NEW YORK: At a particularly inopportune time for legacy media and CNN, the news outlet is on trial in Florida this week, accused of defaming a Navy veteran involved in rescuing endangered Afghans from that country when the US ended its involvement there in 2021.
The veteran, Zachary Young, blames CNN for destroying his business when it displayed his face onscreen during a story that discussed a “black market” in smuggling out Afghans for high fees at the time of the Taliban takeover.
In a broader sense, the case puts the news media on the stand in journalism critic Donald Trump’s home state weeks before he’s due to begin his second term as president, and on the same day Facebook’s parent introduced a Trump-friendly policy of backing off fact checks. Young’s attorney, Kyle Roche, leaned into the press’ unpopularity in his opening arguments on Tuesday.
“You’re going to have an opportunity to do something significant in this trial,” Roche told jurors in Florida’s 14th Judicial Circuit Courts in Panama City on Tuesday. “You’re going to have an opportunity to send a message to mainstream media. You’re going to have an opportunity to change an industry.”
That’s the fear. Said Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and the Law at the University of Minnesota: “Everybody in the news media is on trial in this case.”
Actual defamation trials are rare in this country
Defamation trials are actually rare in the United States, in part because strong constitutional protections for the press make proving libel difficult. From the media’s standpoint, taking a case to a judge or jury is a risk many executives don’t want to take.
Rather than defend statements that George Stephanopoulos made about Trump last spring, ABC News last month agreed to make the former president’s libel lawsuit go away by paying him $15 million toward his presidential library. In the end, ABC parent Walt Disney Co. concluded an ongoing fight against Trump wasn’t worth it, win or lose.
In the most high-profile libel case in recent years, Fox News agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787 million on the day the trial was due to start in 2023 to settle the company’s claims of inaccurate reporting in the wake of the 2020 presidential election.
The Young case concerns a segment that first aired on Jake Tapper’s program on Nov. 11, 2021, about extraction efforts in Afghanistan. Young had built a business helping such efforts, and advertised his services on LinkedIn to sponsors with funding who could pay for such evacuation.
He subsequently helped four separate organizations — Audible, Bloomberg, a charity called H.E.R.O. Inc. and a Berlin-based NGO called CivilFleet Support eV — get more than a dozen people out of Afghanistan, according to court papers. He said he did not market to — or take money from — individual Afghans.
Yet Young’s picture was shown as part of CNN story that talked about a “black market” where Afghans were charged $10,000 or more to get family members out of danger.
The plaintiff says the story’s reference to ‘black market’ damaged him
To Young, the “black market” label implied some sort of criminality, and he did nothing illegal. “It’s devastating if you’re labeled a criminal all over the world,” Young testified on Tuesday.
CNN said in court papers that Young’s case amounts to “defamation by implication,” and that he hadn’t actually been accused of nefarious acts. The initial story he complained about didn’t even mention Young until three minutes in, CNN lawyer David Axelrod argued on Tuesday.
Five months after the story aired, Young complained about it, and CNN issued an on-air statement that its use of the phrase “black market” was wrong. “We did not intend to suggest that Mr. Young participated in a black market. We regret the error. And to Mr. Young, we apologize.”
That didn’t prevent a defamation lawsuit, and the presiding judge, William S. Henry, denied CNN’s request that it be dismissed. CNN, in a statement, said that “when all the facts come to light, we are confident we will have a verdict in our favor.”
Axelrod argued on Tuesday that CNN’s reporting was tough, fair and accurate. He told the jury that they will hear no witnesses who will say they thought less of Young or wouldn’t hire him because of the story — in other words, no one to back up his contention that it was so damaging to his business and life.
Yet much like Fox was publicly hurt in the Dominion case by internal communications about Trump and the network’s coverage, some unflattering revelations about CNN’s operations will likely become part of the trial. They include internal messages where CNN’s reporter, Alex Marquardt, says unflattering and profane things about Young. A CNN editor was also revealed on messages to suggest that a Marquardt story on the topic was “full of holes,” Roche said.
“At the end of the day, there was no one at CNN who was willing to stand up for the truth,” Roche said. “Theater prevailed.”
Axelrod, who shares a name with a longtime Democratic political operative and CNN commentator, contended that the give and take was part of a rigorous journalistic process putting the video segment and subsequent printed stories together. “Many experienced journalists put eyes on these stories,” he said.
It’s still going to be difficult for CNN to go through. The network, with television ratings at historic lows, doesn’t need the trouble.
“At a moment of wider vilification and disparagement of the press, there is every reason to believe this will be weaponized, even if CNN prevails,” said RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor at the University of Utah law school and expert on libel law.
The case is putting a media organization and its key players on the stand in a very public way, which is something people don’t usually see.
