December 17, 2024

"As someone who practiced press law for more than twenty years, and served as a senior executive of news organizations for just as long, I was shocked by the decision of ABC News last week..."

"... to pay $16 million to settle Donald Trump’s libel case over George Stephanopoulos’s This Week broadcast in March. The shock came, and still lingers, because I—and every experienced press lawyer not involved in the case with whom I have discussed it—considered the case one in which ABC was likely to eventually prevail. The decision to settle has been greeted by a lot of commentary, but almost no reporting of new facts. Understandably, that’s generated a good deal of hand-wringing about corporations 'bending a knee' or gloating about the humbling of legacy media or an arrogant press getting its comeuppance. But such speculation does little to explain what happened...."

Writes Richard J. Tofel, in "Questions ABC News Should Answer Following the $16 Million Trump Settlement/The decision to cave and apologize has unnerved American journalists. The network owes them an explanation" (Columbia Journalism Review).

94 comments:

rhhardin said...

They're avoiding a much more damaging discovery process.

Peachy said...

Yes - Leftist Soviet Media hacks should be allowed to trash Trump and lie about him with complete impunity. Lie about all R's really.
right?

Wince said...

Questions ABC News Should Answer Following the $16 Million Trump Settlement

My guess is to avoiding answering questions (about actual malice) is why ABC News paid the money. Why would they pay the money and then still answer the questions?

Did you learn, presumably after the motion to dismiss the case was rejected in July, of damaging evidence that might demonstrate actual malice? A positive response to this question would, in some sense (although not for ABC), be the happiest resolution of the mystery here. In a few libel cases over the years, “smoking guns” have emerged from newsroom files, casting doubt on the accuracy of stories before they were published. In such cases, settlement can make sense.

Peachy said...

The lightening bolt thread thru the MSNBC-Soviet media right now = how they all feel threatened by any pressure to stop acting and behaving like lying hacks.

doctrev said...

I don't believe they would have complied adequately with discovery or worried about being sanctioned for non-compliance. Yet something is clearly going on. Despite massive dominance in the corporate media, President Trump defeated vastly better funded opposition. At this point, he could easily start seizing media properties away from oligarchical corporations like Comcast and Time Warner- and the shareholders would thank him for it!

Nonetheless, the drones on the floor are the last people owed an explanation. This is happening because they failed completely at the simple objective of maintaining the narrative.

Peachy said...

Democracy! to Soviet Democrat media hacks = smearing Trump and all R's non-stop with any lie or twisted half-truth they can get their hands on - and referring to all of their lies as "freedom of the press".

Yancey Ward said...

The only explanation I have come up with is that discovery was going to be far more damaging to Little Georgie and ABC than actually paying the money to Trump and taking the PR hit.

Martin said...

He stated damaging incorrect information about Trump.
He almost certainly knew it was incorrect.
His support staff almost certainly knew it was incorrect.
So defamation.
Ahh but Trump is a public figure and therefore must prove "Actual Malice".
LOL. Mr. Stephanopoulos is a long term Democrat activist. He almost certainly was in direct contact with the DNC and the Harris campaign.

Quickly you can get to a preponderance of the evidence showing actual malice.
Then you can assume these idiots have texts and emails where they plan how they will attack Rep. Mace with this exact lie. Including ones advising Stephanopoulos to say sexual abuse and not rape.

Lazarus said...

I was going to say, "typical lawyer," but this guy's a warrior:

So What Now?
We must again be at work, but also preparing for war if Trump chooses that.
November 7, 2024
By Richard J. Tofel


Check out his bio. He's Establishment all the way, and the Establishment didn't get to be and stay the Establishment without using its claws and fangs.

RideSpaceMountain said...

The removal of Sullivan deference/precedent would be one of the biggest improvements in American cultural life. The MSM lies as it draws breath.

Aggie said...

You there ! You're out of line ! Straighten Up !

narciso said...

They repeated the lie 15 times

RideSpaceMountain said...

