How The Media Failed Amber Heard

On the Media

WNYC Studios

Magazine, Newspapers, Media, 1st, Advertising, Social Sciences, Studios, Radio, Transparency, Tv, History, Science, News Commentary, Npr, Technology, Amendment, Newspaper, Wnyc, News, Journalism

4.6 • 8.7K Ratings

🗓️ 2 June 2022

⏱️ 41 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

This Wednesday afternoon, in Fairfax County Circuit Court in Virginia, a jury awarded Johnny Depp $15 million in damages in libel suit against Amber Heard, and gave her $2 million in her countersuit against him. All this, over a December 2018 op-ed she wrote in The Washington Post describing herself as "a public figure representing domestic abuse." Depp’s lawyers say he was defamed by the article even though it never mentioned his name. This case, argued over six weeks before a seven-person jury and judge, and a noisily expanding online audience, drove much of the internet crazy with guilty pleasure. Thus ensued a collective hurling of feces at Amber Heard, despite the evidence gathered meticulously in a 2020 British libel case also focused on Depp’s spousal abuse. The only quarter of the media that seemed reluctant to engage in the facts of the case was the progressive press, or the liberal media. There you could find coverage of the social media chaos, but not the underlying reality. This bothered journalist Michael Hobbes, host of the podcast Maintenance Phase, who observed that usually reliable outlets tended to steer around the facts, and sold an already victimized woman down the river.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	And thus ends the Me Too movement, tweeted conservative mischief maker Ann Kulter.
0:12.4	This Wednesday afternoon in Fairfax County Circuit Court in Virginia, a jury awarded Johnny
0:18.3	Dab $15 million in damages in his libel suit against his ex-wife Amber Hurd and gave
0:25.0	her $2 million in her counter suit against him. All this, over a December 2018 op-edge,
0:32.7	he wrote in the Washington Post, describing herself as, quote, a public figure representing
0:38.0	domestic abuse. Depths lawyers said that he was defamed by the article even though it never
0:43.8	mentioned his name. This case argued over six weeks before a seven-person jury and judge
0:50.4	an unnoisily expanding online audience drove much of the internet crazy with guilty pleasure,
0:57.4	except in precincts where the idea that women were regularly abused and had the right to say so
1:02.6	was beyond the pale. And those places, the pleasure was guiltless, enhanced by the collective
1:09.1	hurling of feces that Amber Hurd, who did not deserve it. Based on the evidence gathered meticulously
1:15.8	in a British libel case, also focused on depth's spousal abuse. The only quarter of the media that
1:22.6	seemed reluctant to engage, at least in the facts of the case, was the progressive press or the
1:29.0	liberal media. There you could find coverage of the bruhaha, but not the underlying reality.
1:35.6	This bothered journalist Michael Hobbs, host of the podcast Maintenance Phase, who observed that
1:41.9	the usually reliable outlets tended to steer around the facts, and in so doing, sold an already
1:49.6	victimized woman down the river. At least that's how I see his argument, I'll find out if I'm right.
1:55.7	Michael, welcome back to On the Media. Thanks for having me and apologies for the emails that will
2:01.2	fill up your inbox after you do this. It wouldn't be the first time. When we look at the media coverage
2:08.8	of the depth be heard trial, we see two things you've observed. People on the right saying,
2:15.6	Amber's a liar, and people on the left scouting around the topic saying, it's complicated.
2:21.8	You saw a reluctance by liberal journalists to actually assess the facts of the case,
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from WNYC Studios, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of WNYC Studios and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.