TERRY GROSS, HOST:
This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. Jimmy Kimmel and his show "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" returned to ABC last night after he was suspended indefinitely a week ago. The story of his suspension and return has implications beyond Kimmel, pertaining to conglomerate ownership of broadcast networks and news publications, the First Amendment and freedom of the press, the FCC and President Trump. Here to talk about the larger story are Marty Baron and Adam Liptak.
Baron was the editor of The Washington Post from 2013 until his retirement in 2021. During most of his tenure, The Post was owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Baron's memoir about that time is titled "Collision Of Power: Trump, Bezos, And The Washington Post." He was previously the editor of The Boston Globe. In the movie "Spotlight," a drama based on The Globe's investigation, revealing sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, Baron was portrayed by Liev Schreiber.
Adam Liptak covers the courts and legal issues for The New York Times. Before joining the Times' news staff, he practiced law for 14 years, concentrating on First Amendment issues, including in The New York Times Company's corporate legal department. Let's start with a clip from Jimmy Kimmel's monologue last night.
(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE!")
JIMMY KIMMEL: I've been hearing a lot about what I need to say and do tonight, and the truth is, I don't think what I have to say is going to make much of a difference. If you like me, you like me. If you don't, you don't. I have no illusions about changing anyone's mind. But I do want to make something clear because it's important to me as a human, and that is you understand that it was never my intention to make light of the murder (crying) of a young man. I don't...
(APPLAUSE)
KIMMEL: ...I don't think there's anything funny about it. I posted a message on Instagram on the day he was killed, sending love to his family and asking for compassion, and I meant it. And I still do. Nor was it my intention to blame any specific group for the actions of what - it was obviously a deeply disturbed individual. That was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make. But I understand that to some that felt either ill-timed or unclear, or maybe both.
And for those who think I did point a finger, I get why you're upset. If the situation was reversed, there's a good chance I'd have felt the same way. I have many friends and family members on the other side who I love and remain close to, even though we don't agree on politics at all. I don't think the murderer who shot Charlie Kirk represents anyone. This was a sick person who believed violence was a solution, and it isn't. It - ever. And also selfishly...
(APPLAUSE)
KIMMEL: ...I am a person who gets a lot of threats. I get many ugly and scary threats against my life, my wife, my kids, my coworkers because of what I choose to say. And I know those threats don't come from the kind of people on the right who I know and love. So that's what I wanted to say on that subject. But I don't want to make this about me because - and I know this is what people say when they make things about them.
(LAUGHTER)
KIMMEL: But I really don't. This show is not important. What is important is that we get to live in a country that allows us to have a show like this.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: Woo.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: Yeah.
(CHEERING)
KIMMEL: I've had the opportunity to meet and spend time with comedians and talk show hosts from countries like Russia, countries in the Middle East, who tell me they would get thrown in prison for making fun of those in power, and worse than being thrown in prison. They know how lucky we are here. Our freedom to speak is what they admire most about this country. And that's something I'm embarrassed to say I took for granted until they pulled my friend Stephen off the air and tried to coerce the affiliates who run our show in the cities that you live in to take my show off the air. That's not legal. That's not American. That is un-American. And it is so dangerous.
(CHEERING)
GROSS: All right, so that was an excerpt of last night's monologue by Jimmy Kimmel. Kimmel went on to praise Charlie Kirk's widow, Erika Kirk, for forgiving her husband's assassin. And he added while tearing up...
(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE!")
KIMMEL: There it was. That's 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 anything we should take from this tragedy to carry forward, I hope it can be that, and not this.
GROSS: So, Marty Baron, Adam Liptak, welcome to FRESH AIR. What was your reaction to last night's monologue?
MARTY BARON: Well, it was very moving, very emotional and, I think, very effective. I really think that this could end up being an extraordinarily important moment in the history of the country. And you know, I think back to the 1950s, actually. It recalled for me the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954, when Joseph Welch was representing the U.S. Army. He told Senator Joseph McCarthy, have you no decency, sir? And that really proved to be a turning point when the country turned against McCarthy and his incredibly malicious behavior.
