CNN liable for defamation in FL court, settles case

rodoheel said:
I don't know the facts of that case very well, but $5 million seems high under the circumstances. Of course stupidly big libel verdicts are nothing new (see Hulk Hogan v. Gawker).

I guess CNN has about $782 million to go to catch up to the real kings of lying:

apnews.com

Fox, Dominion reach $787M settlement over election claims

Fox and Dominion Voting Systems have reached a $787 million settlement in the voting machine company’s defamation lawsuit. The agreement averts a trial in a case that exposed how the top-rated network chased viewers by promoting lies about the 2020 presidential election. Dominion lawyer Justin...
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...
Way to BoSides and whataboutism in one post. Thought you guys detested that type of thing? Or maybe it’s situational?
 
duluoz said:
This seems to feel like a “win” to you. I’m of the belief that all media (and social media) should be held accountable and endure repercussions for spouting b.s. I don’t know the facts of the case, but if CNN presented something as factual that was not factual, then I’m glad they’re being held accountable.

So back to you — how did you feel about the $787 MM judgment against Fox?

How do you feel about all of trump’s countless lies?

Your answer will determine whether anyone takes you seriously on this board (at least under this user name — who knows about others you might have).
Click to expand...
More whataboutism. It’s rampant in this thread. So is the board’s hypocrisy. Dwelling in the moral low ground it would seem.
 
Enigma94 said:
Only in MAGA world are all of Trump's lies and Fox's almost billion dollar judgement equivalent to a $5 million libel suit for a network that isn't even liberal. I also wish I had a dollar for every poster who came to these boards professing their independence and middle of the road bona fides only to shortly thereafter begin screeching right wing talking points.
Click to expand...
Whataboutism and hypocrite sighted
 
Callatoroy said:
More whataboutism. It’s rampant in this thread. So is the board’s hypocrisy. Dwelling in the moral low ground it would seem.
Click to expand...
Pointing out the asymmetric application of someone's own standards - the OP's in this case - is not the same thing as using the committal of one act to justify the committal of another. And you're bright enough to recognize the distinction.

Your partisan vitriol and sanctimoniousness kneecaps you long before you start typing.
 
korgguy1971 said:
Pointing out the asymmetric application of someone's own standards - the OP's in this case - is not the same thing as using the committal of one act to justify the committal of another. And you're bright enough to recognize the distinction.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

Only, you give him more credit than I do. Making a conclusion like that, I’m assuming he’s not very bright, and is actually unable to make that distinction.
 
dcphx said:
They'll bond it and negotiate a confidential settlement at a reduced figure in lieu of dragging plaintiff firm through the appeal process. I do it all the time. I don't think I've ever paid a single one of my adverse verdicts in full.
Click to expand...
And it seems this is exactly what has happened.

“CNN settled a lawsuit brought by a US Navy veteran over a 2021 segment on evacuations in Afghanistan on Friday, hours after a jury found the network liable for defaming him.

The two-week trial was held in Bay County, Florida. A jury awarded the veteran, Zachary Young, $5 million in compensatory damages.

Following the verdict, the two parties settled the case as the punitive damages phase was underway. The details of the settlement were not made public.”
 
farce© said:
And it seems this is exactly what has happened.

“CNN settled a lawsuit brought by a US Navy veteran over a 2021 segment on evacuations in Afghanistan on Friday, hours after a jury found the network liable for defaming him.

The two-week trial was held in Bay County, Florida. A jury awarded the veteran, Zachary Young, $5 million in compensatory damages.

Following the verdict, the two parties settled the case as the punitive damages phase was underway. The details of the settlement were not made public.”
Click to expand...
With such a quick agreement on settlement post-verdict I would not be surprised if this award triggered a high/low agreement. Sometimes when the parties cannot agree and a case looks headed to trial with an uncertain liability outcome but the possibility of a runaway number, you can offer a high/low deal which works like this: The defendants will guarantee the low number regardless of the verdict, but in exchange plaintiff caps the damage award at the high regardless of the verdict. If the verdict is between the two numbers, it just stands.

None of us have any idea what the plaintiff had been demanding in pre-trial negotiations, so even this $5m award may be an absolute winner for CNN compared to what plaintiff's prior demand was. I have seen plenty of instances where the plaintiff had an unrealistic demand and would not negotiate off of it which typically is an emotional reaction. Sometimes letting a jury decide is the only move. A jury award that appears to be a "loss" to outside observers can sometimes be an absolute win for the defense.
 
HesNotHere97 said:
LOL...

Sure thing Professor.

You spin it how you want. Guess what? They were found liable for slander and the punitive damages are yet to come.

Again... you didn't dispute the facts of the case about them lying just the words used to explaining the FACTS.

Did they lie? Yes.

Do they continue to be a mouthpiece for the left? Yes.

Does America trust the MSM? NO. Resoundingly NO.

Case in point.
Click to expand...

I KNOW you brought that same energy when Fox was found guilty to the tune of $787 million dollars. Because you’re fair and balanced and all.
 

