Columns, Media, Politics

“This is CNN” (and Modern Media): What CNN’s loss in the Florida Defamation Case Says About American Journalism

Below is my column in The Hill on the verdict against CNN in the defamation case brought by Navy veteran Zachary Young. The jury will now determine the amount of punitive damages in a case that speaks not only to CNN but the media at large. As the media readies for a second Trump term, there is every indication that news outlets like NBC are preparing to replicate the same advocacy journalism that characterized Trump’s first term. If so, the media will continue to speed along its own demise with many seeking their news from new media.

Here is the column:

“Your credibility with me … is about none.”

Those words to CNN counsel by Judge William Henry also clearly spoke for the Florida jury which, on Friday, awarded $5 million for Navy veteran Zachary Young and approved an additional amount, still to be determined, for punitive damages.

The CNN loss is only the latest in a series of media cases that have reversed decades of case law where the media largely prevailed under highly protective legal standards. It says a great deal about the state of modern journalism and its unrelenting efforts at self-destruction.

In “The Indispensable Right,” I discuss the radical shift in American journalism that occurred with the rejection of neutrality and objectivity in favor of advocacy journalism. J-schools now teach that objectivity is a dated concept. As former New York Times writer (and now Howard University journalism professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones has explained, “All journalism is activism.”

After interviewing more than 75 media leaders, Leonard Downie Jr., former Washington Post executive editor, and Andrew Heyward, former CBS News president, detailed how media leaders view neutrality and objectivity as dated concepts that inhibit social and political agendas.

The public’s response to this trend has been both predictable and pronounced. The famous “Let’s Go, Brandon” incident after a NASCAR race, after all, was more of a criticism of the media than of Joe Biden — a “Yankee Doodling” of the press for its distortion of facts.

Revenue and ratings for media outlets have plummeted, although there are other contributing factors. During the trial, CNN host Jake Tapper was challenged for his testimony that he “doesn’t pay attention to ratings.” That does not appear to be the case at the network, which is cratering and desperately trying to reverse the ratings plunge. CNN has reportedly lost half of its viewership, hitting lows not seen in three decades.

The jury clearly believed, as the network’s slogan claims, that “This is CNN.” That is probably the reason it will soon award punitive damages. However, this is not just CNN. The case itself highlighted everything wrong with modern media.

The segment aired on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” on Nov. 11, 2021, and trashed Young in a story about Afghans being preyed upon by groups promising to get them out of the country amid the disastrous withdrawal of U.S. forces. Tapper told his audience ominously how CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered that “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 detailed how “desperate Afghans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” and then named Young and his company as examples.

The trial revealed internal messages from Marquardt that he wanted to “nail this Zachary Young motherf—–” and thought the story would be Young’s “funeral.” After promising to “nail” Young, CNN editor Matthew Philips responded that he was “gonna hold you to that cowboy!” CNN senior editor Fuzz Hogan described Young as “a s—.”

As often occurs today, 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 gave someone a chance to respond. The call often comes at the end of the day to create the appearance of fairness.  Nevertheless, Young did respond to the chagrin of CNN producers and made clear that key elements of the story were untrue.

CNN’s defense in court was a case study in how not to defend a defamation lawsuit. It included a series of self-inflicted wounds, delivered in front of the jury. However, it is only the latest loss for major media, given recent courthouse setbacks for the New York Times, NBC, and Deadspin. ABC News recently settled its own defamation case out of court, and previously Fox News paid a massive settlement.

Nevertheless, some outlets appear to be doubling down in the hope that they can ride anti-Trump coverage back to robust ratings. Last week, NBC announced that it was bringing Yamiche Alcindor to the White House press corps. Alcindor, who also worked for PBS, was widely criticized for often preceding questions with attacks on conservatives or over-the-top praise for Joe Biden or Democrats. While others saw raw political bias, Alcindor explained that it was her job to use journalism to bend the “moral arc toward justice.”

For decades, the media found ample protection within the protective shell created by the Supreme Court after New York Times v. Sullivan. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating a standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. The demanding standard requires a showing of “actual malice,” where the media had actual knowledge of a statement’s falsity or showed reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.

The string of media losses reflects a change not in the law but in the media itself. As the press increasingly engages in advocacy journalism, reckless disregard for the truth is becoming the norm, as shown in the CNN case. It could get worse.

Some have questioned the extension of this protective standard to cases involving public figures, which encompasses anyone who has achieved a modicum of fame in business, sports, or other pursuits. A couple of justices have also expressed skepticism about why non-public figures should shoulder such a burden when people lie about them.

Meanwhile, the public is abandoning legacy media at a run, turning to new media in the form of blogs and citizen journalists. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of such a citizen journalist in a criminal case — a woman known as La Gordiloca (loosely translated as “fat, crazy lady”). Describing her as a “swearing muckraker who is upending border journalism,” the New York Times admitted that La Gordiloca “reflects how many people on the border now prefer to get their news.”

The rise in citizen journalists in new media and advocacy journalism in legacy media will only likely increase the number of such cases in the coming years. For mainstream media, the skepticism that they are facing in society is now becoming equally evident in courts. To paraphrase Judge Henry, their credibility with the public is about none.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

347 thoughts on ““This is CNN” (and Modern Media): What CNN’s loss in the Florida Defamation Case Says About American Journalism”

  1. “What CNN’s loss in the Florida Defamation Case Says About American Journalism”

    It says that they graduated from the Beria school of journalism:

    Bring us the man, and we’ll concoct the smear campaign.

  2. Dennis, Gigi and George have rich posting material to post about this morning! The Bribery Biden Reign Of Error And Terror is leaving office with a final spasm of corruption.

    Biden just became the Oprah Winfrey of Hunter Biden style presidential pardons: “A pardon for you, a pardon for you, a pardon for you….”

