CNN editor Thomas Lumley was grilled on Tuesday after internal messages showed he was skeptical of the “pretty flawed” report at the center of the defamation trial.
PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA – CNN senior national security editor Thomas Lumley was grilled in court on Tuesday after internal messages showed he was highly skeptical of the “pretty flawed” report at the center of a high-profile defamation trial.
Zachary Young, a U.S. Navy veteran, alleges CNN smeared him in a November 2021 report that first aired on “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” suggesting he illegally profited off desperate people trying to flee Afghanistan following the Biden administration’s military withdrawal, implying he was involved in “black market” dealings and ruining his professional reputation as a result. The report first ran on television and then was turned into a print piece for CNN’s website.
Lumley, who has worked for CNN for over six years, was called as a witness after internal messages showed he felt the report was “full of holes like Swiss cheese.”
Jurors were shown a variety of emails and messages during Lumley’s testimony, including a message in which he suggested reporter Alex Marquardt should add information on whether people who pay large sums to get evacuated ever actually make it out of Afghanistan.
Lumley received a draft of the print article that was written by Marquardt and responded saying, “One major thing not clear to me. Do any of the people who pay these guys actually get out of the country? I think we need a graf [paragraph] to explain. Is it totally hopeless?”
One minute later, Lumley sent a message to a fellow CNN editor that said he didn’t “understand” a fundamental question about the story, and he was surprised that CNN’s fact-checking apparatus “triad” approved Marquardt’s report.
Young had previously testified that he helped rescue at least 22 women from Afghanistan, but that information was never reported by CNN, indicating the network didn’t take Lumley’s advice.
“I had a question I was interested in addressing,” Lumley said when asked by Young’s lead counsel Vel Freedman if he had questions about the report.
The CNN editor then attempted to backpedal on the comments he previously made to colleagues.
“Those are my words on the page, but I actually think my question about the story was what I am going to call a storytelling question. It wasn’t a question about the accuracy and fairness of this story, which is what ‘triad’ is really concerned with,” Lumley said.
“I said, ‘I’m sort of surprised,’ but when I think about it,” he continued. “That was a slightly imprecise thought.”
Freedman then asked Lumley if he met with CNN’s lawyers to prepare for his testimony.
“I had a pretty short meeting last night, maybe 45 minutes, and we had a couple of meetings in Washington before the holidays … like four hours maybe,” Lumley said.
Freedman then showed the jury another internal message when Lumley wrote, “It’s actually a good story (minus neither the digital write or TV script answering a fundamental question).”
Freedman then showed the jury Lumley’s messages that said, “It’s not clear to me if everyone is being ripped off” by Young, adding “That’s pretty crucial!”
In another message, Lumley suggests a “pause” on the report if Marquardt didn’t have answers to the key question.
“If he doesn’t know the answer to that fundamental question I’d say we really need to pause until we find out… I’m hoping Alex knows but just forgot to mention,” Lumley wrote to a CNN colleague who responded, “Oy.”
CNN DEFAMATION TRIAL: JUDGE IMPOSES FINE FOR PERSONAL JABS AFTER CHAOS ERUPTS IN COURT
Lumley confirmed under oath that he sent those messages and that the report aired on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” shortly afterward. Lumley then paused the print piece.
“We are pausing it for digital [CNN’s website]. My fundamental question is now answered but on TV it is less of a problem. Dramatic silhouetted interviews and it zipped along so less glaring. As a write I think it works less well,” Lumley wrote to a colleague.
Freedman then showed the jury other emails in which Lumley criticized his network’s reporting. Lumley called it “very much not ready for prime time,” reiterated that it’s “not clear from the story whether anyone who pays these people ever gets out” and called the entire report “pretty flawed.”
Freedman pointed out the report had already aired on CNN when Lumley suggested it was “not ready for prime time.” When pressed on the witness stand, Lumley insisted he was criticizing the print piece for digital and not the TV report.
“I wasn’t responsible for the TV piece so, I can have an opinion, but if I read the TV piece and thought there was some major problem with it, I would have said something,” Lumley testified.
Freedman shot back, “I think you did say something.”
Jurors were then shown more internal CNN messages, including Lumley calling the report a “”sh—y urgent off a TV package” and that Marquardt was “pissed off” because of the criticism. In another message he wrote, “I think the Alex story is a mess” and said it might not be “easily salvageable.”
Lumley testified that the message showed him “clearly frustrated,” and that he didn’t feel the version that aired on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” should run online.
“The story is full of holes like Swiss cheese,” Lumley wrote to CNN colleague Megan Trimble who responded, “Agree – the story is 80% emotion, 20% obscured fact lol.”
Freedman asked Lumley if an “obscured fact” is a “lie,” but the CNN editor struggled to answer.
“I honestly can’t speak for Mrs. Trimble,” he testified.
Freedman then pointed out that the report ran on several other CNN shows following its initial broadcast on “The Lead with Jake Tapper.”
Lumley also admitted the “fundamental question” he wanted to answer couldn’t be found in time for the digital report. Despite all the criticism Lumley expressed in internal messages shown to jurors, he stood by the story when asked about it on the witness stand.
“From a story-telling perspective, not my favorite. But it’s still a fair and accurate story,” Lumley testified.
Later, CNN attorney David Axelrod, not to be confused with the CNN political commentator, questioned Lumley during cross-examination. When asked about the “full of holes like Swiss cheese” comment, Lumley called it “imprecise language,” and said the one “hole” he was primarily interested in was what happened next for the Afghans.
“I’d never publish a story I think was incorrect or unfair,” he said.
The trial resumes on Wednesday and will stream live on Fox News Digital.
Fox News Digital’s Nikolas Lanum contributed to this report.
