CBS has agreed to release an unedited transcript of its October interview with Kamala Harris to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) amid a lawsuit filed by former President Donald Trump.

Trump is seeking $10 million in damages in his case, alleging that CBS deceptively edited the interview to favor Harris, as the Washington Examiner reports.

The controversy began when segments from Harris’ interview with Bill Whitaker were broadcast in October on two different CBS shows: Face the Nation aired a portion on Oct. 6, and 60 Minutes followed with a different segment the next night. The differences in Harris’ responses sparked debate, with Trump claiming that the editing unfairly benefited the vice president.

Trump's legal action, initiated on Nov. 1 in Texas, accuses CBS of engaging in “partisan and unlawful acts of voter interference.”

According to reports, CBS' parent company, Paramount, is actively discussing a potential settlement with Trump's legal team, although the network has not publicly addressed these discussions which were first mentioned by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

FCC Requests Unedited Transcript as Part of Probe

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, appointed under Trump, has required CBS to provide unedited transcripts and full footage associated with the interview for an investigation running parallel to Trump's legal suit. CBS has traditionally resisted disclosing full transcripts to protect its editing process from outside criticism.

In response to the lawsuit, CBS lawyers have labeled Trump’s claims as “completely without merit.” They have defended the network’s editing choices, asserting that both clips from the Harris interview were derived from a longer response truncated solely due to time restrictions.

Paramount's Business Interests at Play

As these legal proceedings unfold, Paramount is seeking governmental clearance from the Trump administration for its potential sale to Skydance, an entertainment entity. The stakes of attaining such approval might influence the discussions around a settlement with Trump’s legal team.

This lawsuit isn’t the first legal tussle between Trump and media companies. In December, ABC News opted to resolve a defamation lawsuit brought by Trump by agreeing to fund his presidential library initiative with $15 million, rather than continue the court battle.

Similarly, Meta settled a lawsuit by granting Trump $25 million related to the suspension of his social media profiles following the Capitol unrest of Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump's Persistent Legal Campaign Against Media

Despite securing a victory in the presidential election shortly after filing his lawsuit against CBS, Trump has shown consistent determination to pursue his case.

Reports suggest that while CBS lawyers remain determined to contest Trump’s allegations, settlement dialogues are a possibility given past settlement precedents with other media firms.

The broader implications of this lawsuit, compounded by previous settlements, suggest a persistently litigious approach from Trump when interacting with U.S. media corporations. Trump’s history of targeting media companies highlights his ongoing disputes with those he perceives as misrepresenting his viewpoint or undermining his influence.

Broader Context of Media Lawsuits

Both Paramount and CBS have significant stakes in the legal battle’s outcome given the overlap with Paramount's strategic business interests and CBS’ longstanding journalistic reputation. Statements from CBS thus far emphasize the merits of its editing practices despite claims to the contrary.

For now, the FCC’s investigations are ongoing, and attention turns to whether CBS’ disclosures will align with Trump’s allegations or contradict them.

Trump’s litigious strategy might sway the media landscape, especially considering prior instances where media stories faced direct legal challenges from the former president.

CBS continues its unspoken commitment to editorial independence, emphasizing the necessity of assuring public trust while confronting legal pressures.

As the dispute unfolds, the resolution of this legal matter will likely have ramifications both for the network and for its interactions with political figures moving forward.