    Hunter Biden no longer has to worry about being known in history as the only person pardoned for crimes the American public nor law enforcement even know exist. His Dad gave him a lot of good company!

    To paraphrase The Three Democrat Stooges: “If you didn’t do anything wrong, what are you afraid of”.

    Trump doesn’t have time and political capitol to mess around with these scrotes with so much to be done and midterm election season about a year away.

    But 5th Amendment protection for these Soviet Democrat thugs just disappeared in the face of GOP Senate and House committee investigations.

    But like The Big Guy not worrying about Hunter Biden being dragged back to answer questions under oath, I doubt the GOP committees will do much with this low hanging Democrat felon fruit.

    Old Airborne Dog

  3. If you change just 2 words in Marquardt’s statement to CNN in the following paragraph, the Left / MSM would make a complete 180° pivot and defend the indefensible.

    Afghan Immigrant smugglers = evil
    US Immigrant smugglers = virtuous

    Marquardt detailed how “desperate Afghans Latinamericans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” and then named Young Biden and his company as examples.

    It would be instructive to learn how much money the coyotes / immigrant smugglers have made financially during Biden’s open border catastrophe. It wouldn’t be surprising if Biden’s admin received a cut from the coyotes operations, e.g. 10 held by H for the big guy

    Memo to Pam Bondi: prosecute them all

    1. @Estovir,
      They weren’t smuggling Afghans but getting them out of the country. IIRC they had legal rights to be in the US already but couldn’t get out of Afghanistan.

  4. Trump press Secretary and comments from Trump Team, rearanging the seating for the press. Bringing in Social Media/Influencers for front row seats and movong the MSM hate Trump to the back or no seat at all. MSM has not learn their lesson. There is going to be more $$$ lost and viewers lost by MSM. The winner is Social MEdia such as X, Truth Social, Rumble Tic Toc and Influencers.

  6. Kind of goes to show you what happens when you give a certain class of people or industry “breathing space”. It seems to be that they run with it and go far be beyond the bounds that were initially contemplated. Then you can end up with a monster that feels entitled to do almost anything with no accountability or even remorse when they crush people using their illegitimate “breathing space”. Best the media learn this fact now and deal with truth and accountability or they surely will have to deal with it when Discovery demands all their communications, e-mails, texts, thoughts and anything else pertinent. Then they get to learn what it’s like to live down here with the rest of us where we don’t get “breathing space” just results, or else.

  7. CNN and Jake Tapper consistently fail to meet the low standards that they set for themselves.

  8. Yamiche Alcindor, along with April Ryan, are all the exhibits we need to prove how partisan the MSM has become. The framing of questions, the sneering attitude when facing a Republican as compared to the fawning obsequiousness when “questioning” a Democrat, the “fact” checking, the follow-up vs the non-follow up, all show the lack of professionalism and frankly the lack of intelligent “reporting”. You watch Alcindor and Ryan, or clowns like Brian Karem,or even the WH Correspondent’s president Kelly O’Donnell ( who chastised another reporter for being tough on KJP) or Jim Acosta, and you tell me that this is a bright group of fair mined people.

  9. Nice article by Turley about media defamation and yet…not a single word about Fox News’ own massive settlement and the pending Smartmatic case. Fox News, the leader of advocacy journalism is mentioned nowhere in Turley’s column. Shocking (not).

    OT; We have yet to hear about Turley’s take on TikTok and the incoming Trump administration’s deferment of enforcement against it now that it has “come back on” after briefly shuttting down Saturday. Even Elon Musk is against the ban, but it’s strange that he’s now making it known instead of when legislation was being considered to ban the platform. Elon is calling on “equal access” to demand China allow X to operate in their country, which is odd because China would still censor a lot of content on X just as it does with Facebook and other popular western apps..

    We have never heard Turley’s position on the TikTok ban and it’s free speech implications. I assume Turley would be against banning TikTok on free speech grounds but it would run contrary to the majority of his readers. Can’t upset that apple cart by taking a position it seems.

    1. George – Paragrah 13: “and previously Fox News paid a massive settlement.” Doesn’t the DNC pay you to read the whole article?

      1. No wonder I missed it. It was buried deep within the article and it was barely a sentence. Turley knows he wouldn’t dare focus too much on his employer since it is still on the hook for billions with the ongoing Smartmatic defamation case. He’s gonna treat Fox News with kid gloves since they employ him.

          1. The topic at hand is defamation by media organizations.

            By the way, Fox News still has the Smartmatic case to contend with this year, and the outlook isn’t looking good for them. They already have a reputation for being willful liars. Turley should cover this story if he has the courage to criticize his employer.

            1. The Topic is CNN’s egregious defamation of a man trying to help people get out of adghanistan.

              It is NOT media Defamation.

              You rant about Smartmatic and Fox – this was FAR more egregious. While I do NOT support a Billion dollar punative verdict – we have seen FAR too much of this lunatic financial awards.

              However what CNN did to Young – a person whose life they ruined, is gigantic compared to any of the rest of these cases.
              It is much worse than the Guiliani case – which never should have gone to trial.
              or the Jones case.

              Do you even KNOW the people who were publicly identified and had their life ruined in these cases ?

              Young was singled out for destruction by CNN. Guiliani did not name the election workers and was denied by left wing nuts in DC the oportunity to try the case on the merits.
              RVS may not have rigged the 2020 election but they behaved stupidly said stupid things, set themselves up for the accusations, and there systems are garbage and remain so through today.

              To my knowledge Smartmatic was not even mentioned. So I am not sure how they were defamed.

              1. John, Fox News deliberately defamed a company. They stood to lose millions in revenue and their reputation ruined by the constant false claims. It also served to falsely push the narrative that they were to blame for Trump’s loss. That is far worse than one guy whose sketchy business in Afghanistan stood to lose.