So, you know, now we live in a time where - era where performative behavior is rewarded. It's all about spectacle. You know, we have a president who really revels in showmanship. So maybe what we need is a different spectacle in this instance, from an entertainer like Jimmy Kimmel, really, as a counterweight, as a corrective, because the standard forms of argument just aren't as effective as they once were. So I thought it was highly effective and effective in a way that traditional debate hasn't been.
GROSS: Adam Liptak, what are your thoughts?
ADAM LIPTAK: I agree with Marty. It was, among other things, a robust defense of free speech in the sense that you don't have to agree with what Jimmy Kimmel was saying, although it's hard to disagree with much of what he said because it was so moving. But what free speech requires is that you hear him out and you consider it, and you don't try to stifle it or censor it. That said, my viewing of this was a little frustrating because I live in Washington, D.C., and I learned last night, as I tried to watch Jimmy Kimmel, that the local ABC affiliate is owned by Sinclair, and they had chosen not to air it. And while it appeared on YouTube soon enough, this is not an unalloyed victory. In much of the country, Kimmel remains unavailable, and this fight is not over.
GROSS: Yeah. I think that between Sinclair and Nexstar, they own about 20% of the ABC affiliates.
BARON: Yeah, I think they...
GROSS: They own 70 stations, and I think it's like 20% of...
BARON: ...Households.
GROSS: Of households, yeah. That's a lot. And some of it is in college towns in upstate New York and in California. And, of course, Washington, I mean, the argument that they've been making is their listeners don't want to hear this. It's not in the public interest. Well, in Washington, D.C., Adam Liptak wants to see it. You know, a lot of people in Washington, D.C. would want to see it. So they're depriving people of what they want to see as opposed to helping them.
BARON: I think that's true, and it's going to be - get worse if Nexstar is able to go through with its merger with Tegna. Tegna owns 13 affiliates of ABC. And so when you add Nexstar and Sinclair and Tegna, you're talking about a really substantial portion of the stations that are owned by ABC and a lot of households in this country, including in places where they definitively would like to see this show.
LIPTAK: And they're operating, it looks like, against their economic self-interests. Certainly, this show will get astounding ratings. But President Trump, Terry, is not backing down. He's doubling down. Just before Kimmel went on, he posted on social media that he thinks this could be another lucrative opportunity for him, that he's collected $16 million in the settlement of a libel suit from ABC, and he suggested that he wants to go after Kimmel now. So this is not over.
GROSS: I want to quote something that Brian Stelter, who is CNN's chief media correspondent, wrote in his newsletter about Nexstar and Sinclair, the two broadcast owners that are not broadcasting Kimmel. Stelter wrote, (reading) those station owners, Nexstar and Sinclair, have positioned themselves as Trump administration allies, leading public interest groups to raise concerns about the objectivity of the news coverage coming from those stations. A top Sinclair executive famously told Trump back in 2016, we are here to deliver your message.
Is there anything you can say about the political positions or editorial policies of those two station owners and how that may figure into their decisions to, for now, cancel broadcasts of Kimmel?
LIPTAK: One distinction that's worth making is that the First Amendment applies to the government, and the government can't censor people. Private companies can make good decisions or bad decisions about what they choose to air or not. And that may be a serious policy and cultural and political question, but it's not a First Amendment question.
GROSS: So this story is also a business story. Disney and Nexstar have business interests that have to be approved by the Trump administration. Disney, which also owns ESPN or merged with ESPN, they're trying to expand their football coverage, and they're planning to launch a new ESPN streaming platform that wouldn't require having cable. They have a deal to acquire the NFL's RedZone brand, but that needs to be approved from - by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission. So in terms of their business deals, they need to get approval and, you know, might be concerned about alienating the Trump administration. And then Nexstar is trying to buy Tegna, which is a rival company that owns TV stations. It's a $6.2 billion deal, and that requires FCC approval. So do you want to talk about the age of conglomerate-owned media and the sometimes conflicting needs within the conglomerate itself?
BARON: Look, I mean, I think it is an issue. I think ownership is an issue. It's definitely a point of vulnerability for media companies and for the ability of journalists to do their jobs. Many of these companies have interests before the federal government. They worry that those interests will be put in jeopardy if they alienate Donald Trump. And so it's a big concern.
