Probably not by mere coincidence, some surprises HAVE popped up in October as voting begins for the November 2024 Presidential election. Two surprises, specifically. And they both cropped up within twenty four hours of each other.
Surprise #1 is a formal complaint filed with the FCC by an organization called the Center for American Rights against CBS regarding its interview with Vice President Harris aired on 60 Minutes. Their complaint? "Engaging in significant and intentional news distortion.
https://www.americanrights.org/cases/cbs-accused-of-news-distortion-in-vice-president-kamala-harris-interview-center-for-american-rights-files-formal-fcc-complaintFrom their press release…
From their actual complaint filed with the FCC: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kBqZo-10xBLE0Y1dhvBpzZnvcRUvH0H4/view?pli=1The complaint stems from two different broadcasts of the same interview aired on CBS's "Face the Nation" and "60 Minutes" on October 5 and 6, 2024. In both broadcasts, the same question was posed to Vice President Kamala Harris regarding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but CBS aired two conflicting responses. These discrepancies, CAR argues, amount to deliberate news distortion—a violation of FCC rules governing broadcasters' public interest obligations. The complaint demands CBS release the unedited transcript of the interview to set the record straight.
“This isn’t just about one interview or one network,” said Daniel Suhr, President of the Center for American Rights. “This is about the public’s trust in the media on critical issues of national security and international relations during one of the most consequential elections of our time. When broadcasters manipulate interviews and distort reality, it undermines democracy itself. The FCC must act swiftly to restore public confidence in our news media.”
The complaint cites long-standing FCC precedent that broadcasters cannot engage in intentional falsification or suppression of news and seeks an order compelling CBS to release the full unedited transcript of the interview.
WCBS TV aired the Sunday CBS morning news show “Face the Nation” on Sunday, October 5. It also aired the CBS program “Sixty Minutes” on Monday, October 6. The two programs featured the same question asked to Vice President Kamala Harris, with two completely different answers.
In the first clip, CBS journalist Bill Whitaker asks the Vice President about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.”
In that clip, Harris replies: “Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.”
In the second clip, Whitaker asks the exact same question. But in this clip, Harris replies: “We are not gonna stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”
Same interview, same question, two completely different answers.
Note the implication of that wording: Same interview, same question, two completely different answers.
From that wording, it might seem in hindsight that reporter Bill Whitaker and subject Kamala Harris jointly sat down to film MULTIPLE TAKES of the SAME QUESTION to allow Harris to perfect her answer in the optimal sound-byte friendly prose. Then CBS editors later forgot about the multiple TAKES and gave one version to promote on Face the Nation on Sunday morning and used the other version in the longer interview aired on Monday night.
It's POSSIBLE that CBS did that. However, it is FAR more likely that these variations are absolutely typical of ANY media outlet's down-to-the-second editing of video clips to fit allocated time slots in video pieces aimed at an increasingly ADD-addled population. It is FAR more likely that
- the interview was conducted in one continuous take
- one version of that answer was edited to fit in with other excerpts in a much shorter Face the Nation piece whose hour of airtime was split across four or five topics, not just the VP interview
- another version of that answer was edited for airing in a much longer time slot and a different part of the answer was selected to tie into other interview topics aired in the longer 60 Minutes slot.
Is this constant "re-mixing" of news footage and interview content annoying? Absolutely. Is this constant "re-mixing" of news footage and interview content confusing? Potentially yes, if you haven't watched any television in the last twenty years and haven't learned to detect it and discount it and stop assuming every altered slice is a new news-breaking event or sinister conspiracy. Is this re-mixing journalistically unethical? That depends on intent.
Suppose a reporter asks question A and gets answer A lasting 120 seconds, and the reporter's network airs 95 seconds of that 120 seconds on program 1 on day 1. Now imagine world reaction to that 95 second answer reflects concern the subject botched the question or divulged something they meant to keep quiet. At that point, if the network takes the original 120 second answer and "re-mixes" it into a DIFFERENT 90 second clip that omits the faux paus or blunder and airs clip #2 that on a DIFFERENT program a day later, that could easily be construed as an attempt to help the interview subject and re-spin what happened.
There's no sign of that being the case with this interview of Harris.
The two different clips are saying essentially the same thing. The first clip aired on Face the Nation is slightly more skewed at addressing how Biden Administration officials have influenced Netanyahu TO DATE in its conduct of its war in Gaza. The second clip aired within 60 Minutes seems to be looking forward over the next weeks into a potential Harris Administration about how resolved America is to continue supporting Israel while applying pressure to Netanyahu to correct perceived problems with Israel's impact on civilians. The two different answers are not in logical conflict with one another. Neither response is more erudite or precise than the other which might suggest someone was attempting to re-spin a wandering answer.