                “Guiliani did not name the election workers and was denied by left wing nuts in DC the oportunity to try the case on the merits.”

                He didn’t have to, he accused the only ones who could be identified. Giuliani had plenty of opportunities he had all the time in the world to prove his case and he failed because the evidence against him was overwhelming. He behaved deliberately and yeah stupidly.

                Smartmatic is the next big defamation case and its once again up to Fox News to prove they were not lying after being shown they were lying in the dominion case. It seems Smartmatic will go all the way to trial.

    2. Because, George, no one cares about Prof Turleys opinion about tiktok, just you. Ever dawn on you that your so called opinions are delsuions?
      Go back to bed, drink your warm milk.

      1. Turley loves to talk about free speech issues and the “massive censorship” that occurs. It’s strange that he is dead silent on the fact that congress and SCOTUS engaged in censorship using the “national security excuse.

        1. O would like to hear from Turley on TikTok,
          But it is not a free speech issue. It is a property rights issue.

          SCOTUS was wrong the law is unconstitutional.

          This is little different from Turman’s nationalzation of US Steel.

          But I would like to hear Turley’s view – because he is a real constitutional scholar and evenb when I do not agree he still nearly always is insiteful.

          1. It’s a free speech issue. Even Elon Musk has weighed in, claiming that it’s a matter of free speech.

            It’s strange that Turley seems to be ignoring this case, as it aligns with his interests. I suspect he may not support the ban, but he risks alienating a significant portion of his readers, many of whom likely favor it.

            The national security excuse is absurd. The fact that former TikTok creators are flocking to another popular Chinese app, which is literally run by the Chinese government, highlights the “inconsistencies” in what our government is saying about China. It’s laughably ironic. Meanwhile, Trump is directing his DOJ not to enforce the ban and is giving the Chinese owner of TikTok VIP treatment at his swearing-in ceremony—likely in exchange for a substantial contribution to Trump’s inaugural fund. This kind of influence peddling is something Turley clearly disapproves of, yet he would label it as corruption according to his views.

            1. Am I required to agree with Musk ?

              It is a property rights case, and SCOTUS got it wrong.

              I am sure many other people claimed it is a free speech issue. But it is not, and that is why SCOTUS did not throw the law out on free speech grounds.

              Yes, I would like Turley to address this case. So far he has not.

              This is his blog, he gets to decide what he decides to write about.

              Turley is doing fine wih readers – even dingbats like you keep coming back.

              “The national security excuse is absurd.”
              No it is not, it is just not sufficient to overcome the property rights of TikTok’s owners.

              “The fact that former TikTok creators are flocking to another popular Chinese app, which is literally run by the Chinese government,”
              So ?
              ” highlights the “inconsistencies” in what our government is saying about China.”
              No it highlights that TikTok users do not care babout national security or the chinese gathering their personal data.

              Users are not required to care. That does not change the fact that it is a national security issue.

              “It’s laughably ironic.” No it just is what TT users are doing.
              Regardless, this is not a free speech issue – because TT users rights have not been infringed on.

              So both Trump and Biden are now opposed to the TT ban – which Biden signed into law, and you go on a rant about Trump’s supposed hypocracy ?

              BTW Trump is defering the ban – but he is doing so in order to give TikTok time to comply with the law.

    3. Nice article by Turley about media defamation and yet…not a single word about Fox News’ own massive settlement

      George the serial pathological liar claims Professor Turley NEVER wrote about Fox News’ defamation case. Never! The COLUMNS George repeatedly posted in to gloat about.

      George, you must have the life and future of a used condom in a back ally when coming here to lie and smear is the only thing you have.

      Old Airborne Dog

      1. LOL!! I never said he never wrote about Fox News own defamation case.
        Only that he didn’t mention it on this column. But as it has been pointed out, and the reason why it was missed, is because he mentioned it deep in the column, barely a full sentence. That speaks volumes about his hesitance on shining a bright spot light on Fox News given the fact that is still faces a multi billion dollar case.

        1. excuses and rationalization.

          All that was needed was.

          “I made a mistake”

          Turley has written about the Fox case in the past devoting entire articles to it.
          And he mentioned it in this one.

          Does he also need to mention the Fox/Tucker Carlson win ? or the MSNBC/Rachel Maddow win?
          Everytime he writes about defamation ?

          You were wrong

          When in a hole – don’t keep digging.

          1. John, as I mentioned earlier, I noticed the error and explained why it was incorrect. It’s up to me how I choose to address it. Highlighting Turley’s bias is completely fair. Does he need to mention every single detail? No, but he certainly makes an effort to downplay right-leaning media while criticizing all media on an issue that his own employer is heavily involved in.

            1. “John, as I mentioned earlier, I noticed the error and explained why it was incorrect.”
              No you engaged in rationalization and excuses.

              Or you could have just read the article before ranting.

              Still a self own.

              ” It’s up to me how I choose to address it.”
              Absolutely – and all the rationalization and excuses as well as the obvious fact that you did not read the article before commenting are reasons that the rest of us judge your credibility as poor.

              “Highlighting Turley’s bias is completely fair.”
              What bias ? The Fox settlment is a long long time ago. The CNN decision was Friday.
              Turley need not have mentioned Fox at all, but he did, even though it is pretty tangential.

              Fox, did not target indiviuals. Published the speech of others rather than its own, had no malice. did NOT get found to have defamed anyone by a jury.
              Each of these is present in the CNN case.

              failing to raise the Fox ase would not have been bias – and yet Turely did raise it.

              Not only did you err – but your error reflects your own biases and blindspots.

              You accused Turley of bias for NOT doing something that he did, but need not have.