Look at the case of defamation currently underway against CNN by that veteran who was helping Afghans get out of the country. They just filed that CNN has blatantly ignored the court order to divulge their finances and those of their parent company Warner Brothers Distribution (WBD).

What are they hiding indeed.

mindnumbrobot said...

The correct speculation is probably the simplest: ABC would have lost, even with the "actual malice" hurdle to clear. Better to pay and move on.

Dan from Madison said...

Plus a gazillion dollars in attorney's fees.

Leland said...

There is defamation and then there is a conspiracy to defraud the American people by coordinating a lie to interfere with the election. Since Democrats were trying to nail Trump on such charges, they may have decided it better to admit to defamation.

narciso said...

Discovery would have been brutal

Enigma said...

Plus four years of eye-for-an-eye treatment to match the post-Jan 6 era

actual items said...

I agree ABC News would have almost certainly prevailed, and also agree they wanted to avoid catching any strays from the discovery process and figured the $16M was a small price to pay.

But the E. Jean Carroll case was dumb: should have never been brought against Trump, should have never resulted in those ridiculous multi-million $ damages. I guess this is Trump wrestling a small victory as a sort of (by no means equal) payback.

I am ready for the lawfare to stop. I, of course, blame Trump for starting it with all his post-2020 election lawsuit B.S., but I know most here disagree (:

Freder Frederson said...

I thought you were a "free speech absolutist".

tommyesq said...

I think you may have hit on the real reason - discovery would reveal active collusion with the Biden administration.

Lem Vibe Bandit said...

It probably hinged on one word- DISCOVERY.

tommyesq said...

I should add, for the purpose of interfering with the election. Also may have revealed active collusion with the Biden administration on the myriad other Trump cases, or maybe communications with Carroll herself that demonstrate that she lied about the whole thing and Stephanopolous knew.

Earnest Prole said...

Try on this explanation, Richard J. Tofel: At best the case would call attention to ABC’s sloppy crappy product and the sloppy crappy people who throw it together. At worst it would reveal negligence that could fuel additional defamation suits.

tommyesq said...

I mentioned it above, but want to repeat - I suspect that discovery would have revealed both (a) collusion with the Biden administration to knowingly smear Trump for the purpose of throwing the election to the dems, and (b) communications with Carroll showing that she made up the whole rape allegation.

tommyesq said...

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of such speech, it only means you can't be barred from speaking. Or as a federal judge once phrased it to me, "I can't stop [defendant] from saying these things, but I can damn well make him pay for it afterwards."

Saint Croix said...

Exactly right. My suspicion is that ABC knew the lawsuit was spurred by the DNC as part of a lawfare strategy to label Trump a rapist. And the jury threw them a curveball by acquitting him on the rape charge. And they decided to go ahead and call him a rapist anyway. And they were e-mails about this and the lawyers decided to pay now and avoid a much bigger damage to ABC's reputation. You don't pay $16 million for nothing!

Ann Althouse said...

Was ABC motivated by the impending discovery? The timing suggests so:

"The court set a Christmas Eve deadline for ABC to file a motion for summary judgment, in which the evidence gathered in discovery is laid before the court to decide if there remains a factual dispute requiring a jury decision. ABC contended that the Trump side dragged its feet on discovery during the campaign, and last Friday a federal magistrate found for ABC and ordered the depositions to be held this week. The case was apparently settled the same day. In other words, ABC got what it said it wanted, and immediately, humiliatingly folded its hand...."

One of the author's questions is: "Did you learn, presumably after the motion to dismiss the case was rejected in July, of damaging evidence that might demonstrate actual malice?"

Gravel said...

Did history begin for you in 2020?

Breezy said...

Don’t lawyers make less with a settlement vs trial?

AlbertAnonymous said...

“ because I—and every experienced press lawyer not involved in the case with whom I have discussed it—considered the case one in which ABC was likely to eventually prevail.”

Well shit, if the self described “experts” say ABC should win, there must be some conspiracy…wait I thought the Trumpers we’re the conspiracy loving losers

gilbar said...

