TERRY GROSS, HOST:
That is FRESH AIR. I am Terry Gross. Jimmy Kimmel and his present “Jimmy Kimmel Dwell!” returned to ABC final evening after he was suspended indefinitely per week in the past. The story of his suspension and return has implications past Kimmel, pertaining to conglomerate possession of broadcast networks and information publications, the First Modification and freedom of the press, the FCC and President Trump. Right here to speak concerning the bigger story are Marty Baron and Adam Liptak.
Baron was the editor of The Washington Submit from 2013 till his retirement in 2021. Throughout most of his tenure, The Submit was owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Baron’s memoir about that point is titled “Collision Of Energy: Trump, Bezos, And The Washington Submit.” He was beforehand the editor of The Boston Globe. Within the film “Highlight,” a drama primarily based on The Globe’s investigation, revealing sexual abuse throughout the Catholic Church, Baron was portrayed by Liev Schreiber.
Adam Liptak covers the courts and authorized points for The New York Instances. Earlier than becoming a member of the Instances’ information employees, he practiced legislation for 14 years, concentrating on First Modification points, together with in The New York Instances Firm’s company authorized division. Let’s begin with a clip from Jimmy Kimmel’s monologue final evening.
(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, “JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE!”)
JIMMY KIMMEL: I have been listening to quite a bit about what I have to say and do tonight, and the reality is, I do not assume what I’ve to say goes to make a lot of a distinction. In the event you like me, you want me. In the event you do not, you do not. I’ve no illusions about altering anybody’s thoughts. However I do need to make one thing clear as a result of it is vital to me as a human, and that’s you perceive that it was by no means my intention to make mild of the homicide (crying) of a younger man. I do not…
(APPLAUSE)
KIMMEL: …I do not assume there’s something humorous about it. I posted a message on Instagram on the day he was killed, sending like to his household and asking for compassion, and I meant it. And I nonetheless do. Nor was it my intention in charge any particular group for the actions of what – it was clearly a deeply disturbed particular person. That was actually the alternative of the purpose I used to be attempting to make. However I perceive that to some that felt both ill-timed or unclear, or possibly each.
And for individuals who assume I did level a finger, I get why you are upset. If the scenario was reversed, there is a good probability I might have felt the identical method. I’ve many family and friends members on the opposite aspect who I like and stay near, though we do not agree on politics in any respect. I do not assume the assassin who shot Charlie Kirk represents anybody. This was a sick one that believed violence was an answer, and it is not. It – ever. And in addition selfishly…
(APPLAUSE)
KIMMEL: …I’m an individual who will get quite a lot of threats. I get many ugly and scary threats towards my life, my spouse, my children, my coworkers due to what I select to say. And I do know these threats do not come from the type of individuals on the best who I do know and love. So that is what I wished to say on that topic. However I do not need to make this about me as a result of – and I do know that is what individuals say after they make issues about them.
(LAUGHTER)
KIMMEL: However I actually do not. This present is just not vital. What’s vital is that we get to dwell in a rustic that permits us to have a present like this.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: Woo.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: Yeah.
(CHEERING)
KIMMEL: I’ve had the chance to fulfill and spend time with comedians and discuss present hosts from nations like Russia, nations within the Center East, who inform me they might get thrown in jail for making enjoyable of these in energy, and worse than being thrown in jail. They understand how fortunate we’re right here. Our freedom to talk is what they admire most about this nation. And that is one thing I am embarrassed to say I took with no consideration till they pulled my good friend Stephen off the air and tried to coerce the associates who run our present within the cities that you simply dwell in to take my showcase the air. That is not authorized. That is not American. That’s un-American. And it’s so harmful.
(CHEERING)
GROSS: All proper, in order that was an excerpt of final evening’s monologue by Jimmy Kimmel. Kimmel went on to reward Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, for forgiving her husband’s murderer. And he added whereas tearing up…
(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, “JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE!”)
KIMMEL: There it was. That is it, a selfless act of grace, forgiveness from a grieving widow. (Crying) And it touched me deeply. And I hope it…
(APPLAUSE)
KIMMEL: …It touches many. And if there’s something we must always take from this tragedy to hold ahead, I hope it may be that, and never this.
GROSS: So, Marty Baron, Adam Liptak, welcome to FRESH AIR. What was your response to final evening’s monologue?
MARTY BARON: Nicely, it was very shifting, very emotional and, I feel, very efficient. I actually assume that this might find yourself being a very vital second within the historical past of the nation. And , I feel again to the Fifties, really. It recalled for me the Military-McCarthy hearings in 1954, when Joseph Welch was representing the U.S. Military. He advised Senator Joseph McCarthy, have you ever no decency, sir? And that actually proved to be a turning level when the nation turned towards McCarthy and his extremely malicious habits.
