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
Follow

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.”
 


BBC apologizes over Gaza documentary narrated by son of Hamas figure

BBC apologizes over Gaza documentary narrated by son of Hamas figure
Updated 27 February 2025
Follow

BBC apologizes over Gaza documentary narrated by son of Hamas figure

BBC apologizes over Gaza documentary narrated by son of Hamas figure
  • The broadcaster said that it shared the blame for the “unacceptable” flaws with the production company
  • “BBC News takes full responsibility for these and the impact that these have had on the Corporation’s reputation. We apologize“

LONDON: The BBC apologized on Thursday for “serious flaws” in the making of a Gaza documentary after it emerged that the child narrator was the son of Hamas’s former deputy minister of agriculture.
The BBC removed its documentary, “Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone,” from its platform after a backlash and launched an immediate review into the “mistakes,” which it called “significant and damaging.”
The BBC said in a press release published Thursday that the review had identified “serious flaws in the making of this program,” which was produced by UK company Hoyo Films.
The broadcaster said that it shared the blame for the “unacceptable” flaws with the production company.
“BBC News takes full responsibility for these and the impact that these have had on the Corporation’s reputation. We apologize,” it added.


The independent production company was asked in writing “a number of times” during the making of the documentary about any potential connections the narrator might have with Hamas.
“Since transmission, they have acknowledged that they knew that the boy’s father was a deputy agriculture minister in the Hamas government; they have also acknowledged that they never told the BBC this fact,” said the press release.
“It was then the BBC’s own failing that we did not uncover that fact and the documentary was aired.”
The production company also revealed that they paid the boy’s mother “a limited sum of money” for the narration.
The BBC is seeking additional assurance that no money was paid directly or indirectly to Hamas.
UK culture minister Lisa Nandy told parliament earlier Thursday that she had demanded “cast-iron” guarantees that Hamas did not receive any money for the documentary after the opposition Conservative party brought an urgent question and called for a public inquiry.
“I also held discussions with the BBC director general earlier this week, at my request, in order to seek urgent answers about the checks and due diligence that should have been carried out,” she added.
The revelations sparked an angry response and led to protests outside the BBC’s London headquarters.
A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) said: “The BBC’s bias and lack of accountability have led it to a new low, where it is a mouthpiece for terrorists and their supporters.”
The Telegraph also reported Tuesday that the Arabic words for Jew or Jews were changed to Israel or Israeli forces or removed from the documentary.
The broadcaster is now working to determine whether any disciplinary action is warranted “in relation to shortcomings in the making of this program.”
“This will include issues around the use of language, translation and continuity that have also been raised with the BBC,” it said.
The decision to remove the documentary from its catch-up service also led to criticism, with more than 500 TV and film workers — including former England footballer Gary Lineker — sending an open letter calling the move “politically-motivated censorship.”
“This film is an essential piece of journalism, offering an all-too-rare perspective on the lived experiences of Palestinian children living in unimaginable circumstances, which amplifies voices so often silenced,” said the letter.
The documentary was initially broadcast on February 17.


White House bars AP, Reuters and other media from covering Trump cabinet meeting

White House bars AP, Reuters and other media from covering Trump cabinet meeting
Updated 27 February 2025
Follow

White House bars AP, Reuters and other media from covering Trump cabinet meeting

White House bars AP, Reuters and other media from covering Trump cabinet meeting
  • Move follows White House announcement that it would limit media access to the President in smaller spaces

