he needed Colbert’s scalp. And again, now Colbert is canceled. So this just weaves into the larger point that you’re making, which is it doesn’t pay to capitulate to Trump. He’s just going to come back for more. And if we in civil society, if our institutions, if our everyday Americans hang together in this moment, we can minimize Trump’s authoritarian tendencies and hopefully come out of this chapter ultimately stronger.
Sargent: We absolutely can. We really, really can. People, stay in this fight. It’s not over by any means. Trump is actually weaker than he looks. Don’t get too snowed by these big chest-pounding authoritarian displays. Michael Sozan, great pleasure to talk to you, man. Thanks for coming on.
Sozan: Thanks, Greg.