So, , now we dwell in a time the place – period the place performative habits is rewarded. It is all about spectacle. You recognize, we have now a president who actually revels in showmanship. So possibly what we’d like is a distinct spectacle on this occasion, from an entertainer like Jimmy Kimmel, actually, as a counterweight, as a corrective, as a result of the usual types of argument simply aren’t as efficient as they as soon as have been. So I believed it was extremely efficient and efficient in a method that conventional debate hasn’t been.
GROSS: Adam Liptak, what are your ideas?
ADAM LIPTAK: I agree with Marty. It was, amongst different issues, a sturdy protection of free speech within the sense that you do not have to agree with what Jimmy Kimmel was saying, though it is laborious to disagree with a lot of what he stated as a result of it was so shifting. However what free speech requires is that you simply hear him out and also you think about it, and you do not attempt to stifle it or censor it. That stated, my viewing of this was a bit irritating as a result of I dwell in Washington, D.C., and I discovered final evening, as I attempted to observe Jimmy Kimmel, that the native ABC affiliate is owned by Sinclair, and so they had chosen to not air it. And whereas it appeared on YouTube quickly sufficient, this isn’t an unalloyed victory. In a lot of the nation, Kimmel stays unavailable, and this combat is just not over.
GROSS: Yeah. I feel that between Sinclair and Nexstar, they personal about 20% of the ABC associates.
BARON: Yeah, I feel they…
GROSS: They personal 70 stations, and I feel it is like 20% of…
BARON: …Households.
GROSS: Of households, yeah. That is quite a bit. And a few of it’s in school cities in upstate New York and in California. And, in fact, Washington, I imply, the argument that they have been making is their listeners do not need to hear this. It isn’t within the public curiosity. Nicely, in Washington, D.C., Adam Liptak needs to see it. You recognize, lots of people in Washington, D.C. would need to see it. So that they’re depriving individuals of what they need to see versus serving to them.
BARON: I feel that is true, and it will be – worsen if Nexstar is ready to undergo with its merger with Tegna. Tegna owns 13 associates of ABC. And so once you add Nexstar and Sinclair and Tegna, you are speaking a couple of actually substantial portion of the stations which might be owned by ABC and quite a lot of households on this nation, together with in locations the place they definitively wish to see this present.
LIPTAK: And so they’re working, it appears like, towards their financial self-interests. Definitely, this present will get astounding rankings. However President Trump, Terry, is just not backing down. He is doubling down. Simply earlier than Kimmel went on, he posted on social media that he thinks this might be one other profitable alternative for him, that he is collected $16 million within the settlement of a libel swimsuit from ABC, and he instructed that he needs to go after Kimmel now. So this isn’t over.
GROSS: I need to quote one thing that Brian Stelter, who’s CNN’s chief media correspondent, wrote in his publication about Nexstar and Sinclair, the 2 broadcast house owners that aren’t broadcasting Kimmel. Stelter wrote, (studying) these station house owners, Nexstar and Sinclair, have positioned themselves as Trump administration allies, main public curiosity teams to boost issues concerning the objectivity of the information protection coming from these stations. A prime Sinclair government famously advised Trump again in 2016, we’re right here to ship your message.
Is there something you may say concerning the political positions or editorial insurance policies of these two station house owners and the way which will determine into their selections to, for now, cancel broadcasts of Kimmel?
LIPTAK: One distinction that is price making is that the First Modification applies to the federal government, and the federal government cannot censor individuals. Personal firms could make good selections or dangerous selections about what they select to air or not. And that could be a severe coverage and cultural and political query, however it’s not a First Modification query.
GROSS: So this story can be a enterprise story. Disney and Nexstar have enterprise pursuits that must be accredited by the Trump administration. Disney, which additionally owns ESPN or merged with ESPN, they’re attempting to broaden their soccer protection, and so they’re planning to launch a brand new ESPN streaming platform that would not require having cable. They’ve a deal to amass the NFL’s RedZone model, however that must be accredited from – by the Justice Division and the Federal Commerce Fee. So when it comes to their enterprise offers, they should get approval and, , is perhaps involved about alienating the Trump administration. After which Nexstar is attempting to purchase Tegna, which is a rival firm that owns TV stations. It is a $6.2 billion deal, and that requires FCC approval. So do you need to discuss concerning the age of conglomerate-owned media and the generally conflicting wants throughout the conglomerate itself?
BARON: Look, I imply, I feel it is a matter. I feel possession is a matter. It is positively some extent of vulnerability for media firms and for the power of journalists to do their jobs. Many of those firms have pursuits earlier than the federal authorities. They fear that these pursuits will probably be put in jeopardy in the event that they alienate Donald Trump. And so it is a massive concern.