WASHINGTON: The White House on Wednesday denied reporters from Reuters and other news organizations access to President Donald Trump’s first cabinet meeting in keeping with the administration’s new policy regarding media coverage.
The White House denied access to an Associated Press photographer and three reporters from Reuters, HuffPost and Der Tagesspiegel, a German newspaper.
TV crews from ABC and Newsmax, along with correspondents from Axios, the Blaze, Bloomberg News and NPR were permitted to cover the event.
On Tuesday, the Trump administration announced the White House would determine which media outlets would cover the president in smaller spaces such as the Oval Office.
The White House Correspondents’ Association has traditionally coordinated the rotation of the presidential press pool. Reuters, an international wire service, has participated in the pool for decades.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that while traditional media organizations would still be permitted to cover Trump on a day-to-day basis, the administration plans to change who participates in smaller spaces. The pool system, administered by the WHCA, allowed select television, radio, wire, print and photojournalists to cover events and share their reporting with the broader media.
The three wire services that have traditionally served as permanent members of the White House pool, the AP, Bloomberg and Reuters, on Wednesday released a statement in response to the new policy.
The services “have long worked to ensure that accurate, fair and timely information about the presidency is communicated to a broad audience of all political persuasions, both in the United States and globally. Much of the White House coverage people see in their local news outlets, wherever they are in the world, comes from the wires,” the statement from the three organizations said.
“It is essential in a democracy for the public to have access to news about their government from an independent, free press.”
HuffPost called the White House decision a violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of the press.
Der Tagesspiegel did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
On Tuesday, the WHCA also issued a statement protesting the new White House policy.
The move follows the Trump administration’s decision to bar the Associated Press from being in the pool because it has declined to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, the name Trump has assigned the body of water, or update its widely followed stylebook to reflect such a change.
Leavitt said the five major cable and broadcast television networks would continue to hold their rotating seats in the pool while the White House would add streaming services. Rotating print reporters and radio reporters would continue to be included, while new outlets and radio hosts would be added.


Sharjah Media City to launch new production studios project

Sharjah Media City to launch new production studios project
Updated 27 February 2025
Follow

Sharjah Media City to launch new production studios project

Sharjah Media City to launch new production studios project
  • STUDIOI to design Shams Studios hub, construction contract to be announced later this year

LONDON: Sharjah Media City, or Shams, has awarded a design contract for its planned media production hub.

The design of Shams Studios will be undertaken by STUDIOI, a UAE-based engineering firm behind projects including The Park Hyatt Hotel in Riyadh and SHA Island near Al-Jurf, Abu Dhabi, according to reports on Thursday.

“The Shams Studios project reflects our unwavering commitment to developing a cutting-edge infrastructure that aligns with the latest global advancements in media and production,” said Rashid Abdullah Al-Obad, director of Shams.

“This is not just an investment in facilities; it is an investment in the future,” he added.

The facility will include five studios, each spanning 1,710 sq. meters, with a total area of 38,136 sq. meters.

It will also have post-production facilities including editing suites, visual-effects technologies, and sound-processing rooms.

The complex will have 20 creative units available for short- and long-term use, as well as workspaces, offices, meeting rooms, hotel, and accommodation for actors and production teams.

The construction contract is expected to be awarded in the fourth quarter of 2025.


Hundreds of media figures call on BBC to reinstate Gaza documentary

Hundreds of media figures call on BBC to reinstate Gaza documentary
Updated 26 February 2025
Follow

Hundreds of media figures call on BBC to reinstate Gaza documentary

Hundreds of media figures call on BBC to reinstate Gaza documentary
  • BBC pulled ‘Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone’ after it was revealed that one of its narrators, a 14-year-old boy, is the son of a Hamas deputy agriculture minister
  • Signatories, including Gary Lineker, Ken Loach and Jasleen Kaur Sethi, defended the documentary as ‘an essential piece of journalism’

LONDON: Hundreds of media figures have called on the BBC to reinstate its documentary on children and women living in Gaza, condemning its removal as a blow to journalistic integrity.

In an open letter sent to BBC executives on Wednesday, prominent figures — including English sports broadcaster and former footballer Gary Lineker, filmmaker Ken Loach and “Game of Thrones” actor Indira Varma — criticized the network’s decision to pull “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone,” calling it an “essential piece of journalism.”

The signatories argued that the documentary offers “a rare perspective on the lived experiences of Palestinians” and claimed that some of the criticism against it was rooted in “racist assumptions and the weaponization of identity.”

The BBC removed the documentary from its online platform, iPlayer, after it emerged that the narrator, 14-year-old Abdullah Al-Yazouri, is the son of a Hamas official — a fact the network said had not been disclosed by the film’s producers.

