The dam appears to have broken after NewsBusters took the lead in recent days to put a spotlight on the massive defamation suit against CNN that could possibly cost them upwards of $1 billion. Along with the increased notoriety of the case, so has followed public awareness and expert analysis. NewsBusters has sought out expert opinions on how CNN had allegedly harmed plaintiff, security contractor, and Navy veteran Zachary Young, the legal realities of the case, and media industry insight.
As part of his legal filing to prove economic damages, Young submitted an analysis from Major General James V. Young, Jr, Army (retired) (no familial relation to Zachary Young). “Mr. Young has a specialized background, training and career experience that makes him uniquely qualified for work that most people are not,” the former Major General wrote in his analysis. “This work is so unique that there are limits to what he can discuss, even several years after it has concluded.”
Maj. Gen. Young warned, “This type of work is based on one’s network and reputation and comparable positions are not available on job boards or employment web sites.” He also noted that trust is a major factor in the security circles Mr. Young worked in. “[B]reaches in that trust will have a profound impact on the ability to be included in comparable projects,” he added.
In an interview with NewsBusters, security contractor Erik Prince said Young had suffered “significant economic damage” and that it would be “very hard” for him to continue to work in the field because he had his “discretion blown away” by a “jackass with a microphone” at CNN. He also argued that since CNN equated Young with human trafficking, it would be hard for him to complete banking transitions and obtain certain services.
Prince also suggested the story was an “effort by CNN to shift the focus” away from President Biden’s pullout blunder, and effectively turned Young into a “boogieman.”
As for the legal realities, NewsBusters spoke to newsroom lawyer and professor Charles Glasser, who served as the Global Media Counsel for Bloomberg News for 14 years, and currently teaches the History of Journalism and Media Law and Ethics at New York University.
Key pieces of evidence provided to the court were CNN’s internal e-mails. A Florida appellate court recently affirmed that they constituted enough evidence of malice and that the case couldn’t be dismissed. On those messages, Glasser said: “…the snippets of evidence are pretty damning. After 40 years, I’ve heard reporters say some pretty egregious stuff in the newsroom, but things like emails and Slack messages are pretty hard to get around.”
“I don’t see this going to trial,” Glasser predicted, thinking they would settle before trial:
Unless there’s something in the case we haven’t seen yet, the smart move would be for CNN to do what they’ve gotten away with in the past: Like their smear of the Covington Kid, they’ll likely settle quietly and pretend it never happened. The Poynter Institute and other apologists will go along and just ignore it.
On the prospect of settling, Vel Freedman, the lawyer representing Young told NewsBusters there was “no active settlement discussion” and that it was “so far off the table.” He also said there was “zero chance this case gets stopped before trial” and that the goal was to “take CNN to task.”
But in the case that it did make it to trial, Glasser felt CNN would be in big trouble with a jury of average Americans:
Juries are made up (ostensibly) of regular citizens, and as Gawker learned in the Hulk Hogan matter, those citizens are not living in the BosNyWash bubble and have a deep distrust of what news media has become. Editors and their defenders just don’t get it.
On the media aspect, Glasser didn’t think CNN nor the industry would learn a lesson from this saga because “it’s the insurance company that will take the hit,” which he explained wasn’t good either because it would drive up costs for small-time journalists and freelancers.
“In a perfect world [Jake] Tapper and his producers would be publicly reprimanded, but I don’t run CNN,” he said. (For more from Glasser on the CNN defamation suit, check out his post on Instapundit).
The story hit the fan the same week CNN would be taking on the duties of hosting a presidential debate with Tapper being one of the moderators. Being that the offending segment ran on his show, The Lead, Media Research Center Vice President Dan Schneider pointed out the conflict of interest:
Jake Tapper started his career working for a Democrat politician and he has never been able to shake the habit. Trying to run cover for Biden's disastrous pullout from Afghanistan, he and his CNN show slimed a hero who saved the lives of those Biden put in jeopardy. Now CNN is facing a billion-dollar defamation suit at the same time Tapper will be moderating the presidential debate featuring the politician he lied for.
NewsBusters will remain on top of this story.