However there is no such thing as a good type of possession, ? I imply, you might have really a reasonably fragmented media atmosphere proper now with quite a lot of influencers and YouTubers and other people like that far and wide. In lots of situations, they’ve their very own conflicts of curiosity. They might be aligned with political events, with the president or towards the president. A few of them, it has been reported, are receiving precise funds so as to air – I exploit that phrase air – however to disseminate sure opinions and even present any kind of protection. So there is no such thing as a good type of possession.
There’s the company possession that we talked about. That is regarding. You used to have, , enterprise magnates, and you continue to do, who personal media shops. The Washington Submit is a type of. They’ve their very own pursuits. Personal fairness is an issue. They deal with these media shops like an annuity and attempt to extract as a lot money as shortly as doable from them with little concern for his or her future. And look, nonprofits are an rising type of possession as properly. Then again, they’ve to show primarily to rich philanthropists to maintain themselves and to foundations which have their very own causes that they are attempting to advance. So there is no such thing as a good type of possession.
However proper now there’s a massive concern, I feel, concerning the conglomerate possession and the possession by people who’ve industrial pursuits which might be in entrance of the federal authorities. And so they concern that the federal authorities underneath Donald Trump is not going to approve their contracts, is not going to approve their mergers in the event that they alienate him, in the event that they help anybody who’s vital of Donald Trump.
GROSS: Nicely, let’s take a break right here. In the event you’re simply becoming a member of us, my friends are Marty Baron, former editor of The Washington Submit, and Adam Liptak, who covers the courts and authorized points for The New York Instances. We’ll be proper again. That is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF LOUIS SCLAVIS’ “FETE FORAINE”)
GROSS: That is FRESH AIR. Let’s get again to my interview with Marty Baron, former editor of The Washington Submit who’s now on the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Adam Liptak, who covers the courts and authorized points for The New York Instances. We’re speaking about Jimmy Kimmel’s monologue final evening and about bigger points pertaining to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
So yesterday, when President Trump spoke earlier than the U.N., he talked about free speech, and he referred to the upcoming 250th anniversary of the founding of the U.S. And he stated, in honor of this momentous anniversary, I hope that each one nations who discover inspiration in our instance will be a part of us in renewing our dedication, values and people values actually that we maintain so pricey. Allow us to defend free speech and free expression.
It is ironic that (laughter) that coincides with what we’re speaking about – , TV stations that refuse proper now to broadcast Jimmy Kimmel.
BARON: That is so hypocritical on his half. He talks about free speech, however he would not really consider in free speech. And all of his insurance policies are opposite to free speech or so a lot of his insurance policies are opposite to free speech. He is practiced censorship, and it isn’t only for the press and for late-night entertainers. And I actually appreciated Jimmy Kimmel mentioning the free press final evening as a result of he is completely proper that that challenge has not gotten sufficient consideration. You recognize, Trump’s been going after the press since he launched his marketing campaign for the presidency in 2015, and he hasn’t stopped. He is denigrated. He is demonized. He is really dehumanized the press 1000’s of occasions. And he is attempting to extinguish an impartial press on this nation.
And actually, the press was the canary within the coal mine. The menace to the free press, it was actually an omen of a menace to free speech by all people – by unusual people, by legal professionals, by scientists, students, college students – , all people. You recognize, the press is commonly the primary goal of leaders who aspire to authoritarian powers, and I feel that is been the case with Trump. And so it is extraordinary that – in his U.N. speech, that he would endorse the thought of free speech as a result of his insurance policies will not be consistent with the thought of free speech.
LIPTAK: And, , Terry, the passage you learn, it would not sound like Donald Trump. That’s one thing a speechwriter wrote on a teleprompter that he managed to learn, however it’s at odds with what he says in unguarded moments. And he would not appear to know – in contrast to Brendan Carr, the FCC chairman who at the least tries to, , veil the menace – the Trump menace is unveiled. And we have now this phenomenon now of a sitting president of america suing information organizations for libel. And we have kind of gotten used to that, like that is a standard factor. However that is a preposterous factor. The chief of america thinks that somewhat than reply to speech together with his personal set of causes and insurance policies and, , engagement in debate, his method is to file libel fits. Are you able to think about, , earlier presidents doing that? It is a completely different period fully.
GROSS: Adam, you had paraphrased what Trump wrote on Reality Social, his social media platform, so let me learn it. He wrote, I am unable to consider ABC Faux Information gave Jimmy Kimmel his job again. The White Home was advised by ABC that his present was canceled. One thing occurred between then and now as a result of his viewers is gone – in capital letters – and his expertise – in quotes – was by no means there. Why would they need any person again who does so poorly, who’s not humorous and who places the community in jeopardy by enjoying 90% constructive Democrat rubbish? He is yet one more arm of the DNC, and to the perfect of my data, that may be a significant unlawful marketing campaign contribution. I feel we will take a look at ABC out on this. Let’s examine how we do. Final time I went after them, they gave me $16 million. This one sounds much more profitable. A real bunch of losers. Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his dangerous rankings.
