CNN settles with Sandmann
Nicholas Sandmann has made CNN pay up for its abominable treatment of him:
CNN agreed on Tuesday to settle a lawsuit brought by Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann.
Sandmann sought $275 million from CNN over its coverage of the confrontation he and his classmates had with an elderly Native American man while visiting Washington, D.C., on a school trip in January of last year. The amount of the settlement was not made public during a hearing at the federal courthouse in Covington on Tuesday, according to a local Fox affiliate.
I’d be curious to learn how much CNN had to pay. I hope it’s enough to hurt.
And it’s not over yet for these lawsuits:
Sandmann and his family still have lawsuits pending against NBC Universal and the Washington Post over their coverage of the incident. The Sandmann family sought a combined $800 million in damages from CNN, the Post, and NBC Universal.
“This case will be tried not one minute earlier or later than when it is ready,” Sandmann’s attorney Lin Wood said of the remaining lawsuits.
The MSM made a mistake targeting a youngster and ordinary citizen with their lies. They can say almost anything they want about a public figure, but Sandmann wasn’t a public figure until they made him one.
I hope the payout is enough to beggar them.
Maybe Trump can buy the network and put it back in the black by hiring honest reporters for a change.
If Newsweek was only worth $1 —
I’m guessing they got a good deal financially, meaning they didn’t pay a crushing fine, which is probably not a bad thing. But I sure hope they have to grovel publicly and apologize profusely.
This is an excellent development.
The MSM has gotten entirely out of hand – in their reaction to the Trump presidency, in their ridiculous embrace of identity politics, in their willingness to report what they want to believe rather than what is objectively true.
But they crossed the line when they went after innocent adolescents and gleefully attempted to savage their characters and compromise their futures.
The amount granted in not as important as the fact that Nick won this suit, Now it’s time to go after the other libel mongers.
My bet is that the settlement was in the low hundreds of thousands.
I think the settlement was in the range of 10 million. I too hope it includes a public apology.
I’ll bite. My guess is that it was $2M to $5M, with an upper limit of $10M. John Nolte at Breitbart made the interesting comment,
I’m not going to guess on an amount…but I’ll almost guarantee there’s no apology coming. That would be an open door in the other cases, especially if the others choose to fight & not flee. Kid’ll get his $$…but that’s all folks. YMMV
My working theory is that the lawyers fo Sandmann don’t have deep enough pockets to finance the suit for years and years. So they decided to settle one of them to generate enough cash to keep pursuing the rest.
If I were them, I would have put all of the defendants against each other and made them compete for who got to pay up and get out from under such a huge potential liability.
As a side issue, do newspapers have journalism malpractice insurance?
The occasion for such litigation will only survive until/if the Democratic Party achieves simultaneous control of House, Senate and Presidency. Then, a law will be quickly passed guaranteeing “freedom of the press” under ALL circumstances, no holds barred, since the MSM is now and will be the propaganda arm of the Democrats.
Democrats are evil, stupid or both.
I fear that, until the $$ amount emerges, the Left will crow that Nick settled for nickels (and no admission of guilt), and that this vindicates the MSM’s coverage of him.
Yes, a business can purchase defamation insurance as part of an “errors & omissions” policy.
CNN is not an independent entity, it is a subsidiary of AT&T.
I seriously doubt that it is a *profitable* subsidiary. Why does this continue?
It seems that either AT&T top management agrees with CNN’s positions and behavior, or that they view the sub as too minor to worry about, or that they fear some form of blowback if they interfere with what it wants to do.
Yes, I agree that CNN probably settled to avoid the Discovery phase and disclosure of internal discussions which would have been aired at the trial to the worst possible effect. The others will likely follow suit, if they have anything to hide, and it’s a pretty safe bet they probably do.
I’m betting the amount was in the $5-10 million range too.
Nice to see this generation is figuring out ways to avoid unnecessary student debt while laying in some solid savings for retirement, all at once.
My guess is 10-20 million. But enough for the lawyers to go more strongly after the other guys.
Dem media defamation will only cease when they are sued, and lose. Perhaps the Sarah Palin suit against the NYT will also force some payout. AND be appealed up to SCOTUS, where a Rep majority might reduce the impunity of the newsfolk in defaming “public figures”.
