The familiar tick-tick-tick of the famous stopwatch that has been part of “60 Minutes” for decades may give way to a new sound: a loud alarm.

Paramount Global’s decision overnight to pay $16 million to President Donald Trump to end what has been viewed in many legal circles as a flimsy lawsuit tied to a pre-Election Day interview between Bill Whitaker, a correspondent for the venerable newsmagazine, and former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris has vexed supporters of the program and of journalism in general, who charge Paramount executives risk tarnishing a media brand that has long sought to hold power to account and to probe events with an independent lens.

One union that represents writers at “60 Minutes” and CBS News on Wednesday excoriated Paramount executives for making the deal.

“The Writers Guild of America East stands behind the exemplary work of our members at ’60 Minutes’ and CBS News. We wish their bosses at Paramount Global had the courage to do the same,” said the organization in a statement.

“This settlement is a transparent attempt to curry favors with an administration in the hopes it will allow Paramount Global and Skydance Media merger to be cleared for approval. Paramount’s decision to capitulate to Trump threatens journalists’ ability to do their job reporting on powerful public figures.”

Under terms of the agreement unveiled between Paramount and Trump just after midnight Wednesday, Paramount will pay $16 million, which includes plaintiffs’ fees and costs, and the bulk of which will be allocated to the Trump’s future presidential library.

Paramount also agreed to release transcripts of future interviews between “60 Minutes” and candidates for U.S. president after they air. Paramount and CBS News are not required to offer an apology.

The matter was addressed briefly Wednesday morning during a CBS News editorial meeting by Tom Cibrowski, who was recently named to lead CBS News.

During the session, the executive made clear that the company would not apologize for any of the reporting done by “60 Minutes,” according to a person familiar with the meeting, and thanked all CBS News staffers for “blocking out the noise from the last few months.”

“Thank goodness there’s no apology,” said one network correspondent. “There’s nothing to apologize for.”

At issue were the ways in which a segment of the Harris interview was edited — one for a tease of the segment shown on “Face The Nation” and another broadcast on “60 Minutes” itself.

Harris’ response to a question was never altered, but two different portions of it were shown. Trump alleged in a filing in federal court in the Northern District of Texas in November that “60 Minutes” tried to mislead voters.

The Federal Communications Commission subsequently opened an investigation into the matter, and that organization’s approval is the last item needed by Paramount to sell itself to Skydance, controlled by the Ellison family.

People familiar with CBS News operations believe weeks of leaks about Paramount’s legal machinations and of the “60 Minutes” staff’s aversion to any kind of settlement have already undermined the show.

Paramount has allowed the newsmagazine, which has been on the air since 1968 and continues to generate some of TV’s highest ratings, to become “the opposition,” says one of these people. “It’s so damaging.”

Indeed, recent weeks have seen the departure of Bill Owens, just the third executive producer of “60 Minutes” in its more than half a century on air. Owens said he had begun to face in recent weeks an increasing lack of ability “to make independent decisions based on what was right for ’60 Minutes,’ right for the audience.”

In journalism circles, there are few things worse — particularly in an era when more mainstream news outlets have seen decisions made by business owners like Disney (ABC News) and Jeff Bezos (The Washington Post) that seem more concerned with sparking favorable relationships with current national leaders than with explaining the world to audiences without fear or favor.

Wendy McMahon, the CBS executive who oversaw both the national news unit and the company’s stations left just a few weeks later. Both had implored Paramount not to settle with Trump.

“It’s become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward,” McMahon said in a memo announcing her departure.

According to people familiar with the program, Paramount had set up outside monitors for the show’s various processes, putting the newsmagazine’s independence at risk.

“I have been made aware of interference in our news processes, and calling into question our judgement,” longtime “60 Minutes” correspondent Leslie Stahl told Variety in April. “That is not the way that companies that own news organizations should be acting.”

Could “60 Minutes” correspondent and staff decide to enact the ultimate protest by leaving? There has been much speculation that the staff might choose to do so, and a letter sent by “60 Minutes” correspondents to Paramount co-CEOs George Cheeks, Chris McCarthy and Brian Robbins making a case for the company to push back more strongly against Trump has only heightened it.

But there is also a sense the journalists who produce the show would like it to continue.

Disney late last year set a precedent for Paramount to follow, agreeing to pay a settlement of $15 million to Donald Trump’s presidential library after anchor George Stephanopoulos asserted incorrectly in March of 2024 on air that Trump had been found liable in a court case for raping writer E. Jean Carroll.

The agreement creates one condition to which “60 Minutes” should have already agreed, the network correspondent said — publishing transcripts of big interviews.

“In the digital age, when there’s interest and a market for supplemental content — and deep suspicions of how we do our work anyway — why not release such things to show our work and let people dive into the reporting?”

© 2025 Variety Media, LLC, a subsidiary of Penske Business Media; Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC