A senior CNN employee, Fuzz Hogan, took the stand during a defamation trial involving a U.S. Navy veteran and the cable news network. The lawsuit claims CNN falsely portrayed the plaintiff as an “illegal profiteer” exploiting desperate Afghans during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. The veteran, identified as Young, alleges that the network’s coverage severely damaged his reputation and business, making it nearly impossible for him to work.
Hogan, who was a fact-checker at CNN at the time of the broadcast, played a crucial role in clearing the facts for the story. The segment in question aired on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” in November 2021. Young’s attorneys pressed Hogan about whether CNN had verified the accuracy of the claims made in the story, particularly regarding whether Young had successfully evacuated anyone from Afghanistan. Hogan admitted that he did not know if anyone at CNN had verified the success of Young’s evacuations before the story aired. He further conceded that he did not know whether CNN had attempted to verify this information, stating that he did not recall such an effort.
When asked if he thought the verification of Young’s success rate was relevant to the story, Hogan’s response was somewhat evasive. He explained that as a fact-checker, his job was to confirm the facts presented in the story, but he did not feel it was necessary to verify whether Young had successfully evacuated anyone. This led to further questioning about the editorial process, with Young’s attorney suggesting that CNN did not prioritize checking the key facts of the story.
Internal CNN communications were also presented in court, shedding light on how the network discussed the story before publication. Messages between Hogan and CNN editor Tom Lumley revealed mixed opinions about the quality of the story. Lumley criticized the story, noting that it was incomplete and not fully reported, while Hogan agreed that it felt like a “good character” but lacked depth. Despite this, Hogan approved the story for publication.
The most pointed moment of the trial came when Young’s attorney asked Hogan if he approved the story because he thought Young was a “shit.” Hogan initially denied the accusation, but the attorney presented a conversation between Hogan and CNN reporter Elizabeth Wolfe in which Hogan referred to Young as a “shit.” Hogan acknowledged this communication but insisted that it was a casual remark and did not influence his professional decisions regarding the story.
The trial continued with Hogan’s testimony being used to show how CNN’s internal discussions and editorial decisions may have contributed to the alleged defamation. Young’s legal team emphasized the lack of verification and the casual, dismissive attitude toward the subject of the story as evidence that the network acted irresponsibly. The case remains ongoing, with the outcome hinging on whether the jury believes CNN’s actions were reckless and defamatory.
