Analysis of CNN vs. GLAD Lawsuit and Article Reviews

750 Words2 Pages

CNN is a cable news network owned by Time Warner. The world headquarters is in Atlanta, GA. A class action lawsuit was filed in 2011 against CNN by the Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness (GLAD). Because CNN opted not to include closed-captioning for their short video clips, GLAD claimed that CNN was violating California’s Civil Rights and the Disabled Persons Act (DPA). In 2012 a magistrate judge ruled against CNN’s appeal to dismiss the case. CNN argued that the lawsuit be dropped due to California’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. The statute “provides a means to dismiss a complaint arising from activity exercising free speech or petition rights at an early stage” (Carter, 2014). The magistrate denied the request reasoning being that GLAD’s request for closed-captioning for their short clips did not involve free speech (Carter, 2014) On February 5, 2014 the 9th Circuit Court sided in favor of CNN in regards to the class action law suit. GLAD was unable to provide proof of discrimination on CNN’s part. A panel of three judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a magistrate judge’s ruling that required CNN’s website videos to provide closed-captioning. It is an issue for the company because it called into question their legal and ethical obligations. Media content is a powerful tool in shaping how and what to think about an issue. Media coverage of CNN’s dispute is both positive and negative. There are obvious differences between my two chosen news articles.

The first article, written by Terry Carter, grabs your attention with the headline “9th Circuit tosses part of lawsuit against CNN demanding closed-captioning on its web videos.” Word choice of “tosses” im...

... middle of paper ...

...ic inaction occurs by the company’s silence. This case will set the precedent for future issues regarding “virtual spaces” and whether or not they are included in equal access to “places of public accommodation” (Egelko, 2014).
Both articles emphasized different aspects regarding CNN issue. The first article reported the facts from a legal standpoint and did not hold CNN accountable for their decision. The second article emphasized the lack of media content CNN is choosing to withhold from the deaf community. Although the court’s decisions to negate the discrimination claim a positive outcome for CNN, the issue remains on what CNN’s plans are to remedy the issue. With the case still under consideration, CNN should be thinking of possible solutions. Internet users are in abundance. The timing of this win is coincidental with reports of CNN’s low ratings.

More about Analysis of CNN vs. GLAD Lawsuit and Article Reviews

Open Document