But there is no perfect form of ownership, you know? I mean, you have actually a fairly fragmented media environment right now with a lot of influencers and YouTubers and people like that all over the place. In many instances, they have their own conflicts of interest. They may be aligned with political parties, with the president or against the president. Some of them, it's been reported, are receiving actual payments in order to air - I use that phrase air - but to disseminate certain opinions and even provide any sort of coverage. So there is no perfect form of ownership.
There's the corporate ownership that we talked about. That's concerning. You used to have, you know, business magnates, and you still do, who own media outlets. The Washington Post is one of those. They have their own interests. Private equity is a problem. They treat these media outlets like an annuity and try to extract as much cash as quickly as possible from them with little concern for their future. And look, nonprofits are an emerging form of ownership as well. On the other hand, they have to turn primarily to wealthy philanthropists to sustain themselves and to foundations that have their own causes that they're trying to advance. So there is no perfect form of ownership.
But right now there is a big concern, I think, about the conglomerate ownership and the ownership by individuals who have commercial interests that are in front of the federal government. And they fear that the federal government under Donald Trump will not approve their contracts, will not approve their mergers if they alienate him, if they support anyone who is critical of Donald Trump.
GROSS: Well, let's take a break here. If you're just joining us, my guests are Marty Baron, former editor of The Washington Post, and Adam Liptak, who covers the courts and legal issues for The New York Times. We'll be right back. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF LOUIS SCLAVIS' "FETE FORAINE")
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let's get back to my interview with Marty Baron, former editor of The Washington Post who's now on the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Adam Liptak, who covers the courts and legal issues for The New York Times. We're talking about Jimmy Kimmel's monologue last night and about larger issues pertaining to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
So yesterday, when President Trump spoke before 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 said, in honor of this momentous anniversary, I hope that all countries who find inspiration in our example will join us in renewing our commitment, values and those values really that we hold so dear. Let us defend free speech and free expression.
It's ironic that (laughter) that coincides with what we're talking about - you know, TV stations that refuse right now to broadcast Jimmy Kimmel.
BARON: This is so hypocritical on his part. He talks about free speech, but he doesn't actually believe in free speech. And all of his policies are contrary to free speech or so many of his policies are contrary to free speech. He's practiced censorship, and it's not just for the press and for late-night entertainers. And I really appreciated Jimmy Kimmel mentioning the free press last night because he's absolutely right that that issue has not gotten enough attention. You know, Trump's been going after the press since he launched his campaign for the presidency in 2015, and he hasn't stopped. He's denigrated. He's demonized. He's actually dehumanized the press thousands of times. And he's trying to extinguish an independent press in this country.
And really, the press was the canary in the coal mine. The threat to the free press, it was really an omen of a threat to free speech by everybody - by ordinary individuals, by lawyers, by scientists, scholars, students - you know, everybody. You know, the press is often the first target of leaders who aspire to authoritarian powers, and I think that's been the case with Trump. And so it's extraordinary that - in his U.N. speech, that he would endorse the idea of free speech because his policies are not in line with the idea of free speech.
LIPTAK: And, you know, Terry, the passage you read, it doesn't sound like Donald Trump. That is something a speechwriter wrote on a teleprompter that he managed to read, but it's at odds with what he says in unguarded moments. And he doesn't seem to know - unlike Brendan Carr, the FCC chairman who at least tries to, you know, veil the threat - the Trump threat is unveiled. And we have this phenomenon now of a sitting president of the United States suing news organizations for libel. And we've sort of gotten used to that, like that's a normal thing. But that's a preposterous thing. The leader of the United States thinks that rather than respond to speech with his own set of reasons and policies and, you know, engagement in debate, his approach is to file libel suits. Can you imagine, you know, earlier presidents doing that? It's a different era entirely.
GROSS: Adam, you had paraphrased what Trump wrote on Truth Social, his social media platform, so let me read it. He wrote, I can't believe ABC Fake News gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back. The White House was told by ABC that his show was canceled. Something happened between then and now because his audience is gone - in capital letters - and his talent - in quotes - was never there. Why would they want somebody back who does so poorly, who's not funny and who puts the network in jeopardy by playing 90% positive Democrat garbage? He's yet another arm of the DNC, and to the best of my knowledge, that would be a major illegal campaign contribution. I think we're going to test ABC out on this. Let's see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 million. This one sounds even more lucrative. A true bunch of losers. Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad ratings.
