Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 29, 2022 - Depositions & Trials

02:39:17

Alex Jones Defamation Trial: Sandy Hook 'Hoax' Lawsuit - Day Four, Part One

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I think this is the last one of you guys.
	there's a majority all right 4.59 District 1 is now in session.
	The Honorable Judge Maya Garrett Gamble presenting I understand there was a little confusion and I apologize the space wasn't open.
	I've sent a message to the deputy.
	Thanks for that.
	You may be seated.
	I think Mr. Reynald, we're just ready when you are.
	When were we?
	Good morning, Mr. Troyer. Mr. Troyer.
	Members of the jury.
	When we left off yesterday, you were discussing your entrance into political commentary on the radio in St. Louis.
	Yes.
	Let's move on from there.
	How did you come to work at InfoWars and move to Austin, Texas?
	There were a couple of videos that I was featured in on their YouTube channel at the time that had gotten millions of views and they liked my commentary in the videos.
	They thought I had potential as a street reporter and ultimately offered me a job.
	What year was that?
	Do you recall the month?
	It was spring and summer.
	I don't remember the exact month.
	Great time to come to Austin.
	Yeah, that was a hot one.
	Can you describe the the studios where where you went to work at that time?
	The InfoWars Studios?
	There was one main studio that Alex would do his show out of.
	There was a older studio that was a little more kind of run-down, older tech that he wasn't using anymore.
	And then there was a third studio that was kind of in construction at the time.
	And then there were some offices.
	Can you describe the work environment for the members of the jury?
	For the most part, it's pretty chaotic, especially when you're dealing with a 24-hour news cycle, with news constantly breaking, and everybody is pretty much on call, in a way, 24 hours, and you have to be able to wear multiple hats, or in other words, be able to do multiple jobs at any given time.
	Was it easy making the transition from radio into this type of show that has a video component as well?
	It took a little bit of an adjustment for the video aspect, but as far as my experience in talk radio, I think it prepared me For working at Infowars because talk radio is kind of the most open forum platform of media that there is.
	So the adjustment to video was certainly something I had to learn.
	But as far as the information and the way it's presented on the air, I was pretty familiar with just being able to just talk however you want because that's what it's like.
	I was going to ask you, when you say talk radio is the most open type of communication, what do you mean by that?
	We have corporate sponsors telling you what to do.
	In fact, a lot of people in radio actually buy their time.
	It's called broker radio time.
	And so they're in total control of what they say.
	So it's not like TV where you have big corporate sponsors telling you what to talk about or what not to talk about.
	And as far as talk radio is concerned, you have the element of the audience being involved as well with phone calls, calling in, which is something we implement into our shows as well.
	And would you say that InfoWars is more like broadcast television or more like talk radio?
	Definitely more like talk radio.
	Who do you work with?
	Give us a sense of who your staff is and how that works.
	I have a crew of probably about six people that work on my show.
	Everybody has different roles, yet everybody's kind of expected to do everything.
	There's an individual that brings videos in and puts them on a list for me.
	There's an individual that plays the videos on the air when I go to them.
	There is an individual who's in charge of getting guests lined up for the show and then making sure that they're on.
	There is an individual who's running the sound, making sure my audio levels are good on the air, in my ear, with the guests, with the clips.
	And we also have somebody that takes notes on the show as well, so that when we're going back later to write titles, we recall what it is we were discussing.
	Generally, would you describe the people who work at InfoWars as happy?
	Yes.
	And tell us a little bit more about the group of people who work there.
	What they're like.
	As part of what I like about Infowars, I've worked in a lot of different media capacities.
	I've worked for CBS. I've worked for other big companies.
	And the thing that I like the most about Infowars is the people there are really down to earth.
	They're just normal people.
	There's not millionaires walking around, thumbing their nose, chin in the air.
	It's just down to earth people that I feel like I can relate to.
	Like when I traveled to D.C. wearing jeans, I got a lot of dirty looks.
	Like, why are you wearing jeans in Washington, D.C.? You don't get that at InfoWars.
	Very just salt-of-the-earth type people, and I like that.
	Is it a diverse group?
	Yes, I would say so.
	In terms of their ideology?
	Yeah, in fact, there's people that work on my crew that probably don't see eye to eye with most of the things I say, but we get along.
	And in terms of their gender?
	We have women and men.
	There's no overwhelming.
	Though in media, it typically is more men than women in that industry, but we've got plenty of women that work for us.
	How about in terms of race?
	Very mixed.
	Very mixed.
	Do you enjoy your job?
	I'm happy with what I'm doing.
	It's been my dream to host a talk show.
	It's not easy all the time, but I am proud of my work and I do enjoy it.
	What would you say your mission is as a talk show host?
	My personal mission is to be the best talk show host that I can be.
	Really, I look at people who have made it in talk radio before me.
	And I just say I want to be as good as them.
