There's Bad News for CNN Ahead of January Trial Over $1 Billion

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Zachary Young, a former private contractor who facilitated evacuating individuals out of Afghanistan, brought a major defamation lawsuit against CNN. As we have been reporting, the case against the network for defaming Young’s work as “illegal” and “exploitative” by reporter Alex Marquardt and featured on Jake Tapper’s show was questioned within the ranks of CNN for lacking proper verification. Internal communications have indicated a strong slant towards provable malice, which the courts have agreed warrants a jury trial.

In some of the latest rulings ahead of the January 6 trial date, CNN has suffered a series of setbacks in its bid to set the table in its favor. Understandably, the network lawyers have tried resisting turning over pertinent financial disclosures, as well as arguing to have an expert witness for the plaintiff on probable financial suffering and monetary figures dismissed from the case. The court denied CNN’s efforts in both instances, allowing the case to go before a jury for a ruling on punitive damages.

At NewsBusters, Nick Fondacaro has been following the case closely and detailed how Jake Tapper – after failed efforts by CNN lawyers to block his deposition – had his testimony repeatedly halted by the lawyers. Numerous times, counsel intervened to prevent Tapper from answering questions, arguing they were not germane to the case. This included questioning the anchor on his prior coverage of the Fox News-Dominion defamation suit. In some reports following the Fox settlement, Tapper delivered derision about the rival, suggesting he thinks they are not a legitimate news outlet. “I’m sorry, this is going to be difficult to say with a straight face,” he said, ahead of reading the release from Fox News regarding the settlement.

CNN has endured a series of legal setbacks over the past months with this case. One of the more desperate efforts was in its arguments about the use of the term “black market” to describe the implied illegality of Young’s work. CNN’s lawyers have at times argued the term is not an implication of illegal activity and then swung to suggest that the use of the term was accurate, as they argued it would apply, given the installation of new laws as the Taliban took control of the country.

When you are relying upon Sharia Law to explain your case, you are already on shaky legal ground. But the argument is undermined in a number of ways. Based on CNN’s own reporting, Sharia was not installed in Afghanistan until at least a year after its reports on Zachary Young. But further, suggesting that its use of “black market” was appropriate in its reporting was in direct opposition to Jake Tapper issuing a correction on the report.

“And before we go, a correction. In November, we ran a story about Afghans desperate to pay high sums beyond the reach of average Afghans. The story included a lead-in and banner throughout the story that referenced a black market. The use of the term black market in the story was in error. The story included reporting on Zachary Young, a private operator who had been contacted by family members of Afghans trying to flee the country. We didn’t mean to suggest that Mr. Young participated in the black market. We regret the error and to Mr. Young, we apologize.”

That is in pretty clear defiance of the current arguments made by the network lawyers. As Jonathan Turley has covered, the court has found this correction to be insufficient, beginning with the fact it was issued four full months after the report on Tapper’s program. Additionally, there was no series of similar statements made across the other shows and CNN digital reporting that involved Marquardt’s reporting on Zachary Young.

Another indicator of the subversive nature of Marquardt’s reporting is the use of the tried tactic of building the coverage over time but then giving the focus of the reporting – in this case, Mr. Young – a brief timeframe in which to respond. Young was contacted by the reporter and granted a two-hour window before a deadline (for a story that ultimately was not time-sensitive), after which Young protested about some of the elements of the reporting and requested more time to respond accurately.

This, despite the fact that court documents stipulated that Marquardt had been working on his report for at least three weeks and had already established contact with “more than a dozen sources” before reaching out to Young. And as we covered, Marquardt, in his deposed testimony, has even declared he came up with no evidence of illegality on the part of Zachary Young.

Q: Did your reporting ever discover anything illegal that was going on with regards to the evacuation process?
A. No, it didn’t.
Q. You found no evidence of Mr. Young committing a crime, correct?
A. No.

With the series of rulings over the past weeks, it appears there is a strong case being made against CNN and its reporting. The details, the scope, and the size of the damage award sought are such that most would understand this should generate interest among major news outlets. Yet, we are seeing more reticence than interest in the news sphere.

Puck News reported on the recent developments as this major case is set to go to trial, noting there is muted interest seen in the press. After implying there is a First Amendment issue and a connection, somehow, to Donald Trump (despite Young’s case originating early in the Biden term), Eriq Gardner approaches a reality in our press complex but holds back from exploring things further.

For some reason, this trial continues to fly under the radar, apart from right-wing outlets that are reveling in the possibility of CNN’s embarrassment. But with punitive damages on the table, Ron DeSantis appointees reshaping Florida’s appellate courts, Trump Allies positioned at the federal level, and a legal climate growing less hospitable to speech deemed harmful to the national interest, this case may go places.

Perhaps the reason this case is lightly covered is that CNN has been exposed using tactics that are commonplace in the news industry. There is a chill being felt. As for reveling in embarrassment? Recall this is the network that could barely contain itself when Fox News settled with Dominion Voting Systems. Again, Jake Tapper’s mocking delivery of the result is notable, as is the current network media maven and Fox-obsessed Brian Stelter. He secured a book deal ahead of the Fox-Dominion trial, and its sales became depressed once the settlement derailed a trial.

Considering how widespread the Fox settlement was reported across the news industry, one would assume that an even larger case looming for a major network like CNN should be of heightened interest. We see outlets laying low as they incur layoffs, loss of audience, and an unsure future with a fractured media landscape. Instead of the breathless coverage as seen with the Fox suit, outlets today are looking at this trial and are holding their breaths.