That's not what we're talking about here.
What I'm looking at here are those cases where the plaintiff (or defendant) is being castigated by the press notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff (or defendant) in a real case actually has a legitimate claim but the press is pushing the narrative against that of the defendant (or plaintiff).
So, let's dispense with pleasantries and define Fake News in this context.
FAKE NEWS constitutes a subset of intentionally or negligently disseminated pseudo-journalistic content, characterized by the deliberate fabrication, distortion, or strategic omission of verifiable empirical data, disseminated via digital or traditional media channels under the guise of legitimate reportage, with the intent or foreseeable consequence of influencing cognitive biases, socio-political perceptions, or behavioral responses within target populations, thereby undermining the epistemological integrity of information ecosystems and the democratic discourse reliant upon them.
Ummmmmm, sorry about that. My inner-journalist generator took over for a second. Let's try that again:
FAKE NEWS is false or misleading information presented as news, typically to influence public opinion, generate clicks, or cause confusion.
OK, that's better - a story used to generate or cause confusing information - sounds about right.
So, how might this apply in real life? Remember a few years ago, the media flipped out on a story about a bunch of kids and some Indians marching in D.C.?
In January 2019, Nick Sandmann, a Covington Catholic High School student, was filmed wearing a MAGA hat while standing face-to-face with Native American elder Nathan Phillips during the March for Life in Washington, D.C. A short video clip went viral, with media outlets and social media users accusing Sandmann of mocking or intimidating Phillips.
Later, fuller video footage showed that Sandmann was standing silently and that Phillips had approached Sandmann, while a different group (Black Hebrew Israelites) was yelling insults at the students.
Sandmann filed defamation lawsuits against major media outlets (CNN, Washington Post, NBC, etc.), claiming the coverage was "false and damaged his reputation." Several settlements were reached and Sandmann’s case became a key example in debates over media bias, viral outrage, and defamation.
See, that's what we're talking about. Instead of reporting the actual events, news media is going around reporting lies and misstatements - instead of what is actually happening.
Another example?
Recently, a Minnesota family, the Moedings, were sued by their neighbors, the Ramoses, over the location of their basketball hoop and the subsequent retrieval of balls that bounced into the Ramos' yard. The lawsuit, which included claims of trespass and a request for an injunction to prevent the hoop's use, was ultimately dismissed by a judge.On first read (and media makes it look like), this sounds like a petty case where an older couple is trying to keep kids from using their (clearly) portable basketball hoop. However, this case had little to do with basketball as much as the Ramoses were trying to keep the kids from trespassing on their land.
See, the kids would play on their side of the property line but, as kids are wont to do, the ball would get away from them, bounce/roll to the Ramoses property and the kids would run across the property line trampling grass, flowers, whatever else is in their way to get their ball.
From a property owner standpoint, that would piss me off and if you know anything about getting old and how little things really annoy, it really rakes the nerves. Anyway, the court eventually dismissed the case leaving the Ramoses little recourse but to sit and fume.
While an easy remedy would be to have the Moedings install a net/fence behind the basketball hoop to keep the balls on their side of the property line - but that would be admitting fault.
Some other cases found in the annals of history include:
Richard Jewell - Atlanta Olympic Bombing (1996)
Plaintiff: Richard Jewell (security guard wrongly suspected).
Claim: Defamation against media outlets (NBC, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, CNN).
Media narrative: Initially pushed the FBI and law enforcement leaks implying Jewell was the bomber.
Reality: Jewell was innocent and later cleared, but the press framed him as seeking attention.
Outcome: Jewell settled with NBC and CNN; won undisclosed settlements.
Press alignment with defendant narrative: The FBI’s suspicion narrative was amplified despite thin evidence, harming Jewell’s life while media framed him as the villain.
Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College (2019)
Plaintiff: Gibson’s Bakery (family bakery in Ohio).
Claim: Defamation and tortious interference.
Media narrative: Many outlets leaned toward framing the bakery as racially discriminatory after an incident with Black students.
Reality: The students had shoplifted; evidence showed no racial discrimination.
Outcome: Jury awarded $44 million (later reduced to about $25 million) to Gibson’s Bakery.
Press alignment with defendant narrative: Several academic and progressive outlets pushed Oberlin’s framing that the bakery was targeting students based on race, despite facts supporting Gibson’s position.
Rolling Stone “A Rape on Campus” Defamation (2016)
Plaintiff: Nicole Eramo (UVA dean) and fraternity members.
Claim: Defamation over false rape allegations reported in Rolling Stone.
Media narrative: Rolling Stone and supporting outlets pushed the narrative of institutional coverup and fraternity violence.
Reality: The story was fabricated; no evidence supported the claims.
Outcome: Eramo won $3 million; fraternity settled for $1.65 million.
Press alignment with defendant narrative: Rolling Stone and sympathetic media initially defended the article despite growing evidence of its falsehood, framing plaintiffs as silencing victims.
Duke Lacrosse False Allegation (2006–2007)
Plaintiff: Three lacrosse players—Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans
Claim: Defamation of false rape allegations reported by CBS News.
Media narrative: In March 2006, Crystal Mangum, an exotic dancer hired to perform at a Duke University lacrosse team party, was raped by the three boys.
Reality: The story was fabricated and in December 2024, Mangum publicly admitted on a podcast that she had fabricated the rape allegations.
Outcome:
- Prosecutor Mike Nifong aggressively pursued the case but withheld exculpatory DNA evidence.
- On April 11, 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped all charges.
- The team’s season was canceled.
- Coach Mike Pressler was fired.
- Nifong was later disbarred and convicted for misconduct.
- The players sued Duke and the city, reaching settlements.
- Mangum never faced charges for the false claims.
- Nifong served a day in jail for contempt.
Press alignment with defendant narrative: The charges triggered intense media coverage and national outrage, with debates over race, class, and campus culture fueling the story.
I guess the moral to this story is: Take everything big media says with a grain of salt realizing that the press is in the game to make money.
...and, as it appears, the only way the Press can make money is to make-up stuff to stir up the blood of their victims (in this case, victim=anyone willing to listen).
