The legacy media got a fresh reminder that bias still colors their coverage as New York Times audio surfaced of a tense exchange after President Trump’s CBS interview, with Karoline Leavitt warning “Make sure you guys don’t cut the tape” and threatening, “If it’s not out in full, we’ll sue your a– off,” while CBS staffers reacted with laughter and said they intended to air the full interview. This piece lays out the facts, calls out the inconsistent outrage from some outlets, and explains why insisting on the full interview was reasonable given past editing controversies. It also questions why a supposed national paper treats a likely offhand remark as an affront rather than reporting the context. The stakes here are about trust in reporting and whether the press will allow audiences to see interviews unedited.
The audio, obtained by The New York Times and later reported widely, includes Leavitt saying, “He said, ‘Make sure you guys don’t cut the tape, make sure the interview is out in full,” and then, “He said, ‘If it’s not out in full, we’ll sue your a– off,'” with Dokoupil replying, “Yeah, we’re doing it, yeah.” Those lines are the heart of the story and they were treated as a provocation by some outlets. But those present at the scene framed the exchange as lighthearted, with Dokoupil joking, “He always says that!”, and CBS producers laughing it off. Context matters, and the way outlets selectively amplify parts of an interaction influences how readers perceive intent.
The New York Times obtained audio from the moments that followed Trump’s interview with Dokoupil in Michigan on Tuesday, which included Leavitt warning, on behalf of the president, not to cut the tape.
“He said, ‘Make sure you guys don’t cut the tape, make sure the interview is out in full,” Leavitt said, according to the audio.
Dokoupil responded, according to recording obtained by The Times, “Yeah, we’re doing it, yeah.”
“He said, ‘If it’s not out in full, we’ll sue your a– off,'” Leavitt continued, according to the outlet.
CBS confirmed they always planned to air the full interview, which undercuts the idea that Leavitt was coercing the network. It’s a fair point to ask why major outlets choose to portray a moment as threatening when the people involved treated it as a joke. Journalists should report facts and context, not manufacture drama from a short exchange. When a network says the interview will run complete, that should close the narrative of alleged intimidation unless clear evidence suggests otherwise.
The concern about edits is not invented; there are precedent issues that make full transparency reasonable to demand. Newsrooms have made editorial choices that later drew criticism, including controversial edits that altered the meaning of interviews. Given that history, a White House aide wanting an interview aired in full is defensible, especially when trust in big media is already frayed. Asking for the whole tape is not censorship; it is a push for completeness and accountability in public reporting.
Yet some outlets seized the passage as proof of an attempt to “dictate” coverage, treating a likely quip like an instruction. That reveals more about the outlet’s angle than about the people on the tape. If the Times believes the remark could be threatening, it should make a clearer case rather than lean on innuendo. Fair reporting should let audiences weigh a full interview and the surrounding audio without editorialized outrage driving the headline.
There is a practical point too: airing the whole interview allows viewers to judge for themselves, rather than rely on a network summary or a leak. CBS committed to putting the full interview out, which is the correct step when controversy bubbles up. The idea that demanding transparency is inherently improper flips the duty of the press the wrong way; journalists should welcome open footage, not treat it as an attempt to control narrative.
From a conservative viewpoint, the episode highlights a recurring problem: mainstream media often filters what audiences see and then criticize others for trying to secure unedited material. That inconsistency erodes public trust. When outlets frame routine interactions as sinister, it further divides the country and feeds skepticism about whose interests reporting actually serves.
At the end of the day, the audio is what it is, and the exchange will be judged in full by viewers when the interview is released. The better journalistic move is to present the facts and context without coloring them to fit a predetermined narrative. Letting the public see the whole interview is the most straightforward way to resolve questions about intent and tone.
Add comment