              And now your busy rationalizing.

              And your still maligning Turley for bias because you THOUGHT he failed to mention something that he need not have mentioned but did.

              You are so deep in your delusional bubble.

              “Does he need to mention every single detail?”
              He does not even need to mention it. To the extent that other cases matter the earlier Fox/Carlson and MSNBC/Maddow cases that were thrown out are more relevant.
              Or the Guiliani case, or the Covington kids case.

              ” No, but he certainly makes an effort to downplay right-leaning media while criticizing all media on an issue that his own employer is heavily involved in.”
              nope – he should not have mentioned the fox settlement as the parallels to the fox case are minimal.
              The closes recent case would be the covington kids case. or the Setphanopolis case.
              Both of these involved the media defaming individuals. with malice.

              Turley does not need to mention every other defamation case whenever he writes an article on the defamation case in the news right now.

              He certainty need not mention others that have few common elements. Though he is free to.

              Nor is he obliged to match every woke failure to some loss by the right.

              While most of us presume there is a political element to the Young case. The core issue was NOT politics. It was CNN’s deliberate efforts to destroy Young, with KNOWING lies. That should not be a left right issue.

              Young was targeted. DVS and Smartmatic were not.
              There was clear malice in the CNN case.
              In the DVS case Fox was reporting the news.

              1. John, your excessive excuses are telling. Turley is deliberately avoiding mentioning Fox News which was a major defamation case. It ended up with a massive $787 million settlement. That’s not a measly $5 million.

                Turley is clearly discussing media and its increasing penchant for going beyond journalism. Often choosing to push the boundaries into defamation and false claims and Fox News has a clear record of doing that. But Turley would rather focus on CNN and other left-leaning media organizations because it would be inconvenient to criticize his employer. He’s biased.

                I did read the article and I did admit I did a bad job if it. That’s why I missed Turley’s fleeting mention of Fox News bigger defamation case.

            2. Again more rationalization.
              It was not incorrect. YOU were.
              you did not notice “the error” – you had YOUR error pointed out to you – repeatedly.

              Is it that difficult to say “I made a mistake” ?
              I do not make many mistakes – but I own them when I do.
              You keep writing as if you had nothing to do with “the error” – it is not “YOUR ERROR”.

              All of us make mistakes. You make a very large number.
              This is far from your most serious, it is just obvious.
              And you are shucking a jiving to distract from an OBVIOUS if small error.

              Turley’s ACTUAL bias is fair game – if you can find actual evidence.

              Your evidence is in your head – in the error you made not reading the article.
              Though I would note that even if Turley had omitted the Fox settlement – that would not establish bias.
              It is not germain to this case. It is distant in time, and distinct in numerous relevant attributes.

              The weaker the paralless to your counter example claiming bias or hypoocracy – the more the problem is YOUR inability to think critically.

        2. George the pathological serial liar defends his first lie with another lie – justified by an attempted deflection! This is why George is the Larry of The Three Democrat Stooges:
          I never said he never wrote about Fox News own defamation case. Only that he didn’t mention it on this column.

          That’s another lie: you posted that he never mentioned it – you DIDN’T post that he didn’t mention it in this column.

          Meanwhile (as George claims he actually read today’s column): “ABC News recently settled its own defamation case out of court, and previously Fox News paid a massive settlement.”

          And then George’s feeble attempted distraction excuse in an attempt to justify the lie smearing his host, Professor Turley: the reason why it was missed, is because he mentioned it deep in the column, barely a full sentence.

          George! You’re pleading your third grade reading comprehension handicap as your defense for today’s first lie attempting to smear your host!

          Every week you claim that participants here who rebut your daily lies are only doing so because they have poor reading comprehension! You hope nobody notices that?

          This is why you are the Larry of the Soviet Democrats’ in the clown car of The Three Democrat Stooges.

          This is why you have the credibility of Bribery Biden, The Big Guy,

          This is why you will never be anything other than a lying cheap fake American Soviet Marxist.

          Go outside George, and apologize to all the trees working so hard to produce the oxygen that you waste.

          Old Airborne Dog

    4. George, I agree that Turley should write about the Tik Tok ban. It’s a massive abridgement of free speech that the Supreme Court condoned unanimously.

      1. “It’s a massive abridgement of free speech”

        I’m unconvinced of your First Amendment argument. Caveat – I think that banning Tik Tok is pretty silly political posturing, and from a national security POV, fundamentally useless. A ban on specific content, or specific types of content, or specific content publishers would clearly constitute a 1A violation. It is not clear to me that a ban on Tik Tok has a broad enough chilling effect to satisfy that requirement. There are other short form video publishing services that could be used to publish and consume identical content, and nothing in the law would prevent someone from starting a new service to accommodate that need.

      2. Daniel,
        I oppose the ban, but it is not a free speech issue.

        It is however an issue of property rights vs. National security.

        And yes I would like to hear Turley’s views.

        1. The national security claims surrounding the ban on TikTok seem to be nothing more than an excuse. TikTok users have pointed out that they are unconcerned about data gathering, as it is something that everyone does. Ironically, many are now flocking to another Chinese app, RedNote, which is literally translated from Chinese as “The Little Red Book.” This term references Chairman Mao’s notebook filled with his ideas and musings.

          People are starting to realize how they have been misled by our own government regarding matters related to China, discovering that China is not as bad as we’ve been led to believe. In fact, many are recognizing that we, as a country, may be worse in various aspects.

          Congress argues that this is a national security concern, you think it’s a property rights issue. However, both viewpoints seem misguided or irrelevant. Chinese companies are permitted to own property and operate businesses here. In my opinion, the real issue is about control. The U.S. government appears to be attempting to control an app that could shift public perceptions of China. Ironically, by banning TikTok, they have driven many users to other Chinese apps that are positively shaping perceptions about China—perceptions that our government likely wishes to suppress.

