An important point to keep in mind -
CNN bet everything on being declared not liable. All of their witnesses said that they didn't see anything wrong with the story, that they would publish it again, and that they saw no need to apologize.
They even said that the half-apology they did run should not have been run and was only because the legal department told them to do it.
One of the jurors even asked CNN's corporate rep about "disingenuous apologies." (The jury is allowed to submit written questions to the witnesses during their testimony. Not sure if that is a Florida thing, or a civil case thing).
All of that is going to come back to bite them now, when the jury has to decide the punishment.
I hadn't considered a settlement in between phases (I did not fully understand how it would happen until closing), but it seems this was CNN's strategy, and I can't fault it: lean in all the way to being not liable, and if it doesn't work, settle before the full verdict.
But now you have numerous CNN personalities who testified under oath that what they did was perfectly fine, and a jury found them liable. Other news agencies should hound them if they still believe their practices are journalisticly sound or if they are going to reconsider some policies
Topic Wiki
