CNN defamation trial: Expected loss but still a negative impact for the network, insider reveals.

The loss of a high-profile defamation case this week was anticipated within the CNN network, but it still left a lasting impression.

The employee stated in a message to Planet Chronicle Digital that being held responsible for defamation and dishonesty is undesirable.

Zachary Young, a Navy veteran, successfully alleged that CNN falsely accused him of profiting illegally when he helped people flee Afghanistan during the Biden administration's withdrawal in 2021. Young believes that CNN damaged his reputation and business by branding him as an illicit profiteer who exploited desperate Afghans in a report that aired on "The Lead with Jake Tapper" on Nov. 11, 2021.

A jury in Florida ruled that Young was entitled to $4 million in lost earnings and $1 million in personal damages after a two-week trial. However, before the jury could determine punitive damages against CNN, the two parties reached a settlement.

Afterward, Young said he felt "vindication."

Young expressed his gratitude to Planet Chronicle Digital on Friday, stating that after three long years of fighting for vindication, the outcome he desired was finally achieved, making it an incredible feeling. He added that he was relieved the ordeal was over and they wouldn't have to spend more time arguing about the meaning of a word.

CNN has not provided extensive coverage of the trial, with only a brief mention of the verdict in a newsletter and a short item about the outcome published by media correspondent Hadas Gold.

In the trial, Young's legal team disclosed CNN internal communications obtained through discovery that consistently demonstrated staff members' hostile attitudes towards the Navy veteran.

One juror called Young a "s--tbag" and an "a--hole," while another said he had a "punchable face." Additionally, it was disclosed that CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt had told a colleague "we're gonna nail this Zachary Young mf---er," which was frequently referenced during the trial, and that Marquardt had said the report was going to be "your funeral bucko," referring to Young in an exchange with a colleague.

The CNN spokesperson stated that the network would learn valuable insights from the case.

CNN stated that they are still proud of their journalists and fully committed to providing strong, fearless, and fair-minded reporting, despite the settlement. They will take any useful lessons from the case.

According to a CNN employee who spoke to Planet Chronicle Digital, the problems with CNN's journalism regarding this story were not indicative of cultural issues within the company.

"The messages were negative, but I don't believe it's a cultural issue across the network," they stated. "In my opinion, it was an overzealous reporter who had a strong belief and presented information in a biased manner. They found evidence to support their belief and did not critically examine their own conclusions."

At a time when morale is low at the network, which is facing low ratings and pending layoffs, there was no internal "rallying behind" the flag.

The spokesperson for CNN stated that the company's financial health is "very healthy" and highlighted a report indicating that Warner Bros. Discovery is investing over $70 million in its digital transformation.

Another CNN insider disclosed to Planet Chronicle Digital that the leaked messages were highly incriminating.

During the trial, CNN senior national security editor Thomas Lumley was questioned after internal messages revealed his doubts about the "seriously flawed" report. Lumley was called as a witness after internal messages showed he believed the report was "full of holes like Swiss cheese."

Katie Bo Lillis, another reporter involved in the story, admitted that she did not consider the potential impact of the segment on Young, the plaintiff, who claimed it severely damaged his reputation and had a profound effect on his personal life, causing depression and emasculation.

In 2022, several CNN figures testified that they did not concur with the network's decision to issue an apology for suggesting that Young operated on a "black market."

"The poor performance of CNN journalists on the witness stand amplifies the impact of Young v. CNN, as The Washington Post's Erik Wemple noted. They faltered under questioning, failed to defend a crucial word choice, and in some instances, as in Lillis's case, they seemed oblivious to the influence of their own vast network, which reaches over 70 million households in the US."

A former CNN staffer who works in the industry told Planet Chronicle Digital that CNN should be deeply embarrassed that, despite having numerous editorial staff, they were unable to perform fundamental journalistic tasks and overcome the obvious dysfunction among their overpaid, arrogant TV stars who act as journalists and cowardly editors.

Following the conclusion of the case, Young stated to Planet Chronicle Digital that he harbored no ill will towards the network. However, he did express the hope that CNN and other media outlets would take away valuable lessons from the incident.

He stated that he hoped the situation would prompt them to reflect on their actions and recognize the need for change and improvement. If this outcome positively impacted CNN, it may encourage other media outlets to follow suit.