A trial is underway in Florida this week, with CNN facing accusations of defaming Navy veteran Zachary Young. Young, who played a role in rescuing endangered Afghans after the U.S. withdrawal in 2021, claims that CNN’s coverage led to the destruction of his business. The case, unfolding in Donald Trump’s home state, has larger implications for the media industry. Young’s attorney argues that the trial offers an opportunity to challenge the mainstream media and potentially bring about change. Despite the rarity of defamation trials in the U.S. due to strong press protections, this case has drawn attention for its potential impact on the news media. The dispute revolves around a CNN segment that discussed extraction efforts in Afghanistan, with Young feeling unfairly labeled as participating in a “black market” operation. The trial raises questions about media ethics and the power of defamation claims in the current landscape.
Five minutes into the court session, CNN’s attorney David Axelrod presented his arguments on Tuesday. Young, the plaintiff, raised concerns about a story that aired five months prior. In response, CNN issued an on-air statement acknowledging an error in their use of the term “black market.” They clarified that they did not intend to imply Mr. Young’s involvement in such activities, expressing regret and issuing an apology to him.
Despite the statement, Young proceeded with a defamation lawsuit, which was not dismissed by the presiding judge, William S. Henry. CNN remained steadfast, stating their confidence in a favorable verdict once all the facts were revealed. Axelrod emphasized the toughness, fairness, and accuracy of CNN’s reporting to the jury, asserting that no witness would testify to thinking less of Young or being unwilling to hire him due to the story’s impact on his reputation and business.
However, akin to the Dominion case where Fox faced repercussions from internal communications related to Trump and their coverage, unflattering revelations about CNN’s operations are expected to surface during the trial. These include messages where CNN’s reporter Alex Marquardt made derogatory remarks about Young, and an editor criticized the credibility of a Marquardt story as being “full of holes.”
Attorney Roche highlighted a lack of commitment to truth within CNN, suggesting a prevalence of theatrics over integrity. Axelrod defended the journalistic process, emphasizing the scrutiny and collaboration involved in producing video segments and subsequent stories. Despite this, CNN faces a challenging path ahead, especially given its declining television ratings and the current climate of hostility towards the media.
RonNell Andersen Jones, a libel law expert from the University of Utah, expressed concerns that the case could be weaponized amidst broader attacks on the media. The public spectacle of a media organization and its key figures being scrutinized in court is an unusual sight, prompting reflections on the deteriorating public trust in the press.
As the legal battle unfolds, the risks and potential fallout weigh heavily on CNN and the broader media landscape. Libel cases, particularly in today’s precarious environment for journalism, pose significant challenges and threats to credibility. The erosion of public support for the media in recent years only exacerbates the pressures faced by defendants in such cases.
David Bauder, reporting on media for the AP, provides insightful coverage of the developments in this high-profile legal dispute. For more updates, follow his reporting at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social.