Adam, do you want to break down what you make of that?
LIPTAK: I mean, every part of it is disturbing and unseemly. The notion that he can sue Kimmel - for what? For a joke? And this idea that political commentary is a campaign contribution is, you know, entirely at odds with the law. It's hard to know what to make of it, except that it's sort of an incoherent rant.
GROSS: But it says that this story isn't over.
LIPTAK: Oh, I...
GROSS: That, you know, victory has not been won by Jimmy Kimmel just 'cause he's back on the air. That's a very partial victory for him if Trump intends to go after him or ABC and sue for even more money than $16 million.
LIPTAK: Yes. I mean, Trump is at war with not only the press but even with comedians who make jokes at his expense. I mean, it's beyond unseemly, and it's wholly at odds with the American conception of free speech.
GROSS: So I want to mention in this context that Brendan Carr wrote the chapter in The Heritage Foundation's 2025 project, which has become a blueprint for the Trump administration - he wrote the chapter on the FCC. Do you have any comment about the fact that he was chosen to write this conservative blueprint?
BARON: Well, I think he's just following the playbook that he himself wrote. We can see that playing out now. And he...
GROSS: Following the playbook...
BARON: I mean...
GROSS: ...That he put in Project 2025?
BARON: Yeah, absolutely. He wrote it, and now he's putting it into practice. And these are, without question, authoritarian measures - I mean, that he's going to decide what's fair. He's going to decide what commentary is permitted. He's going to decide what coverage is supposedly biased. And clearly, he's going to suggest bias on the part of anything that's critical of Donald Trump, as opposed to anything that's critical of the Democrats. That's going to be the - his target is going to be anything that's critical of Donald Trump. This is not his role, and it's yet another step toward authoritarianism.
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guests are Marty Baron, former editor of The Washington Post, who's now on the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Adam Liptak, who covers the courts and legal issues for The New York Times. He previously worked as a lawyer representing The Times. We'll talk more about freedom of the press and other First Amendment issues during President Trump's second term after a break. I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF TED NASH'S "WATER IN CUPPED HANDS (AUNG SAN SUU KYI)")
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let's get back to my interview with Marty Baron and Adam Liptak. Baron is the former editor of The Washington Post 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 Times. He's also a lawyer who previously represented the Times. We're talking about the First Amendment and freedom of the press and what they mean now in President Trump's second term.
So now that we know what Jimmy Kimmel had to say on his show, let's talk about the FCC's role in this story. And I want to start with two clips from FCC commissioner. Now, he's the chair of the Federal Communications Commission. And first, I want to play what he had to say after the Kimmel broadcast that created all this controversy. So here's Brendan Carr.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
BRENDAN CARR: I've been very clear from the moment that I have become chairman of the FCC, I want to reinvigorate the public interest. And what people don't understand is that the broadcasters - and you've gotten this right - are entirely different than people that use other forms of communication. They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest. And we can get into some ways that we've been trying to reinvigorate the public interest and some changes that we've seen. But frankly, when you see stuff like this, I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.
GROSS: So that was the chair of the FCC, Brendan Carr. He was speaking to Benny Johnson. Benny Johnson is a right-wing podcaster. So let's hear what he had to say Monday. And this was at the Concordia Annual Summit in New York City.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
CARR: What happens at the FCC is when you have a broadcast license, there's conditions. There's a public interest standard, which means you have to operate consistent with the public interest. And one of the things that the FC has in our case law and our precedent is this concept of a news distortion complaint. And what I spoke about last week was that when concerns are raised about news distortion, there's a way - there's an easy way for parties to address that and work that out. And in the main, that takes place between local television stations that are licensed by the FCC and what we call national programmers like Disney. They work that out, and there doesn't need to be any involvement of the FCC.
Now, if they don't, there's a way that's not as easy, which is someone can file a complaint at the FCC. And then the FCC, by law, as set up by Congress, has to adjudicate that complaint. And what I've been very clear in the context of the Kimmel episode is the FCC, and myself in particular, have expressed no view on the ultimate merits, had something like that been filed, what our take would be one way or the other.
