In a Florida courtroom last month, a plaintiff’s attorney asked jurors to “send a message” by holding CNN accountable for defaming security contractor Zachary Young.
The jury responded, awarding $5 million to compensate Young — who was described as being part of a “black market” for refugees fleeing Afghanistan — for damage to his reputation. The jurors would have gone even further, but a settlement was reached before they could grant award punitive damages.
In an email over the weekend, Katy Svitenko, the foreperson, told Variety that she would have awarded up to $100 million, and confirmed the jury was indeed trying to send a message.
“The message the jury wanted to send was to not only CNN but to all media that the general public is fed up with fake news and partial truths,” she said in response to written questions. “Reporting must be unbiased, true, and complete.”
The eight-day trial in Panama City, Fla., put CNN’s reporting processes under a microscope. The result was not flattering. CNN’s lawyers argued that its coverage was “tough” but also fair. But in messages displayed to the jury, reporter Alex Marquardt spoke of seeking to “nail this Zach Young mfucker,” while colleague Katie Bo Lillis called him a “shitbag,” and producer Michael Conte wrote that he had a “punchable face.”
Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, said the case serves as a cautionary tale, reminding journalists that the “gallows humor” of the newsroom may not play well in court.
“The jury is going to see how the sausage is getting made,” said Kirtley, who does trainings and workshops for reporters on how to avoid getting sued. “We make light of situations some people say we should take more seriously. We may speak about the subjects of a news story in less than respectful ways. All this is part of the give and take in a newsroom. If someone who is not a journalist reads these things and hears you talk about these things, it can be unfortunate.”
On the witness stand, Marquardt testified he believed Young was exploiting Afghans who could not possibly afford what he was charging to get out of the country.
But the messages also showed CNN’s reporters passing up opportunities to explore other angles. Internal dissent also went unheeded. In one email, national security reporter Nicole Gaouette wrote that it was probably “seriously expensive” to get out of Afghanistan. “So the inference running through Alex’s story that these people are just bilking desperate Afghans for their money might not be fair at all,” she wrote.
The trial also delved into CNN’s fact-checking process, including the network’s “Triad” — the standards editor, fact-checker and lawyer who sign off on sensitive stories. The Triad approved the Young story, though not the chyron leading into the package that described the situation as a “black market,” which the jury concluded was defamatory.
CNN’s employees defended the story, saying they did not understand “black market” to refer to criminal conduct, but rather simply to an unregulated market.
During testimony, the jurors were given an opportunity to write down their own questions, which the judge read aloud. Those questions gave an early indication that the trial was going badly for CNN.
One asked Marquardt: “How do you feel knowing that Mr. Young can no longer work in the space he is trained on as a result of your piece?”
Svitenko, the foreperson, said that Marquardt “came across as extremely arrogant” on the witness stand.
“From CNN’s internal emails produced as evidence the jury felt that Alex Marquardt made this a personal vendetta against Mr. Young and wouldn’t stop until he ‘nailed this Zachary Young,’” she wrote.
She also suggested the the Triad be required to uphold a higher standard.
“Also, they might want to clean up their internal emails and have reporters act as professionals and not name calling middle schoolers,” Svitenko said.
Marquardt was promoted in 2023 to chief national security correspondent and given a raise. Svitenko said she disheartened by that: “It makes me wonder if he even got his hand slapped!”
The jury deliberated into the night on Jan. 16, finally going home around 9 p.m. after telling the judge they were “angry and tired.”
Svitenko said that five of the six jurors agreed from the beginning that CNN was liable, but that it took some time to win over the sixth juror. When they returned on the morning of Jan. 17, that person had “slept on it” and agreed with the rest.
The jury then sent a brief note to the judge: “Calculator, tissues, water please. Thank you.”
After the jury awarded the $5 million in compensatory damages, the two sides began a separate hearing to determine punitive damages. But after a break, they returned to announce they had settled the case.
The jurors never discussed the punitive award, so Svitenko does not know what that verdict would have been.
“However, my personal opinion is that it could have been up to $100 million,” she said. “It had to be high enough to actually punish CNN and to get the attention of other media outlets as well.”
In a statement after the trial, a CNN spokesperson said, “We remain proud of our journalists and are 100% committed to strong, fearless and fair-minded reporting at CNN, though we will of course take what useful lessons we can from this case.”
The final settlement amount was not disclosed. But from the plaintiffs’ perspective, the message was delivered.
“I think the jury sent the message we asked for: if media companies create theater in the newsroom, Americans will hold them accountable in the courtroom,” said Vel Freedman, the lead plaintiff’s lawyer, in an email. “I hope this case serves as a turning point – one that curbs sensationalism and brings journalism back to center. Americans want facts, not theatrics. Give it to them.”
