Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Paramount Reaches a settlement with its Takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery; President Trump Bans CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House; Interview with Vulture Journalist E. Alex Jung. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired September 21, 2026 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST, AMANPOUR: Hello everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR, here's what's coming up. As world leaders gather in New York,
Brazil's President Lula is first to take the stage, with trade, China and the Trump administration on the line. I speak exclusively with the
Brazilian leader.
Then, a mega media merger moves closer to the finish line. Paramount reaches a settlement in the lawsuit over its takeover of Warner Bros.
Discovery; CNN's parent company. All as President Trump bans CNN and other news organizations from the White House. Media analyst Brian Stelter joins
me on two major stories shaping our industry. Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EUGENE ALEX JUNG, JOURNALIST: The general stereotype has been that full Asian men are effeminate and emasculated. And so, if you have part white in
you, then it sort of maybe mitigates that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The rise of the Wasian identity, and a debate over race, privilege and belonging. Journalist E. Alex Jung joins Michel Martin to
discuss the complicated politics around Asian-American identity. Welcome to the program, everyone, I'm Christiane Amanpour in New York.
The starting gun has been fired on New York's annual traffic snarl and people scrum, otherwise known as the United Nations General Assembly
summit. And looming large over all the world leaders attending is President Trump and his view of international rules of the road.
As we know, it is the strongest that gets to dominate. That's the administration's view. But after trying to take it on the chin since his
inauguration, many world leaders are now increasingly rebelling. Coming up with workarounds to this presidency, such as Brazil's President Lula da
Silva, who will deliver the first address to the U.N. on Tuesday as per tradition with Trump's address to follow.
Lula is also running for an unprecedented fourth term as president and faces a tight race against Flavio Bolsonaro, whose imprisoned father, the
former president still has powerful allies in the Trump administration. Lula and Trump have already clashed over tariffs, interference in his
nation's domestic affairs, new forever wars around the world.
And now Lula is joining other middle powers to push back against what they call the return of spheres of influence and power politics. He spoke very
bluntly when I sat down with this Brazilian President ahead of his speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Mr. President, President Lula, welcome back to our program.
LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, PRESIDENT, BRAZIL (through translator): It's my pleasure, Amanpour, once again, to be interviewed by you.
AMANPOUR: Well, this is a very important time, and you've all been having quite a lot of issues trying to deal with the United States of America. So,
let me first ask you about a new op-ed, a new proposal that you've made along with, I believe, Canada and indeed Kenya and the EU. It's called
Partners for Multilateralism. P4M. What exactly is that?
SILVA: Well, Amanpour, we are now facing an economic war that is unnecessary to the world. Multilateralism is what worked out to keep the
world in a certain trade harmony. Because if we don't have a trade harmony, everything will be a mess in the world economy.
And the behavior of President Trump, he has a strong bias to be in favor of unilateralism, individual relationship without taking into account all the
trade issues. This is very dangerous because there's always the possibility to prevail.
The strongest one who is stronger in the economy, who has more weapons, who has more technological -- more technology and trade has to be balanced. You
have to have -- it has to be a two-way street. I buy and sell. You have to have a certain balance. So, there's -- been no distortion for a country to
be favored more than others.
[14:05:00]
We're trying to show the following. The best way to keep the world in harmony is for us to strengthen multilateralism.
AMANPOUR: You know, the last time you were on my program, you were in Brazil, I was in London interviewing you, and it was shortly after the
Trump administration, and there was talk of sanctions, and there was what you called unacceptable intervention in your domestic affairs.
And you called President Trump an emperor. Do you still believe he's acting like an emperor when it comes to countries like yours?
SILVA: Yes. Well, it's a way of governing that I do not agree. He has a way of governing -- that I'm stronger, I'm the mightiest, I'm the richest,
I can do everything, and that all the others have to obey. It's the stronger law. I don't agree with that, the longer, the strongest.
I think those tariffs, those over tariffs were based on lies. Brazil has a deficit, trade deficit of many billion dollars with the U.S. And so, what's
happening now is the following: instead of cry out, I'm trying to seek for new partners just for you to have an idea after the over tariffs, my trade
relations with the U.S. has fallen 9 percent, the exports to the U.S., and has fallen 8.5 percent imports from the U.S. to Brazil.
Nevertheless, we had a growth average of 10.5 percent with 57 other countries. We grew with China, 20 percent, with Japan, we grew 18 percent,
with Germany, we grew 16 percent, Indonesia 8 percent, with Vietnam, 14 percent, our trading with the European Union, 23 percent of trade growth.
So, I'm not going to just try to cry out about the milk that was spilled on the floor. I'm going to seek other partners to try to buy and sell. That's
how I do in politics too. And I -- we can apply the law of reciprocity with the U.S.
I'm very cautious with that to apply that, because I talked on the phone with President Trump a month and a half, and we reopened the negotiations.
And so, we're negotiating. Once again while we are still around the negotiation table, I don't have to apply the reciprocity law.
I have to be more patient. But it's important for you to know that if there's no agreement, we're going to have to apply the reciprocity law.