" every experienced press lawyer not involved in the case "

interestingly, EVERY experienced press lawyer that WAS INVOLVED in the case,
decided that $16 Million was a fair price to pay, to keep from airing their dirty laundry.

i wonder what THAT means? Well, i'm PRETTY SURE i *KNOW* what that means

James K said...

Per hour? Probably they make much more with a settlement. Not to mention the possibility of losing at trial and not getting the contingency fee.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

The election broke them. Joe Rogan and a few other podcasters have become as influential, if not more influential, that the MSM. The smug bastards don't know what to do and it's glorious!

effinayright said...

Freder, you ought to introduce yourself to the legal concepts of "slander per se" and "slander per quod". "Free speech" isn't absolute, so STFU.

mindnumbrobot said...

The media has suffered so many self-inflicted wounds (Trump made them do it, of course) that it is possible this is a case where ABC woke up and smelled the coffee. Who knows, there may be some introspection occurring in the top floors on management.

R. Duke said...

These articles are very strange. I go there because this one said he was a lawyer and did media work for years. But you still get no sense of the actual pleadings. I've only practiced in PA and NJ but there is no civil claim for rape. That's a criminal charge brought by the state. There are various forms/levels of sexual assault that a plaintiff can claim against someone, but I don't believe rape is one of them. (if it is, it should be in the pleadings)
This also says that Summary judgment motions were due Christmas eve. Usually SJ motions are due 30 days after the close of discovery. These guys haven't even been deposed yet. I would bet a GS deposition would lead to many supplemental requests for notes, phones, texts, etc that haven't been provided.
The reason they kept using "rape" was because in their never ending quest to destroy Trump someone made the decision to use rape as much as possible so they could say - as often as possible - that Trump was a rapist. Just one text or email or witness saying this and you get actual malice. Also venue; one bit of evidence like that and a Florida jury could have buried ABC.

chuck said...

His argument seems to be that the slander was just poor wording rather than malicious. I think it was malicious and part of the Democratic election strategy, and obviously so.

Quayle said...

As noted above, he has no idea if he would have prevailed because he hasn't seen the internal emails, etc.

doctrev said...

Yup. The Trump DOJ would LOVE a chance to scrutinize that kind of decision by a judge. One of the top tier priorities for the Trump Administration is to drag the judiciary back into line.

mindnumbrobot said...

It can be argued that Team Trump and the RNC only have themselves to blame for not pushing back harder against the covid related election changes initiated by the Left. It's not exactly a big secret that they have always wanted to loosen election laws. The fact is they beat Republicans with their pre-elections shenanigans, and it wasn't even close. All the after-the-fact lawfare was too little too late.

Dave Begley said...

"The shock came, and still lingers, because I—and every experienced press lawyer not involved in the case with whom I have discussed it—considered the case one in which ABC was likely to eventually prevail."

"And no one I know in NYC voted for Nixon." Pauline Kael

I considered this case a slam dunk for Trump; obvious malice by George. George knew - or should have known - that Trump wasn't convicted of rape. And, moreover, the trial court judge and jury were deeply biased. E. Jean will never collect a dime as that case will be reversed.

Ampersand said...

ABC had multiple business and legal reasons to consider settlement. But those reasons were analyzed in the overriding context of the judge and jury pool. This wouldn't happen if the venue were NY or DC.

donald said...

Yep. Why it’s like you were born yesterday.

Howard said...

It's simply baksheesh.

The Vault Dweller said...

The author makes it sound like if ABC news was going to prevail it was going to do it at the appellate level. The author also doesn't explain why he is so certain that ABC news is going to prevail. ABC news lost it's motion to dismiss. Presumably that means the judge thought that just the statements of George Stephenopoulos on air were sufficient to go to trial. If ABC news was going to be successful at Summary Judgment there would have had to be additional evidence discovered which somehow invalidates the already sufficient statements. What would have that kind of evidence looked like? Also it is worth noting that the case appears to have been taking place in Miami, Florida. In the 2024 election Miami-Dade county went 56%-43% to Trump. That is a substantial Trump win. The county isn't a reliably blue county anymore. ABC news would not be able to count on a Manhattan jury to construe things in their favor, (or more precisely construe things against Trump.) Who knows what a jury drawn from there might have found at trial, or how much they would have awarded. A jury awarded almost a billion dollars against Alex Jones presumably in part because they viewed him as part of a political ideology they disliked. An awful lot of the country views the mainstream media, including ABC, as part of a political ideology they dislike. Maybe ABC's decision isn't that puzzling and it was a very reasonable decision to avoid possibly far worse outcomes.