The decision followed backlash from several Jewish journalists and media watchdogs, who questioned whether the BBC had unknowingly paid a Hamas-affiliated individual and criticized the broadcaster for failing to uphold commissioning standards. In response, the BBC pulled the documentary pending a “due diligence” review.

The documentary, produced by independent company Hoyo Films, was based on nine months of footage filmed in the lead-up to last month’s Israel-Hamas ceasefire. It followed the lives of three children as they navigated the war.

The letter — also signed by actors Khalid Abdalla, India Amarteifio, Miriam Margolyes, Ruth Negga and Juliet Stevenson — did not dispute the narrator’s family ties to Hamas but argued that his father, Dr. Ayman Al-Yazouri, served as Gaza’s Deputy Minister of Agriculture, a “civil service role concerned with food production.”

“Conflating such governance roles in Gaza with terrorism is both factually incorrect and dehumanizing,” read the letter. “This broad-brush rhetoric assumes that Palestinians holding administrative roles are inherently complicit in violence — a racist trope that denies individuals their humanity and right to share their lived experiences.”

The signatories also condemned the backlash against Abdullah, saying criticism of his involvement ignored “core safeguarding principles.” They emphasized that children “must not be held responsible for the actions of adults, and weaponizing family associations to discredit a child’s testimony is both unethical and dangerous.”

Warning of the broader implications of the BBC’s decision, the letter argued that removing the documentary “sets a dangerous precedent.”

It added: “As media professionals, we are extremely alarmed by the intervention of political actors, including foreign diplomats, and what this means for the future of broadcasting in this country,” it added. “If every documentary made in conflict zones were subjected to this level of politicized scrutiny regarding contributors, filmmaking in these areas would become virtually impossible.”


Billionaire Bezos announces restrictions on Washington Post opinion coverage

Billionaire Bezos announces restrictions on Washington Post opinion coverage
Updated 26 February 2025
Follow

Billionaire Bezos announces restrictions on Washington Post opinion coverage

Billionaire Bezos announces restrictions on Washington Post opinion coverage
  • World’s third-richest man said the newspaper will no longer run views opposed to “personal liberties and free markets”

WASHINGTON: The Washington Post will no longer run views opposed to “personal liberties and free markets” on its opinion pages, its owner Jeff Bezos announced on Wednesday, the latest intervention by the billionaire in the major US paper’s editorial operations.
“We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets,” wrote Bezos on social media platform X.
“We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.”
The move, a major break from the norm on opinion pages at the Post and at most credible news media organizations worldwide, comes as US media face increasing threats to their freedom and accusations of bias from President Donald Trump.
In October, Bezos sparked controversy by blocking the Post’s planned endorsement of Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris for the 2024 presidential election, triggering newsroom protests and subscriber cancelations.
And in January, an award-winning political cartoonist for the newspaper announced her resignation after a cartoon depicting Bezos groveling before Trump was rejected.
At the time, editorial page editor David Shipley defended the decision, saying it was made to avoid repeated coverage on the same topic.
On Wednesday, Bezos announced Shipley would be leaving his post because he had not signed on to the new opinion pages policy.
“I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t ‘hell yes,’ then it had to be ‘no,’” said Bezos.
Other Post staffers also expressed their concern.
“Massive encroachment by Jeff Bezos into The Washington Post’s opinion section today — makes clear dissenting views will not be published or tolerated there,” said Jeff Stein, the paper’s chief economics correspondent, on X.
Stein added that he had “not felt encroachment on my journalism on the news side of coverage, but if Bezos tries interfering with the news side I will be quitting immediately.”
Amazon owner and world’s third-richest man Bezos, along with other US tech moguls, have appeared increasingly close to Trump since his election last year.
Bezos was among a group of tech billionaires who were given prime positions at Trump’s inauguration, and he visited the Republican at his Mar-a-Lago estate during the transition period.
In his post on Wednesday, Bezos said the Post did not have to provide opposing views because “the Internet does that job.”