ABC's million-dollar settlement with Trump sparks debate—is democracy under threat?
- Replies 0
ABC News is at the center of a major controversy after settling a defamation lawsuit with a huge financial contribution.
But why did they make this move? And what does this mean for the future of the media and its role in holding power accountable?
The settlement, announced on a quiet Saturday, has been met with a chorus of disapproval from voices across the political spectrum.
The lawsuit stemmed from a claim made by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos during a March 10 segment, in which he incorrectly stated that Trump had been “found liable for rape” in connection with writer E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits.
This statement was not only inaccurate but also legally unfounded, as no such finding had been made under New York law.
The payment, amounting to $15 million, described as a “charitable contribution” to Trump’s presidential library, and the additional $1 million in legal fees to Trump's attorneys, have raised eyebrows and ire alike.
ABC News also issued a public apology.
The backlash has been swift and severe.
"People are not going to forget what ABC did," stated the Republicans Against Trump on social media.
Conservative political scientist Norman Jay Ornstein remarked, "[a]dd ABC to the basket of cowards in our media."
Democratic attorney Marc Elias commented, "[k]nee bent. Ring kissed. Another legacy news outlet chooses obedience."
From the Republicans Against Trump group on social media to political scientist Norman Jay Ornstein, and from Democratic attorney Marc Elias to reporter Matt Novak, the consensus is clear: this settlement sets a concerning precedent.
Legal experts, too, have voiced their concerns.
Former prosecutor Joyce Vance lamented the bygone era when newspapers would stand their ground in defamation cases.
"I'm old enough to remember—and to have worked on—cases where newspapers vigorously defended themselves against defamation cases instead of folding before the defendant was even deposed," Vance said.
Legal analyst Allison Gill expressed bafflement at the decision not to proceed with depositions, suggesting that ABC News might have prevailed had they chosen to fight.
"This is so gross. And it keeps happening. Why not depose him?" Gill questioned. "The case wouldn't cost more than $15M and ABC would have won if they bothered fighting."
Human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid pointed to a deeper issue: the fear that legacy media, in pursuit of profit, may be abandoning principle.
This, Rashid argues, underscores the importance of independent and independently funded voices in today's media ecosystem.
"This is the cowardice of legacy media out to make profit, rather than uphold principle. The ongoing failure of legacy media is a stark reminder that independent and independently funded voices are now more critical than ever before."
The settlement comes against the backdrop of two previous verdicts involving E. Jean Carroll, where Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, though he is appealing both.
Judge Kaplan wrote that the jury found Carroll had not proven Trump raped her "within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law."
"The definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of 'rape' in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere," he explained.
The nuances of these cases, as explained by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, highlight the complexities of legal definitions versus public understanding.
But the implications of this settlement are significant.
It raises concerns about the role of the press, the impact of money in politics, and the strength of democratic institutions.
In relation to this story, the future of journalism hinges on finding a balance between a free press and the realities of legal challenges.
It is important to reflect on how these challenges shape the media landscape. Preserving the core principles of democracy remains essential in navigating these complexities.
Share your thoughts and insights in the comments, but please keep the conversation respectful.
But why did they make this move? And what does this mean for the future of the media and its role in holding power accountable?
The settlement, announced on a quiet Saturday, has been met with a chorus of disapproval from voices across the political spectrum.
The lawsuit stemmed from a claim made by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos during a March 10 segment, in which he incorrectly stated that Trump had been “found liable for rape” in connection with writer E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits.
This statement was not only inaccurate but also legally unfounded, as no such finding had been made under New York law.
The payment, amounting to $15 million, described as a “charitable contribution” to Trump’s presidential library, and the additional $1 million in legal fees to Trump's attorneys, have raised eyebrows and ire alike.
ABC News also issued a public apology.
ABC News settled a defamation lawsuit with President-elect Donald Trump for $15 million towards his presidential library and issued a public apology. Image source: Donald J. Trump/Facebook.
The backlash has been swift and severe.
"People are not going to forget what ABC did," stated the Republicans Against Trump on social media.
Conservative political scientist Norman Jay Ornstein remarked, "[a]dd ABC to the basket of cowards in our media."
Democratic attorney Marc Elias commented, "[k]nee bent. Ring kissed. Another legacy news outlet chooses obedience."
From the Republicans Against Trump group on social media to political scientist Norman Jay Ornstein, and from Democratic attorney Marc Elias to reporter Matt Novak, the consensus is clear: this settlement sets a concerning precedent.
Legal experts, too, have voiced their concerns.
Former prosecutor Joyce Vance lamented the bygone era when newspapers would stand their ground in defamation cases.
"I'm old enough to remember—and to have worked on—cases where newspapers vigorously defended themselves against defamation cases instead of folding before the defendant was even deposed," Vance said.
Legal analyst Allison Gill expressed bafflement at the decision not to proceed with depositions, suggesting that ABC News might have prevailed had they chosen to fight.
"This is so gross. And it keeps happening. Why not depose him?" Gill questioned. "The case wouldn't cost more than $15M and ABC would have won if they bothered fighting."
Human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid pointed to a deeper issue: the fear that legacy media, in pursuit of profit, may be abandoning principle.
This, Rashid argues, underscores the importance of independent and independently funded voices in today's media ecosystem.
"This is the cowardice of legacy media out to make profit, rather than uphold principle. The ongoing failure of legacy media is a stark reminder that independent and independently funded voices are now more critical than ever before."
The settlement comes against the backdrop of two previous verdicts involving E. Jean Carroll, where Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, though he is appealing both.
Judge Kaplan wrote that the jury found Carroll had not proven Trump raped her "within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law."
"The definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of 'rape' in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere," he explained.
The nuances of these cases, as explained by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, highlight the complexities of legal definitions versus public understanding.
But the implications of this settlement are significant.
It raises concerns about the role of the press, the impact of money in politics, and the strength of democratic institutions.
In relation to this story, the future of journalism hinges on finding a balance between a free press and the realities of legal challenges.
It is important to reflect on how these challenges shape the media landscape. Preserving the core principles of democracy remains essential in navigating these complexities.
