Skip to content

FCC requirements CBS offers unprocessed transcript from Kamala Harris interview

    The Federal Communications Commission demanded that CBS has the unprocessed transcript of a 60 minutes Interview with Kamala Harris that is the subject of a complaint at the FCC and a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump.

    CBS News received a letter of research on Wednesday in which the FCC asked for “the full, unprocessed transcript and camera cafés” of the Harris interview, the New York Times reported today. “We are working on to meet that research because we are legally forced to do,” a CBS News spokesperson told Media.

    FCC chairman Brendan Carr repeatedly repeated Trump's complaints about alleged media -before the elections and has taken steps to punish news callers since Trump promoted him to the chairmanship. Complaints against CBS, ABC and NBC stations were rejected under former chairman Jessica Rosenworcel, but Carr returned that resignation in his first week as chairman. Carr also ordered research into NPR and CBS.

    FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, a Democrat, criticized what she called Carr's “Latest Action to arm our temporary employment authority”.

    “This is a retaliation movement by the government against broadcasters whose content or coverage is considered unfavorable,” Gomez said today. “It is designed to raise anxiety in broadcasting stations and to influence the editorial decisions of a network. The Communication Act clearly prohibits the Commission to censor broadcasters and the first amendment protects journalistic decisions against the government's intimidation. We must the law of the Respecting the Constitution, maintaining the Constitution, and protecting the public in our supervision of broadcasters.

    CBS is considering arranging Trump -Rechtszaak

    Trump sued CBS during the Harris interview and managers at CBS owner Paramount Global held settlements with Trump representatives. “A settlement would be an extraordinary concession by a large American media company for a sitting president, especially in a case where there is no evidence that the network did wrongly or damaged the claimant's reputation,” wrote the New York Times.