Experts are reacting to the massive defamation suit against CNN, which could result in damages of up to $1 billion. As more attention is drawn to the case, experts are weighing in on how CNN may have harmed Zachary Young, the plaintiff, and providing insights into the legal and media industry implications.
Major General James V. Young, Jr, a former Army officer with a specialized background, provided an analysis to prove the economic damages suffered by Zachary Young. In his analysis, he noted that the unique nature of Young’s work and the importance of trust within his industry. He warned that breaches of trust, such as those alleged by CNN, could have a profound impact on Young’s career and opportunities.
Security contractor Erik Prince, in an interview with NewsBusters, highlighted the significant economic damage suffered by Young as a result of the CNN segment. He stated that it would be difficult for Young to continue working in his field due to the damage to his reputation caused by CNN. Prince also suggested that the story was an attempt by CNN to shift the focus away from President Biden’s pullout blunder and turn Young into a “boogieman.”
Newsroom lawyer and professor Charles Glasser, who has served as the Global Media Counsel for Bloomberg News, provided his insights on the legal realities of the case. After reviewing internal CNN emails submitted as evidence, Glasser stated that they were “pretty damning.” He also predicted that CNN would likely settle the case before it goes to trial, as they have done in similar situations in the past.
Attorney Vel Freedman, representing Young in the case, stated that there are currently no active settlement discussions and that their goal is to hold CNN accountable. However, Glasser believes that the case will likely settle quietly, with the media and industry apologists ignoring the matter.
Glasser also noted that if the case were to go to trial, CNN would be in big trouble with a jury of average Americans. He stated that juries are made up of regular citizens who have a deep distrust of the current state of the news media, as seen in the Gawker vs. Hulk Hogan case. However, he also acknowledged that the insurance company would likely take the hit, which could drive up costs for small-time journalists and freelancers.
As the story gained attention during the same week that CNN was set to host a presidential debate, Media Research Center Vice President Dan Schneider pointed out the conflict of interest. He stated that Tapper, who will be moderating the debate, has a history of working for Democratic politicians and may have been attempting to run cover for Biden’s controversial pullout from Afghanistan. Now, CNN is facing a billion-dollar defamation suit as a result of their actions.
Experts are providing valuable insights into the possible harm caused by CNN’s actions in the defamation case and the potential implications for both the legal system and the media industry.