AMANPOUR: As you know, Canada faced the same issue, President Trump imposed tariffs on Canada. There was negotiations. They collapsed. Canada
saying the demands by the United States infringed on their sovereignty and became unacceptable and too costly.
And then Canada counterpunched with its own tariffs. So, you're saying you're going to wait, see how the negotiations go. Are you ready for the
negotiations to fail and you to be in a tariff war with the United States?
SILVA: I don't want to go to a tariff war with the U.S. and neither with any other country. What I want to negotiate, and I believe in negotiation.
I was born in my labor movement and in my trade union movement to negotiate and to bargain.
I will do all the efforts to bargain, negotiate, if it's not possible, because the U.S., in case it doesn't want to, then we'll have to take the
attitude because we do have a bill reciprocity that was passed by unanimous vote in our Congress.
And so, I believe that there are goods from Brazil that the U.S. has a lot of interest. And I believe that this is what we need. So, we have to think
of how are we going to -- what are the goods that we are going to put under the reciprocity law against the U.S.?
AMANPOUR: Now, as you very well know, your partner in this partner for multilateralism, Canada was at the EU this week in Strasbourg, and there
was a big reception for him and the President of the European Commission essentially floated the idea of an associate membership with you.
We don't really know what it's -- what it means. It's unprecedented. But the Canadian Prime Minister says we are not trying to form another power,
albeit with better manners, to challenge the United States. Is this an attempt to challenge the United States, or are you just trying to survive
in this world that you describe as the U.S. -- you know, the strongest survive world?
SILVA: We don't want to challenge the U.S.; we just want to say that every country has their own sovereignty. They take care of their own interests,
and the U.S. cannot impose their rules over the others. This is the fact of the matter. We don't want a challenge or confront.
President Trump was elected for -- to be the U.S. President. He has the right to govern the U.S., but he doesn't have the right to govern other
countries. He doesn't have the right to impose his will. He has to have the willingness to negotiate. This is what is of our interest.
We don't want to interfere in a U.S. domestic affair. We want to build partnerships with American companies, Chinese companies, French companies,
German companies. What we don't want is in position to impose on us things. And then we have to be very careful.
I'm not the guy that is just, you know, want to show bravery. I don't want to bluff. I'm not -- I don't bluff. I like to respect and I like to be
respected and show respect. This is the relationship that I want with the U.S.
[14:10:00]
AMANPOUR: You face an election in just under two weeks. Your economy has only been growing about 2 percent over the last year or so. People are very
concerned about the economy. You are in a statistical tie if there's a run- off with your opponent, Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of the previous president.
If there was a runoff, they say it's a statistical tie. When you were running against the father at this time, this point, you were 9 percentage
points ahead. So, you're not doing as well this time around. Are you worried about your election prospects?
SILVA: Every election, I am concerned, Christiane, because we only know the results after the ballot box are open. But the fact of the matter is
that, what is at stake today in Brazil is not a choice of people or parties against -- what is at stake today is a choice that either we have democracy
or we have barbarism, or we have policy to conserve nature or deforestation.
A policy of social inclusion, or leave the poor abandoned, or the strengthening of culture or the end of culture. This is what is at stake
now, and I have the awareness that I will win the elections. I'm sure that I'm going to win the elections because Brazil needs democracy.
And that's why I'm going to win the elections, because we did whatever we had to do in terms of social inclusion policies, from the viewpoint of the
education, from health care. And no one did more than we did in this field.
And so, the people will have to choose now. I'm very comfortable with the electoral process, very comfortable. Democracy will be the most democratic
process. Our ballot box is very good. Our electronic voting system should be adopted by the rest of the world, because a country that has 160 million
voters in 27 states of the federation, when the elections end one hour after that, we know already the results because of the voting electronic
system.
No one, no other country that can do that. No, there's no -- no one -- it's not a contested election. So, I'm comfortable. We still have 17 days of
campaign and we're going to win the elections once again.
AMANPOUR: All right, so you're very confident, man. The thing is though, the United States, particularly President Trump with his MAGA coalition and
his favoring the far-right, has had a lot of success in Latin America over this past year.
Whether it's Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, all these countries have recently and obviously in Argentina, et cetera, have elected right-leaning presidents,
not to mention in Central America which exists right now. But interestingly, well, first of all, what is your view of that kind of
influence by the United States in domestic affairs?
Because, as you know, one of the Bolsonaro sons has been in the U.S. also trying to, you know, gin up American sanctions and other things against
your government. What is your view of that? Is it a risk? What is your view?
SILVA: Well, first of all, there are a lot of people that are convicted in Brazil, but they are hiding in the U.S., a lot of people, they're plotting
against Brazil. That's what I call them, traitors of our country.
AMANPOUR: You particularly mean Bolsonaro Eduardo --
SILVA: This is the victor's --
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: Are you talking about them hiding treasonous --
SILVA: Yes, he's one of the traitors of our country. He's inflating the U.S. against Brazil. This is what's happening as a fact. This is what's
truly happening. And even with money that is coming here, and that soon, we will disclose this mystery of the dark horse film on his father, how it was
financed.
