A combative defamation trial in Florida, involving CNN and a former US security contractor in Afghanistan, is providing a roadmap for a crackdown on media independence during the second Trump administration, experts believe.
The case was already unusual because CNN chose to defend itself and risk millions in damages, while other media giants such as ABC News and the Washington Post have opted to back down in the face of threats of persecution from the incoming president. Ultimately, after 18 hours of deliberation, the jury found that CNN defamed the contractor and awarded Zachary Young $4m in lost business and $1m in personal damages.
Now the case and trial will be remembered more for the aggressive stance of the prosecution, which almost exactly mirrored Donald Trump’s position that he will “straighten out the press” during his second term.
“You’re going to have an opportunity to do something significant in this trial. You are going to have an opportunity to send a message to mainstream media. You are going to have an opportunity to change an industry,” Kyle Roche, attorney for the contractor, Zachary Young, told a six-person jury during opening arguments in Panama City.
The case hung on a report CNN aired in November 2021 about government contractors working to help certain Afghans to evacuate during the chaotic withdrawal from the country by the US military that summer.
A segment broadcast on The Lead With Jake Tapper identified Young, a US navy veteran, as “exploiting” those desperate to leave by running a “black market” evacuation scheme for $14,500 per person.
Roche said the allegations were a “reckless” fabrication designed to boost ratings at the expense of the truth, which had ruined Young’s reputation and life.
“Reckless journalism is un-American,” he said, repeating a familiar Trump refrain often leveled at those who engage in behavior of which he disapproves.
“It’s dangerous, and if media companies engage in theater in the newsroom, Americans will hold them accountable in the courtroom.”
Analysts say that dark messaging, and challenge to first amendment rights, is straight from the Trump playbook, with the underlying intent to scare the press into not publishing anything critical or detrimental for fear of lawsuits and severe financial penalties.
“It’s notable how transparent the attorney is in framing this case as a broader attack on mainstream news organizations,” said Jason Shepard, chair of the department of communications at California State University, Fullerton, and author of Major Principles of Media Law.
“That’s not necessarily surprising, given the decline in trust in mainstream media over the years and the heightened attacks on journalistic credibility.
“The case is alarming in several respects, because of the climate that news organizations are facing, and because it’s a messy case in a lot of ways, and messy libel cases sometimes don’t turn out well for journalists.”
Shepard said Roche’s comments also helped show the motivation in taking the case to trial.
“Mr Young’s attorney has been transparent that this is, in his view, one of the opportunities to monetize and punish mainstream journalists today,” he said.
“Opening arguments are an opportunity to prime the jury, to frame the case through certain lenses, and showing that the jurors have the power and ability to stand up to the mainstream press, that sends a clear message. The lawyer is calculating that that’s going to have an effect on those jurors.”
In addition to the segment on Young, internal communications between CNN journalists and producers, some containing profanity about the plaintiff, also came under scrutiny during the trial. Tapper, senior national security correspondent Alex Marquardt and senior national security editor Tom Lumley were among those who testified, either in person or through depositions.
after newsletter promotion
Lawyers for the network insisted its reporting of Young’s activities in Afghanistan were fair and accurate, and corroborated at every turn by his own words and statements. Five months after the segment was broadcast, CNN made an on-air apology for its use of the words “black market”, but stood by other aspects of the story.
“When all the facts come to light, we are confident we will have a verdict in our favor,” the network said in a statement, suggesting why it was willing to gamble on a trial despite having seen rival network Fox settling its 2023 defamation case with the voting equipment company Dominion for $787.5m.
“I can’t imagine what the legal fees for CNN are in this case, and that’s the rub,” Shepard said.
“News organizations have to make a decision whether it’s worth spending the money to defend a libel lawsuit, or whether it’s better for the bottom line to reach a settlement.
“What we’re seeing today in some of these libel cases, and for news organizations facing them, is a lose-lose proposition, and a retreat of libel protections in a practical sense.”
Others experts believe that, even if CNN were protecting its individual interest by defending the Young lawsuit, the implications have a much wider reach.
“Everybody in the news media is on trial in this case,” said Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota.
“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.”
RonNell Andersen Jones, a first amendment scholar at the University of Utah law school and expert on libel law, said the Young case was an early taste of what the media was likely to experience through the second Trump term.
“At a moment of wider vilification and disparagement of the press, there is every reason to believe this will be weaponized,” she said.
The Associated Press contributed reporting
Article by:Source: Richard Luscombe