          Former President Trump supported the ban until he was seemingly “courted” by the Chinese owners, likely through generous donations and favorable deals for his children. Now, he claims to fully support the ban because he believes many younger voters backed him due to TikTok.

          1. “The national security claims surrounding the ban on TikTok seem to be nothing more than an excuse.”
            No, it is a fact. One that does not rise to the level to violate the property rights of others – but still a fact.

            “TikTok users have pointed out that they are unconcerned about data gathering, as it is something that everyone does.”
            Maybe true , but irrelevant. If users are not concerned that the chinese are spaying on US nuclear submaries does that man the government must allow that.

            We are a republic not a democracy. The duty of government is to protect our rights – even if on occasion we are lackadaciclal about them.

            “Ironically, many are now flocking to another Chinese app, RedNote, which is literally translated from Chinese as “The Little Red Book.” This term references Chairman Mao’s notebook filled with his ideas and musings.”
            atleast partly true but irrelevant.

            “People are starting to realize how they have been misled by our own government”
            Absolutely – just not on the issues that YOU fixate on.

            “regarding matters related to China, discovering that China is not as bad as we’ve been led to believe.”
            Very few people beleive that – because it is not true. China was improving greatly and rapidly for decades after Maos death.
            With the rise of Xi that all changed. China is the most fascist nation since the Nazi’s. The good news is that they are also failing.
            The bad news is that failing states – particularly failing fascists states are dangerous because they do stupid things.

            If we could count on China to act rationally – even just merely as rationally as Putin, which is not a high standard,
            We could mostly ignore china. They will ultimately fail on their own and our greatest concern would be assuring their collapse did not create violence and instability.
            But china has a history of provoking wars to mask internal problems. And they have massive internal problems.

            That is very real. That you or other left wing nuts do not realize that is your problems. But you are not free to take serious risks with everyone else;s lives because of your delusions regarding China.

            “In fact, many are recognizing that we, as a country, may be worse in various aspects.”
            China’s standard of living is about 1/5th that of the US – that is an impressive gain since Maos’s death, but has been stagnant since Xi’s rise.
            There are alot of things we could learn of relearn from China – particularly china between Mao and Xi.
            Again read
            How China became capitolist” by Ronald Coase.

            “Congress argues that this is a national security concern”
            they do not argue – it is.
            “you think it’s a property rights issue.”
            I do not think that it is.

            ” However, both viewpoints seem misguided or irrelevant.”
            They are not viewpoints they are facts.

            “Chinese companies are permitted to own property and operate businesses here.”
            Correct,

            “In my opinion, the real issue is about control.”
            Correct, the chinese government has enough control of TikTok to gather information that poes a national secutity threat to the US,

            “The U.S. government appears to be attempting to control an app that could shift public perceptions of China.”
            not relevant and honestly not true. Regardless of TikTok China as a very large number of very serious problems – that are at best incredibly large, and at worst risk collapse into anarchy.

            “Ironically, by banning TikTok, they have driven many users to other Chinese apps that are positively shaping perceptions about China—perceptions that our government likely wishes to suppress.”
            YOu keep making these absurd claims.
            Rednote has 300M users – almost all chinese. It gained about a million users as the shutdown of TikTok approached.
            RedNote has about 3.4M DAILY Users. TickTok has more than 50M DAILY users.
            About 2-3% of TikYok users are moving to RedNote.

            Is RedNote spreading chinese propoganda – probably and I do not care.
            Is it likely to make a significant change in US perceptions of china – no.
            That is some fever dream of yours.

            RedNote is about 50% larger than Truth Social – and that is despite the fact that China is 5+ times the population of the US.

            “Former President Trump supported the ban”
            Yes.
            “until he was seemingly “courted” by the Chinese owners,”
            No it is incredibly well reported that Trump’s views shifted when he learned that he was very popular on TikTok.
            That Trump video’s on TikTok were a real factor in the 2024 election.

            “likely through generous donations and favorable deals for his children.”
            The Trump’s already own a social media company.

            I am sure his family will do fine in the next 4 years.
            But they will do fine becaue they are smart and capable investors and they will know how to profit from an improving economy.
            Just as myriads of others will – both rich and poor.

            “Now, he claims to fully support the ban because he believes many younger voters backed him due to TikTok.”
            I beleive you mean that he opposes the ban. While it is certain that the fact that Trump videos were popular on TikTok has infuluenced Trump’s thinking – far more than contributions to his inauguration. Both he and Biden are wrong – the law never should have passed, Biden should have veto’d it.
            Even if Trump wanted to repeal the law the best he can do is delay and howp the owners of TikTok can comply with the demands of the law givern more time.

            It was a bad law – which all partied bear some culpability for. But it is the law, and it survived SCOTUS so we are stuck with it.
            Trump will not give TikTok a pass – even if he could. Some future bad act involving tikTik data would undermine his entire image of standing up to China.
            The best that will happen is TikTok conforming to the minimal requirements of the law.
            And Trump MUST be assured that no significant transfer of data to the CCP happens in the next 4 years.
            Trump[‘s hands are tied by the law, and by his own political stands.

            I am not trying to say he will not move to make a deal.
            Only that the deal has to be portrayable as US favorable.

            My guess is that he will push the Kevin OLeary purchase of TikTok.

    5. Nice comment by George, “and yet…not a single word” about CNN’s defamation loss.

      Imagine that.

    7. TikTok is not “banned”, it was required to remove the Chinese government from Ownership, and provide assurances that user data was not being funneled to the chinese government.

      I do not beleive Trump has the power to defer the shutdown – though I have not read the law and some are claiming that there is presidential authority in the law to defer the shutdown if the President assures congress that changes are being made.

