On Sunday night, just after Donald Trump returned from his trip to Asia, he gave an interview to 60 minutes CBS recorded in its resort from Mar-a-Lago. The program aired a shortened version the following day. Only 28 minutes of a recording that actually lasted 90. The network uploaded a longer, 73-minute digital version, specifying that it is an "extended version that has been condensed for clarity." It would be necessary to clarify what is meant by "clarity," where the missing 13 minutes are, and the criteria for "condensation." The cut is outrageous, especially since, exactly one year ago, Donald Trump sued Paramount, CBS's parent company, for cutting the interview with Kamala Harris on this same program. On the eve of the election, Trump argued that the editing had favored the Democrat by making her appear more eloquent, and that this had negatively impacted his campaign. Months later, Paramount settled the lawsuit by paying Trump $16 million to clear the way for corporate interests that required administration approval.
That Trump is now the one agreeing to the cut is perplexing and a blatant journalistic inconsistency that has embarrassed the network. At the end of the interview, the president reminded Norah O'Donnell, the journalist, that he had been paid the $16 million and that he was now very happy with the new ownership of the media group. To top it off, he told her that he could cut that moment from the conversation, displaying his lack of scruples, his indifference to the manipulation of content, and the level of control he has over the broadcast. The comment, which journalistically discredits the program and CBS, was omitted from the 28-minute television version, but the presenter was forced to mention it in the program's introduction to salvage what little honor remains for the network.
The two versions of the interview on Trump allow us to analyze the implications of the editing. In the longer version, the answers are interminable, and O'Donnell fails to interrupt him. Consequently, the televised version condenses the discourse so much that the journalist is relegated to a secondary role. Trump's silences, digressions, and absurdities are eliminated, which shapes the viewer's perception of him. Trump has absolute control of the conversation. The broadcast generates suspicion about the content. It raises doubts about the selection criteria: what is considered essential and what is secondary. If a strictly informational criterion is applied, nonverbal, character, and symbolic aspects that influence the viewer's judgment are eliminated. For example, the moment when he pressures the journalist to acknowledge the improvement of Washington, D.C., thanks to his security policies is omitted. The result changes the purpose of a presidential interview. It is not journalism that holds power accountable. It is power holding journalism accountable.