That's -- but the fact of the matter is that, I told President Trump the fault. It's very important for the U.S. not to meddle in the Brazilian
elections. That's extremely important because we have a diplomatic relation with the U.S. for 203 years.
It's a sound and solid relationship, and Brazil is not an anti-American country. The people is not anti-American. We have a sophisticated
relationship with the U.S., and I've said already, it's very important for you not to meddle in the domestic elections in Brazil, as I do not meddle
in the U.S. elections.
The Brazilian elections, the interest of the Brazilian people and the U.S. elections is the interest of the American people. So, it's the people that
matters and the people that makes mistakes and -- or their right. But that's the people's responsibility.
And I do not want that the U.S. have any kind of interference. There's some clues of interference, of artificial intelligence going on, I'm a little
bit concerned with Marco Rubio because Marco Rubio is very close to the Bolsonaro's family. But for the meanwhile, we just have suspicion. There's
nothing concrete.
AMANPOUR: What did the President say when you told him, don't interfere in my elections? What did President Trump say? You say you have suspicions,
nothing concrete. What did he say?
[14:15:00]
SILVA: Well, he has already said to a lot of persons that he will not interfere in the Brazilian elections. And it's good that he said that. It's
good that he should do that. This is the role that I expect from the U.S. or from a President of the Republic. This is the behavior.
I'm going to repeat. The U.S. and the election is a problem of the U.S. people, of the American people. Who wins and loses the Brazilian elections
is a problem of Brazil. Who wins and who loses, it's the people with Trump.
I came to talk with President Trump here, and I delivered to him four documents, and one of these documents -- of these documents was about
organized crime and drug trafficking and putting Brazil at his disposition -- disposal to work internally and externally to fight organized crime and
to fight drug trafficking and to fight weapons and arms trafficking.
I gave him a document. He didn't give me an answer yet about our proposal, because we are willing to confront organized crime in any part of the
world.
AMANPOUR: You talked about Secretary of State Marco Rubio. You're worried about him in various different reasons. And he's clearly one of the drivers
of this administration's Latin American policy. And particularly about maybe collapsing Cuba and having collapsed the government of Venezuela.
The United States is now in full charge of Venezuela. So, my first question is, do you believe that what the United States did in Venezuela is a step
on the route to democracy? Do you support Delcy Rodriguez as the legitimate leader of Venezuela?
Do you think Venezuela is independent right now, or is it a client state of the United States? I'm asking you this because I want to know what it means
for the region.
SILVA: It's very severe, very -- what the U.S. did to Venezuela. The U.S. conveys the idea that they're governing Venezuela. That's what the message
that they're conveying. Every document that we read, the agreements, it looks like the U.S. is the big boss of Venezuela, the sovereignty of the
country has ended.
This is not good. It's not good for the U.S., and it's not good for the Venezuelan, it's not good for democracy either. The idea is that we should
build partnership with Venezuela so that Venezuela -- I said the other day, if I was Delcy; the president, I would call for election, national
elections so that people could choose who is going to be the next president of the country.
Because the way the U.S. is treating Delcy, it seems that U.S. is Delcy's boss. This is explicit in all the newspapers, reports that we see. And he -
- Trump likes to state that he controls the oil from Venezuela to the U.S., they pay a little bit to Venezuela that he has everything under control.
This is not the best way to follow international relations or international policy for the U.S. If Maduro made a mistake, he has to be put on trial. He
has to be put on trial, then we have to find out, there has to be investigation.
One country can't charge someone else. I'm tired of -- where are the chemical weapons that everybody said that Saddam Hussein carried? Where are
these chemical weapons? Where's the nuclear bomb that Iran has? In 2010, I went to Iran to negotiate with Ahmadinejad and with President Erdogan in
Turkey, and then the U.S. and Europe did not accept our agreement with Iran.
And only made a worse agreement with Iran. There's no nuclear bomb in Iran. Now, they went on war against Iran. And what happened to the world? The
world now is paying a more expensive price for gas, fertilizers are more expensive, and the price of food is going up here in the U.S., and it's
going up in all countries.
Do you know what I did? I created a special tax of the surplus of oil that we export, so that we should not allow that the price of beans, which is
very staple food in Brazil, that would be affected by the Hormuz Strait war. We do not want -- we do not want that this confusion of war reaches
Brazil, affects Brazil.
The Hormuz Strait is bringing damage and harm to the rest of the world. We don't want it to come to Brazil and arrive. So, where is the reason for
this war? Well, Trump said, I killed Khamenei and I ended the war. No, the war was just starting after Khamenei's death.
So, there's a lack of sense -- good sense of the leaders. You have a U.N. Security Council that doesn't work, that doesn't gather, that doesn't meet
President Xi Jinping, get to Trump or Putin, Macron and the U.K. Prime Minister.
They never gathered to discuss these security matters. And we had 70,000 women and children killed in the Gaza Strip. And no one -- the council did
not gather. The Ukraine war is going on for five years, and the U.N. Security Council doesn't gather.
There are many conflicts going on. So, we're today experiencing the most amount of conflicts in the history of humanity after the Second World War.
[14:20:00]
What is the use or the purpose of the U.N. Security Council? There's only five permanent members, the ones that have veto powers. They're only five.
