Drama Unfolds In High Profile Lawsuit
The defamation trial between Zachary Young and CNN has turned into an explosive courtroom drama, shedding light on the inner workings of one of the nation’s most prominent news outlets. At the heart of the case lies a contentious 2021 CNN segment that described a “black market” for emergency exits from Afghanistan during Biden’s chaotic withdrawal.
Young, a veteran who ran a legitimate business helping evacuate those stranded in the country, was named in the report. He alleges that CNN’s portrayal irreparably damaged his reputation and livelihood. Now, the trial is unveiling a cascade of missteps, misrepresentations, and a glimpse into the cutthroat editorial culture at CNN.
“This isn’t Kindergarten.” Judge is chewing out the parties. “Right now your credibility with me, Mr. Alexrod, is about none.” #cnndefamationtrial pic.twitter.com/asQaBki8Dw
— Cathy Russon (@cathyrusson) January 15, 2025
Last week, CNN’s lead attorney, David Axelrod (not to be confused with the former Obama advisor), appeared confident he had a “smoking gun” to dismantle Young’s case. Axelrod waved a document in court, claiming it proved Young had secured employment after CNN’s report—contradicting the core of Young’s lawsuit. He went so far as to accuse Young of committing “fraud” and lying under oath. It was a dramatic moment, but as the trial progressed, the supposed smoking gun turned out to be anything but.
The document in question merely showed that Young had applied to maintain his security clearance, not that he had gained new employment. This revelation completely undermined Axelrod’s argument and led to an extraordinary rebuke from Judge Henry, who lambasted CNN’s legal team for what he called a “blatant misrepresentation.” In a rare public reprimand, the judge demanded Axelrod apologize to Young for repeatedly calling him a liar in court. Axelrod complied, but the damage to CNN’s credibility in the trial may already be done.
Making matters worse for CNN, Slack messages from their editorial team have surfaced, revealing deep internal concerns about the story before it aired. National security editor Thomas Lumley expressed doubt, writing, “The story is full of holes like Swiss cheese.” Breaking news editor Megan Trimble agreed, responding, “The story is 80% emotion, 20% obscured fact lol.” These private messages paint a damning picture of a story rushed to air despite red flags from within the newsroom.
Freedman is now asking Marquardt why he didn’t care to follow up with the man in San Francisco who was desperately trying to evacuate his family out of Afghanistan. Marquardt says he didn’t know he could reach out bc of the ongoing litigation.
— Jessica Costescu (@JessicaCostescu) January 13, 2025
Adding fuel to the fire, more messages between CNN national security correspondent Alex Marquardt and assistant managing editor Matthew Philips suggest a personal vendetta against Young. In one exchange, Marquardt said, “We gonna nail this Zachary Young mf***er,” to which Philips replied, “Gonna hold you to that one cowboy.” While CNN’s senior VP of news claimed these messages didn’t “impact editorial,” they’re hard to reconcile with the network’s claims of impartiality.
This trial is laying bare some uncomfortable truths about CNN’s editorial processes and motivations. The apparent eagerness to frame Young as a villain for the sake of narrative, combined with internal skepticism about the story’s integrity, suggests a newsroom willing to sacrifice accuracy for impact. For Young, this trial isn’t just about clearing his name; it’s about exposing the very mechanisms that led to the defamation he alleges.