CNN must pay millions to an Afghanistan war veteran for defamation. Zachary Young, a 49-year-old veteran and security consultant, won a $5 million judgment against the network. Jurors in Florida found CNN guilty of falsely accusing him of running a “black market” evacuation operation during the chaotic 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Potential for higher damages
Young, who initially sought $15 million in damages, may receive even more. The verdict excludes punitive damages, which could increase the payout. Young worked tirelessly to help Afghans flee the Taliban—without charging them. He relied on sponsorships from corporations and nonprofits.
CNN’s 2021 segment sparks controversy
In November 2021, CNN aired a segment claiming private contractors charged up to $14,000 for evacuations. Anchor Jake Tapper introduced the report, alleging desperate Afghans faced “exorbitant fees” for unsafe services. CNN’s Alex Marquardt pointed to social media posts advertising evacuation services, including one from Young on LinkedIn. Young argued he never exploited Afghans and filed a defamation lawsuit in 2022.
Network’s ongoing struggles
The court’s decision adds to CNN’s woes. The network has struggled with declining ratings and criticism over alleged liberal bias. The lawsuit’s outcome follows ongoing political pressure, particularly from former President Trump, who has vowed to tackle media bias during his second term.
Internal disagreements on apology
CNN apologized to Young in 2022, retracting the segment and removing it from public view. However, internal depositions revealed a different story. Senior CNN staff testified they disagreed with the apology. Virginia Moseley, CNN’s Executive Vice President of Editorial, claimed the term “black market” didn’t carry a negative connotation. Supervising Producer Michael Callahan echoed her view, defining the term as an “unregulated market.”
Legal concerns drive retraction
Adam Levine, Senior Vice President of Washington Newsgathering, admitted the apology aimed to prevent legal action. He described it as a legal department decision rather than a genuine admission of error. Fact-checking editor Fuzz Hogan and correspondent Alex Marquardt also stood by the report, with Marquardt stating he had no issue with the apology but didn’t consider it necessary.
Damage to reputation highlighted
Young’s lawsuit highlighted the damage to his reputation. He claimed CNN’s broadcast falsely depicted him as an illegal profiteer charging $14,500 for evacuations. This portrayal, he argued, was baseless and harmful.
The case exposed internal disagreements within CNN about journalistic standards. Testimonies revealed staff skepticism about the need for a retraction. Legal concerns, rather than ethical considerations, appeared to drive the network’s response.
Victory for the veteran
For Young, the verdict marks a significant victory. The damages awarded reflect the jurors’ acknowledgment of the harm caused by CNN’s reporting. As the network faces further scrutiny, this case underscores the risks of careless journalism in high-stakes situations.
