CNN defamation trial comes at a rough time for legacy media — and for 
		the struggling network
						
		 
		
		Send a link to a friend  
 
		
		
		 [January 08, 2025]  By 
		DAVID BAUDER 
						
		NEW YORK (AP) — At a particularly inopportune time for legacy media and 
		CNN, the news outlet is on trial in Florida this week, accused of 
		defaming a Navy veteran involved in rescuing endangered Afghans from 
		that country when the U.S. ended its involvement there in 2021. 
		 
		The veteran, Zachary Young, blames CNN for destroying his business when 
		it displayed his face onscreen during a story that discussed a “black 
		market” in smuggling out Afghans for high fees at the time of the 
		Taliban takeover. 
		 
		In a broader sense, the case puts the news media on the stand in 
		journalism critic Donald Trump's home state weeks before he's due to 
		begin his second term as president, and on the same day Facebook's 
		parent introduced a Trump-friendly policy of backing off fact checks. 
		Young's attorney, Kyle Roche, leaned into the press' unpopularity in his 
		opening arguments on Tuesday. 
		 
		“You're going to have an opportunity to do something significant in this 
		trial,” Roche told jurors in Florida's 14th Judicial Circuit Courts in 
		Panama City on Tuesday. “You're going to have an opportunity to send a 
		message to mainstream media. You're going to have an opportunity to 
		change an industry.” 
		 
		That's the fear. Said Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the 
		Study of Media Ethics and the Law at the University of Minnesota: 
		“Everybody in the news media is on trial in this case." 
						
		
		  
						
		Actual defamation trials are rare in this country 
		 
		Defamation trials are actually rare in the United States, in part 
		because strong constitutional protections for the press make proving 
		libel difficult. From the media's standpoint, taking a case to a judge 
		or jury is a risk many executives don't want to take. 
		 
		Rather than defend statements that George Stephanopoulos made about 
		Trump last spring, ABC News last month agreed to make the former 
		president's libel lawsuit go away by paying him $15 million toward his 
		presidential library. In the end, ABC parent Walt Disney Co. concluded 
		an ongoing fight against Trump wasn't worth it, win or lose. 
		 
		In the most high-profile libel case in recent years, Fox News agreed to 
		pay Dominion Voting Systems $787 million on the day the trial was due to 
		start in 2023 to settle the company's claims of inaccurate reporting in 
		the wake of the 2020 presidential election. 
		 
		The Young case concerns a segment that first aired on Jake Tapper's 
		program on Nov. 11, 2021, about extraction efforts in Afghanistan. Young 
		had built a business helping such efforts, and advertised his services 
		on LinkedIn to sponsors with funding who could pay for such evacuation. 
		 
		He subsequently helped four separate organizations — Audible, Bloomberg, 
		a charity called H.E.R.O. Inc. and a Berlin-based NGO called CivilFleet 
		Support eV — get more than a dozen people out of Afghanistan, according 
		to court papers. He said he did not market to — or take money from — 
		individual Afghans. 
		 
		Yet Young’s picture was shown as part of CNN story that talked about a 
		“black market” where Afghans were charged $10,000 or more to get family 
		members out of danger. 
		 
		The plaintiff says the story's reference to ‘black market’ damaged 
		him 
		 
		To Young, the “black market” label implied some sort of criminality, and 
		he did nothing illegal. “It's devastating if you're labeled a criminal 
		all over the world,” Young testified on Tuesday. 
		 
		
            [to top of second column]  | 
            
             
            
			  
            Signage is seen at the CNN Center in Atlanta on April 21, 2022. (AP 
			Photo/Mike Stewart, File) 
            
			
			  CNN said in court papers that 
			Young's case amounts to “defamation by implication,” and that he 
			hadn't actually been accused of nefarious acts. The initial story he 
			complained about didn't even mention Young until three minutes in, 
			CNN lawyer David Axelrod argued on Tuesday. 
			Five months after the story aired, Young complained 
			about it, and CNN issued an on-air statement that its use of the 
			phrase “black market” was wrong. “We did not intend to suggest that 
			Mr. Young participated in a black market. We regret the error. And 
			to Mr. Young, we apologize.” 
			 
			That didn't prevent a defamation lawsuit, and the presiding judge, 
			William S. Henry, denied CNN's request that it be dismissed. CNN, in 
			a statement, said that “when all the facts come to light, we are 
			confident we will have a verdict in our favor.” 
			 
			Axelrod argued on Tuesday that CNN's reporting was tough, fair and 
			accurate. He told the jury that they will hear no witnesses who will 
			say they thought less of Young or wouldn't hire him because of the 
			story — in other words, no one to back up his contention that it was 
			so damaging to his business and life. 
			 
			Yet much like Fox was publicly hurt in the Dominion case by internal 
			communications about Trump and the network's coverage, some 
			unflattering revelations about CNN's operations will likely become 
			part of the trial. They include internal messages where CNN's 
			reporter, Alex Marquardt, says unflattering and profane things about 
			Young. A CNN editor was also revealed on messages to suggest that a 
			Marquardt story on the topic was “full of holes,” Roche said. 
			 
			“At the end of the day, there was no one at CNN who was willing to 
			stand up for the truth,” Roche said. “Theater prevailed.” 
			 
			Axelrod, who shares a name with a longtime Democratic political 
			operative and CNN commentator, contended that the give and take was 
			part of a rigorous journalistic process putting the video segment 
			and subsequent printed stories together. “Many experienced 
			journalists put eyes on these stories,” he said. 
			 
			It's still going to be difficult for CNN to go through. The network, 
			with television ratings at historic lows, doesn't need the trouble. 
			
			
			  
			“At a moment of wider vilification and disparagement of the press, 
			there is every reason to believe this will be weaponized, even if 
			CNN prevails,” said RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor at the 
			University of Utah law school and expert on libel law. 
			 
			The case is putting a media organization and its key players on the 
			stand in a very public way, which is something people don't usually 
			see. 
			 
			“I always dread any kind of libel cases because the likelihood that 
			something bad will come out of it is very high,” Minnesota's Kirtley 
			said. “This is not a great time to be a libel defendant if you're in 
			the news media. If we ever did have the support of the public, it 
			has seriously eroded over the past few years.” 
			
			
			All contents © copyright 2024 Associated Press. All rights reserved  |