Adam, do you need to break down what you make of that?
LIPTAK: I imply, each a part of it’s disturbing and unseemly. The notion that he can sue Kimmel – for what? For a joke? And this concept that political commentary is a marketing campaign contribution is, , fully at odds with the legislation. It is laborious to know what to make of it, besides that it is kind of an incoherent rant.
GROSS: However it says that this story is not over.
LIPTAK: Oh, I…
GROSS: That, , victory has not been received by Jimmy Kimmel simply ‘trigger he is again on the air. That is a really partial victory for him if Trump intends to go after him or ABC and sue for much more cash than $16 million.
LIPTAK: Sure. I imply, Trump is at conflict with not solely the press however even with comedians who make jokes at his expense. I imply, it is past unseemly, and it is wholly at odds with the American conception of free speech.
GROSS: So I need to point out on this context that Brendan Carr wrote the chapter in The Heritage Basis’s 2025 challenge, which has turn out to be a blueprint for the Trump administration – he wrote the chapter on the FCC. Do you might have any remark about the truth that he was chosen to put in writing this conservative blueprint?
BARON: Nicely, I feel he is simply following the playbook that he himself wrote. We will see that enjoying out now. And he…
GROSS: Following the playbook…
BARON: I imply…
GROSS: …That he put in Challenge 2025?
BARON: Yeah, completely. He wrote it, and now he is placing it into apply. And these are, with out query, authoritarian measures – I imply, that he’ll determine what’s honest. He’ll determine what commentary is permitted. He’ll determine what protection is supposedly biased. And clearly, he’ll recommend bias on the a part of something that is vital of Donald Trump, versus something that is vital of the Democrats. That is going to be the – his goal goes to be something that is vital of Donald Trump. This isn’t his function, and it is yet one more step towards authoritarianism.
GROSS: In the event you’re simply becoming a member of us, my friends are Marty Baron, former editor of The Washington Submit, who’s now on the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Adam Liptak, who covers the courts and authorized points for The New York Instances. He beforehand labored as a lawyer representing The Instances. We’ll discuss extra about freedom of the press and different First Modification points throughout President Trump’s second time period after a break. I am Terry Gross, and that is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF TED NASH’S “WATER IN CUPPED HANDS (AUNG SAN SUU KYI)”)
GROSS: That is FRESH AIR. Let’s get again to my interview with Marty Baron and Adam Liptak. Baron is the previous editor of The Washington Submit and is now on the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Adam Liptak covers the courts for The New York Instances. He is additionally a lawyer who beforehand represented the Instances. We’re speaking concerning the First Modification and freedom of the press and what they imply now in President Trump’s second time period.
So now that we all know what Jimmy Kimmel needed to say on his present, let’s discuss concerning the FCC’s function on this story. And I need to begin with two clips from FCC commissioner. Now, he is the chair of the Federal Communications Fee. And first, I need to play what he needed to say after the Kimmel broadcast that created all this controversy. So here is Brendan Carr.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
BRENDAN CARR: I have been very clear from the second that I’ve turn out to be chairman of the FCC, I need to reinvigorate the general public curiosity. And what individuals do not perceive is that the broadcasters – and you’ve got gotten this proper – are fully completely different than those that use different types of communication. They’ve a license granted by us on the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to function within the public curiosity. And we are able to get into some ways in which we have been attempting to reinvigorate the general public curiosity and a few modifications that we have seen. However frankly, once you see stuff like this, I imply, look, we are able to do that the straightforward method or the laborious method. These firms can discover methods to alter conduct, to take motion, frankly, on Kimmel, or, , there’s going to be further work for the FCC forward.
GROSS: In order that was the chair of the FCC, Brendan Carr. He was chatting with Benny Johnson. Benny Johnson is a right-wing podcaster. So let’s hear what he needed to say Monday. And this was on the Concordia Annual Summit in New York Metropolis.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
CARR: What occurs on the FCC is when you might have a broadcast license, there’s situations. There is a public curiosity commonplace, which implies it’s a must to function according to the general public curiosity. And one of many issues that the FC has in our case legislation and our precedent is this idea of a information distortion criticism. And what I spoke about final week was that when issues are raised about information distortion, there is a method – there’s a simple method for events to deal with that and work that out. And in the principle, that takes place between native tv stations which might be licensed by the FCC and what we name nationwide programmers like Disney. They work that out, and there would not must be any involvement of the FCC.
Now, if they do not, there is a method that is not as simple, which is somebody can file a criticism on the FCC. After which the FCC, by legislation, as arrange by Congress, has to adjudicate that criticism. And what I have been very clear within the context of the Kimmel episode is the FCC, and myself particularly, have expressed no view on the final word deserves, had one thing like that been filed, what our take can be by some means.