GROSS: OK. So in the first clip, he was talking about changing Jimmy Kimmel's conduct. He was talking about Kimmel's conduct on the show. And in the second clip, he's saying, I was just referring to, like, the process that the FCC goes through. You could work it out among, you know, Kimmel and Disney, or you could do it the hard way and work it out through the FCC. And he was talking about news distortion. So how do you interpret these two separate clips? And do you see him as just clarifying what he had to say? 'Cause he said that Democrats had distorted what he was saying the first time around. So do you see this as a clarification or as a walking back?
BARON: Well, I think it's really neither. I think what he said at the beginning was clearly a threat. I think it's also important to remember that - how Trump was able to extract a settlement from Paramount when it was trying to execute its merger with Skydance. Paramount, of course, was the owner of CBS, and now Skydance is. But under that scenario, Trump had sued CBS under the Texas law normally applied to false advertising, and he was seeking this sum of $20 billion - an absurd sum - over how "60 Minutes" had ended at a campaign interview with Kamala Harris.
And what happened then was that at about the same time, a conservative group filed a complaint with the FCC alleging news distortion along the very same lines that Trump alleged in his private litigation. And so what Carr did in those circumstances was that he said that he'd take up that complaint by the conservative group - he'd take that into consideration in deciding whether to approve the Paramount-Skydance merger. And in that way, he was able to say he wasn't responding to Trump's lawsuit. He wasn't working on behalf of Trump. He was simply responding to a complaint from this conservative group. But it's not difficult to imagine that there's some level of coordination or at least like-minded thinking that these things are all happening at the same time, and it gives Carr deniability that he's really responding to pressure from Donald Trump. And it allows him to say, I'm just responding to a complaint that was filed with the FCC under the normal rules.
LIPTAK: There is a line of Supreme Court precedent here that's quite relevant that says the government and the president has a bully pulpit and is permitted to try to persuade people that its policies are the right ones. But what it's not permitted to do is to use coercion backed by threats that the government, through regulation or otherwise, will punish you if you don't do what it wants. And these Carr statements at least bump up next to that line.
The Supreme Court in 1963 in a case called Bantam Books said that a Rhode Island commission concerned about indecent books could not lean on a book distributor and say, you know, you'd be better off. We'd hate to refer you to a prosecutor. If - you might want to blacklist the following books. And the Supreme Court says that violates the First Amendment, that leaning on an intermediary to try to suppress the speech of somebody else violates the First Amendment. And just last year, and unanimously, the Supreme Court said that the NRA's free speech rights were jeopardized when a New York insurance commissioner after the Parkland school shooting urged insurance companies not to do business with the NRA. And the Supreme Court again says, that kind of coercion, that use of regulatory power, rather than persuasion, coercion, violates the First Amendment. And that maps onto pretty plainly what we're seeing here.
GROSS: So the Pentagon has announced a new policy that if you are a Pentagon reporter, you have to take a pledge. Marty, do you want to describe what the pledge is?
BARON: Well, essentially, the pledge is that anybody who's covering the Pentagon has to pledge that are - they will not collect or distribute - disseminate any information that wasn't officially released by the Department of Defense. And so that's the - whether it's classified or unclassified, it doesn't matter. So that's the policy. And now news organizations have to decide whether they're going to sign that sort of pledge. I would argue that they definitively should not sign such a pledge and that they should work together and all deciding not to sign that pledge.
GROSS: Why would you say definitively they should not sign the pledge?
BARON: Well, I mean, basically, what the Department of Defense is now asking of journalists is that they convert themselves into extensions of the Public Relations Department, that they not perform as journalists, independent journalists, that they essentially - I think any journalist who would sign such a pledge instantly becomes something else entirely. They become a propagandist for the Department of Defense. So there's a big difference between being just an outfit that disseminates press releases from the Department of Defense and being a journalist who covers it with full independence.
GROSS: Adam, what would you say about First Amendment issues in terms of this pledge and, you know...
LIPTAK: I...
GROSS: ...Freedom of the press?