Why don't these five gather? I phoned Trump, I phoned Xi Jinping, I phoned Putin and told them, gather, gather to discuss peace in the world and end
with the conflict. I can't imagine that we should go on.
We should spend money for education, for healthcare, for food. And we're spending trillions and trillions of dollars in wars. So, where are we going
to end up with all this? When humanity will reach peace? When? If the leaders are the ones that are responsible.
For they're the largest economies, they have the greatest technology, the greatest Army, the greatest Navy, the greatest Air Force, the greatest
amount of atomic bombs. They have everything. They're the ones that should stop the wars and go to peace.
No, they're just fostering on lies. And when are we going to end up with all this? So, my question is the following: when are we going to end with
hunger in the world? When are we going to end with the illiteracy in the world? When are we going to end with the diseases that were already cured
in the past, and now these diseases -- same with these diseases cause deaths in the world?
AMANPOUR: You've asked a lot of questions a lot of the people around the world are asking right now. Do you believe to bring it back to the
beginning? Do you believe this new initiative is going to answer the questions you have just very passionately laid down?
SILVA: We have to find a solution. My appeal. Let me give you an example. Now, it's going to be elected -- the new Secretary General for the U.N., he
will be elected in this General Assembly. Who is going to vote?
AMANPOUR: He or she?
SILVA: We're 190 countries, right? We're 190 members of the U.N. The bottom line is that who chooses the U.N. General Secretary are the five
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. They have veto power, so if they veto, no one will pass. No one will be elected.
So, I ask myself, we have to change the way the U.N. is organized. We have to go back and give more representation to the U.N., more legitimacy,
because today it is discredited, U.N. Security Council doesn't work. The World Trade Organization doesn't work. U.N. has no power to avoid conflict.
So, what are we going to do with the U.N., or are we going to dismantle the U.N., something that was created, that has an important -- extraordinary
importance after the Second World War? What are the leaders doing? Nothing. They're doing nothing.
So, they're quiet, silent, just waiting and see the parade and see the confusion going on. We just watch it and the world is disturbed
economically, politically, militarily. And so, I'm very bothered. I am -- I have a great indignation with what's going on. I'm 80 years of age.
I've been in politics for 50 years, and everything that I see happen is getting worse. Everything -- every day I see that things are getting worse
or worsening. That is to say, terror -- security for the territories of the country doesn't exist anymore.
Any country now could invade another country. There's no more a territorial -- do you believe this is right? We can't live on lies based on lies. If
there was drug trafficking in Venezuela, you arrest the drug traffickers. But they killed a lot of people in those boats, they haven't showed any
evidence that those boats were drug traffickers.
They killed, and now they killed Saddam Hussein, and where are the chemical weapons? So, until when the world will be subordinated to lies, until when
we'll be subordinated to lies, it would have been much more easy for us to have peace in the world and tranquility through the U.N.
The G20, the G7 did not discuss any more the climate change in the last meetings, neither the G7, neither the G20 discussed the climate change
issue because the major leaders do not believe in the climate change issue. They don't believe in it.
And we've -- I've seen President Trump say, no, I don't believe in this stuff. Well, in Brazil, there's a lot of people that don't believe in that
too. We cannot allow that denialism -- denialism in Brazil would win the next elections. Denialism cannot work out in any part of the world.
What works out right is to take care of policy, a policy to take care of the people, not to govern, but to take care of the people. And this we know
how to do with great wisdom and talent.
AMANPOUR: President Lula da Silva, thank you very much indeed for being with us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: A world leader not shy to express his disheartening with the current situation. Stay with CNN, we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:25:00]
AMANPOUR: CNN, "Politico" and "MS NOW" are suing the Trump administration over the President's decision to ban their journalists from the White
House. The three outlets say the move violates the First Amendment, and they're asking a federal court to restore access.
President Trump barred them after complaining about what he called persistently, quote, "negative coverage". And this comes as a settlement
has just been reached with the state Attorneys General, who is suing to block Paramount's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, which is CNN's
parent company.
That clears the last major hurdle for that merger. California Attorney General Rob Bonta says the deal includes new safeguards for the editorial
independence of "CBS News" and CNN.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROB BONTA, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: It must establish a news editorial independence board to support "CBS News" and CNN's continued editorial
independence to ensure independent, objective, fact-based reporting at "CBS News" and at CNN.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What does it all mean? CNN's chief media analyst Brian Stelter is joining me now. Brian, thank you. And I know you've been all over this.
So, because we're CNN and part of this does involve us. Can you explain and is there any, you know, further thought on what an independent editorial
board would look like? What does it mean? Who fills it? What are the red lines, et cetera?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: I've been reading through the terms that have been set now, and actually shared with the court in
California, because this is a legally enforceable settlement known as a consent decree that's been accepted by Paramount.
And on page 11 of that document, it specifies that this editorial board will have five journalists, either active or retired journalists. It says
that no more than two of them can be from the same political affiliation. Of course, lots of journalists probably are not affiliated with any
political party, but what they're going for there with that language is the idea of viewpoint diversity.
