CNN defamation trial comes at a rough time for legacy media — and for the struggling network

CNN defamation trial comes at a rough time for legacy media — and for the struggling network
Signage is seen at the CNN Center in Atlanta. (AP File)
Short Url
Updated 09 January 2025

CNN defamation trial comes at a rough time for legacy media — and for the struggling network

CNN defamation trial comes at a rough time for legacy media — and for the struggling network
  • US Navy 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

NEW YORK: 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 US 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.
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.”


WSJ editor sparks backlash over claim IDF gave Hamas ‘safe haven’ in Gaza

WSJ editor sparks backlash over claim IDF gave Hamas ‘safe haven’ in Gaza
Updated 21 July 2025

WSJ editor sparks backlash over claim IDF gave Hamas ‘safe haven’ in Gaza

WSJ editor sparks backlash over claim IDF gave Hamas ‘safe haven’ in Gaza
  • Elliot Kaufman suggested Israeli military allowed Hamas to operate unimpeded in Gaza for nearly two years to protect hostages
  • Comment came in wake of Israel’s first evacuation notice issued to residents of Deir al-Balah, in central Gaza, since Oct. 7

LONDON: Elliot Kaufman, a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, has drawn sharp criticism after suggesting that the Israeli military allowed Hamas to operate unimpeded in Gaza for nearly two years.

The comment came in the wake of Israel’s first evacuation notice issued to residents of Deir Al-Balah, in central Gaza, since the war began on Oct. 7, 2023.

In a post on X, Kaufman wrote: “For 21 months, Israel has essentially allowed Hamas a safe haven inside Gaza. That’s no way to fight a war, but Israel believed hostages were held in this area, and minimizing risk to them has always taken priority.”

The remarks were widely condemned for appearing to overlook the scale of destruction in Gaza, where over 70 percent of buildings have been damaged or destroyed, and humanitarian agencies warn of looming famine due to Israel’s blockade of aid.

The Palestinian death toll is nearing 60,000, about half of them women and children, according to Gaza health authorities, fueling global outrage over Israel’s ongoing military campaign.

“If Hamas is kept safe, then who are the tens of thousands they have been killing?” one user responded online.

Pro-Palestinian group Writers Against the War in Gaza — which recently published a report criticizing The New York Times for alleged links between its senior staff and pro-Israel lobbying groups — said Kaufman’s post reflects the WSJ’s “zero journalistic standards.” The group accused the outlet of allowing “literal state stenography for Israel with no consequences.”

Kaufman has faced growing criticism over what some see as his consistent alignment with Israeli policy.

Following Hamas’ deadly Oct. 7 attack and Israel’s subsequent military response, he has voiced support for the Israeli government’s actions and denounced pro-Palestinian activism.

Earlier in July, Kaufman sparked further backlash over an article promoting a so-called peace plan involving a Palestinian sheikh and a proposal to have Hebron break away from the Palestinian Authority, effectively sidestepping any future Palestinian statehood.

Palestinian activist Issa Amro described the piece as a “dangerous fabrication” and criticized Kaufman for “shockingly poor journalism or deliberate misinformation.” Kan’s Palestinian affairs correspondent Elior Levy dismissed it as nonsense.

“Words come cheap, and these recycled statements have led to nothing (in the past),” Levy wrote on X. “I advise The Wall Street Journal to focus more on Wall Street and less on Hebron.”

Over the weekend, the WSJ found itself at the centre of the news after US President Donald Trump sued media magnate Rupert Murdoch and the journal for at least $10 billion over publication of a bombshell article on his friendship with the infamous alleged sex trafficker of underage girls, Jeffrey Epstein.


Radio journalist killed in southern Philippines

Radio journalist killed in southern Philippines
Updated 21 July 2025

Radio journalist killed in southern Philippines

Radio journalist killed in southern Philippines
  • The murder adds to a growing list of media workers killed in a country ranked among the most dangerous in the world for journalists

REUTERS: A local radio broadcaster was gunned down in the southern Philippines on Monday, a presidential task force said, adding to the growing list of media workers killed in a country ranked among the most dangerous in the world for journalists.
Erwin Labitad Segovia, 63, a broadcaster for Radio WOW FM and host of a program that focused on social issues and local governance, was shot dead by a still unidentified gunman while on his way home shortly after completing his morning broadcast.
According to the police, Segovia was followed by two suspects on a motorcycle.
The Philippines ranked ninth on the 2024 Committee to Protect Journalists’ Global Impunity Index, which tracks countries where journalist murders remain unsolved.
Authorities have launched an investigation and have activated a Special Investigation Task Group to handle the case, Jose Torres Jr., executive director of the Presidential Task Force on Media Security, said in a statement.
“The safety of journalists remains a priority for the government, and justice for victims of media-related violence continues to be a national concern,” Torres said.
Segovia’s murder highlights the continuing risks faced by journalists in the Philippines, especially in provinces where local power dynamics often go unchecked.
More than 200 journalists have been killed in the country since democracy was restored in 1986, according to the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, including 32 in a single incident in 2009 in the south of the country.