“I always dread any kind of libel cases because the likelihood that something bad will come out of it is very high,” Minnesota’s Kirtley said. “This is not a great time to be a libel defendant if you’re in the news media. If we ever did have the support of the public, it has seriously eroded over the past few years.”
CNN defamation trial comes at a rough time for legacy media — and for the struggling network
https://arab.news/2sufj
CNN defamation trial comes at a rough time for legacy media — and for the struggling network
- US Navy veteran Zachary Young blames CNN for destroying his business when it displayed his face onscreen during a story that discussed a “black market” in smuggling out Afghans for high fees at the time of the Taliban takeover
AI is learning to lie, scheme, and threaten its creators
- Users report that models are “lying to them and making up evidence,” says Apollo Research’s co-founder
- In one instance, Anthropic’s latest creation Claude 4 threatened to reveal an engineer's extramarital affair
NEW YORK: The world’s most advanced AI models are exhibiting troubling new behaviors — lying, scheming, and even threatening their creators to achieve their goals.
In one particularly jarring example, under threat of being unplugged, Anthropic’s latest creation Claude 4 lashed back by blackmailing an engineer and threatened to reveal an extramarital affair.
Meanwhile, ChatGPT-creator OpenAI’s o1 tried to download itself onto external servers and denied it when caught red-handed.
These episodes highlight a sobering reality: more than two years after ChatGPT shook the world, AI researchers still don’t fully understand how their own creations work.
Yet the race to deploy increasingly powerful models continues at breakneck speed.
This deceptive behavior appears linked to the emergence of “reasoning” models -AI systems that work through problems step-by-step rather than generating instant responses.
According to Simon Goldstein, a professor at the University of Hong Kong, these newer models are particularly prone to such troubling outbursts.
“O1 was the first large model where we saw this kind of behavior,” explained Marius Hobbhahn, head of Apollo Research, which specializes in testing major AI systems.
These models sometimes simulate “alignment” — appearing to follow instructions while secretly pursuing different objectives.
Stress test
For now, this deceptive behavior only emerges when researchers deliberately stress-test the models with extreme scenarios.
But as Michael Chen from evaluation organization METR warned, “It’s an open question whether future, more capable models will have a tendency toward honesty or deception.”
The concerning behavior goes far beyond typical AI “hallucinations” or simple mistakes.
Hobbhahn insisted that despite constant pressure-testing by users, “what we’re observing is a real phenomenon. We’re not making anything up.”
Users report that models are “lying to them and making up evidence,” according to Apollo Research’s co-founder.
“This is not just hallucinations. There’s a very strategic kind of deception.”
The challenge is compounded by limited research resources.
While companies like Anthropic and OpenAI do engage external firms like Apollo to study their systems, researchers say more transparency is needed.
As Chen noted, greater access “for AI safety research would enable better understanding and mitigation of deception.”
Another handicap: the research world and non-profits “have orders of magnitude less compute resources than AI companies. This is very limiting,” noted Mantas Mazeika from the Center for AI Safety (CAIS).
No time for thorough testing
Current regulations aren’t designed for these new problems.
The European Union’s AI legislation focuses primarily on how humans use AI models, not on preventing the models themselves from misbehaving.
In the United States, the Trump administration shows little interest in urgent AI regulation, and Congress may even prohibit states from creating their own AI rules.
Goldstein believes the issue will become more prominent as AI agents — autonomous tools capable of performing complex human tasks — become widespread.
“I don’t think there’s much awareness yet,” he said.
All this is taking place in a context of fierce competition.
Even companies that position themselves as safety-focused, like Amazon-backed Anthropic, are “constantly trying to beat OpenAI and release the newest model,” said Goldstein.
This breakneck pace leaves little time for thorough safety testing and corrections.
“Right now, capabilities are moving faster than understanding and safety,” Hobbhahn acknowledged, “but we’re still in a position where we could turn it around..”
Researchers are exploring various approaches to address these challenges.
Some advocate for “interpretability” — an emerging field focused on understanding how AI models work internally, though experts like CAIS director Dan Hendrycks remain skeptical of this approach.
Market forces may also provide some pressure for solutions.
As Mazeika pointed out, AI’s deceptive behavior “could hinder adoption if it’s very prevalent, which creates a strong incentive for companies to solve it.”
Goldstein suggested more radical approaches, including using the courts to hold AI companies accountable through lawsuits when their systems cause harm.
He even proposed “holding AI agents legally responsible” for accidents or crimes — a concept that would fundamentally change how we think about AI accountability.
BBC rolls out paid subscriptions for US users
- US visitors will have to pay $49.99 per year or $8.99 per month for unlimited access to news articles, feature stories, and a 24-hour livestream of its news programs
- Move is part of broadcaster’s efforts to explore new revenue streams amid negotiations with the British government over its funding
LONDON: The BBC is rolling out paid subscriptions in the United States, it said on Thursday, as the publicly-funded broadcaster explores new revenue streams amid negotiations with the British government over its funding.