      Regardless the law is an unconstitutional infringement on private property rights.

      1. The government frequently forces asset divestments. Relying on Eminent Doman when the government wants to confiscate the assets for itself and Anti-Trust law when they want to force a company to sell assets to someone the government likes better, under the pretense it will increase price competition. I’m sure other examples exist.

        It’s rotten and breeds corruption. But plenty of precedent exists to legally rationalize forcing the sale of Tik Tok.

      2. TikTok has been banned, and pretending otherwise is laughable. Even Congress acknowledges it as a ban.

        The idea that TikTok would share data with the Chinese government simply because it is Chinese-owned is as naive as assuming that Facebook or any other app will guarantee that private data won’t be shared with our own government. It is already easy to purchase private data in the free market, and our government can simply buy it instead of going through the hassle of issuing a warrant.

        The belief that the private data of TikTok users poses a national security threat is fundamentally misguided. There have been data breaches involving credit score companies, health insurance providers, defense contractors, dating sites, and more. If the Chinese government or anyone else wanted access to private citizens’ data, they could easily purchase it from the many data brokers operating in the free market. The sale and collection of private data is indeed a national security issue, yet Congress does not insist that apps be owned by “responsible” entities that would ensure data remains secure.

        Trump has the authority to choose not to enforce the law. He has already directed his Department of Justice (DOJ) not to enforce the ban while he “tries” to find a solution. In the meantime, TikTok is still operational after Trump announced that he would not allow the DOJ to enforce the ban.

        1. TikTok has been banned no the failed to comply with the law and they have been shut down.
          There was no content based censorship, no political censorship.

          “The idea that TikTok would share data with the Chinese government”
          It is not an idea – they have.

          “that Facebook or any other app will guarantee that private data won’t be shared with our own government. ”
          That too happens. That is not a threat to US national security, though it happens without a warrant and therefore is unconstitutional.

          “It is already easy to purchase private data in the free market, and our government can simply buy it instead of going through the hassle of issuing a warrant.”
          The easiest is to just take the data – that is what the CCP does with TikTok. It is slightly more complex with FB – but warrants though constitutionally required are rarely involved.

          “The belief that the private data of TikTok users poses a national security threat is fundamentally misguided. ”
          You are misguided.
          There is a very small but real risk of a violent confrontation with China in the next decade, even the next 4 years.
          If that occurs the US will engage in multifront warfare against China, and China will do the same to the US.
          China will try to shutdown the Panama canal, us power stations, and other infrustructure. It will use data on US citizens to cause as much disruption as possible.
          One example would be running up myriads of credit card charges. But I am sure the chinese have a long list of things to disrupt the US.

          The US will blockade China and the chinese ecoonomy could collapse very fast – China is far more dependant on exports than Russia. And its economy gets most raw materials from other countries. China can not long survive a conflict with the US.
          This is a national security issue because it is critically important that China beleives they can not long survive such a conflict.
          We not only need to thwart their ability to disrupt our economy – which is small compared to what we can do to them,
          But we need Chine to beleive it has little power to disrupt the US.
          The more China beleives they will fail the less likely they are to act stupid.

          There has never been a direct conflict between nuclear superpowers. The likelyhood of China using nukes in a conflict is small – just as the likelyhood of Russia using them.
          But small is not zero. Low risk end of the world as the penalty are NOT games we should be playing.

          We can not control China – but we CAN influence china.
          This is part of that.

          “There have been data breaches involving credit score companies, health insurance providers, defense contractors, dating sites, and more.”
          This is not about hackers data breaches. Though I would asume you would want those thwarted ?
          The recent huge breach was due to backdoors the US government required in lots of software.
          oops

          “If the Chinese government or anyone else wanted access to private citizens’ data, they could easily purchase it from the many data brokers operating in the free market.”
          True but it is far easier to just take it from TikTok.

          “The sale and collection of private data is indeed a national security issue, yet Congress does not insist that apps be owned by “responsible” entities that would ensure data remains secure.”
          Correct, but increasingly the greatest risk in the US is the US government. More and more data breaches are through government required backdoors, or through hacking of government. That is to be expected. Private businesses have paid out large tort claims over data breaches.
          They are slowly getting better at protecting data. Or at not collecting what they do not need.

          “Trump has the authority to choose not to enforce the law.”
          Nope, if he does he will be sued to enforce it and he will lose.

          ” He has already directed his Department of Justice (DOJ) not to enforce the ban while he “tries” to find a solution.”
          He has only been president for 4hrs.
          He is not directing DOJ not to enforce the law. He is invoking a part of the law that allows him to delay if and only if substantial progress is being made towards compliance.
          And h will likely get sued over that, and the courts will have to work out whether that is true.
          Regardless, he is only buying time.

          “In the meantime, TikTok is still operational after Trump announced that he would not allow the DOJ to enforce the ban.”
          Trump may have announded that – but at the time Biden was president, and only he had the power to lift the block and only in compliance with the law.

          While uyou are partly correct – this was a joint effort. TikTok would have been shutdown until today – but for Biden,
          And it would be shutdown from today forward but for Trump.

          See democrats and republicans can work together. 20 years ago Bill and Hillary came to Trump and Melania’s wedding.