	I want to be on air for 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, and I want to make sure that I'm doing a good enough job that I can be lasting.
	What would you say InfoWars' mission is?
	InfoWars' mission is an open platform to tell the truth and also be an open platform for others To tell the truth or how they see things and then let the audience decide whether they agree or disagree.
	On that topic, I think you testified yesterday that when you're on the air, you have articles that are in front of you.
	Correct.
	Tell us more about that.
	My average process for preparing for a show probably takes 10 hours, and that's just going through news literally from the minute I wake up to the minute I get on air.
	That's my aggregation process.
	Once again, and it is posted on the door, all phones, etc., must be turned off or silent before you walk in the courtroom.
	And while we're going over rules, I apologize, Mr. Schroyer.
	No gum, no sodas, coffee, water, that's it.
	No photographs, no video, no recording, no streaming the live stream without prior written permission from me.
	Thank you, I apologize for the interruption.
	Not at all.
	I can pick that up before I left off.
	Please do.
	So I'm aggregating news all day, all night, and then about two or so hours before the show, I decide what news I'm going to take to air, and then I have it all laid out on my desk.
	When you're watching the show, you can see how it's all laid out on my desk, and as the show goes on, you can see how slowly but surely there's less and less.
	And then throughout the broadcast, news is breaking, and the crew is bringing me the breaking news in stacks and putting that in front of me as well.
	Now, in the video clip we watched yesterday about the Zero Hedge article, you mentioned the publisher.
	You said Zero Hedge is reporting.
	Is that a common practice to mention the name of the publication first?
	Yeah, I try to I usually read the name of the news organization before I cover it.
	So like, for example, if it's a New York Times story essay, and now this in the New York Times, and then I cover the story much like what we saw in the video yesterday.
	And is there a particular reason why you do that?
	Yes, that way people can find the story that I'm talking about and they can also decide whether they trust the source or not.
	So, for example, somebody might choose to give a different level of trust to the New York Times than to the National Enquirer?
	Yes.
	In your time on the air, can you cite a story that no one else was covering, that InfoWars covered, that you're very proud of?
	There's a lot of them, but the biggest one would have to be probably the Jeffrey Epstein Sex Trafficking Network.
	Tell us more about that, how that came to be covered by InfoWars.
	So, as long as I can remember, InfoWars was talking about Jeffrey Epstein I guess most people weren't five, ten years ago.
	And we would talk about how he was connected to a bunch of elite politicians, elite members of Hollywood, and how they had this island that they would fly to and sex traffic women.
	And we were always covering that.
	And I remember there was a clip from ABC News' Amy Robach In which she said on a hot mic how she was told they're not allowed to cover the Jeffrey Epstein story.
	The most high-level industrial sex trafficking network, ABC News, wasn't allowed to cover it.
	We were covering it for decades.
	I'd like to change gears and discuss one of your coworkers.
	Are you familiar with a man named Robert Jacobson?
	Yes.
	How do you know Robert Jacobson?
	He worked at Info Wars when I was first hired.
	And what did he do there?
	Sound editor, and I think he was maybe doing a little production work too, maybe getting guests lined up.
	How closely did you work with him?
	Not too closely, other than one assignment that I had that I had to turn over to him for final production.
	And how did that work out?
	Not well, actually.
	Can you tell us what happened?
	Sure.
	I would cut Daily news clip.
	You may hear it.
	Similar things on talk radio.
	Whatever the breaking news is, you know, President Biden signed this executive order or this or that.
	Just 60 seconds and I would cut that audio and there was a video that went along with it.
	And once I cut the audio and the video, I would turn it over to Rob Jacobson and it needed to be done by 11 a.m.
	so that it could be ready for the 11 a.m.
	broadcast.
	The last time I ever saw or spoke to Rob, He was late.
	He was constantly late.
	It was constantly a struggle, because I was still new at the time, and I didn't want to look like I wasn't doing my job, so he kept showing up late.
	I instead took the audio and video to a different producer, who happened to be Daria, who you guys are aware of, and I said, hey, Rob isn't here again today.
	Can I give you this to get ready for the show?
	She said, yes, absolutely, because I wanted to make sure it was on.
	Rob showed up late that day.
	Started going on a tirade, started saying that I set him up to be fired, all of which is completely untrue.
	During that tirade, Alex Jones said, hey, look, if you're not in a good place, why don't you just take some time off?
	Just take a couple weeks off, come back when you're in a better mental place.
	He didn't accept that.
	He continued to rant and rave, and ultimately was fired.
	Switching gears again, Yesterday we watched a news special by Megyn Kelly about Alex Jones.
	Are you familiar with that, generally with that news special that Megyn Kelly produced?
	Yes.
	Were you in it?
	Yes.
	Can you tell us about how that was filmed?
	I don't recall the amount of days she spent in our studios, but it was at least an entire day She had a big news crew with her, and she was pretty much filming everything.