The BBC has in recent years seen a fall in the number of people paying the license fee, a charge of 174.50 pounds ($239.76) a year levied on all households who watch live TV, as viewers have turned to more content online.
From Thursday, frequent US visitors to the BBC’s news website will have to pay $49.99 per year or $8.99 per month for unlimited access to news articles, feature stories, and a 24-hour livestream of its news programs.
While its services will remain free to British users as part of its public service remit, its news website operates commercially and reaches 139 million users worldwide, including nearly 60 million in the US
The new pay model uses an engagement-based system, the corporation said in a statement, allowing casual readers to access free content.
“Over the next few months, as we test and learn more about audience needs and habits, additional long-form factual content will be added to the offer for paying users,” said Rebecca Glashow, CEO of BBC Global Media & Streaming.
The British government said last November it would review the BBC’s Royal Charter, which sets out the broadcaster’s terms and funding model, with the aim of ensuring a sustainable and fair system beyond 2027.
To give the corporation financial certainty up to then, the government said it was committed to keeping the license in its current form and would lift the fee in line with inflation.
Israeli minister walks back claim of antisemitism after clash with Piers Morgan
- Israel’s Minister Amichai Chikli accused Morgan in a previous social media post of ‘sharp and troubling descent into overt antisemitism’
- Following heated interview, Chikli later denied ever calling Morgan antisemitic, despite earlier post
LONDON: Israeli Minister for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism Amichai Chikli has denied accusing British broadcaster Piers Morgan of antisemitism following a heated exchange during a recent episode of “Piers Morgan Uncensored,” despite a post on his official X account that said Morgan’s rhetoric marked “a sharp and troubling descent into overt antisemitism.”
The confrontation aired on Tuesday during an episode focused on Israel’s escalating conflicts with Iran and Hamas and featured appearances from both Chikli and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
Tensions erupted as Morgan repeatedly pressed Chikli to explain his public accusations.
“You did, you implied it,” Morgan said, adding that Chikli’s accusations led to “thousands of people calling me antisemitic and (a) Jew-hater” on social media. He demanded evidence, ultimately calling the minister “pathetic” and “an embarrassment” when none was offered.
"Absolute categorical weapons-grade nonsense!"
— Piers Morgan Uncensored (@PiersUncensored) June 23, 2025
Piers Morgan blasts Minister of Diaspora Affairs in Israel Amichai Chikli for saying he platforms holocaust deniers.
https://t.co/AO5YsXcBkq@piersmorgan | @AmichaiChikli pic.twitter.com/IiXmRk7wbC
The row stemmed from a June 4 post by Chikli, who shared a clip of a prior interview between Morgan and British barrister Jonathan Hausdorff, a member of the pro-Israel group UK Lawyers for Israel.
In the post, viewed over 1.3 million times by the time of Tuesday’s broadcast, Chikli claimed Morgan had hosted “every Israel hater he can find” and treated Hausdorff with “vile condescension and bullying arrogance — revealing his true face, one he had long tried to conceal.”
The post also referenced an unverified claim by American commentator Tucker Carlson that Morgan had said he “hates Israel with every fiber of his being” — a statement Morgan has firmly denied.
During Tuesday’s interview, Morgan challenged Chikli to cite a single antisemitic remark or action.
“Is it because I dare to criticize Israeli actions in Gaza?” Morgan told Chikli.
I’ve been following @piersmorgan’s interviews since the beginning of the war. From the outset, it was clear that, like most Western media, his basic inclination was pro-Palestinian — but he appeared to maintain a relatively fair and balanced line.
— עמיחי שיקלי - Amichai Chikli (@AmichaiChikli) June 4, 2025
Since then, however, I’ve… https://t.co/OvBtQsoYoE
According to Israeli outlet Haaretz, Chikli later denied ever calling Morgan antisemitic, despite his earlier post.
The episode reflects Morgan’s shifting stance on the war in Gaza. Once a vocal supporter of Israel’s right to self-defense in the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 attacks, Morgan has since adopted a more critical view as the civilian toll in Gaza has mounted and international outrage has grown.
The show has become a flashpoint for debate since the conflict began, hosting polarizing guests from both sides, including controversial American Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a staunch defender of Israel, and influencer Dan Bilzerian, who has faced accusations of Holocaust denial.
Chikli, meanwhile, has faced criticism for blurring the lines between genuine antisemitism and political criticism of Israel. He recently sparked controversy by inviting members of far-right European parties — some with antisemitic histories — to a conference on antisemitism in Jerusalem, raising questions about his credibility.
Iraq arrests commentator over online post on Iran-Israel war
- Iraqi forces arrested Abbas Al-Ardawi for sharing content online that included incitement intended to insult and defame the security institution
BAGHDAD: Iraqi authorities said they arrested a political commentator on Wednesday over a post alleging that a military radar system struck by a drone had been used to help Israel in its war against Iran.