Now, this editorial board is supposed to be there to provide protections for CNN as well as for Paramount's own news division, "CBS News". And it is
supposed to set standards and resolve disputes that arise. How that's going to work, whether it's going to work, whether it's going to be effective,
are giant question marks, Christiane.
I will tell you, just between us friends here, I'm a little bit skeptical. And the reason I'm skeptical is because we've seen this before. For
example, the "Wall Street Journal" and Rupert Murdoch bought the Journal. There was a board set up, but people say it was mostly toothless.
There are also similar boards at a couple of other institutions with media companies around the world. So, maybe this one will be effective. But the
devil will be in the details and we don't know the details yet.
AMANPOUR: But here's the thing. We have also seen this movie, we have seen the Paramount "Skydance" Ellison takeover of "CBS News" first, and we've
seen what their view of editorial independence has meant, essentially a wholesale reorientation of the personnel.
And as far as we can gather, the editor-in-chief's views on what editorial independence looks like. And there's been a huge amount of criticism about
what it has transpired to be. I was actually surprised to see that this deal also adds the editorial board function for "CBS". I mean, I thought
the "CBS" thing was kind of done and dusted.
STELTER: That's a very interesting point. This is partly as a result of the state Attorneys General negotiating over the weekend. For example, in
Connecticut, the Attorney General, William Tong, he says in a statement, he was fighting to protect both "CBS News" and CNN.
[14:30:00]
He says he wanted them both to be sold off by Paramount, but he couldn't get that done. But he says they were insisting on this board to ensure
independence of both outlets.
Can we talk about CBS, though? Because CBS News is really complicated right now. Paramount's owned it for about a year. The Ellisons have owned it for
about a year. Barry Weiss has been the editor for almost a year. And yes, Ellison and Weiss have brought in a lot of new attitudes and energy. There
have been some firings. There have been some shows that have been changed. There's also still a lot of robust journalism being produced by CBS News, a
lot of tough coverage of the Trump administration.\
Last week, I noticed a big CBS News exclusive showing examples of bombed- out U.S. military bases and aircraft. CBS published the photos, even though the Pentagon was surely furious. So, it's complicated right now. Weiss has
lots of opinions. She's brought those opinions to the newsroom. That's uncomfortable for many at CBS. She's also fired 60 Minutes' correspondents
and overhauled the show.
But there's still a lot of great journalism being produced, and I think that's important that we don't lose sight of that in this conversation
either.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Exactly. And I think it's -- I'm just not going to go into it too much, because there's a lot of
skepticism still on that. The jury is still absolutely out on what that --
STELTER: There is. The jury is still out. That's right.
AMANPOUR: Yes, exactly.
STELTER: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Now, there's so many questions to ask about the CNN thing, but we'll see how it plays out. We've also heard --
STELTER: I don't have any other answers. So --
AMANPOUR: Yes, I know. But let's talk --
STELTER: You know, here's the thing, Christiane. Like, we've been going for 45 years, right? CNN just keeps going, no matter who, no matter what,
no matter where. This network just keeps going. I strongly believe that's what's going to happen, even though we're about to get another new owner.
AMANPOUR: OK. Interesting. I've been here 43 years. So, I've seen it all. Every merger, every buyout. And so, far, yes, we just keep going.
STELTER: That's right.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you, though, about the other issue, because there was a thought that, you know, the big issue really affecting California, let's
face it, was the economic issue over the film industry. And that's what was really motivating Bonta, and what was motivating the stop-the-deal, et
cetera, stop-the-merger, et cetera.
Do you think -- because it's quite complicated, the math about, you know, how many films and what percentage of remuneration and all the rest of it
that Bonta laid out. I thought that in the preamble to all of this, there was a notion that for a period of time, they were floating, that Paramount
Studios and Warner Bros. Studios would be separated and act autonomously for a period of time after the merger. That didn't come up at all today. It
looks like it's going to be an immediate merger. Did you get that? Did you read it that way, too?
STELTER: You are describing it correctly, and the reality is that these settlement terms are very modest compared to what merger opponents wanted,
compared to what some of the states themselves wanted, compared to what Bonta said he would deliver.
Remember, Bonta in July said he would only insist on structural -- or only accept structural remedies, meaning asset sales, divestitures, total
restructuring of how these companies operate. He has not done that. He has accepted something that's much more modest in scope.
And that's probably in part because Paramount was threatening to leave California. Bonta is now bragging -- remember, he's up for re-election. A
lot of these guys are up for re-election right now, this fall. He's bragging that he's bringing lots of money and keeping it in California. So,
I think the politics of this are pretty clear. Paramount is out there in public thanking Bonta and Ellison for having good-faith negotiations. And
now, Paramount will be able to take over, I'm told, by early October. So, at some point in the next couple of weeks, this deal will take effect.
And ultimately, Christiane, it's about the synergies, right? The Ellisons have to be able to combine these studios, combine these new operations to
some degree, in order to return the cost savings that they've promised to Wall Street. This is an incredibly leveraged -- it's basically a leveraged
buyout. So, there's no doubt there will be layoffs. And those details are still to come.