CNN settles with US Navy veteran after defamation verdict​


“… Following the verdict, the two parties settled the case as the punitive damages phase was underway. The details of the settlement were not made public. …”

amp.cnn.com

CNN settles with US Navy veteran after defamation verdict | CNN Business

CNN settled a lawsuit brought by a US Navy veteran over a 2021 segment on evacuations in Afghanistan on Friday, hours after a jury found the network liable for defaming him.
amp.cnn.com amp.cnn.com
 
BlueSteel said:
I KNOW you brought that same energy when Fox was found guilty to the tune of $787 million dollars. Because you’re fair and balanced and all.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the few conservatives on here aren't the ones constantly pounding our chests over the purity of conservative media. You guys own the fantasy that your media is somehow more virtuous. I am on the record here acknowledging the flaws in conservative media and have repeatedly said that both conservative and liberal media are equally tarnished. But not this place. I still clings to its ignorant belief that somehow its sources are always superior despite the many examples of intentional deceit and efforts to misinform. So, laughing at your hypocrisy and ignorance is justified.
 
Callatoroy said:
You do realize that the few conservatives on here aren't the ones constantly pounding our chests over the purity of conservative media. You guys own the fantasy that your media is somehow more virtuous. I am on the record here acknowledging the flaws in conservative media and have repeatedly said that both conservative and liberal media are equally tarnished. But not this place. I still clings to its ignorant belief that somehow its sources are always superior despite the many examples of intentional deceit and efforts to misinform. So, laughing at your hypocrisy and ignorance is justified.
Click to expand...


You mean "conservative" defined as corporate, weird, isolated, white culture supremacy, capitalist, two faced, whiny, victim, weak and allergic to the sun, right?
 
farce© said:
I’m laughing at the notion that CNN is “liberal media.”
Click to expand...
Well it does the bidding for the dem party so, yea, it is. It and msnbc are every bit equal to fox in toting the water for their respective parties. And since I read fox news I know just how in the tank it is for trump.
 
farce© said:
I’m laughing at the notion that CNN is “liberal media.”
Click to expand...
Anything even remotely to the left (center) of Fox is automatically deemed liberal or left-wing by Trumpers. And as I posted elsewhere, most of them would rather die than admit that more and more of the "mainstream news media" is actually conservative and owned by conservatives, and no longer as liberal or centrist as it used to be.
 
Callatoroy said:
You do realize that the few conservatives on here aren't the ones constantly pounding our chests over the purity of conservative media. You guys own the fantasy that your media is somehow more virtuous. I am on the record here acknowledging the flaws in conservative media and have repeatedly said that both conservative and liberal media are equally tarnished. But not this place. I still clings to its ignorant belief that somehow its sources are always superior despite the many examples of intentional deceit and efforts to misinform. So, laughing at your hypocrisy and ignorance is justified.
Click to expand...
You appear to have zero knowledge of journalism, how it works and how it fails, and then works or does not work to correct failure and proceed. This is almost certainly casually connected to the fact that you do not read actual journalism, and have never done so at any time in your adult life. Many conservatives much more informed and intelligent than yourself don't understand some of the same things you don't know and they more than you are why I will take some time to present what follows.

There are specific problems with journalism (pro-corporatism, but I will not digress here), but generally the finest sources do mostly what they should do. A list of the best of the best could be attempted as follows:

The Financial Times
The BBC
The New York Times
The Washington Post (now profoundly compromised as a source, but listed here from a historical status)
NPR
PBS (especially the program Frontline, which is consistently the finest investigative long form broadcast journalism ever produced)

...and highest level magazines

The Atlantic
Harper's
The New Yorker
(and a few others).

Each of these are subscribers and members of The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.

https://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf

Each of them hire the finest journalists in the world, usually already rewarded for good work, usually educated at the finest universities, each of the sources who hire these people benefiting when they are winning awards for investigative journalism.

Apart from NPR, American broadcast news of the highest reputation is a big step below this, and does less actual investigating than they do in relying on and relaying the work of the major sources above (there are other very good ones as well, but the primary sources are those). So mainstream broadcast sources like ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC and AP relay validated news, have pundits comment on this news, interview important figures and legitimate experts, and do a small amount of their own reporting. This level down is not generally a source of investigative journalism.

All of the large news organizations above are owned by larger corporations, which are bound to the only and the ever-present demand of maximizing shareholder value. News organizations compete with each other to be correct on facts, and if one fails the others will seize on this report their error to gain the readership or viewers who are looking for reality, this even more critically increase circulation and reputation in feedback to make the shareholders money--an extremely powerful incentive. Since the arrival and success of Fox "News" there is a niche market opposed to reality news that reflects negatively on conservative ideology, and there are offshoots of this in social media.

Back to most sources of legitimate news. Each of these have a history of, and do print corrections or retractions when they make mistakes. The good results of this system are unsurprising. Each wants to be correct more often than the competition. This competition is the essence of why a consumer of news cross-checks the very best possible sources (a rudimentary at home version of the scientific method each person can and should make use of). One can recognize them as the best sources when what they find repeatedly holds up, has repeatedly held up, or when they have made mistakes they have produced clear retractions to get things right.