GROSS: OK. So within the first clip, he was speaking about altering Jimmy Kimmel’s conduct. He was speaking about Kimmel’s conduct on the present. And within the second clip, he is saying, I used to be simply referring to, like, the method that the FCC goes by. You would work it out amongst, , Kimmel and Disney, or you may do it the laborious method and work it out by the FCC. And he was speaking about information distortion. So how do you interpret these two separate clips? And do you see him as simply clarifying what he needed to say? ‘Trigger he stated that Democrats had distorted what he was saying the primary time round. So do you see this as a clarification or as a strolling again?
BARON: Nicely, I feel it is actually neither. I feel what he stated firstly was clearly a menace. I feel it is also vital to do not forget that – how Trump was in a position to extract a settlement from Paramount when it was attempting to execute its merger with Skydance. Paramount, in fact, was the proprietor of CBS, and now Skydance is. However underneath that situation, Trump had sued CBS underneath the Texas legislation usually utilized to false promoting, and he was in search of this sum of $20 billion – an absurd sum – over how “60 Minutes” had ended at a marketing campaign interview with Kamala Harris.
And what occurred then was that at about the identical time, a conservative group filed a criticism with the FCC alleging information distortion alongside the exact same traces that Trump alleged in his personal litigation. And so what Carr did in these circumstances was that he stated that he’d take up that criticism by the conservative group – he’d take that into consideration in deciding whether or not to approve the Paramount-Skydance merger. And in that method, he was in a position to say he wasn’t responding to Trump’s lawsuit. He wasn’t engaged on behalf of Trump. He was merely responding to a criticism from this conservative group. However it’s not tough to think about that there is some stage of coordination or at the least like-minded considering that these items are all taking place on the identical time, and it provides Carr deniability that he is actually responding to strain from Donald Trump. And it permits him to say, I am simply responding to a criticism that was filed with the FCC underneath the conventional guidelines.
LIPTAK: There’s a line of Supreme Court docket precedent right here that is fairly related that claims the federal government and the president has a bully pulpit and is permitted to attempt to persuade those that its insurance policies are the best ones. However what it isn’t permitted to do is to make use of coercion backed by threats that the federal government, by regulation or in any other case, will punish you if you happen to do not do what it needs. And these Carr statements at the least bump up subsequent to that line.
The Supreme Court docket in 1963 in a case known as Bantam Books stated {that a} Rhode Island fee involved about indecent books couldn’t lean on a guide distributor and say, , you would be higher off. We would hate to refer you to a prosecutor. If – you would possibly need to blacklist the next books. And the Supreme Court docket says that violates the First Modification, that leaning on an middleman to attempt to suppress the speech of any person else violates the First Modification. And simply final yr, and unanimously, the Supreme Court docket stated that the NRA’s free speech rights have been jeopardized when a New York insurance coverage commissioner after the Parkland college taking pictures urged insurance coverage firms to not do enterprise with the NRA. And the Supreme Court docket once more says, that type of coercion, that use of regulatory energy, somewhat than persuasion, coercion, violates the First Modification. And that maps onto fairly plainly what we’re seeing right here.
GROSS: So the Pentagon has introduced a brand new coverage that if you’re a Pentagon reporter, it’s a must to take a pledge. Marty, do you need to describe what the pledge is?
BARON: Nicely, primarily, the pledge is that anyone who’s protecting the Pentagon has to pledge which might be – they won’t acquire or distribute – disseminate any info that wasn’t formally launched by the Division of Protection. And so that is the – whether or not it is categorised or unclassified, it would not matter. So that is the coverage. And now information organizations must determine whether or not they are going to signal that kind of pledge. I’d argue that they definitively shouldn’t signal such a pledge and that they need to work collectively and all deciding to not signal that pledge.
GROSS: Why would you say definitively they need to not signal the pledge?
BARON: Nicely, I imply, principally, what the Division of Protection is now asking of journalists is that they convert themselves into extensions of the Public Relations Division, that they not carry out as journalists, impartial journalists, that they primarily – I feel any journalist who would signal such a pledge immediately turns into one thing else fully. They turn out to be a propagandist for the Division of Protection. So there is a massive distinction between being simply an outfit that disseminates press releases from the Division of Protection and being a journalist who covers it with full independence.
GROSS: Adam, what would you say about First Modification points when it comes to this pledge and, …
LIPTAK: I…
GROSS: …Freedom of the press?
LIPTAK: I imply, it is preposterous. It is laughable. It is a plain violation of the First Modification. And as Marty says, it is a nonstarter. I imply, no severe journalist would think about signing a factor. And if you happen to did signal a factor, you’d now not be a severe journalist, or any type of journalist.
