CNN is defending correspondent Alex Marquardt’s continuous presence on-air after his report on an Afghanistan veteran cost the channel millions in a defamation lawsuit.
Zachary Young, a 49-year-old Navy veteran, had sued the channel for suggesting he was part of a black market when evacuating people from Afghanistan as the U.S. pulled troops out in 2021.
The on-air broadcast had CNN’s Chief National Security Correspondent Marquardt name Young in a segment claiming private contractors were charging up to $14,000 for ‘black market’ evacuations.
When asked why Marquardt remains on the air, a CNN spokesperson told Fox News Digital, ‘Alex is on our air because he is an experienced, veteran reporter with valuable insights on the news.’
In this previous controversial broadcast, Marquardt claimed ‘desperate Afghans are now being exploited’ by ‘exorbitant and impossible’ amounts.
The coverage then displayed a LinkedIn post from Young, who maintained he’d never accepted any money from Afghans, advertising his services.
CNN and Young soon agreed to an undisclosed settlement before the jury had a chance to determine punitive damages.
The jury then awarded Young $5 million in financial and emotional damages, stating that the veteran had been defamed on January 17.
In the span of two weeks, the award-winning correspondent has appeared at least four times on-air for different CNN segments.
CNN is defending correspondent Alex Marquardt’s (pictured)continuous presence on-air after his report on an Afghanistan veteran cost the channel millions in a defamation lawsuit
Zachary Young, 49, a Navy veteran had sued the channel for suggesting he was part of a black market in evacuating people from Afghanistan when the US suddenly and dramatically pulled troops out in 2021 during an on-air segment
Another spokesperson for the company said after the trial: ‘We remain proud of our journalists and are 100 percent committed to strong, fearless and fair-minded reporting at CNN, though we will of course take what useful lessons we can from this case.’
In a post-trial interview, the veteran revealed he had not forgiven Marquardt and said he had remained defiant on the witness stand at the trial.
‘We’ve given Mr. Marquardt, you know, plenty of opportunities during deposition and then again at trial to apologize.
‘And, you know, the answer was no,’ Young told Fox News Digital. ‘He still stands behind his work. He’s very proud of what he did. His hit piece on me to destroy my life. He’s not my biggest fan.’
On the witness stand, the correspondent had insisted his report was not a ‘hit piece’ on Young and he was proud of his work.
‘I wasn’t looking to take anyone down. I didn’t take anyone down,’ he claimed.
Young filed his defamation lawsuit in 2022 and successfully alleged that CNN had damaged his reputation by lying that he was taking advantage of the withdrawal.
After being threatened by Young, CNN made an apology, issued a retraction and removed the segment from public view.
‘Alex is on our air because he is an experienced, veteran reporter with valuable insights on the news,’ a spokesperson for CNN said
CNN aired this image of Zachary Young with a strap on the bottom that read: ‘Afghans trying to flee Taliban face Black Markets’. He sued the network for tying him to the black markets
In a post-trial interview, the veteran revealed he had not forgiven Marquardt and said he had remained defiant on the witness stand at the trial
But in depositions screened during the hearing, senior staff say the network should never have apologized to Young.
On January 17, two days before both sides’ closing arguments, the jury was shown a series of clips – three of which showed depositions from CNN Executive Vice President of Editorial Virginia Moseley, Supervising Producer Michael Callahan, and Senior Vice President of Washington Newsgathering Adam Levine, respectively.
Each said the same – that they did not believe such an apology was necessary, due to Marquardt’s segment making no such charge. The on-screen banner did.
The term ‘black market’ was also used in the introduction of the report, when it first ran on ‘The Lead With Jake Tapper.’
‘In general, I don’t,’ Moseley said in December 2023 when asked by Young’s legal team whether she agreed with the 2022 apology.
‘The reason I don’t agree with it is I don’t have, as we talked about earlier, the negative connotation of “black market,”‘ she insisted, offering her argument.
‘The story included a lead-in and banner… that referenced a “black market,” she went on. ‘The use of the term “black market” in the story was an error… We regret the error, and to Mr. Young, we apologize.’ Pictured, Kabul during the hectic August 2021 operation
CNN host Pamela Brown told viewers apologized on behalf of the network on-air
‘So I’m not exactly sure, like I wouldn’t, you know – I don’t consider black market in a negative connotation.
‘I wouldn’t agree with the correction,’ she finished.
A few months earlier, in October, Callahan aired a similar stance – saying he defined ‘black market’ as an ‘unregulated market’ and not a disreputable one.
He argued such a term correctly applied to the situation then occurring in Kabul, and that the phrase black market did not have any particular connotation.
When asked what he believed the term meant, he insisted: ‘An unregulated market for goods or services.’
In June of last year, Levine said the apology was made in hopes of quashing the ‘potential for a lawsuit’, while spending multiple minutes dodging questions about whether CNN believed Young’s concern had been ‘reasonable’ enough to demand the apology.
‘This was a decision made for legal reasons, and the correction was issued at the direction of our legal department,’ Levine said.
‘So CNN thinks that the decision by the legal department was the right one for the company based on them being our legal department.’
When asked whether a correction was due, he said ‘at least our legal department felt that way.’
‘It was an error based on the fact that Mr. Young felt and [Young’s attorney Vel Freedman] conveyed that that was how it was received by Mr. Young,’ he further explained. ‘And they took issue with that.’
CNN journalist Fuzz Hogan, a senior editor tasked with fact-checking the report, said a few days earlier that he also didn’t agree that CNN should have apologized, and repeatedly called Brown’s apology a ‘correction.’
CNN journalist Fuzz Hogan, a senior editor tasked with fact-checking the report, said a few days earlier that he also didn’t agree that CNN should have apologized, and repeatedly called Brown’s apology a ‘correction’
‘I didn’t think that the correction was necessary,’ Hogan said, delivering this testimony before the jury.
Marquardt said the same – before indicating he had no problem that the network eventually apologized.
CNN producer Michael Conte similarly said he did ‘not necessarily’ agree with the apology, at one point adding, ‘I do not believe [the report] was an error.’
