Over the weekend, ABC News settled with President-elect Donald Trump, and will thus pay $15 million plus $1 million in attorneys fees, after George Stephanopoulos falsely claimed during an episode of "This Week" that Trump had been found liable for rape. Stephanopoulos will also have to publicly apologize. The mainstream media had quite the response, especially with more actual and potential lawsuits coming. Perhaps no reaction was more absurd than PBS News, though, which Brad Slager also made mention of in his Wednesday edition of "Riffed From the Headlines."
"ABC News settlement with Trump raises concerns about press freedom in his 2nd term," read a headline from earlier this week.
PBS' Amna Nawaz had an interview with The New York Times' David Enrich. His book, "Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful," was also mentioned, which Nawaz described as one that "explores challenges to press freedoms."
It was bad enough that the PBS News headline was so egregious. The conversation between Nawaz and Enrich doesn't help, and from the start. Enrich frames such lawsuits as being "a tactic that's caught on, especially in MAGA circles," adding that it's being used "as kind of a cudgel to attack unfavorable news coverage."
Except that it's absurd to frame the lies that Stephanopoulous insisted on spreading as "unfavorable news coverage," something that Trump has gotten quite a lot of, and in for pretty much all of the over nine years it's been since he ran for president in 2015.
Enrich still doubles down. "And the reality in this case is that, according to everyone I have spoken to, Trump's case against ABC News seemed not great. And there are very strong protections built into the First Amendment and how it's interpreted by the Supreme Court that give the media and others a lot of leeway when they are scrutinizing powerful individuals, no more so than the president-elect of the United States," he claims.
Speaking further about how the U.S. Supreme Court case, New York Times v. Sullivan, Enrich categorizes it as one that's "basically meant to prevent exactly this type of lawsuit." He even adds, "I think ABC had a pretty good chance of prevailing in court if they had wanted to let it go that power."
Our own Kurt Schlicter, who is a lawyer, wrote a column published earlier on Thursday morning, also mentioning that Supreme Court case. And while he acknowledges that such a case means defamation lawsuits mostly fail, he also is of a much different view, highlighting how discovery would likely have been rather embarrassing for ABC News, and also that the Trump legal team could have asked for and won even more money.
Nawaz and Enrich did discuss why the network settled, though there's still room for some more boneheaded points [Emphasis added]:
Amna Nawaz: My understanding is, the bar for defamation in particular is high for public figures. So what do we know about why ABC did decide to settle?
David Enrich: That is a very good $15 million question right now.
And it seems like — based on the reporting we have done and just talking to people, it seems like they were just very reluctant to have a long legal battle with the president of the United States, which is understandable, right?
But it also sets the precedent, potentially, that it really could embolden other political leaders, including Trump himself, to really double down on this tactic. So I think there are a lot of people in the First Amendment community and certainly in the media that were very surprised and quite troubled by this decision to essentially concede this to Trump so early on in what could have been a yearslong legal fight.
There's a simple answer for those who are "very surprised and quite troubled" by the outcome, which is to not defame.
But, as Nawaz brought up those other lawsuits, and asked about "the potential impact," Enrich responded with lamentations about how this could affect those who dare to "scrutinize or criticize the president."
"Well, I think it potentially sends a really chilling message to anyone who wants to not only scrutinize or criticize the president, but really anyone else who is influenced by Trump," he said, also claiming that "litigation is seen as a solution to shut people up."
Enrich did make one interesting and worthwhile point, which is that the Court may be reconsidering the New York Times v. Sullivan case from 1964.
Thanks to a particularly unhinged email from the DNC War Room on Wednesday afternoon, as well as the other examples cited in the "Riffed from the Headlines" edition, we know that PBS News Hour is far from the only example.
"Trump is Already Abandoning His Campaign Promises and Focusing on His Tour of Revenge and Retribution," warned the email, as it still went for a failed talking point from a failed campaign that voters overwhelmingly rejected. The email was all over the place, trying to cover several topics, including a favorite of theirs, January 6.
Although the email conveniently left out any mention of ABC News, it selectively mentioned the fearmongering from outlets with headlines such as the following:
- The Associated Press: "Journalists anticipate a renewed hostility toward their work under the incoming Trump administration"
- The New York Times: "Trump and His Picks Threaten More Lawsuits Over Critical Coverage"
- Rolling Stone: "‘IT’LL BE BRUTAL’: INSIDE TRUMP’S PLANNED WAR ON LEAKERS AND THE PRESS."
The first two headlines mentioned the ABC News settlement, though the article from Rolling Stone was written beforehand, on December 12. The far-left outlet still has covered the news, though, with trending articles in the "related content" section, "‘IT’S FRIGHTENING’: ABC NEWS STAFFERS INCENSED BY ‘CAPITULATION’ TO TRUMP."
As for the latest on Stephanopoulos, the more we hear about him, the worse it gets. He's reportedly "humiliated" and "apoplectic," according to The New York Post. Another report also mentioned that Stephanopoulos "was repeatedly told by his executive producer not to 'use the word rape' before going on the air to discuss Donald Trump but the ABC News anchor ignored the warning."
Variety, on Wednesday night, reported that he'll be kept on at ABC News "for the near term."
"The news should end speculation that the well-paid Stephanopolous was on his way out as the Disney-owned network, along with every news organization, looks to trim the high overhead of pricey talent deals. An industry source with knowledge of the deal said the length of the extension was shorter than a typical on-air talent pact — which is another sign of the times for the TV news business," the report mentioned. "A source close to the situation said the deal was in the works well before the network reached a $15 million legal settlement with lawyers for President-elect Donald Trump over a libel claim involving Stephanopoulos."
That the extension was notably so short is still telling, though. We'll see how long "for the near term" lasts for.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member