Jupiter said...

And I thought you were an annoying popinjay. Looks like one of us was wrong.

Dude1394 said...

The network doesn’t owe these people anything.

RCOCEAN II said...

Remember when Fox News settled with Dominion Voting Systems nearly $800 million rather then go to trial. And then fired Tucker Carlson (supposedly part of the settlement agreement). Did the Press champions write articles about "Fox News bending the knee?". I don't think so. Were journalists "unnerved" by the verdict? I don't think so.

Given that 90 percent of journalists and news outlets are liberal/left all the cries about "freedom of the press" really mean "Freedom of the press to support liberal/left people and policies"

And isn't press so amazing incurious about the Fox v. Dominion Voting sytems lawsuit. Dominion is owned by a private equity firm. Who are they? And why did they get almost $800 million in damages when their annual revenue predictions in 2020 were only $80 million a year? Note: in 2017 the *entire* voting machine "Industry" was estimated to be worth $341 million.

Yet, no outcries from our journalist Professors at Columbia over that. But Trump's lawsuit - well that's different. Isn't it ALWAYS different, when Trump or conservatives are involved?

Kakistocracy said...

ABC is paying out not so much as a settlement, but for four years of access.

The Vault Dweller said...

You don't pay $16 million for nothing!
This is true. While not a colossal amount it is definitely substantial. It is also worth noting that this amount was publicly disclosed and came with an apology. I'm assuming this means that ABC would have been willing to pay a lot more provided the terms of the settlement would have been kept private and there would have been some generic statement issued of neither side admits wrongdoing.

Jupiter said...

It is apparent that the "legacy media" -- the large, established press and TV networks -- all work in concert. We tend to assume this is because they are in sympathy with the Democratic Party, but it is more likely that they are controlled by some entity which generally finds the Democratic Party to be a useful tool. If so, one cannot know why they do what they do until one identifies that entity. Someone decides what "the narrative" will be, and it isn't George Snuffalupagus.

RCOCEAN II said...

What's even more amazing, if the professor seems to think the Media can deliberately lie and defame people and its somehow OK. ABC news and their talking head Georgie Porgie, Bill Clintons former press secretary, constantly repeated that Trump was a convicted rapist. Which is a defamatory lie. Georgie porgie stated Trump was a convicted rapist, as a fact, not an opinion. He refused to recant, and refused to apologize. Until sued.

There's nothing in the history of the 1st admendment that shields the press from being sued for defamation. Or allows them to break the law, or rules of civilized behavior, without penalty. They don't get to destroy people's reputations and ruin their lives without pushback.

Dogma and Pony Show said...

The author doesn't seem to take into account the possibility that, although ABC might have actually won the case under the Sullivan standard for actual malice, the case could have eventually (on appeal) resulted in a redefinition of that standard, perhaps to allow for recovery where reporting is both factually incorrect and is INTENDED to inflict harm on the subject. I could easily imagine discovery revealing Stephanopolous and company having openly discussed in production meetings their desire to hang the "word" rape on Trump because of their hatred for him, and whether they could get away with it.

Mattman26 said...

Cases settle for tons of reasons, including that lawyers and executives are chicken shits. Nothing I'm aware of makes this one a stunner.

Next up: Let's take a look at the cases that DOJ (and state and local governmental entities) settle by paying out large sums to left-wing interest groups who bring cases on dubious legal theories. Unlike ABC paying out its own money, those cases involve our money; should be a topic of greater concern.

RCOCEAN II said...