        2. While Peter suffers from Mild TDS most of his analysis is correct – even if his judgement of Trump is off.
          First Zehian accurately notes that China is Doomed. PERIOD.
          He is correct that now Both parts are increasingly anti-China. China is the new boogie man.
          He is blatantly incorrect about Trump’s ability to form alliances. Trump – not Biden or Obama shifted US national secutiry focus to China and built a coalitation fo all china’s neighbors to contain china. The were a very large number of “wins” by Trump from india, through vietnam, japan, Philipines, and austrailia and ….
          all aimed at containing china. Trump – not Biden or Obama essentially created a new “NATO” – basically an economic and military agreement between nearly all china’s enighbors to act to constrain china.
          One of the stupidest myths regarding Trump is that he is bad at foreign policy.
          He is the best since Nixon/Kissenger, and probably better. He not only can make deals but he can make them work long term.
          The abraham accords held.
          Next Zehain is deluded in believingg that the existing US intelligence community i serious about China.
          This is the “russia, russia, russia” crowd. Their number one fixation is RUSSIA, a distant 2nd is the mideast and almost in never never land is China.
          This is EXACTLY the opposite of Trump’s priorities.
          Further it is exactly the opposite of the priorities of most of those he is appointing.
          Trump is replacing the “Russia, Russia, Russia” crowd, with the China, China China crowd.
          You can claim they are going to screw it up if you want. Trump has not screwed anything up in foreign policy so far. While every other president sinve Bush I has been piss poor at foriegn policy. But you can not credibly claim that the current deep state gives a schiff about China.
          The last major error – and Zehain should know better is that Tarrifs do NOT cause inflation. Only monetary errors cause inflation.
          Tarrifs will cause prices for foreign goods to rise and that will result in less foreign spending and more domestic spending. It MAY especially in the short run result in shortages and/or inferior US made goods. The impact would be especially strong if Trump tarrifed EVERYONE. If as is highly likely he does NOT, then rapidly other nations will seek to replace chinese goods. In SOME instance that will take time.
          Despite the errors above Zehain gets most everything but Trump right. Though he is casual about the desparation that is occuring within the Chinese government as their top down approach collapses.
          The chinese one child policy that the left in the US celebrated for many years is about to destroy the country.
          If Zehan is correct China collapses as a country in the next decade and the Hahn chinese race becomes inconsequential by the end of the century.

  10. [OT]
    Can’t wait to see what Turley has to say about the preemptive pardons Biden just signed.

    -Gumby

    1. Me too. Biden essentially identified the criminals before leaving office. If they had not committed crimes, why would they be given pardons?

    3. Those aren’t pardons. Notwithstanding the nomenclature, they are grants of immunity, which the Constitution does not allow the president to issue. An easy case to make and I would do it on a contingent fee.

  11. Anyone else notice that since Trump’s win in November, already Conservative Fox News and Newsmax (who I considered more objective during the past decade than CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NYT, WaPo, Politico, etc.) have further increased their criticism and mocking of Democrats and Democrat policies (and their advocacy of Conservative policies and politicians).

    As a well schooled secular small government pro-choice libertarian atheist vegan who voted Democrat for 40 years and then voted for Trump thrice, I’m also still waiting for even one talking head at Conservative Fox News or Newsmax to advocate for a woman’s right to have an abortion. That’s because they’d be fired immediately.

    Seems like the conservative media is now trying to replicate the bias displayed by left wing Democrat media propagandists.

    3. “Seems like the conservative media is now ….. to replicate the bias”
      The key word in your diatribe is “seems”. Things are not all they seem. Your interpretation of facts is only seemingly apparent to no one but yourself. A delusion, if you will.
      Delusion is masked by the pseudo intellectualism this blog.

      1. The “libertarians” now have an alternative version of the Constitution where the right to birth control abortions was signed off on by the Framers.

    4. I haven’t watched Fox since Tucker was canned. And by the time he was canned, Tucker was the only show on Fox I had watched for maybe three years. I don’t watch NewsMax at all.

      But I’m pretty sure the influencers aligned with the Democrats who appear every day on Fox (or at least used to when I watched) have advocated for abortion. I’m not going to spend more than five minutes searching but I’ll do a quick Youtube and Rumble search to see if I can find something for you.

      Well, that didnt’ take long. I found this in about 30 seconds:

    5. Some heavy Anonymous Democrat false flag virtue signalling and clutching of pearls going on when a “libertarian” claims they have found the hidden text in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that enumerates the right to elective birth control abortions up until the moment the umbilical cord is cut! It’s in the paragraph that lists “Reproductive Rights”.

      As a well schooled secular small government pro-choice libertarian atheist vegan who voted Democrat for 40 years and then voted for Trump thrice, I’m also still waiting for even one talking head at Conservative Fox News or Newsmax to advocate for a woman’s right to have an abortion.

      This is why these cowards will never participate here under a username.

      Old Airborne Dog

    2. Yes,
      It was however undisclosed.
      More than likely it would have been around 20m or less probably 15m if 3x the damages holds…

  13. A big problem is severe lack of the basic facts, entire stories of great import omitted because of deep state shoe licking, constant lying about stories whose facts are not near as favorable as presented, and way too much direction by the 3 letter agencies.
    So it is an extreme dumbing down and lack of available facts.
    On top of that is the raging lying biased fraud and made up garbage.

    So if you want to stay current and know things and learn the MSM is to be avoided. A phrase repeated a hundred or a thousand times or an insult is still an empty factless opinion.

  14. I believe that the punitive award hearing for this trial result is still pending. I’m hoping that there is such an award, and that it is huge, enough to push CNN over the financial cliff that it has been teetering on the edge of. That would be a fate well earned.

  15. This is a refreshing breath of air. Perhaps a shot across the bow the hulk of what was once a respected news organization.

    The demise of newspapers and professional media outlets is (in my view) a symptom of deeper decay.

    I quit my newspaper subscription and largely ignore TV media (unless there is big news story). My observation is that a good majority of news organizations ignore international news unless there is a headline grabber.

