ABC News agreed last week to pay $16 million to settle Donald Trump’s libel case over George Stephanopoulos’s “This Week” broadcast in March, in which he repeatedly said, while interviewing Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace, that Donald Trump had been “found liable for rape.” He had, in fact, been found liable for sexual assault but not rape, and this had been well-publicized at the time.

Trump sued ABC, and I assumed it was a nuisance suit made for effect rather than in expectation of winning. In fact, I regarded it as this close to being frivolous. That it wasn’t was proven by the settlement.

News media fans (I am not one) and journalism advocates are apoplectic over the settlement, believing that it weakens the “power of the press” to distort, lie and manipulate public opinion as the news media has been doing increasingly and shamelessly in one direction on the ideological scale for more than two decades. Good. The news media is careless, reckless, arrogant and unprofessional, as well as unaccountable. If the ABC defeat makes them a little bit more wary and careful to be sure of their facts, it is to everyone’s benefit, including journalists.

It couldn’t have happened to a better target than Stephanopoulos. He is a partisan hack, and never should have been allowed to pretend to be a journalist after serving as one of Bill Clinton’s henchmen. The Times v. Sullivan case requires that a journalist must demonstrate actual malice toward a public figure before a defamation suit gets past the First Amendment, and in most cases miscreants like George are saved by their own incompetence. I was certain that he would be saved this time— ah, rape, sexual assault, tomato-tomahto, who cares, what’s the difference. Of course, everyone knows except maybe Ethics Alarms vigilante press defender “A Friend” that Stephanopoulos and about 90% of his colleagues are hostile to Donald Trump, but general antipathy is usually not enough to show malice.

So why did ABC, aka. Disney, spit up $16 million and a kinda, sort of “apology” (it wasn’t an apology)? The widespread assumption is that ABC was afraid to have to go through discovery once its motion to dismiss was rejected. In other words, it was worth $16 million not to have emails and other records exposed that showed that George, ABC News and Disney had made it clear in their internal communications that they hated Trump and would do anything possible to damage his reputation, popular standing and political aspirations, just as it was worth the costs of suing them for Trump to have smoking gun proof (as if any more were needed) that the news media was and is biased against him.

I’m rather surprised that it would be worth $16 million to avoid revealing evidence of what is already obvious to anyone paying attention. Heck, with a lot of people, knowing that ABC has been trying to destroy Trump would probably make them more favorably inclined toward the network. I guess these media bubble-dwellers really are in denial; they think they are objective, unbiased and trustworthy.

The Columbia Journalism Review, whose motto could be “Nah, there’s mo mainstream media bias,” is upset about ABC’s capitulation, and asks these questions that they want ABC to answer:

Did you learn, presumably after the motion to dismiss the case was rejected in July, of damaging evidence that might demonstrate actual malice?

Heh. Of course they did.

If not, didn’t you expect still to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? …Well-funded newsrooms are not in the habit of paying millions to settle cases they may still win at trial, and are likely to on appeal.

Well-funded news rooms realize that a trial victory that shows beyond any doubt that the news division can’t be trusted and is little more than “The View” with scrotal sacs could be disastrous to jobs and bonuses.

Did ABC or Disney corporate play a decisive role in deciding to settle this case?…If corporate executives who ultimately control newsrooms are going to surrender on stories that are substantially accurate, we are indeed in for a frightening period.

Saying that someone was adjudicated a rapist when he was not is not substantially accurate except to the modern version of journalism as defined by Dan Rather. But this is the current false “bending a knee to Trump” narrative on the Left: even admitting unethical practices and pledging to be, or to try to be, more fair and objective is demonstrating “fear of retribution” by Trump.

What dictated the timing of the settlement? Oh, I think that Trump’s lawyers said, “Settle now before we have to start depositions, or we’ll not have any more talks until trial, and all that “get Trump” stuff you know you have have on your servers will be published for all to see. 10…9…8…7….

Have any ABC employees been disciplined with respect to this segment?

Oh, come on. Seriously? ABC would just be asking for a scapegoated whistleblower to come out and spill the damning beans.

If not, where’s  the accountability for this blow to shareholders?

This is the funny part. The CJR really says, “You might hope, though, that in such a case, a news veteran like Stephanopoulos would consider resigning in protest, of which there has been no sign.” That’s hilarious.

Are you prepared to give any assurances that this does not represent a change in policy with respect to accountability coverage of those in power?

I’m sure the Review means “accountability coverage of Republicans in power,” since ABC and the rest seldom applied the same standards to the Biden Administration.