Top level journalists are powerfully biased to this ideal, eclipsing ideological bias they hold, if for no other reason than that they are ultimately subject to shareholders via the huge corporations of news journalism, who also compete to be seen as getting things correct (opposite to the radically different business model of for quintessential example, Fox "News" to please and thus sell elderly, mostly white, Republican viewers to advertisers of that reliable demographic). Because their stock-in-trade of most all highly regarded journalism entities is credibility (having even retractions hurts, despite it also being part of the model of credibility). So the connection down the line of the corporate model of actual journalism is they all understand that what they produce as a product for news consumers and shareholders and boss alike had better be verified. Or they won’t be working long--period. That is a bias that in principle exceeds and dominates any other, and a functional reason why top sources are, and can be recognized as top sources.

Extensive research has been done on people who get news stories from different single sources, and how correct or wrong those consumers are on facts as widely cross-validated from many sources. Results of this research show where media sources go badly wrong in misinforming viewers who utilize single sources, but even worse, the most corrupt of those single sources, as with the prime example, the farce that is Fox "News." A large research study was done in 2004 to examine people holding factually false views about the Iraq War a few years after it began, and where they got those falsehoods. They found that people who watched Fox "News" believed more of the falsehoods than those who watched or got their news from other sources, and NPR was the best in terms of people being least likely to believe the falsehoods. A small sample of a larger body of research on this, in some of the most important research findings of modern times on journalism and war:


World Public Opinion, Percentage of Americans Believing Iraq had WMD Rises (2006); https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/10562.

However, conservative Republicans especially since the rise of Fox "News" and other corrupt right wing sources believe falsehoods and distortions of reality on a wide variety of topics, as also demonstrated by research:

R. J. Brulle, J. Carmichael, J. C. Jenkins, Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Clim. Change 114, 169–188 (2012).

J. Pasek, T. H. Stark, J. A. Krosnick, T. Tompson, What motivates a conspiracy theory? Birther beliefs, partisanship, liberal-conservative ideology, and anti-Black attitudes. Elect. Stud. 40, 482–489 (2015).

A. J. Berinsky, The Birthers Are Back (2012); http://today.yougov.com/news/2012/02/03/birthers-are-back/.

J. M. Miller, K. L. Saunders, C. E. Farhart, Conspiracy endorsement as motivated reasoning: The moderating roles of political knowledge and trust. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 60, 824–844 (2016).

G. Pennycook, D. G. Rand, Research note: Examining false beliefs about voter fraud in the wake of the 2020 Presidential Election, Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review (2021).

From the findings of 2021 research into...

Conservative susceptibility to political misperceptions​


In sum, American conservatives in the early 21st century are uniquely likely to hold political misperceptions. This is due, in large part, to characteristics of the messages circulating in the political information environment. Widely shared accurate political news disproportionately advances liberal interests, while viral falsehoods most often promote conservative interests. Together, these characteristics contribute to stark ideological differences in citizens’ ability to distinguish between truths and falsehoods about high-profile topics. This pattern may be exacerbated by the fact that liberals tend to experience bigger improvements in sensitivity than conservatives as the proportion of partisan news increases.

Widespread political misperceptions pose a notable threat to democracy, which is dependent on citizens’ ability to make informed decisions. The evidence presented here suggest that it may be possible to enhance conservatives’ ability to distinguish between political truths and falsehoods by altering the political information environment. If widely shared political news contained fewer falsehoods promoting conservative causes or more conservative-favorable accurate information, then misperceptions among conservatives would likely decline.

 
Callatoroy said:
You do realize that the few conservatives on here aren't the ones constantly pounding our chests over the purity of conservative media. You guys own the fantasy that your media is somehow more virtuous. I am on the record here acknowledging the flaws in conservative media and have repeatedly said that both conservative and liberal media are equally tarnished. But not this place. I still clings to its ignorant belief that somehow its sources are always superior despite the many examples of intentional deceit and efforts to misinform. So, laughing at your hypocrisy and ignorance is justified.
Click to expand...
How could anyone possibly think that CNN can boast "purity" or is especially liberal when they put that propagandistic Trumper Scott Jennings all the time?

Pretty sure you don't understand the mindset of liberal folks when it comes to the so-called mainstream media.

By the way, the terms "mainstream" in this context is pretty silly. Fox is widely viewed and, therefore, mainstream. Joe Rogan would logically be considered mainstream. Elon Musk's posting of misleading vitriol on the website he owns gets a large audience -- again, mainstream stuff.

In any case, if you're looking for a source that liberals might hold up as pure -- honest, intelligent, fair -- then I'd suggest maybe the Atlantic. They aren't perfect, either. Not by any means. But it's a mighty impressive publication, on the whole.

So, Callatory, I think your arguments are truly bad. Of course, if you are looking for someone here to admit to you they believe the New York Times is more honest and informative, in general, than Fox or Breitbart or Gateway Pundit or some other garbage, then OK -- I'll say yes, it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top