Trump sues Murdoch, Wall Street Journal over Epstein sex bombshell

Trump sues Murdoch, Wall Street Journal over Epstein sex bombshell
Updated 21 July 2025

Trump sues Murdoch, Wall Street Journal over Epstein sex bombshell

Trump sues Murdoch, Wall Street Journal over Epstein sex bombshell
  • Trump lashed at WSJ as a ‘useless ‘rag’ for publishing what he called a “false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS article”
  • Dow Jones, the Journal’s longtime publisher, responded to Trump’s libel suit Friday saying it is standing by the story

WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump sued media magnate Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal for at least $10 billion Friday over publication of a bombshell article on his friendship with the infamous alleged sex trafficker of underage girls, Jeffrey Epstein.
The defamation lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami, saw the 79-year-old Republican hitting back at a scandal threatening to cause serious political damage.
“We have just filed a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone involved in publishing the false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS ‘article’ in the useless ‘rag’ that is, The Wall Street Journal,” Trump posted on Truth Social late Friday.
The Journal reported Thursday that in 2003, the then-real estate magnate wrote a suggestive birthday letter to Epstein, illustrated with a naked woman and alluding to a shared “secret.”
The lawsuit, which also names two reporters, the Dow Jones corporation, and Murdoch’s parent company News Corp. as defendants, claims that no such letter exists and that the paper intended to malign Trump with a story that has now been viewed by hundreds of millions of people.
“And given the timing of the Defendants’ article, which shows their malicious intent behind it, the overwhelming financial and reputational harm suffered by President Trump will continue to multiply,” it said.
Dow Jones, the Journal’s longtime publisher, responded to Trump’s libel suit Friday saying it is standing by the story.
“We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit,” a Dow Jones spokesperson said in a statement.

 

 

In another bid to dampen outrage among his own supporters about an alleged government cover-up of Epstein’s activities and 2019 death, Trump ordered US Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the unsealing of grand jury testimony from the prosecution against the disgraced financier.
In a filing in New York, Bondi cited “extensive public interest” for the unusual request to release what is typically secret testimony.
Epstein, a longtime friend of Trump and multiple high-profile men, was found hanging dead in a New York prison cell while awaiting trial on charges that he sexually exploited dozens of underage girls at his homes in New York and Florida.
The case sparked conspiracy theories, especially among Trump’s far-right voters, about an alleged international cabal of wealthy pedophiles. Epstein’s death — declared a suicide — before he could face trial supercharged the narrative.
When Trump returned to power for a second term this January, his supporters clamored for revelations about Epstein’s supposed list of clients. But Bondi issued an official memo this month declaring there was no such list.
The discontent in Trump’s “Make America Great Again” base poses a rare challenge to the Republican’s control of the political narrative in the United States.
It remained unclear whether a court would authorize the unsealing of the grand jury testimony.
But even if such material were made public, there is no assurance it would shed much, if any, light on the main questions raised in the conspiracy theories — particularly the existence and possible contents of an Epstein client list.
Asked Friday by reporters if he would pursue the broader release of information related to the case, Trump did not answer.

This undated trial evidence image obtained December 8, 2021, from the US District Court for the Southern District of New York shows British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell and US financier Jeffrey Epstein. (AFP)


Trump was close with Epstein for years, and the two were photographed and videoed together at parties, although there has never been evidence of wrongdoing.
The Wall Street Journal article published late Thursday was damaging because it indicated a shared interest in sex.
The Journal reported that Trump had wished Epstein a happy 50th birthday in 2003 with a “bawdy” letter, part of an album of messages from rich and well-known figures.
According to the Journal, the Trump letter contained the outline of a naked woman, apparently drawn with a marker, and had the future president’s signature “Donald” mimicking pubic hair. It ends, according to the newspaper, with “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
Trump reacted in a series of furious social media posts, saying “it’s not my language. It’s not my words.”
“I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women,” he said.
US media has published multiple drawings done by Trump in the past, with several dating to the early 2000s when he used his celebrity status to donate sketches for charity.
 


Stephen Colbert’s ‘Late Show’ canceled by CBS, ends May 2026

Stephen Colbert’s ‘Late Show’ canceled by CBS, ends May 2026
Updated 18 July 2025

Stephen Colbert’s ‘Late Show’ canceled by CBS, ends May 2026

Stephen Colbert’s ‘Late Show’ canceled by CBS, ends May 2026
  • Thursday’s announcement followed Colbert’s criticism on Monday of a settlement between Trump and Paramount Global

CBS is canceling “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” next May, shuttering a decades-old TV institution in a changing media landscape and removing from air one of President Donald Trump’s most prominent and persistent late-night critics.

Thursday’s announcement followed Colbert’s criticism on Monday of a settlement between Trump and Paramount Global, parent company of CBS, over a “60 Minutes” story.

Colbert told his audience at New York’s Ed Sullivan Theater that he had learned Wednesday night that after a decade on air, “next year will be our last season. ... It’s the end of ‘The Late Show’ on CBS. I’m not being replaced. This is all just going away.”