Very, very glad Sandman won enough for him (and his lawyers).
People focus on Sandmann being a teen but even if he were a fully grown public figure, the media behavior in this mess should still be legally actionable. The core of this is that they didn’t even bother to look at the whole video before trashing Sandmann. This is like somebody reading a few pages out of “Lolita” and then running a front-page story in the newspaper calling Vladimir Nabokov a child pornographer.
Mike
My guess is that they learn nothing from this, not any more than they did after Ferguson, MO, or Trayvon Martin, or any other stupid thing they were wrong on. Because that is the way they think. (please see this week’s reaction to Iran as an example)
From Neo’s parity news source.
As Part Of Settlement With Nick Sandmann, CNN Hosts Must …
I especially like this, and think that millions could be sold
https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-attacks-babylon-bee-the-internet-is-only-big-enough-for-one-fake-news-site
https://babylonbee.com/news/as-part-of-settlement-with-nick-sandmann-cnn-hosts-must-wear-maga-hats-while-on-the-air
Their mistake was picking on someone with the wherewithal to defend himself successfully against CNN.
Somewhere I read speculation that one of the terms of the settlement was that CNN could not use corporate resources to defend CNN anchors being individually sued.
They’ll have to pay out of pocket for lawyers, if true.
THAT would be sweet.
JimNorCal.
Really sweet.
From what I heard from my lib friends and relations, there’s a great likelihood that discovery would have found vicious and dishonest statements between CNN journos and execs. Hateful.
I have a frequent correspondent who, for example, went all in on Smollett.. But claims emotional fragility when the facts are presented. As in Covington. Or Trayvon Martin.
Point is, they can’t help themselves and they’re so wrapped up in their narrative that they can’t even be prudent. A Thing happens and they’re off, no matter the facts. They want/need things like Sandmann being a racist punk so badly, and want others to believe it, that they can’t take their foot off the accelerator, or even ask, is this making me too happy?
A couple of very good books about defamation law suits:
Renata Adler’s “Reckless Disregard” (about Westmoreland v. CBS and Sharon v. Time, Inc.)
Janet Malcolm’s “The Journalist and the Murderer” (about MacDonald v. McGinniss).
They really should stick to sandbagging Trump. Otherwise, they just might discover there’s a hefty cost (but in their keen wisdom, they likewise just might conclude that this hysterical slandering gig is so much fun that it’s well worth any price).
In a nutshell:
https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/08/the-smirnoff-principle/
I m glad for Sandmann & curious to see how individuals ( kathy Griffin & Bill Mhar & the creep who wanted Sandmann punched in the face) how they are ajudicated.
Richard Aubrey: that they can’t take their foot off the accelerator, or even ask, is this making me too happy?
Sounds kind of like cocaine, doesn’t it?
DNW on January 8, 2020 at 11:55 pm said:
As Part Of Settlement With Nick Sandmann, CNN Hosts Must …
AesopFan on January 8, 2020 at 11:55 pm said:
https://babylonbee.com/news/as-part-of-settlement-with-nick-sandmann-cnn-hosts-must-wear-maga-hats-while-on-the-air
* * *
Sooo…I thought huxley and I were the only ones with “spooky actions at a distance,” but there seems to be a larger entanglement field operating out of Neo’s blog.
https://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html
PS I would order the Greta Doll in a heartbeat if there really was one, then send them to the climatistas on my Christmas list.
(Sadly, there are some in my family.)
Bryan. Never did coke, but from what I hear, you’re exactly right. Confirmation bias is a thing, but most people can tell when it’s too, too good. Too good to check. See Rathergate.
Even if you don’t see confirmation bias, you might be able to look at the thing and ask if it’s actually possible in the first place.
But my correspondents were all in on Smollett, and Covington, and, by easy association, all white people, exponentially for Trump supporters.
I keep saying, on this blog, as well as elsewhere, that I think I can almost see two levels of “knowledge”. One is what actually happened, and people know it, can’t not know it. But they live their lives and interact with others as if Michael Brown actually had his hands up, crying, “Don’t shoot”. Discussing the example with an individual in person…looked as if she were going to have some kind of psychological break. Scary.