GROSS: So, , President Trump has filed a number of lawsuits towards newspapers, TV networks – CBS, ABC. And he has settled out of court docket with CBS and ABC. Though he says he received, that means that he received in court docket, he simply – it was settled out of court docket. However they every paid, like, $16 million. How do you interpret that, standing outdoors of this? Do you see them as having caved to Trump or simply averted worst nightmares? Like, do you might have an interpretation?
BARON: I feel they caved. They clearly feared Trump’s energy. I imply, ABC’s settlement got here earlier than Trump really took workplace, however they feared what the implications can be as soon as he did take workplace. The settlement by Paramount concerning Trump’s allegations towards CBS have been as a result of they felt they wanted to execute a merger – a merger with Skydance. And so they wished to execute that merger, and it was clear to them that that merger wouldn’t undergo except they reached an settlement. And certain sufficient, as quickly as they reached that settlement of paying $16 million, which purportedly goes to the Trump library, the settlement was – an settlement was struck. The merger was accredited.
However it additionally got here with a aspect deal that Trump himself has confirmed. And so as to execute that merger, Paramount felt that it wanted to achieve this settlement, and Skydance felt that it wanted to fulfill its settlement to offer this so-called public service promoting. And by the way in which, it additionally agreed to have a so-called ombudsman. And it has now named that ombudsman, who got here from a really conservative, far-right group known as the Hudson Institute – somebody who would not actually have expertise in journalism in any respect. And he’ll now be the ombudsman at CBS.
LIPTAK: These lawsuits have been – one in every of them, the ABC lawsuit – very weak. The opposite, the CBS lawsuit – laughable, preposterous. And never way back, no severe information group would have contemplated settling both lawsuit. So it is laborious to interpret it as something apart from caving to strain. Or it isn’t laborious to know it as a type of a bribe to pay the president of america cash when you might have a enterprise earlier than the federal authorities.
GROSS: Nicely, let me reintroduce you each. In the event you’re simply becoming a member of us, my friends are Adam Liptak, who covers the courts for The New York Instances. He is additionally a lawyer who beforehand represented the Instances. Additionally with us is Marty Baron, the previous editor of The Washington Submit, who’s now on the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. We’ll be proper again. That is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
GROSS: That is FRESH AIR. Let me reintroduce my friends if you happen to’re simply becoming a member of us. Marty Baron is the previous editor of The Washington Submit. He is at the moment on the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Adam Liptak covers the courts for The New York Instances. He is additionally a lawyer who beforehand represented The Instances. We’re speaking about what the First Modification and freedom of the press imply now in President Trump’s second time period.
So Trump has sued The New York Instances 3 times. The primary two have been thrown out. The third choice was reached final week. It isn’t a last choice. Adam, you was The New York Instances’ lawyer. You have completed quite a lot of First Modification circumstances. Inform us about what the swimsuit is and what the choose’s feedback have been.
LIPTAK: Nicely, it dignifies it to name it a swimsuit. It is a screed. It is a rant with a authorized caption on it. And…
GROSS: It is formally a defamation swimsuit.
LIPTAK: Sure. It appears the president thinks The Instances defamed him by not giving him sufficient credit score for his enterprise acumen. And in a telling growth, federal choose in Florida, Republican appointee, all through – provisionally; they’ll refile – however all through the lawsuit, for being a violation of the basic rule in civil process that once you sue any person, it’s best to, in plain and brief phrases, say what was false and what your declare is. And he stated this doc that the president’s legal professionals filed, , failed that fundamental take a look at that each lawyer ought to know.
BARON: I believed this lawsuit was this – I imply, which was for $15 billion, by the way in which, and it is laborious to see any damages that Trump has suffered. He – as he himself says in that lawsuit, he received the election with a large margin of electoral votes and calls it a – he likes to name it a landslide. And now, on web page 10 of that lawsuit, , Trump’s legal professionals – they assert his – as they name it, his sui generis charisma, his singular brilliance, his distinctive enterprise acumen, and recommend later that he single-mindedly revolutionized the tv enterprise. You recognize, anybody who appears within the mirror within the morning and marvels at himself that method, I feel, would naturally view something much less flattering as defamation. And I feel the federal choose who dismissed the lawsuit provisionally, he was appropriate in calling it simply – that lawsuit – largely invective and largely public relations.
GROSS: Can I simply learn a few excerpts of the choose’s writing? As a result of it actually reads like a guide critic’s assessment of a horrible guide. The choose says that the criticism was unnecessarily prolonged and digressive. He criticized Trump’s legal professionals for ready till Web page 80 to lodge a proper allegation of defamation and for together with forward of it dozens of, quote, “florid and enervating pages lavishing reward on the president and enumerating a spread of grievances.” I really appeared up enervating. I do know the phrase. I learn it in context, however I by no means knew precisely what it meant. So it means to scale back your power or psychological vigor. So that is what he is accusing the writing right here of doing.