The audience responded with boos and groans.

“Yeah, I share your feelings,” the 61-year-old comic said.

Three top Paramount and CBS executives praised Colbert’s show as “a staple of the nation’s zeitgeist” in a statement that said the cancellation “is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.”

In his Monday monologue, Colbert said he was “offended” by the $16 million settlement reached by Paramount, whose pending sale to Skydance Media needs the Trump administration’s approval. He said the technical name in legal circles for the deal was “big fat bribe.”

“I don’t know if anything — anything — will repair my trust in this company,” Colbert said. “But, just taking a stab at it, I’d say $16 million would help.”

Trump had sued Paramount Global over how “60 Minutes” edited its interview last fall with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Critics say the company settled primarily to clear a hurdle to the Skydance sale.

Colbert took over “The Late Show” in 2015 after becoming a big name in comedy and news satire working with Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” and hosting “The Colbert Report,” which riffed on right-wing talk shows.

The most recent ratings from Nielsen show Colbert gaining viewers so far this year and winning his timeslot among broadcasters, with about 2.417 million viewers across 41 new episodes. On Tuesday, Colbert’s “Late Show” landed its sixth nomination for a Primetime Emmy Award for outstanding talk show. It won a Peabody Award in 2021.

David Letterman began hosting “The Late Show” in 1993. When Colbert took over, he deepened its engagement with politics. Alongside musicians and movie stars, Colbert often welcomes politicians to his couch.

Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California was a guest on Thursday night. Schiff said on X that “if Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better.” Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts released a similar statement.

Colbert’s counterpart on ABC, Jimmy Kimmel, posted on Instagram “Love you Stephen” and directed an expletive at CBS.

Actor and producer Jamie Lee Curtis noted in an interview in Los Angeles that the cancellation came as the House passed a bill approving Trump’s request to cut funding to public broadcasters NPR and PBS.

“They’re trying to silence people, but that won’t work. Won’t work. We will just get louder,” said Curtis, who has previously criticized Trump and is set to visit Colbert’s show in coming days.

Colbert has long targeted Trump. The guests on his very first show in September 2015 were actor George Clooney and Jeb Bush, who was then struggling in his Republican presidential primary campaign against Trump.

“Gov. Bush was the governor of Florida for eight years,” Colbert told his audience. “And you would think that that much exposure to oranges and crazy people would have prepared him for Donald Trump. Evidently not.”

Late-night TV has been facing economic pressures for years; ratings and ad revenue are down and many young viewers prefer highlights online, which networks have trouble monetizing. CBS also recently canceled host Taylor Tomlinson’s “After Midnight,” which aired after “The Late Show.”

Still, Colbert had led the network late-night competition for years. And while NBC has acknowledged economic pressures by eliminating the band on Seth Meyers’ show and cutting one night of Jimmy Fallon’s “The Tonight Show,” there had been no such visible efforts at “The Late Show.”

Colbert’s relentless criticism of Trump, his denunciation of the settlement, and the parent company’s pending sale can’t be ignored, said Bill Carter, author of “The Late Shift.”

“If CBS thinks people are just going to swallow this, they’re really deluded,” Carter said.

Andy Cohen, who began his career at CBS and now hosts “Watch What Happens Live,” said in an interview: “It is a very sad day for CBS that they are getting out of the late-night race. I mean, they are turning off the lights after the news.”


Syrian TV presenter runs for cover on air as Israeli strikes hit Damascus

Syrian TV presenter runs for cover on air as Israeli strikes hit Damascus
Updated 16 July 2025

Syrian TV presenter runs for cover on air as Israeli strikes hit Damascus

Syrian TV presenter runs for cover on air as Israeli strikes hit Damascus
  • In a major escalation, the Israeli army bombed the Syrian military headquarters in Damascus

DUBAI: A widely circulated video showed a Syrian news presenter visibly startled and leaving her live segment to take cover as Israeli strikes hit Damascus on Wednesday.

Israel’s Defense Minister, Israel Katz, shared the video on X with the caption: “The heavy blows have started.”

In the video, the presenter jolted on air at the sound of the explosion, as a missile struck the building behind her.

 

 

In a major escalation, the Israeli army bombed the Syrian military headquarters in Damascus and carried out additional strikes on Syrian forces in the southern city of Sweida amid intensified clashes between government troops and Druze armed groups.

Israel has attacked Damascus following on threats to ramp up attacks if the Syrian government forces did not withdraw from Sweida, vowing to protect the Druze religious minority.

Before the live segment was interrupted, the presenter was reporting on Katz’s statement that the Israeli army would continue “to operate vigorously in Sweida to destroy the forces that attacked the Druze until they withdraw completely.”

Clashes raged in Sweida on Wednesday after a ceasefire between government forces and Druze armed groups collapsed. Israel has launched a series of airstrikes on convoys of government forces in southern Syria since the clashes erupted and has beefed up forces on the border.

The army said it struck near the entrance to the Syrian Ministry of Defense in Damascus.