AMANPOUR: Indeed. And let's not forget that I'm not -- if I'm not mistaken, just under 50 percent of this deal is financed by Arab states in
the Gulf, which are not known for their, you know, fidelity to freedom of expression, independent news, and the rest of it. We'll see how that goes.
Now, I obviously want to ask you, the fact that this settlement announcement comes just as there is, you know, now legal action taken by
CNN and three other -- two other organizations that have been banned by Trump from the White House, Politico and also MS NOW. Where do you think
that's headed? And also, I'm really quite heartened, and I posted, that the entire, you know, affected press organization regarding pools and who does
that, have stood in solidarity with the banned networks.
STELTER: Yes. We've talked a lot during Trump 2.0 about capitulation, law firms and universities and media companies rolling over. Paramount was one
of them by paying Trump to settle the lawsuit. But what we're seeing now is the opposite. We're seeing solidarity, including from CBS, when it comes to
this TV pool. Where's it going to go from here?
[14:35:00]
Well, a judge, a Trump-appointed judge, has set a hearing for Wednesday. There's a belief that that judge will rule by the end of the week. It's the
same judge who defended Jim Acosta when his press pass was revoked back in 2018. Remember, that got settled pretty quickly. Acosta was back at work.
Trump lost that fight. Well, it's the same judge this time around.
So, there's a belief that Trump will lose this fight as well. But there's a broader issue at play. He is getting more emboldened, getting more unhinged
in his behavior, an undemocratic behavior trying to target news outlets. And all those other outlets that are expressing solidarity with CNN, they
know they might be next. That's why they're speaking out, because they know they might be banned tomorrow.
AMANPOUR: And of course, you know, it's not unprecedented for the White House, the president, to really dislike what the press is writing about
them. But this kind of targeting, I think, hasn't happened before. We know that under the Obama administration, they tried to limit or ban for a
period Fox News from the Treasury briefings because of a certain issue. But because of the outrage and the uproar, including from CNN and others, they
had to back down. Has there ever been anything as targeted and as draconian as this current ban?
STELTER: There has not. Not in American history. No past president has ever tried to do this. You know, we can put on the historian hat. Some of
them might have fantasized about it, but none of them have actually done it. And it is already backfiring on Trump, because he tried to hold an
event on Monday afternoon, you know, and he tried to have a ribbon cutting, but we weren't able to hear what he was saying because there was no
microphone there from no television camera.
So, it's already backfiring. But he's also contradicting his own promises. He promised to restore free press in the country, sorry, he promised to
restore free speech in the country. He promised to be the most transparent president. Heck, 10 years ago, he promised that he would, to me on the
phone, that he would never revoke credentials for journalists. All of that, of course, has happened. He has contradicted his own promises.
And I think most Americans, including many Trump voters, see that. Because after all, Trump voters want to know what's going on in the White House,
just like Trump opponents. Everybody benefits when the press is there, and everybody suffers when we're not. Yes, you and I know that very well
indeed. Let's see how this transpires.
AMANPOUR: Brian Stelter, thank you. Stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, as a new generation comes of age, so does a new lexicon. Waysian, a portmanteau describing people of mixed white and Asian heritage,
has quickly become a fixture online, opening up a wider discussion about race and identity in the United States. From pop star Olivia Rodrigo to
Olympic figure skater Alysa Liu, increased visibility of Waysian stars has fueled interest around the term. And this attention culminated in Waysian
meetups across the U.S., sparking questions about privilege and exclusion.
Alex Jung is a contributor at New York magazine's pop culture publication Vulture, and he joins Michel Martin to explore what is fueling the
conversation around this term.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Alex Jung, thank you so much for talking with us.
E. ALEX JUNG, JOURNALIST, VULTURE: Thank you for having me.
[14:40:00]
MARTIN: You wrote recently in Vulture about what you called a mass coming of age. And we're talking about the term Waysians or a group of people who
are called Waysians. So, I need you to define terms for people who may not have heard this. Who are Waysians?
JUNG: Waysian is basically an Internet portmanteau that I would say started about in the late decade of 2019 around is where I would pinpoint
it. And it was really started proliferating on TikTok, Instagram with younger kids. And it means white and Asian. So, it sort of means just kids
who are mixed, half white, half Asian.
MARTIN: Half white, half Asian. You wrote about this for a couple of reasons. One is the numbers. I mean, Asian-Americans are the fastest
growing major racial group in the country. About one in five is multiracial. And of those, 82 percent are part white and more than half are
under 25. So, this is like a big cohort with a big influence on culture, right? On youth culture, right?
JUNG: Yes, I think that is what the Waysian meet up, which they were happening all around the country. And there was one in New York in
particular in Central Park that was a mass convening. They wanted it to be a mass convening. And I think it was both on social media and in the
literal world. And I felt like that was a real culmination of the kids are here.
MARTIN: But apparently your feed -- your social feed was like blowing up. Like what happened? Tell me about it.
JUNG: And so, they decided to have a bunch of Waysian meet ups around the country in L.A., San Francisco. But the one in New York really was a mass
convergence, I think. There were over 3,800 people who said yes to going. It's unclear, of course, exactly how many actually went. But the social
media flood from it afterwards really demonstrated that it was a lot of people and over indexed on influencers, people who are very tech savvy
already. So, there was another life to the actual physical meet up online afterwards.
