CNN’s shaky relationship with the truth is back in the spotlight, and this time it’s Judge Ed Carnes of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals who’s calling out the network. In a sharply-worded concurring opinion, Judge Carnes sided with Project Veritas in a defamation case that highlights just how far CNN will go to dodge the truth. Apparently, according to CNN, the facts of a story can be mere “foot faults” rather than fundamental elements of journalism.
Let’s set the scene: Project Veritas, a right-leaning investigative group, was banned from Twitter (back before Elon Musk’s ownership). CNN reported that the ban happened because of “misinformation.” But the reality was far different—Project Veritas was kicked off for posting someone’s address, a violation of Twitter’s privacy policy, not for spreading misinformation. Judge Carnes made it clear that this distinction is no trivial matter, no “immaterial detail,” as CNN tried to argue in court.
In his opinion, Judge Carnes minced no words, expressing genuine disbelief that a major news organization would try to downplay the importance of truth. He pointed out that CNN’s legal team argued it was no worse to spread misinformation than to disclose private information. For anyone who values integrity in journalism, that’s a jaw-dropper of a statement. Imagine a news organization supposedly dedicated to fact-based reporting, downplaying the very essence of what journalism should be about telling the truth.
James O’Keefe and Project Veritas successfully won an appeal to let their defamation lawsuit against CNN proceed. A NY judge wrote, “I never thought I’d see a major news organization downplaying the importance of telling the truth…” https://t.co/w2eb7KUHex
— Andy Ngo 🏳️🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) November 11, 2024
CNN’s position might be laughable if it weren’t so disturbing. Carnes emphasized this point with examples from CNN’s own employees, citing statements made by top figures like CEO Mark Thompson, former CEO Chris Licht, and host Brooke Baldwin, all of whom have publicly touted CNN’s commitment to “fearlessly speaking truth to power.” If CNN is so committed to truth, as they proudly advertise, then their actions should reflect that. But in this case, CNN seems to be playing fast and loose with facts to fit their narrative. The inconsistency speaks volumes about the network’s priorities.
Judge Carnes wasn’t just venting; he also dissected CNN’s legal defense with a fine-tooth comb. He cited CNN’s argument that Project Veritas’ defamation claim should be dismissed because the difference between being banned for “misinformation” versus violating privacy is “modest.” Carnes didn’t buy it, and rightly so. He argued that the distinction is no small matter, especially for a public figure with a reputation at stake. When CNN tried to claim that a slight inaccuracy in reporting is forgivable under libel law, Carnes pointed out that this is no “minor inaccuracy.”
For a bit of perspective, Judge Carnes brought up a direct question to CNN’s lawyer about whether CNN would prefer to be known for posting people’s addresses or for spreading misinformation. The lawyer, predictably, tried to sidestep, eventually admitting they’d rather not be labeled as sources of misinformation. Still, he shrugged off the difference as “modest.” Judge Carnes drove his point home with a line that sums up the entire debacle: “The difference is ‘modest’ only for those who don’t value the truth as a first principle of broadcasting.”
James O’Keefe wins a significant step in his lawsuit against CNN for defamation where they falsely reported he was suspended from Twitter for “spreading misinformation.”
Now the trial goes into the discovery phase.
That won’t be good at all for CNN.pic.twitter.com/m5f9ZAaryZ
— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) November 11, 2024
In a world where CNN’s own leaders talk about regaining the public’s trust, this case exposes just how much trust is actually valued behind the scenes. Clearly, CNN’s spin has landed them in hot water, and this ruling opens the door for further scrutiny. With cases like this and a separate defamation suit brought by Navy veteran Zachary Young, CNN might be facing a rocky road ahead. The implications could be significant, as they pave the way for holding media accountable in an age where public trust in news organizations is already at an all-time low.
So, maybe it’s time for CNN to take a page from Judge Carnes’ opinion. Facts matter. Truth matters. And if CNN can’t even agree on those basics, it’s hard to see how they’ll earn back the trust they claim to value so deeply.