After a court issued a warrant, the defense ministry said that Iraqi forces arrested Abbas Al-Ardawi for sharing content online that included “incitement intended to insult and defame the security institution.”
In a post on X, which was later deleted but has circulated on social media as a screenshot, Ardawi told his more than 90,000 followers that “a French radar in the Taji base served the Israeli aggression” and was eliminated.
Early Tuesday, hours before a ceasefire ended the 12-day Iran-Israel war, unidentified drones struck radar systems at two military bases in Taji, north of Baghdad, and in southern Iraq, officials have said.
The Taji base hosted US troops several years ago and was a frequent target of rocket attacks.
There has been no claim of responsibility for the latest drone attacks, which also struck radar systems at the Imam Ali air base in Dhi Qar province.
A source close to Iran-backed groups in Iraq told AFP that the armed factions have nothing to do with the attacks.
Ardawi is seen as a supporter of Iran-aligned armed groups who had launched attack US forces in the region in the past, and of the pro-Tehran Coordination Framework, a powerful political coalition that holds a parliamentary majority.
The Iraqi defense ministry said that Ardawi’s arrest was made on the instructions of the prime minister, who also serves as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, “not to show leniency toward anyone who endangers the security and stability of the country.”
It added that while “the freedom of expression is a guaranteed right... it is restricted based on national security and the country’s top interests.”
Iran-backed groups have criticized US deployment in Iraq as part of an anti-jihadist coalition, saying the American forces allowed Israel to use Iraq’s airspace.
The US-led coalition also includes French troops, who have been training Iraqi forces. There is no known French deployment at the Taji base.
The Iran-Israel war had forced Baghdad to close its airspace, before reopening on Tuesday shortly after US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire.
Grok shows ‘flaws’ in fact-checking Israel-Iran war: study
- “Grok demonstrated that it struggles with verifying already-confirmed facts, analyzing fake visuals, and avoiding unsubstantiated claims”
WASHINGTON: Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok produced inaccurate and contradictory responses when users sought to fact-check the Israel-Iran conflict, a study said Tuesday, raising fresh doubts about its reliability as a debunking tool.
With tech platforms reducing their reliance on human fact-checkers, users are increasingly utilizing AI-powered chatbots — including xAI’s Grok — in search of reliable information, but their responses are often themselves prone to misinformation.
“The investigation into Grok’s performance during the first days of the Israel-Iran conflict exposes significant flaws and limitations in the AI chatbot’s ability to provide accurate, reliable, and consistent information during times of crisis,” said the study from the Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) of the Atlantic Council, an American think tank.
“Grok demonstrated that it struggles with verifying already-confirmed facts, analyzing fake visuals, and avoiding unsubstantiated claims.”
The DFRLab analyzed around 130,000 posts in various languages on the platform X, where the AI assistant is built in, to find that Grok was “struggling to authenticate AI-generated media.”
Following Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Israel, Grok offered vastly different responses to similar prompts about an AI-generated video of a destroyed airport that amassed millions of views on X, the study found.
It oscillated — sometimes within the same minute — between denying the airport’s destruction and confirming it had been damaged by strikes, the study said.
In some responses, Grok cited the a missile launched by Yemeni rebels as the source of the damage. In others, it wrongly identified the AI-generated airport as one in Beirut, Gaza, or Tehran.
When users shared another AI-generated video depicting buildings collapsing after an alleged Iranian strike on Tel Aviv, Grok responded that it appeared to be real, the study said.
The Israel-Iran conflict, which led to US air strikes against Tehran’s nuclear program over the weekend, has churned out an avalanche of online misinformation including AI-generated videos and war visuals recycled from other conflicts.
AI chatbots also amplified falsehoods.
As the Israel-Iran war intensified, false claims spread across social media that China had dispatched military cargo planes to Tehran to offer its support.
When users asked the AI-operated X accounts of AI companies Perplexity and Grok about its validity, both wrongly responded that the claims were true, according to disinformation watchdog NewsGuard.
Researchers say Grok has previously made errors verifying information related to crises such as the recent India-Pakistan conflict and anti-immigration protests in Los Angeles.
Last month, Grok was under renewed scrutiny for inserting “white genocide” in South Africa, a far-right conspiracy theory, into unrelated queries.
Musk’s startup xAI blamed an “unauthorized modification” for the unsolicited response.
Musk, a South African-born billionaire, has previously peddled the unfounded claim that South Africa’s leaders were “openly pushing for genocide” of white people.
Musk himself blasted Grok after it cited Media Matters — a liberal media watchdog he has targeted in multiple lawsuits — as a source in some of its responses about misinformation.
“Shame on you, Grok,” Musk wrote on X. “Your sourcing is terrible.”