MARTIN: So, what's so terrible? I mean --
JUNG: Great question, it upset a lot of people. There were a lot of critics who sort of were asking why Waysian? Why not make it mixed Asian? I
think the most valid and lasting criticism came from mixed Asians who are not white.
So, black and Asian, Latino and Asian, who said that this was exclusionary to the mixed-race experience of Asian-Americans in the States, because I
think it's important to point out, you know, like Asian-American, too, is an already abstracted category. And so, you have white and Asian, which is
kind of a mishmash of two abstractions. And so, it's people began to ask, what are we celebrating? Are we because there's no shared cultural
heritage? There's no it's not like everybody was Korean, you know.
So, that sort of led people to talk about aesthetics and phenotype and this other layer of racialization of how you're perceived in the world, that
that really became a point of fixation and controversy, ultimately.
MARTIN: But you use the piece to talk about sort of big -- bigger issues. And there are some really interesting sort of bigger issues. Like, for
example, one of the things you point out is that there really has been an explosion of Waysian talent on the cultural scene. People having a really
big impact, you know, from Olivia Rodrigo or, you know, Charles Melton or Lola Tung or Hudson Williams in "Heated Rivalry."
The other thing you point out is that this is a group of people who -- corollary among African-Americans who were often kind of excluded from
participation in a lot of entertainment media because they were perceived as they were -- you're not white, so you're not leading man, leading woman
worthy, but you're not Asian enough to be like the best friend stereotype.
JUNG: Right.
MARTIN: So, all of a sudden, it's kind of turned on its head. So, say more about that, like say more about how that kind of -- just tell us that
story.
JUNG: Yes, yes. No, I mean -- and I want to preface this with just saying phenotype can vary vastly.
MARTIN: And phenotype -- by phenotype, you mean appearance.
JUNG: Appearance, yes.
MARTIN: Right.
JUNG: I mean, you know, mixed people can look like Asian passing or white passing, and that experience largely determines, especially if you're an
actor in Hollywood, that very literal phenotype is what will determine what you get, what jobs you get sent out for, how you're read, whether you're
read as Asian enough or white enough, you know, and the politics of representation in Hollywood have varied for a really long time.
[14:45:00]
MARTIN: What made that happen? Yes, because I'm thinking about "Crazy Rich Asians," which was a breakthrough on a number of levels and those sort of
the lead, you know, Henry Golding.
JUNG: Yes. Wasian.
MARTIN: Super gorgeous. I mean, come on, super gorgeous and Wasian.
JUNG: Totally.
MARTIN: Right?
JUNG: Totally. But that -- but even at "Crazy Rich Asians," I think is kind of interesting because he is playing a scion, you know, like a full
Asian, ostensibly child of Chinese billionaires, you know. So, that's an interesting kind of thing that's been happening, particularly, I think,
with leading men more recently, is that Asian-American leading men, particularly in romantic roles, tend to be, I find, mixed white and Asian.
I talk to a lot of people just behind the scenes, actors, writers, directors of both mixed and full heritage. And I think a lot of them sort
of have sensed this tilt towards or this preference that Hollywood has towards mixed white Asian actors as the stand in for Asian-American actors
as a largely writ. And you see that particularly, I think, on the on the male romantic side. And I think that's sort of where the anxiety starts to
come in.
MARTIN: Yes, why is that?
JUNG: That's a great question. I think some people think that they, quote/unquote, "play better to various markets," that white audiences will
be able to see them as sexual or as more masculine, because I think the general stereotype has been that full Asian men are effeminate and
emasculated.
And so, if you have part white in you, then it sort of maybe mitigates that. And there's just a lot of words that people use like relatable,
palatable, appropriate, like things like that that I think are really speak to deeper anxieties around race and who we consider attractive, powerful,
all of those things.
MARTIN: It's interesting because Hollywood itself is contracting. A lot of diversity initiatives are being explicitly rolled back. There was a study
at the UNC -- USC Annenberg found that among the 37 leads or co-leads of color in the top films of 2019, 10 were multiracial or multiethnic, more
than were Asian, Latino or Middle Eastern, North African. And that's -- those are hard facts.
JUNG: Yes, yes. And there's a similar corollary with the UCLA. UCLA also did a study of streaming films, and I think about 22 percent of them were
multiracial and they were the second largest group behind white people. And full Asians only accounted for 2 percent. So, that's like -- you know, and
it doesn't disaggregate the numbers of what multiracial means, but I think essentially what you are seeing is a kind of, you know, is a preference or
for mixed Asians, specifically mixed white Asians, as the stand in for Asian or as a way to check the box of diversity is what one writer told me
who was mixed Asian herself.
MARTIN: This is a line that really got my attention. You wrote, increasingly, representational politics feels like dusty land that's been
dried up from single crop farming. But then there are moments when it still has talismanic sway. What did you mean by that?