LIPTAK: I mean, it's preposterous. It's laughable. It's a plain violation of the First Amendment. And as Marty says, it's a nonstarter. I mean, no serious journalist would consider signing a thing. And if you did sign a thing, you would no longer be a serious journalist, or any kind of journalist.
GROSS: So, you know, President Trump has filed multiple lawsuits against newspapers, TV networks - CBS, ABC. And he has settled out of court with CBS and ABC. Although he says he won, meaning that he won in court, he just - it was settled out of court. But they each paid, like, $16 million. How do you interpret that, standing outside of this? Do you see them as having caved to Trump or just avoided worst nightmares? Like, do you have an interpretation?
BARON: I think they caved. They clearly feared Trump's power. I mean, ABC's settlement came before Trump actually took office, but they feared what the consequences would be once he did take office. The agreement by Paramount regarding Trump's allegations against CBS were because they felt they needed to execute a merger - a merger with Skydance. And they wanted to execute that merger, and it was clear to them that that merger would not go through unless they reached an agreement. And sure enough, as soon as they reached that agreement of paying $16 million, which purportedly is going to the Trump library, the agreement was - an agreement was struck. The merger was approved.
But it also came with a side deal that Trump himself has confirmed. And in order to execute that merger, Paramount felt that it needed to reach this agreement, and Skydance felt that it needed to meet its agreement to provide this so-called public service advertising. And by the way, it also agreed to have a so-called ombudsman. And it has now named that ombudsman, who came from a very conservative, far-right organization called the Hudson Institute - someone who doesn't really have experience in journalism at all. And he will now be the ombudsman at CBS.
LIPTAK: These lawsuits were - one of them, the ABC lawsuit - very weak. The other, the CBS lawsuit - laughable, preposterous. And not long ago, no serious news organization would have contemplated settling either lawsuit. So it's hard to interpret it as anything other than caving to pressure. Or it's not hard to understand it as a kind of a bribe to pay the president of the United States money when you have a business before the federal government.
GROSS: Well, let me reintroduce you both. If you're just joining us, my guests are Adam Liptak, who covers the courts for The New York Times. He's also a lawyer who previously represented the Times. Also with us is Marty Baron, the former editor of The Washington Post, who's now on the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. We'll be right back. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let me reintroduce my guests if you're just joining us. Marty Baron is the former editor of The Washington Post. He's currently on the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Adam Liptak covers the courts for The New York Times. He's also a lawyer who previously represented The Times. We're talking about what the First Amendment and freedom of the press mean now in President Trump's second term.
So Trump has sued The New York Times three times. The first two were thrown out. The third decision was reached last week. It's not a final decision. Adam, you used to be The New York Times' lawyer. You've done a lot of First Amendment cases. Tell us about what the suit is and what the judge's comments were.
LIPTAK: Well, it dignifies it to call it a suit. It's a screed. It's a rant with a legal caption on it. And...
GROSS: It's officially a defamation suit.
LIPTAK: Yes. It seems the president thinks The Times defamed him by not giving him enough credit for his business acumen. And in a telling development, federal judge in Florida, Republican appointee, throughout - provisionally; they can refile - but throughout the lawsuit, for being a violation of the fundamental rule in civil procedure that when you sue somebody, you should, in plain and short terms, say what was false and what your claim is. And he said this document that the president's lawyers filed, you know, failed that basic test that every lawyer should know.
BARON: I thought this lawsuit was this - I mean, which was for $15 billion, by the way, and it's hard to see any damages that Trump has suffered. He - as he himself says in that lawsuit, he won the election with a wide margin of electoral votes and calls it a - he likes to call it a landslide. And now, on page 10 of that lawsuit, you know, Trump's lawyers - they assert his - as they call it, his sui generis charisma, his singular brilliance, his unique business acumen, and suggest later that he single-mindedly revolutionized the television business. You know, anyone who looks in the mirror in the morning and marvels at himself that way, I think, would naturally view anything less flattering as defamation. And I think the federal judge who dismissed the lawsuit provisionally, he was correct in calling it just - that lawsuit - mostly invective and mostly public relations.