It is apparent that the "legacy media" -- the large, established press and TV networks -- all work in concert.

Yes, that's been "apparent" for quite some time. Given they always air/publish the same stories, from exactly the same point of view, and often use the same words and phrases. Agnew was making that point in the 1970s. Its also apparent that most of our judges and lawyers also "work in concert" with the same people who own and operate the press.

Gusty Winds said...

I'm just happy somebody finally bent George Snuffleupagus over and gave him what he deserves.

Birches said...

I'm not sure this lawyer realizes just how much zoomer professionals put in writing.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Nobody with a brain EVER claims to be a "free speech absolutist" because there are very specific limited exceptions.

Big Mike said...

… I—and every experienced press lawyer not involved in the case with whom I have discussed it—considered the case one in which ABC was likely to eventually prevail.

Not if I was on the effing jury. Punitive damages alone would hit 9 digits.

Bruce Hayden said...

Freder, you ought to introduce yourself to the legal concepts of "slander per se" and "slander per quod". "Free speech" isn't absolute, so STFU”

The problem here is that calling someone a “rapist” is slander per se. Calling Biden a lying scum or taking bribes from foreign governments is not. It’s because calling someone a “rapist” accuses them of an especially heinous crime. The problem was that he was not convicted of rape, nor even adjudicated a rapist by a preponderance of the evidence. The key here is that because the defamation was “per se”, Trump did not have to prove that his reputation was tarnished or harmed, just that the statement had been made. Damage to his reputation is assumed. (And truth would have been a defense, but wasn’t, since he wasn’t found by a court to have been a rapist).

hombre said...

Maybe ABC was concerned about a detailed examination of George's historic bias to prove knowledge of falsity.

Milo Minderbinder said...

Thanks for the laughs. Watching the MSM circle the drain....

Elliott A. said...

Does the loss in a civil case equate to a conviction in a legal one?

Steve said...

I don’t know anything about “press law” but I do know that when defendants settle a law suit surprisingly there is a lot of bad stuff that’s going to be found in discovery.

Former Illinois resident said...

Perhaps evidence in trial discovery clearly demonstrated Stephanopoulos is a hired shill paid by national headquarters of Democratic Party, and not just another ABC journalist. Wouldn't be surprised if a number of national journalists receive specific consideration, if not outright cash payment, for their constant promotion of Democratic Party talking-points and elected politicians. Furthermore, many of our MSM journalists did previous tours of duty as employees in Democratic White House and department agencies.

gspencer said...

Lefties are upset because is never supposa win. Never.

William said...

Thanks for the link which contained this gem (about the 2024 election):

"In this, his [Trump's] second victory, that opponent was not inept or widely disliked. She fought valiantly, and to many millions inspiringly. She was amply and better funded."

Gee, now let me think. On which end of the political spectrum does this clown live? Not inept? Not widely disliked?

C'mon man!!

Josephbleau said...

“Per hour? Probably they make much more with a settlement. “

If they work on contingency they don’t get paid by the hour. I would be interested if nbcdysney was insured and what the coverage limit was, probably about 16 million?

Rabel said...

rhhardin wrote:

"They're avoiding a much more damaging discovery process."

Absolutely. I don't doubt that exposure of their internal communications would have proven actual malice towards Trump. They, particularly Stephanopoulos, could have made explicit plans to use the false rape accusation to harm Trump.

And they've seen the recent outrageous jury awards. This could have broken them.

They settled because they were guilty.

chickelit said...

Dave Begley wrote:
And, moreover, the trial court judge and jury were deeply biased. E. Jean will never collect a dime as that case will be reversed.

At the end of the day, the frustrated old cat ladies and the wives of henpecked husbands will concede: 'Trump may not have broken laws we thought he did but we still don't like the man and you can't make us.'

What a colossal waste of human energy.

Josephbleau said...

That would be fitting, take the case to trial to show how cool you are, and have the state and eventually the SCOTUS neuter Sullivan.

Trump does not want 15 million, it makes no difference to him, he just wants blood.