  16. A good test of trustworthiness of a news source is whether or not counter-narrative information is able to flow.

    My epiphany about this occurred during Trump’s first primary campaign, on March 4, 2016. The mainstream media were all pushing a false narrative about Trump being a black-hating racist. That day, on MSNBC Chris Matthews’ “Hardball”‘s final segment “Tell Me Something I Don’t Already Know”, 3 guest journalists got to pop a surprise tidbit. Michelle Bernard announced that Charles Evers (brother of assassinated civil rights leader Medgar Evers, and former Mayor of Jackson MI) “had just endorsed Donald Trump, based on his view that tough immigration enforcement would improve the lives of unskilled blacks in the South”. MSNBC never repeated this clip.

    I scoured all media the following 2 days to see who reported the Evers endorsement. Only 2: Politico, and the local Jackson MI newspaper. The absence of counter-narrative news is the canary-in-the-coal-mine.

  17. Jonathon, you have convinced me of the biased reporting of CNN and other media sources. Please consider articles pointing out less-biased, perhaps even balanced, reporting to help your readers find better sources of news.

    1. Look to more than one source along with taking a few minutes to find out if a media outlet or podcast is left or right leaning. It is virtually impossible to find a truly unbiased outlet anymore.

      1. And is most accurately applicable to “conservative” media outlets. Hateing is a national pastime, as reflected here by the multitude of hate mongers trying to outdo themselves with every Turley post.

      2. NewsNation is doing a good job of not taking sides politically. They’ll have Maxine Waters followed by Tommy Tooberville. I guess if you’re a fringe zealot raging with conspiracy theories, you might find NN “biased” towards the moderate centrists who believe institutions need repairing, not “burn it all down”. You can’t please everyone.

        1. “You can’t please everyone”

          True, but you CAN make clear distinctions between content that is presented as “opinion”, and that which is presented as “news”, and make damned sure that what is characterized as “news” is reported as objectively and accurately as is possible. That is my standard, and it is nearly impossible to find anywhere today. If you add “competently reported” as an additional criteria for “news”, the results pretty much go to zero.

    2. One other thing I should add and I believe this will help. What Mr. Turley said is true. Journalism schools, so called, do not turn out reporters and journalists. They turn out activists most of which are left wing. This tells me all I need to know about what news I am consuming.

      I taught statistics at the college level and I looked this up. Of the journalism schools examined, including the ivy league schools of journalism, 88% of all their graduates lean left.

  18. Back in my early days, there were two papers in Milwaukee, the Journal and the Sentinel. One was regarded as liberal-ish and the other conservative-ish. However, both were generally reliable as to the facts of a story. This was ok to most people. It was the case in many cities, and the notion of good journalism included unintended and sometimes intended bias – just not too much of it. The editors of the papers and TV controlled the bias by trimming excesses. The critical role of editors was just this: Keep the news reasonably correct. People act to discriminate the bias. What has happened is that people now tend to prefer bias, and most news outlets have complied by supplying it.

    Think of modern journalism as something like a weed. It constantly needs trimming, pruning, removing, and the like. The problem with CNN, MSNBC, and others is that they have become as overgrown weeds, ruining the orderly “lawn” of news coverage. Currently, we have opinion dealers servicing opinion addicts. People don’t like it, at least don’t like it 24/7. So, they look elsewhere. The cure? Dump the opinion superstars. Bring back the honest editor with the power to demand reasonable reporting.

    1. Yes, “the honest editor with the power to demand reasonable reporting,” such as Tom Lumley of CNN who said the Zachary Young story (defamation) was half a story and not ready for prime time.

  19. The aspect of this judgement against CNN that I think is not recognized is that legacy media are now irrelevant. The rational public simply cannot any longer accept the biased and ignorant opinions of the media “personalities” who have replaced objectivity not with just opinion but with open irrational hatred. I note also the rise of “theme journalism,” the principal proponent of which is the former “newspaper of record,” the New York Times. Its daily coverage now presents as daily themes, such as Gaza, anti-Trump policy on anything, or, almost always, African-American achievements in the arts (rarely in the sciences ). The Times “Food” sections always feature non-American foods of the moment featured at Upper East Side dinner parties, and its Arts sections feature performers and themes rarely seen or heard outside of midtown Manhattan.

    In short, the New York Times, has become exactly what its name implies: A record of the attitudes and current themes of the disconnected from ordinary life upper East Side mentality and attitude EU jour of New York’s upper classes. Coverage of the daily lives and achievements of ordinary people of any and all colors and religions is excluded.

    Like CNN, today, the Times is irrelevant.

    2. CNN i snot irrelevant, because it is the baseline on which other media purveyors are measured. Long live CNN!

    3. Just becuase Times readers have different tastes than you, doesnt make them irrelevant..The same can be said about (… insert your favorite.. ) conservastive media source.
      The probelm is here that you are infected with a learned hate towards all things not conservative.

      1. The key word in your comment is “learned.” Because experience with all things not conservative has been horrible. For example, I bet in California right now.People have learned to hate the democrat mayor and the democrat mayor and the democrat governor

        1. Learned… flyod, you are a hatemonger if ever there was one. That comment is simple nonsense. Stop trying to be an intelectual, it does not suit you.

      2. No Anonymous, the problem is that you (and the media) label Fox News and others as conservative and yet anything liberal, or even radical left like MSNBC are NEVER labeled as such. Compare how often you see the term “far right” as opposed to how often you see the term “far left”.

    4. YES, the media “personalities” who have replaced objectivity not with just opinion but with open irrational hatred: In the CNN case all the “reporters” except Tom Lumley displayed hatred, actual malice. So said the jury.

    5. Anonymous 6:12 AM-I am surprised that you found this astounding truth about The NY Times. It has been apparent to probably 98% of the country for decades and especially if you don’t live in NY City. I’ve tried over the decades to read it but there is rarely anything in it that resides outside the city. So I quit. It’s been irrelevant for a very long time.

Comments are closed.