CNN recently lost a recent major ruling from Judge L. Clayton Roberts found that there was evidence of malice by CNN to support the higher standard needed for defamation. The evidence in the case is remarkably bad for the network after discovery of internal memoranda and emails.
The report at the heart of the case aired Nov. 11, 2021, segment on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” and was shared on social media and (a different version on) CNN’s website. In the segment, Tapper tells to his audience ominously how CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.”
Marquardt piled on in the segment, claiming that up “desperate Afghans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” to flee the country. He then named Young and his company as the example of that startling claim.
The damages in the case could be massive but Young had to satisfy the higher New York Times v. Sullivan standard of “actual malice” with a showing of knowing falsehood or a reckless disregard of the truth. Judge Roberts found that “Young sufficiently proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a level of conduct outrageous enough to open the door for him to seek punitive damages.”
The evidence included messages from Marquard that he wanted to “nail this Zachary Young mfucker” and thought the story would be Young’s “funeral.” After promising to “nail” Young, CNN editor Matthew Philips responded: “gonna hold you to that cowboy!” Likewise, CNN senior editor Fuzz Hogan described Young as “a shit.”
As it often done by media, CNN allegedly gave Young only two hours to respond before the story ran. It is a typical ploy of the press to claim that they waited for a response while giving the target the smallest possible window.
In this case, Young was able to respond in the short time and Marquardt messaged a colleague, “fucking Young just texted.”
After losing the earlier motion on malice, CNN’s lead counsel Deanna K. Shullman surprised many in the motion of summary judgment by turning to Sharia law in defense of CNN. She argued that
“this entire defamation case centers on Young’s accusation that CNN implied he engaged in illegal conduct when he arranged, for a substantial fee, to have women smuggled out of Afghanistan…[D]iscovery has indicated that those activities he orchestrated and funded, which involved moving women out of Afghanistan, almost certainly were illegal under Taliban rule.”
Young’s counsel objected and noted that the allegations were never that “what Young and other private operators were doing was illegal under Taliban law.”
It is hard to see how CNN would prevail on this summary judgment motion. At most, this would seem a question that requires a finding of fact from a jury. I would be surprised if jurors agree with CNN that the outrage expressed by the network was based on the violation of the draconian, oppressive laws of the Taliban. Those were the very laws that these people were desperately trying to escape.
The case could not come at a worst time for CNN which has been struggling with low ratings, layoffs, and failing revenue.