GROSS: Can I just read a couple of excerpts of the judge's writing? Because it really reads like a book critic's review of a terrible book. The judge says that the complaint was unnecessarily lengthy and digressive. He criticized Trump's lawyers for waiting until Page 80 to lodge a formal allegation of defamation and for including ahead of it dozens of, quote, "florid and enervating pages lavishing praise on the president and enumerating a range of grievances." I actually looked up enervating. I know the word. I read it in context, but I never knew exactly what it meant. So it means to reduce your strength or mental vigor. So that's what he's accusing the writing here of doing.
And the judge goes on to say, a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective. It's not a protected platform to rage against an adversary. So the judge threw it out, calling it improper and impermissible in its present form. So it gave Trump's lawyers 28 days to resubmit. Adam, any speculation about what will happen?
LIPTAK: There will be an attempt to satisfy the judge and satisfy the client, and that's going to be hard to navigate because, you know, this is not serious business. This is an attempt by the president to do two things. One is sort of lay out his worldview, which is not the appropriate setting, and the other is to try to punish and intimidate The New York Times. And I dare say that's not going to work either. So it's a weird thing.
And we should step back for a second, Terry, and sort of remind people that this idea that a sitting president of the United States is going to file libel suits against leading news organizations, it would've been unthinkable for another president to do this. And the notion that the president of the United States should on his own behalf, while in office, file this kind of screen, it's all of a piece with what we've been talking about. It's not serious business. It's an attempt to intimidate.
GROSS: Well, let me reintroduce you both. If you're just joining us, my guests are Adam Liptak, who covers the courts for The New York Times. He's also a lawyer who previously represented the Times. Also with us is Marty Baron, the former editor of The Washington Post who's now on the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. We'll be right back. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF JAY-Z AND BEYONCE SONG, "'03 BONNIE & CLYDE")
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let me reintroduce my guests if you're just joining us. Marty Baron is the former editor of The Washington Post. He's currently on the Steering Committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Adam Liptak covers the courts for The New York Times. He's also a lawyer who previously represented the Times. We're talking about what the First Amendment and freedom of the press mean now in President Trump's second term.
Marty Baron, I want to ask you about Jeff Bezos and The Washington Post. You were the editor of the post when Bezos bought the Post, and things went well between you. And The Washington Post, I think it's fair to say, really flourished during Trump's first term, did great investigative reporting, had the slogan democracy dies in the darkness. Compare that to Trump's second term and what Bezos - who he's hired, you know, in high-up positions at the Post and how the editorial policy has changed.
BARON: Sure. Well, I do think that Bezos did a great job as owner during the time that I was there and for - overall actually, after the time that I was there, so for about 10 years. I think things started to change just before Trump was elected. About 11 days before the election, Bezos made the decision to kill an editorial endorsement of Kamala Harris. I mean, he certainly had the right to do that. I think it's his prerogative to decide that they're not going to publish presidential endorsements. But the timing was a signal that he was fearful that Trump would come into power, that Trump would seek vengeance, as he promised, against his perceived political enemies. And Bezos was always perceived as a political enemy really for one reason and one reason only, and that was the coverage of The Washington Post, which he owned a hundred percent of.
And Bezos stood up for us during those first 10 years. He spoke eloquently on behalf of the mission of The Washington Post. He endured reprisals by Trump in terms of attacking Amazon, of seeking to increase postal rates that would affect Amazon and then ultimately interfering in a giant $10 billion Defense Department cloud computing contract. And, of course, Bezos denies what I'm going to say here, but I think that he was very fearful of reprisals during the second Trump administration. It was clear at the end of the first Trump administration of exactly how Trump would behave, that he would seek to cut off business to anybody that he perceived as political enemy. So I think that's exactly what Bezos was afraid of.
And look, I mean, I think the coverage of the Post, the news coverage of the Post is - continues to be really good. They've lost a lot of talented people, and I'm very upset over that, but they have a deep reserve of talent there. I think that's demonstrated every single day with the stories that they do. They have scoops one day after the next, revelatory stories. They're digging into what this administration is doing. My concern has really been on the opinion pages. I think that they have clearly made a sharp turn there. It's not that they won't criticize Trump. They do criticize Trump. But I think that it's become more timid, more tepid, and they're certainly looking for every opportunity to agree with Trump whenever they possibly can, I mean, even publishing an editorial about how they think it's a good idea to bring back the presidential fitness test, for God's sake. They endorsed the idea of changing the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, which is clearly just performative nonsense on the part of this administration. But I have to reiterate that I think the news department continues to do an exceptional job of covering Trump, and I admire that. I support it. I subscribe. I urge other people, too, as well, to support that kind of journalism.