And the choose goes on to say, a criticism is just not a public discussion board for vituperation and invective. It isn’t a protected platform to rage towards an adversary. So the choose threw it out, calling it improper and impermissible in its current kind. So it gave Trump’s legal professionals 28 days to resubmit. Adam, any hypothesis about what is going to occur?
LIPTAK: There will probably be an try and fulfill the choose and fulfill the shopper, and that is going to be laborious to navigate as a result of, , this isn’t severe enterprise. That is an try by the president to do two issues. One is kind of lay out his worldview, which isn’t the suitable setting, and the opposite is to attempt to punish and intimidate The New York Instances. And I dare say that is not going to work both. So it is a bizarre factor.
And we must always step again for a second, Terry, and kind of remind those that this concept {that a} sitting president of america goes to file libel fits towards main information organizations, it could’ve been unthinkable for an additional president to do that. And the notion that the president of america ought to on his personal behalf, whereas in workplace, file this type of display, it is all of a chunk with what we have been speaking about. It isn’t severe enterprise. It is an try and intimidate.
GROSS: Nicely, let me reintroduce you each. In the event you’re simply becoming a member of us, my friends are Adam Liptak, who covers the courts for The New York Instances. He is additionally a lawyer who beforehand represented the Instances. Additionally with us is Marty Baron, the previous editor of The Washington Submit who’s now on the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. We’ll be proper again. That is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF JAY-Z AND BEYONCE SONG, “’03 BONNIE & CLYDE”)
GROSS: That is FRESH AIR. Let me reintroduce my friends if you happen to’re simply becoming a member of us. Marty Baron is the previous editor of The Washington Submit. He is at the moment on the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Adam Liptak covers the courts for The New York Instances. He is additionally a lawyer who beforehand represented the Instances. We’re speaking about what the First Modification and freedom of the press imply now in President Trump’s second time period.
Marty Baron, I need to ask you about Jeff Bezos and The Washington Submit. You have been the editor of the submit when Bezos purchased the Submit, and issues went properly between you. And The Washington Submit, I feel it is honest to say, actually flourished throughout Trump’s first time period, did nice investigative reporting, had the slogan democracy dies within the darkness. Evaluate that to Trump’s second time period and what Bezos – who he is employed, , in high-up positions on the Submit and the way the editorial coverage has modified.
BARON: Certain. Nicely, I do assume that Bezos did a terrific job as proprietor in the course of the time that I used to be there and for – total really, after the time that I used to be there, so for about 10 years. I feel issues began to alter simply earlier than Trump was elected. About 11 days earlier than the election, Bezos made the choice to kill an editorial endorsement of Kamala Harris. I imply, he actually had the best to try this. I feel it is his prerogative to determine that they don’t seem to be going to publish presidential endorsements. However the timing was a sign that he was fearful that Trump would come into energy, that Trump would search vengeance, as he promised, towards his perceived political enemies. And Bezos was all the time perceived as a political enemy actually for one motive and one motive solely, and that was the protection of The Washington Submit, which he owned 100% of.
And Bezos stood up for us throughout these first 10 years. He spoke eloquently on behalf of the mission of The Washington Submit. He endured reprisals by Trump when it comes to attacking Amazon, of in search of to extend postal charges that may have an effect on Amazon after which in the end interfering in a large $10 billion Protection Division cloud computing contract. And, in fact, Bezos denies what I’ll say right here, however I feel that he was very frightened of reprisals in the course of the second Trump administration. It was clear on the finish of the primary Trump administration of precisely how Trump would behave, that he would search to chop off enterprise to anyone that he perceived as political enemy. So I feel that is precisely what Bezos was afraid of.
And look, I imply, I feel the protection of the Submit, the information protection of the Submit is – continues to be actually good. They’ve misplaced quite a lot of proficient individuals, and I am very upset over that, however they’ve a deep reserve of expertise there. I feel that is demonstrated each single day with the tales that they do. They’ve scoops someday after the subsequent, revelatory tales. They’re digging into what this administration is doing. My concern has actually been on the opinion pages. I feel that they’ve clearly made a pointy flip there. It isn’t that they will not criticize Trump. They do criticize Trump. However I feel that it is turn out to be extra timid, extra tepid, and so they’re actually on the lookout for each alternative to agree with Trump at any time when they presumably can, I imply, even publishing an editorial about how they assume it is a good suggestion to deliver again the presidential health take a look at, for God’s sake. They endorsed the thought of adjusting the title of the Division of Protection to the Division of Struggle, which is clearly simply performative nonsense on the a part of this administration. However I’ve to reiterate that I feel the information division continues to do an distinctive job of protecting Trump, and I love that. I help it. I subscribe. I urge different individuals, too, as properly, to help that type of journalism.
