‘Fed Up With Fake News’: CNN Juror Would Have Awarded Up to $100 Million in Punitive Damages

by

Last month in a courtroom in Florida, the lawyer representing the plaintiff urged the jury to deliver a clear message by finding CNN responsible for the alleged slander against the security contractor, Zachary Young.

The jury decided in favor of Young, granting him $5 million as compensation for the harm done to his reputation, which had been linked to a clandestine refugee market from Afghanistan. However, the jurors were prepared to take more action, but a settlement was agreed upon before they could award punitive damages.

Over the weekend, Katy Svitenko, acting as the foreperson, informed EbMaster via email that she would potentially approve an amount of up to $100 million, and also emphasized that the jury was attempting to convey a specific message through their decision.

or

In a weekend email, Katy Svitenko, serving as the foreperson, communicated to EbMaster that she would consider allocating up to $100 million, and further clarified that the jury was aiming to express a certain sentiment with their verdict.

She stated that the jury’s intent was clear: they wanted media outlets like CNN, as well as others, to understand that the public is tired of false news and incomplete information. She emphasized the importance of journalism being fair, truthful, and comprehensive.

During an eight-day court case in Panama City, Florida, CNN’s journalistic practices were closely scrutinized. The outcome was less than favorable. CNN’s legal team defended their coverage as being both robust and impartial. However, messages shown to the jury revealed that reporter Alex Marquardt wanted to “get Zach Young,” while Katie Bo Lillis referred to him as a “rotten egg,” and Michael Conte stated he had a face that could be hit.

As a passionate film enthusiast, I’d rephrase it like this: When I heard Jane Kirtley, a media ethics and law professor at the University of Minnesota, speak about a recent case, it served as a stark reminder to us journalists: The humor we casually use in our newsrooms might not sit well in a courtroom.

Kirtley commented, “The jury will witness the behind-the-scenes process,” explaining that he educates reporters on how to dodge lawsuits. He jests about matters people consider serious in the news industry, sometimes using less formal language when discussing a story’s topics. This is all part of the dynamic nature of a newsroom. It can be unfortunate for those unfamiliar with journalism to read or hear these discussions.

Testifying on the stand, Marquardt declared that he thought Young was taking advantage of Afghan individuals who simply couldn’t pay the exorbitant fees he was asking for helping them leave their country.

However, CNN’s correspondents were found to have overlooked chances to delve into different aspects of the story, and internal disagreements were ignored. In one email exchange, national security reporter Nicole Gaouette expressed that it could be “extremely costly” to evacuate from Afghanistan. She further noted that the implication running through Alex’s report that these individuals were exploiting desperate Afghans for money might not be entirely fair.

(Or)

In addition, CNN reporters failed to seize opportunities to broaden their investigation and address internal disagreements. An email from national security reporter Nicole Gaouette suggested that the cost of evacuating from Afghanistan could be substantial. She also questioned whether the portrayal in Alex’s report that these people were taking advantage of desperate Afghans for money might not be accurate.

The trial examined CNN’s fact-checking methodology, specifically focusing on their “Triad” team – consisting of a standards editor, fact-checker, and lawyer who verify critical stories before publication. The Triad endorsed the Young story, but not the headline preceding the broadcast segment that labeled it as a “black market,” which the jury deemed defamatory.

CNN’s staff argued that when they used the term “black market,” they didn’t mean it in reference to illegal activities, but instead as a term for a market that operates without government regulation.

During the court proceedings, the jurors were allowed to jot down their own inquiries, which the judge then announced. The queries posed by the jury provided a preliminary hint that the trial wasn’t favoring CNN.

One inquired Marquardt, “What are your thoughts given that Mr. Young is now unable to operate within the space for which he was trained due to your actions?

In a straightforward manner, Svitenko, who was serving as the head juror, stated that Marquardt appeared incredibly self-important while testifying in court.

According to the internal emails presented as proof, the jury believed that Alex Marquardt took his pursuit of Mr. Young personally and was determined to bring him down, referring to it as a ‘crusade’ or ‘relentless pursuit’ to ‘expose Zachary Young.’

She also suggested the the Triad be required to uphold a higher standard.

Furthermore, it may be advisable for them to organize their internal communications more systematically and for the journalists to behave professionally, avoiding childish name-calling. – Svitenko

In the year 2023, Marquardt received a promotion to become the chief national security correspondent, along with a pay increase. However, Svitenko expressed her disappointment about this development, stating, “It leaves me questioning whether he was merely reprimanded!

On January 16th, I found myself immersed in a long-drawn-out discussion with my fellow jurors as we pondered over the evidence presented before us. The night grew late, and around nine in the evening, weary from the intensity of our deliberations, we decided it was best to call it a day and return home, expressing our frustration and exhaustion to the judge along the way.

Svitenko mentioned that five out of six jurors were convinced from the start that CNN was responsible for the case, but it took effort to persuade the sixth juror. By the morning of January 17th, however, this person had changed their mind after a night’s reflection and agreed with the rest.

The jury then sent a brief note to the judge: “Calculator, tissues, water please. Thank you.”

Following the verdict of $5 million in compensatory damages, both parties proceeded to a separate trial to decide on punitive damages. However, upon resuming after a recess, they announced that they had reached an agreement and resolved the case instead.

Since the jurors didn’t talk about the punitive damages, Svitenko can’t guess what their decision on that matter would have been.

She stated her viewpoint as follows: ‘I believe the fine could have reached up to $100 million.’ She felt it needed to be substantial, not just for penalizing CNN, but also for capturing the focus of other media entities.

Following the court proceedings, a representative from CNN expressed continued pride in their journalists and reaffirmed their unwavering dedication to robust, courageous, and impartial reporting. They also acknowledged that they would learn valuable insights from this situation.

The full amount of the settlement wasn’t revealed, but from the plaintiffs’ point of view, their message had been effectively communicated.

In an email, Vel Freedman, the main attorney for the plaintiff, stated, “It appears the jury’s verdict has conveyed the message we desired: if news organizations produce dramas in their newsrooms, the American public will demand justice in their courts. I fervently hope this case marks a significant shift – one that reduces sensationalism and reorients journalism towards facts. Let us strive to provide what the American people truly seek: factual information, not theatrical performances.

Read More

2025-02-05 19:48