Media often lean recklessly over the edges of defamation and then retreat when someone with sense says “what are you doing!?”. Reporters and producers might be saved by a smart editor who looks at a sketchy story and advises to pull the plug. Sometimes voices of reason are ignored.
Defamation has different standards of proof – depending on the persons status. If CNN produces a segment that may cast a public figure in an unflattering potentially libelous light that figure must prove actual malice or a complete disregard of the truth. That’s known generally as the New York Times rule. The New York Times rule applies to public figures not private citizens. With private persons, the standard of proof is much lower. With a person who is not a public figure who is thrown into the public eye by media and in the process libeled, they must only prove negligence. That is the Gertz rule. If actual malice is proved, the disseminator, for instance, CNN, better settle before trial.
In 2021, Joe Biden decided to withdraw from Afghanistan. He did so without much deliberation or planning. He was warned but he was more interested in being “the” President who got America out of her longest war. He is succeeded in getting 13 American service members blown up at Abby Gate. Biden also abandoned common sense and, in the process, abandoned allies and others left in Afghanistan. Heroes stepped up. One of those heroes was Zachary Young.
Young and his company were contracted to get into Afghanistan and get people out. A good story to be told, and CNN jumped on it; but in the process, CNN wet the bed. Specifically CNN chief national security correspondent Alex Marquardt wet the bed. No doubt there were people who profited but it seemed that Marquardt had it out for Young. Young was portraited as a profiteer. Months after libeling Young, CNN pulled back and “corrected” it’s story. Too late. Young CNN sued for libel.
Last week, after three years of discovery Young’s case against CNN went to trial. Discovery revealed, among other damning evidence, that the Marquardt has messages people at CNN calling Young a “shit” and a “shitbag”. Marquardt said of Young that he had a “punchable face”. Marquardt also wrote that he was going “nail this… motherfucker”. Damning stuff, but it gets worse.
Before the segment was aired 2021 a producer had called the report “80% emotion and 20% obscure facts” and the report was “swiss cheese”. CNN aired it anyway.
At trial, Marquardt said:
“I wasn’t going after [Young]. I never was going after him”
“It was not a hit piece. I don’t do hit pieces,” “Good reporters shouldn’t. I like to think of myself as that, and I didn’t do a hit piece.”
“I reported the facts. I reported what I found,” Marquardt said. “Everything in there was factual, accurate and, I believe, fair.”
“You needed a bad guy for your scandal story,” Freedman said later in the morning. “You hated him, did you not?”
“No, that’s not true,” Marquardt replied.
Yeah, except for telling people at CNN you were going to “nail that motherfucker” “shitbag” with the “punchable face”.
A jury didn’t buy CNN’s and Marquardt’s bullshit. After eight hours of deliberations, the jury awarded Young 5 million dollars in actual damages. The next phase would have been to determine punitive damages. Punitive damages are assessed to “punish” and that would have hurt.
No doubt CNN finally realized that it was about to get hit with perhaps north of 50 million dollars more, so the lawyers and parties agreed to “settle”.
My guess is the settlement ranges between 20 and 40 million dollars.
Other media has tried to frame this as a “settlement” and attempted to cast CNN as a victim, when it was CNN that defamed Young and CNN was forced to get on a knee and settle.
This wasn’t a “settlement” it was an ass-kicking, and inevitable. I find it remarkable that lawyers for CNN saw the discovery and a decision was made to go to trial. Young had clear evidence that CNN’s employees were are the best, reckless and at worse were out to get Young and ignored facts in the process. CNN was never going to win at trial. Ever Why it decided to not settle was a terrible business decision. CNN’s correspondent Alex Marquardt called Young a “motherfucker”, “shit” and a “shitbag” and that he was going to get Young . Yet he testified that he “just reporting the facts”. That kind of dodge never works at trial.
Being an employee, Marquardt is insulated. He isn’t personally liable although he should be. CNN will pay an enormous amount to Young because Marquardt didn’t do his homework.
Hindsight is easy but if I had been one of the attorneys defending CNN there no way I would have taken it to trial. Not after seeing the discovery. The only “justification” is hubris. Rolling the dice and hoping for a CNN-loving jury is reckless and stupid. If CNN thought it could win with a neutral jury, CNN and its lawyers aren’t reckless, they are delusional.
CNN didn’t have competent representation – it went to trial and CNN got slapped.
Apparently the punchable “face at CNN, is Alex Marquardt.