By John Q. Hosedrinker 
ABC News and George Stephanopoulos settled a lawsuit filed by Donald Trump for $15 million, including a donation to a future presidential library and covering Trump’s legal fees. The settlement, following a deposition order for Trump, prompted strong criticism, with many commentators labeling it a “sellout” and an “awful precedent.” Critics expressed concern that the network caved to pressure, setting a worrying precedent for future conflicts. The case stemmed from an interview where Stephanopoulos questioned Rep. Nancy Mace about her Trump endorsement in light of the E. Jean Carroll case.
Read the original article here
The ABC News settlement with Donald Trump, where they paid a substantial sum to resolve a defamation lawsuit stemming from E. Jean Carroll’s accusations, is being widely criticized as a terrible precedent. The core issue is the perception that ABC caved to pressure, settling rather than fighting the case and potentially setting a dangerous standard for future legal battles involving powerful figures.
This settlement comes on the heels of a Manhattan court finding Trump civilly liable for sexual battery, a verdict that many felt should have been a clear win for Carroll. While the court did not find Trump liable for rape according to the specific legal definition in New York State, the judge explicitly stated that the jury’s finding of sexual abuse implied forcible penetration, aligning with broader common understandings of rape. The technical distinction between the legal definitions and common understanding is fueling much of the outrage.
The significant financial settlement paid by ABC is seen by many as a form of appeasement, a “bending of the knee” to Trump’s power and influence. Critics argue that this action undermines journalistic integrity and emboldens powerful figures to silence dissent through litigation. The large sum involved, coupled with the perceived weakness of ABC’s response, has created a sense of deep unease among many observers.
The perceived failure of ABC to vigorously defend itself against the lawsuit is seen as a betrayal of journalistic principles. Many feel that ABC should have stood its ground and fought for what it believed was the truth, regardless of the potential legal ramifications. The network’s actions are being interpreted as a capitulation to political pressure and a demonstration of prioritizing financial security over journalistic responsibility.
The concerns extend beyond the specific case. There’s a widespread belief that this settlement establishes a dangerous precedent, potentially discouraging other news organizations from reporting critically on powerful individuals who might use defamation suits as a weapon to suppress unfavorable reporting. This could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism and the public’s right to know.
The legal nuance surrounding the difference between the specific legal definition of rape and the broader common understanding of the term is another significant point of contention. The judge’s clarification, highlighting the jury’s finding of forcible penetration, only intensifies the feeling that justice was not fully served, and the settlement feels like an injustice.
Beyond the legal details, the public reaction speaks volumes. The overwhelming online response expresses anger and disappointment towards ABC News, portraying the settlement as a major blow to the credibility of the news media. Many are calling for boycotts of Disney, ABC’s parent company, and expressing concern about the implications this sets for future media coverage of politically powerful figures.
The consensus is that the ABC News settlement with Donald Trump is much more than a simple legal matter. It is seen as a symbolic victory for Trump, a validation of his aggressive legal tactics, and a chilling example of the potential consequences for media organizations that dare to challenge his narrative. The long-term effects of this settlement on the media landscape and the public’s trust in news organizations remain to be seen, but the early indications are deeply troubling.
This case highlights a larger issue regarding the balance between freedom of the press and the potential for legal retribution. The fear is that this settlement might empower other powerful individuals to utilize defamation lawsuits as tools to stifle critical reporting, ultimately hindering public discourse and accountability. The lingering feeling is that ABC’s actions have created a damaging precedent that undermines the principles of truth, justice, and free journalism.