So what's the motivation of the Center for American Rights in filing this complaint with the FCC?
First, the Center for American Rights is operated by Daniel Suhr. Suhr previously worked as policy director under Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. He also has written numerous articles in affiliation with The Federalist Society. From his bio on his own organization's web site, As former managing attorney of a nonprofit law firm firm, Daniel litigated cases of critical national importance to block nationwide public health mandates, halt the growth and abuse of administrative powers, and protect and expand school choice for students across the country.
Second, the Harris interview on 60 Minutes was generally viewed as a draw or slight win for Harris in that a) she showed up, b) sat for nearly an hour of questions, c) didn't freeze up or make any obvious "no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" blunders and d) after it aired, the net public reaction was a yawn. Most politicians and campaign advisors view these interviews as 90% negative risk so any result that isn't negative is pretty much a positive on our warped, sliding scale of political performance. In contrast, Trump chose to AVOID this opportunity, leaving his campaign and supporters to counter an opponent's positive with a void. Their only alternative? Do something to attempt to sully the opponent's positive.
Here, a conservative policy consulting firm chose to file this complaint to cast doubt on whether CBS and Harris conspired to "rehearse" questions and answers and selectively edit and air different takes for different audiences purely based upon what HELPED Harris. This complaint isn't a legal action that requires appearing in court under oath regarding facts. It merely involves sending a letter to a government agency then touting it on a website and feeding it to conservative media to attempt to get inertia behind the distraction.
Surprise #2 involves…
….wait for it…
…Donald Trump, a porn star, lawyers and ham-handed attempts to secure a non-disclosure agreement.
The only surprise here is that while most of the actors and premise are the same, this is a brand new incident. Over the last few months, Stormy Daniels has been attempting to settle the counter-lawsuit Trump brought against her after she filed a defamation lawsuit against Trump over the original 2016 scandal. Daniels lost that counter-suit and was ordered to pay roughly $650,000 in legal fees to Trump and the two parties have been haggling over that exact amount since that decision.
As lawyers for Daniels and lawyers for Trump neared a final deal, Trump's lawyers wrote a letter to Daniels' attorneys on July 25, 2024 stating the following:
We disagree that a payment of $620,000.00 would be in full satisfaction of the three judgements. However, we can agree to settle these matters for $620,000.00, provided that your client agrees in writing to make no public or private statements related to any alleged past interactions with President Trump, or defamatory or disparaging statements about him, his businesses and/or any affiliates or his suitability as a candidate for President, with the terms of these points to be specified in a forthcoming separate agreement.
Daniels and her lawyers rejected the offer and the deal was finally settled with a payment of roughly $628,000 dollars. As we have learned in nearly eight years of mandatory attendance at Trump Law School, paying hush money is not illegal. It is probably not illegal to disguise the existence of a hush money deal in the context of a private legal settlement resulting from a prior failed hush money deal. However, it's really dumb to voluntarily re-entangle one's self in the exact same problem with the exact same actors a second time leading into ANOTHER election.
This is especially true when your campaign spokesman is dumb enough to double down on the stupid by issuing this statement:
These purported documents were obtained as part of an illegal, foreign hacking attack against President Trump's campaign and his team. We are working with authorities to determine the legal repercussions for those likely committing federal offenses by posting and utilizing stolen material by terror regime adversaries. Ms. Daniels has been held to account by having to pay President Trump over and above the money she owes to him as a result of her wrongdoing.
There is a lie in nearly every clause of every sentence in that statement. Specifically:
- A document cannot be "purported" if it actually exists. If you are staring at an anvil on a stump, you don't make references to the "purported anvil." It exists.
- When you SEND a document to another party and keep a copy, there are TWO copies in existence and you only have control of ONE copy.
- Copies of these documents weren't stolen from Trump, they were given to MSNBC by Daniels' lawyers after receiving them from Trump's lawyers. You know, the SECOND copy in existence?
- Daniels didn't have to pay "over and above" the amount owed to Trump, the court ruling specified a basic amount and the two parties were directed to resolve questions about interest owed over the period between the ruling and final settlement.
This new chapter teaches us nothing new about Trump or his inner circle. It does raise a key question. For an event Trump claims never happened, he seems incredibly ashamed to see it in the public, to the point of risking MORE embarrassment in two different Presidential campaigns. If Trump is so ashamed of this event, why aren't more of his supporters ashamed of him? Or ashamed of themselves for supporting him?
WTH