JUNG: I think this is my own maybe dissatisfaction with representation as a politic for us, I think it sucks to be clear, you know, that Hollywood
has a preference for, for instance, like if they're not hiring full Asian actors who are talented and charismatic, but they're not getting the parts.
I think that's an obvious bias that's happening.
But I guess my own sort of feelings around representational politics is that that is not where we should be putting our energies towards thinking
about political change in this country. And so, that's a kind of and I think that does happen particularly around Asian-Americans where they I
think we fixate a lot on are we seen in the popular culture? Are we being represented in this way? And I think it's more ultimately important for us
to find a political solidarity around economics or, you know, like class, things like that, that I think are actually to me more meaningful than, you
know, are you the head of a TV show?
MARTIN: Why is that? Is this in part a marker of affluence? Because one of the points you make in your piece is that Asian-Americans as a group are
over indexed on wealth and education. So, in part, is this a sign of privilege? You know, you have time on your hands to worry about this kind
of thing because you're not worried about what some people are worried about, which is survival.
JUNG: Totally. I think that's right. I think it is a privilege conversation to be able to do this sort of top level, you know, like are we
represented on the Fortune 500 CEO list?
[14:350:00]
You know, I think that's to me, maybe not where we should be thinking about what Asian-American means. I mean, just to sort of take it back even to the
'60s, when Asian-American became an identity, was about solidarity with black power, with the anti-war movement against Vietnam, with the third
world liberation movement, with the anti-war movement on the liberation front.
And so, it was very much about how do we think about ourselves in the context of this greater body and sort of fight and organize in that way. It
was it was about using Asian-American as a political leveraging tool. And so, what was interesting to me about Waysian was that it felt really
depoliticized, like the organizers all sort of uniformly were like when I asked if it was political at all or there were any politics to it, they
were immediately, no, absolutely not.
That was never on their mind. They don't think about politics at all. And they're, in fact, often quite depoliticized in terms of how they think
about anything, not even just their identity. But I think class politics were at large.
MARTIN: Let me go back to the sort of the basic question.
JUNG: Yes.
MARTIN: Did they see the kind of the Waysian-ness as being celebrating proximity to whiteness? Did they mean to be excluding people who had other
mixtures? So, were they -- was the idea -- what was the idea with these folks? Did they think, well, they'll come if they want to or --
JUNG: Yes. So, the -- even the invitation -- like sort of I got into the weeds a little bit on the reporting on trying to figure out exactly when
the invitation name changed. It was first called the Waysian Meetup or the Great Convening of Waysia. But then it switched to Mixed Asian Meetup.
And the language of the actual invite sort of is like, it's the Waysian moment, but everybody's invited. You know, like Blasians, Latasians,
everyone, full Asians, everyone can come. So -- but everyone is still sort of coming as an asterisk to, I think, Waysian moment. So, I think there was
a recognition at some point that, oh, maybe we need to change the language of this. But I really don't think they were thinking about it that much.
MARTIN: Where do you think this goes from here?
JUNG: I think for me, the cultural dysphoria that a mixed Asian person might feel of being torn between two worlds of a feeling that your
phenotype doesn't match how you feel inside or how you were raised or your own cultural mores. Like, those are things that are just also a way of
describing the Asian-American experience.
Like, I grew up in Florida. I had Korean parents, but I also went to a Baptist school, a white Baptist school in the South. You know, that's a --
it's a weird way to be thinking about, like, who am I? Am I Korean enough? Am I Asian enough? Am I trying to assimilate? How have I assimilated? You
know, all of these questions, I think, are just a shared part of being Asian-American in, you know, just broadly.
And I think it's -- ultimately, it's been useful for me to not solely lock down into solipsism and isolation and alienation and that and holding on to
that feeling, but sort of understanding the ways in which my identity intersects with everyone else in these broader ways and then sort of
viewing it within a larger social structure and trying to move past that, you know, past narcissism, I think. And I think that's just being young,
too.
So, I have a lot of empathy, too, at the same time of, you know, I know what it's like to be a teenager and all you want to do is fit in. I get
that. And -- but I also think that that is not a valuable or useful place to stay. And so, that's sort of how I wanted to sort of end the piece was
for us to try to maybe like not shame, but to maybe open the box a little bit more in terms of, OK, this happened. The Wasian meetup happened. But
how can we think about our identities in concert with other people of color, you know, in a political sense?
I think race is inherently political in this country. So, I think that is the piece that I would hope to see happen. I don't know if it will, but --
MARTIN: Well, you captured a moment for sure.
JUNG: Thank you.
MARTIN: Alex Jung, thank you so much for talking with us.
JUNG: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, about a century ago, the American bison population had fallen to around 500 animals nationwide today. Their numbers have
rebounded thanks to decades worth of work from conservationists and indigenous communities.
[14:55:00]
Among those who helped bring back the population from near extinction was the late CNN founder, Ted Turner, who built and managed the largest private
bison herd in North America. And I visited his ranch and saw this rebirth for myself back in 2015 in Montana. And now, the animals' remarkable
comeback has been celebrated in a production across New York City. It's called Return of the Buffalo, and it brought 40 life-size buffalo puppets
through Brooklyn's most iconic landmarks.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:00]
END
