Well, well, well—CNN just can’t seem to stop stepping on legal rakes these days, can they? What was supposed to be a routine pretrial hearing in Florida turned into a three-hour marathon of losses for the cable news giant, with a judge who seemed more amused than persuaded by their arguments.
Let’s set the stage. The plaintiff, Zachary Young—a U.S. Navy veteran and security consultant—has taken CNN to court over a 2021 segment on The Lead with Jake Tapper. In that broadcast, Young was painted with some very heavy and unflattering brushstrokes, allegedly suggesting he was a profiteer exploiting desperate Afghans during the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Words like “black market” were thrown around, and chyrons displayed eye-popping accusations about exorbitant fees and no guarantees of safety. Young, who claims he was working to save lives, not exploit tragedy, didn’t take kindly to those implications—and now CNN finds itself in a courtroom quagmire.
During the hearing, Judge William Henry delivered a lesson in legal history, pulling out the old McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit to make a point about public perception versus courtroom realities. If you’re a lawyer and a judge starts referencing Liebeck v. McDonald’s, buckle up—it means they’re about to remind everyone how misunderstood these high-profile cases can become once they hit the public square.
But the real fireworks came when CNN tried—desperately—to keep comments made by Jake Tapper about journalistic ethics out of the trial. You might remember Tapper’s high horse monologue about Fox News during their defamation showdown with Dominion Voting Systems. Tapper declared that if media outlets cared more about clicks than truth, they were nothing short of a “cancer on democracy.” Bold words—and now they’re coming back to haunt his network.
CNN’s legal team argued Tapper’s comments were prejudicial, irrelevant, and would turn the trial into a circus of “Trump vs. CNN” political grandstanding. The judge? Not buying it. In fact, he practically laughed them out of the room, saying Tapper’s comments about journalistic integrity were absolutely relevant—especially if the jury will be weighing punitive damages. After all, if CNN was motivated by sensationalism over facts, as Young alleges, then Tapper’s own words are fair game.
And let’s not forget the cherry on top: the judge also allowed Tapper’s past comments about Trump to enter the record. Statements like, “Donald Trump can be cavalier about facts and truth,” and Tapper’s broader musings about conservative media and anti-Trump narratives—all of it is now fair play in this courtroom showdown.
Here’s the thing: CNN walked into this pretrial hearing hoping to build some fortifications around their defense. Instead, they walked out with the walls crumbling and their lead anchor’s public statements turned into Exhibit A for the plaintiff.
The central question of this case remains whether CNN defamed Young by painting him as a profiteering opportunist in one of America’s darkest military moments. But now, thanks to their pretrial losses, jurors are going to hear about how CNN frames narratives, why certain stories are emphasized, and whether Tapper’s public proclamations about journalistic ethics match up with the network’s actual behavior.
Look, nobody’s saying CNN doesn’t have a right to scrutinize people or shine a light on questionable behavior. That’s what journalists should do. But if they took shortcuts, exaggerated claims, or twisted the facts to make the story more sensational, they’re going to have to answer for it in court—and not with clever monologues or smug soundbites, but with facts and accountability.