GROSS: So Bezos, of course, 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 some news organizations have been making the connection between this documentary and Bezos trying to please the Trump administration. How do you interpret it?
BARON: I interpret it that way. I think it is an effort to do something for Trump personally. Everybody seems to feel the need to do that - people who want to ingratiate themselves with him. Actually, they went beyond that. I mean, Amazon bought the rights to "The Apprentice" television series. Of course, Trump was the star of that. In his lawsuit against The New York Times, he reveals that he had 50% rights and the profits from that television show. So I have to assume that he's going to get a portion of whatever Amazon pays for the rights to "The Apprentice" television series. So why the sudden interest in an old TV series? It seems to me - I think it's a logical conclusion - that it was yet another effort to ingratiate himself with Donald Trump.
GROSS: Is there anything you want to add to that, Adam Liptak?
LIPTAK: Just that the news sign of The Washington Post is a great American newspaper, a great competitor and everyone at The New York Times wishes them well.
BARON: I will say, by the way, Terry, if I can add, is that I do believe that if The Washington Post were confronted with a lawsuit along the lines of what The New York Times faced, that it would fight back. They do believe in a free press. I think Bezos believes in a free press and that he would defend the rights of that news organization.
LIPTAK: And I should say just as The Wall Street Journal is doing on...
BARON: Correct.
LIPTAK: ...That birthday letter in the Epstein birthday book, which the president said did not exist, and now it sure seems to exist.
GROSS: So, Marty, the last time you were on the show, you gave us a list of things that you feared would happen during the Trump administration, and some of those things have come true. I'd like you to each say, if you can, what you're concerned might happen next.
BARON: Well, I'm concerned that this administration is going to seek to incarcerate journalists. It's been salivating to do that for some time. Trump talked about that during his rallies years ago, how he wanted to put journalists in jail so that they would reveal their sources. And I think the groundwork has been laid. I mean, the Justice Department, under Pam Bondi, has dispensed with the previous constraints on the government's use of subpoenas and search warrants to get testimony, to get records of journalists, like phone records and emails and all of that. So I think it'll go to court, trying to ask journalists to reveal their sources. And since the journalists are not likely to do that, I think you can expect to see the DOJ request that the journalist be incarcerated.
LIPTAK: I agree with Marty. American press law is quite protective of the press for what it publishes, exceptionally protective. But there's a weak spot, and it's the one Marty identifies. The Supreme Court has never recognized a reporter's privilege. There is no federal shield law. And if we publish information from confidential sources, the government can box us in, can go after reporters to try to get their sources. And as Marty says, no respectable reporter will give up a source. And that becomes a real pressure point.
GROSS: Marty Baron, Adam Liptak, thank you both so much for talking with us.
LIPTAK: It's great to be with you, Terry.
BARON: Thank you, Terry.
GROSS: Adam Liptak covers the courts and legal issues for The New York Times. Marty Baron is the former editor of The Washington Post. This part of our interview was recorded yesterday morning.
Tomorrow on FRESH AIR, our guest will be Scarlett Johansson, who's making her directorial debut with the new film "Eleanor The Great," and June Squibb, who stars as a 94-year-old woman who claims her dead friend's Holocaust survival story as her own, a lie that spirals out of control. Squibb was nominated for an Oscar for her role in "Nebraska." I hope you'll join us.
(SOUNDBITE OF TAYLOR HASKINS' "ALBERTO BALSALM")
GROSS: To keep up with what's on the show and get highlights of our interviews, follow us on Instagram - @nprfreshair. FRESH AIR's executive producer is Danny Miller. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Our managing producer is Sam Briger. Our interviews and reviews 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 visual producer is Hope Wilson. Therese Madden directed today's show. Our co-host is Tonya Mosley. I'm Terry Gross.
(SOUNDBITE OF TAYLOR HASKINS' "ALBERTO BALSALM") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
