The Trump campaign has filed its third libel suit against a national news outlet. This time it's CNN.
The lawsuit claims CNN made false statements in its Russia collusion coverage.
CNN reported that the 2016 Trump campaign "assessed the potential risks and benefits of again seeking Russia's help in 2020 and has decided to leave that option on the table." This was "100 percent false and defamatory,” says Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis. The lawsuit claims CNN knowingly published the allegedly false statements with the intent of hurting the Trump campaign and misleading readers.
The Trump campaign also recently filed suit against The New York Times and The Washington Post.
News media outlets enjoy broad immunity from libel lawsuits filed by public figures. To prevail, public figures must not only prove the reporting was false, but also that the reporter was motivated by malice or showed reckless disregard for the truth.
To help fight government overreach, support Attkisson v. Dept. of Justice/FBI over the government computer intrusions. Click here to support.
"the reporter was motivated by malice or showed reckless disregard for the truth."
It's important to understand that "malice" in this context is not what we normally think of: (ill will or spite). Times v. Sullivan and its progeny define "actual malice" as "knowing falsity or reckless disregard." A reporter's personal dislike for a public figure is not even admissible in this regard. You could sit down at the keyboard and say "Oh, man, I hate Senator Bagsomoney and when I file this story his life is over" and it is of no moment legally. And "reckless disregard" is often mistaken as some sort of high degree of negligence. It's much more nuanced than that. You'll find this interesting:
https://www.article19.org/resources/purposeful-avoidance-of-the-truth-the-other-side-of-actual-malice/