GROSS: So Bezos, in fact, owns Amazon. And Amazon is making or has made a documentary about Melania Trump and paying her – my understanding is $28 million for it. And a few information organizations have been making the connection between this documentary and Bezos attempting to please the Trump administration. How do you interpret it?
BARON: I interpret it that method. I feel it’s an effort to do one thing for Trump personally. Everyone appears to really feel the necessity to try this – individuals who need to ingratiate themselves with him. Really, they went past that. I imply, Amazon purchased the rights to “The Apprentice” tv sequence. In fact, Trump was the star of that. In his lawsuit towards The New York Instances, he reveals that he had 50% rights and the earnings from that tv present. So I’ve to imagine that he’ll get a portion of no matter Amazon pays for the rights to “The Apprentice” tv sequence. So why the sudden curiosity in an previous TV sequence? It appears to me – I feel it is a logical conclusion – that it was yet one more effort to ingratiate himself with Donald Trump.
GROSS: Is there something you need to add to that, Adam Liptak?
LIPTAK: Simply that the information signal of The Washington Submit is a good American newspaper, a terrific competitor and everybody at The New York Instances needs them properly.
BARON: I’ll say, by the way in which, Terry, if I can add, is that I do consider that if The Washington Submit have been confronted with a lawsuit alongside the traces of what The New York Instances confronted, that it could combat again. They do consider in a free press. I feel Bezos believes in a free press and that he would defend the rights of that information group.
LIPTAK: And I ought to say simply as The Wall Road Journal is doing on…
BARON: Right.
LIPTAK: …That birthday letter within the Epstein birthday guide, which the president stated didn’t exist, and now it certain appears to exist.
GROSS: So, Marty, the final time you have been on the present, you gave us a listing of issues that you simply feared would occur in the course of the Trump administration, and a few of these issues have come true. I might such as you to every say, if you happen to can, what you are involved would possibly occur subsequent.
BARON: Nicely, I am involved that this administration goes to hunt to incarcerate journalists. It has been salivating to try this for a while. Trump talked about that in his rallies years in the past, how he wished to place journalists in jail in order that they might reveal their sources. And I feel the groundwork has been laid. I imply, the Justice Division, underneath Pam Bondi, has disbursed with the earlier constraints on the federal government’s use of subpoenas and search warrants to get testimony, to get information of journalists, like telephone information and emails and all of that. So I feel it’s going to go to court docket, attempting to ask journalists to disclose their sources. And because the journalists will not be possible to try this, I feel you may anticipate to see the DOJ request that the journalist be incarcerated.
LIPTAK: I agree with Marty. American press legislation is sort of protecting of the press for what it publishes, exceptionally protecting. However there is a weak spot, and it is the one Marty identifies. The Supreme Court docket has by no means acknowledged a reporter’s privilege. There isn’t any federal defend legislation. And if we publish info from confidential sources, the federal government can field us in, can go after reporters to attempt to get their sources. And as Marty says, no respectable reporter will quit a supply. And that turns into an actual strain level.
GROSS: Marty Baron, Adam Liptak, thanks each a lot for speaking with us.
LIPTAK: It is nice to be with you, Terry.
BARON: Thanks, Terry.
GROSS: Adam Liptak covers the courts and authorized points for The New York Instances. Marty Baron is the previous editor of The Washington Submit. This a part of our interview was recorded yesterday morning.
Tomorrow on FRESH AIR, our visitor will probably be Scarlett Johansson, who’s making her directorial debut with the brand new movie “Eleanor The Nice,” and June Squibb, who stars as a 94-year-old girl who claims her useless good friend’s Holocaust survival story as her personal, a lie that spirals uncontrolled. Squibb was nominated for an Oscar for her function in “Nebraska.” I hope you will be a part of us.
(SOUNDBITE OF TAYLOR HASKINS’ “ALBERTO BALSALM”)
GROSS: To maintain up with what’s on the present and get highlights of our interviews, comply with us on Instagram – @nprfreshair. FRESH AIR’s government producer is Danny Miller. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Our managing producer is Sam Briger. Our interviews and critiques are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers, Roberta Shorrock, Ann Marie Baldonado, Lauren Krenzel, Monique Nazareth, Thea Chaloner, Susan Nyakundi and Anna Bauman. Our digital media producer is Molly Seavy-Nesper. Our consulting visible producer is Hope Wilson. Therese Madden directed immediately’s present. Our co-host is Tonya Mosley. I am Terry Gross.
(SOUNDBITE OF TAYLOR HASKINS’ “ALBERTO BALSALM”)
Copyright © 2025 NPR. All rights reserved. Go to our web site phrases of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for additional info.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts could fluctuate. Transcript textual content could also be revised to appropriate errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org could also be edited after its unique broadcast or publication. The authoritative report of NPR’s programming is the audio report.