Josephbleau said...

Very informative legal blogging here today, all appreciated.

Josephbleau said...

Not that I want to date you or anything.

Freder Frederson said...

Nobody with a brain EVER claims to be a "free speech absolutist"

So are you saying that Elon Musk (and all of the other commenters on this blog who have echoed his words), does not have a brain? I am no fan of Musk, but I certainly wouldn't claim he doesn't have a brain.

Freder Frederson said...

Not that I want to date you or anything.

Oh good, for a horrible minute I thought Simon was back with a new pseudonym.

Poor Simon, Althouse broke his heart when she married Meade.

JaimeRoberto said...

I guess this helps explain the recent legal notices Sunny Hostin has had to read on the View on ABC.

paminwi said...

Repeated 15 times makes it malicious.

Skipper said...

What, pray tell, was ABC hiding by settling? Depositions might have revealed even worse.

The Vault Dweller said...

They're scared.

tommyesq said...

This. Particularly when every single person they know or interact with shares their personal belief that Orange Man Bad - there is no hesitation to create a written record, and indeed there is pride to wave the flag.

Lucien said...

There’s always the idea that the media don’t want to tee up an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reconsider Sullivan on a bad set of facts.

Saint Croix said...

At worst it would reveal negligence that could fuel additional defamation suits.

That's not the worst case scenario. The worst cast scenario is they intentionally lied to defame Trump as a rapist. The worst case scenario is that ABC knew the entire lawsuit was a sham put together by DNC operatives, and when the jury acquitted Trump on the rape charge, they decided to call him a rapist anyway. The worst case scenario is that ABC news is exposed as a sham and a fraud. They are outright propagandists for the Biden campaign. I think that's what they want to hide.

Mikey NTH said...

Bingo. That these attorneys are shocked at ABC settling, and questioning that decision, tells me they cannot comprehend a reality in which ABC acted with malice, and maybe more than once, and are afraid that would get out.

Mikey NTH said...

It's been years since I learned defamation, but saying what was untrue and knowing, at the time you said it, that it was untrue, was sufficient to satisfy malice for NYT v Sullivan. I.E., you lied and you knew you were lying when you spoke.

Mikey NTH said...

You got it, Gilbars. Those involved with the case were saying "oh no, this ain't good" because they actually *know the facts* of the case.

Mikey NTH said...

No. The standard of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence, which is a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt for a criminal case.

Big Mike said...

@Dogma, I was idly wondering whether ABC decided to settle rather than risk such and open and egregious untruth being the occasion for weakening or perhaps even overturning Sullivan.

The majority on this court overturned Roe and overthrew Chevron. Did Richard J. Tofel consider the impact of this court weakening Sullivan (or overturning it entirely).

TickTock said...

Sullivan is ripe for reconsideration

TickTock said...

It is from an era when journalists held themselves to a different standard than those who profess that job today (will not dignify it by calling it a profession)

TickTock said...

It is from an era when journalists held themselves to a different standard than those who profess that job today (will not dignify it by calling it a profession)

Scott Gustafson said...

He says that ABC owes the industry an explanation and yet I'm not hearing that from the industry. Perhaps the industry understands what a problem discovery would be and is satisfied with the unstated explanation.

Bruce Hayden said...

That’s part of the problem. In the civil suit by the crazy woman ended with a jury decision that Trump had done something to her, but also that he had not raped her. But then Stephenopolis claimed that Trump had raped her. The jury had found just the opposite.

cfs said...

It has been revealed that Biden paid Reuters $300M for targeting Elon's companies.

The Biden administration gave $300 million in government contracts to Reuters while eleven federal agencies investigated Elon’s businesses—Tesla, SpaceX, and X.

During this time, Reuters received millions from these agencies and won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on “misconduct at Elon’s companies.”
It’s a coordinated effort to undermine one of America’s most innovative leaders.

How much was ABC being paid for similar coordination for hit pieces against Trump. Maybe ABC was afraid discovery would reveal that ABC and George S had coordinated their reporting with the Biden administration.