CNN found liable for defamation
Because the person defamed was not a public figure, the standard was lower:
A Florida jury found CNN liable on Friday in a high-stakes defamation trial against U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young, who alleged that the network maligned him as an “illegal profiteer” with a report on Afghan evacuees being charged thousands of dollars to flee the country following the U.S. military withdrawal.
Following two days of deliberations, the jury ruled that CNN must pay Young $4 million in financial damages and $1 million for emotional damage, adding that Young is also owed punitive damages. The trial is now heading into a second phase to determine the amount of punitive damages Young should receive from the network.
And of course this was in Florida. Had it been in NYC or especially in DC, the verdict might have been different.
This is interesting:
Additionally, CNN’s legal team argued in court filings that at the “time of its reporting, CNN knew little about Young’s financials, his model, or whether he’d successfully evacuated anyone because whenever anyone [including CNN] asked Young to explain his business, he obfuscated, behaved unprofessionally, lied, and hid.”
Are people required to answer the MSM’s questions? Apparently CNN thinks so. And why didn’t CNN wait till it knew the facts, instead of implying that what Young did was illegal? This appears to be why:
Throughout the trial, Freedman presented a series of Slack messages and emails from Marquardt and other CNN staffers in which they referred to Young as a “s***bag” with a “punchable face.” In one message to an editor, Marquardt said they were “gonna nail this Zachary Young mf***er,” while an editor responded: “Gonna hold you to that one cowboy!” In another message, Marquardt said of Young: “It’s your funeral, bucko.”
In depositions and court filings, CNN and its lawyers defended the harsh remarks as “banter” that’s part of a candid newsroom and that it didn’t impact the editorial process.
Sure thing. Highly objective.
I seem to remember another person with a supposedly “punchable face” who ultimately was paid quite a bit by various news agencies (including CNN) for defamation: Nicholas Sandmann.
CNN settled with Sandmann. They didn’t with Young. Looks like they’re going to pay a heavy price for malice and arrogance.
?!?!? “banter”? They must not know what banter means…
Since they haven’t already thrown themselves on the mercy of the victim Young—and the court, then they probably don’t know what “punitive damages” means either…
This is certainly a good outcome. Media organizations shouldn’t be able to maliciously lie about an individual private citizen, destroying their lives with absolute impunity. For too long sanctimonious cretins like Jim Acosta have abused their power under the aegis of them being objective journalists. Sounds like he may end up losing his job at CNN anyway.
Um, sorry – no. The staff emails came off as if the reporting team was salivating joyfully over the chance to grind Young into the dust, tarnish him personally. Malice, indeed.
So, in CNN’s view, if someone refuses to answer its queries, then CNN can trash that person’s reputation without facts to support the allegations. It’s a very good thing that the jury disagreed.
Hope he gets his money before CNN collapses.