	She asked a lot of people for interviews, including myself, but it was a very lengthy process.
	It was at least a day.
	She may have been there more than a day.
	I don't recall.
	I just remember she was there a significant amount of time, more so than people normally are when they come there to shoot specials.
	About how long did she spend interviewing Alex Jones?
	At least a full day, I'd say.
	When you watched that new segment when it aired, did it appear edited to you?
	Yes.
	And how so?
	Well, she took probably maybe ten seconds of the five minute or so interview with me, but that was kind of expected.
	I think the more shocking edit was what she did to Alex Where, say, she sat down with Alex for three hours.
	She cut up that interview to fit, I believe it was about a 15-minute segment.
	The editing was done so that what Alex Jones was saying in the final piece was not actually in linear fashion.
	So she kind of cut it up so that something he said afterwards, he would now say before.
	And Alex's crew just so happened to film it for themselves, so when we did a side-by-side comparison of what aired on Megyn Kelly versus what we had, which was the raw recording, we realized that it was extremely highly edited.
	Was it edited to, from your perspective, put Alex Jones in a negative light?
	Yes.
	Your, the piece we watched yesterday, which is part of what brings us to this trial today, before you went which is part of what brings us to this trial today, before you went on the air with the Zero Hedge article Did you discuss it with Alex?
	No.
	Did he have any idea that you were going to air that?
	No.
	Having read that article now, what does that article say about InfoWars' position about whether children die in San Diego? what does that article say about InfoWars' position about whether I know that it mentions Alex, and if you would like I I can read directly from the article in their mention of Alex.
	It says here on page 3, Jones, that's Alex Jones, implored NBC not to air the segment on Father's Day, citing the inappropriate timing.
	And then again, Alex is mentioned in page 4, Alex Jones' official position is that he believes children died in the shooting, In fact, during a 2014 account of a hearing before the Newtown Board of Education, a journalist did not dispute that Adam Lanza had perpetuated the shooting.
	It goes on if you'd like, but that's the basic statement.
	I want to frame this question for you appropriately.
	The court has already Ruled that your broadcast was defamatory.
	That's not a question for us.
	The question I have for you is, did you intend your broadcast to be defamatory of Mr. Hesslin?
	Absolutely not.
	If someone saw your piece and that resulted in Mr. Hesslin losing a business opportunity or not getting a line of credit, Or being refused membership in an organization?
	Or being held in disregard by his neighbors?
	How would that make you feel?
	I think that that would be a real shame.
	Pass the limits.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Barrett?
	Mr. Shoyer, are you really going to sit here and tell this jury that it was unfair that the Megyn Kelly was a highly etiquette clip?
	I don't believe I used those words.
	Are you going to complain that that video, the Megan Kelly piece, was highly edited?
	It was highly edited, yes.
	Do you see at all the irony of you sitting in that chair after the court has found what you did was defamatory and complained that the Megan Kelly clip was too edited?
	No.
	You don't see the irony in that at all?
	The fact that you played 30, 40 seconds of Dr. Carver's 15-minute interview, the fact that the McDonald family interview was literally cut in the middle of the answer to fit a narrative, to fit an agenda.
	You don't see the irony.
	I mean, it might be ironic if we sued Megyn Kelly for $150 million.
	You didn't because it wasn't defamed.
	Everything she said in that piece was true, right?
	I don't know.
	Have you seen it?
	I have.
	But you don't know if everything in it is true?
	No, I can't say for sure.
	Is there anything in it that you can say is false?
	No.
	I don't know.
	You know Ms. Karpova, yesterday, complained about how Alex Jones has had health conditions due to lies for the battery.
	Did you know that?
	I have not heard her witness testimony.
	Okay.
	It feels ironic also, doesn't it?
	What about it's ironic?
	I think everybody else understands why it seems like it is.
	I want to show you an exhibit.
	You talked a little bit about stories you publish.
	You have to publish them fast and get them up on the screen, right?
	No.
	You didn't?
	No.
	That they come quickly?
	That there's people, the news is breaking and you have to get it up?
	Yeah, that's just standard practice.
	I wasn't saying it wasn't.
	I'm saying that The news is breaking.
	You have to get these stories up there.
	Yeah, news is breaking.
	We cover breaking news.
	Sure.
	How many of you?
	Show them the exhibit of 90. Mr. Farah what exhibit?
	90, I'm sorry.
	PX 90. Yes.
	That's not a good one.
	I know.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	I've sat in here.
	Don't put it up here.
	I need it.
	I don't know if I need it.
	It's a lot to bring that around.
	I'm going to object relevance, John.
	And here, sir.
	All right.
	Well, you're going to have to establish both you're going to have to establish both of those.
	Sure.
	Well, clearly not often for the truth.
	Okay, but I still don't know why you need it yet.
	So you're going to have to work on it.
	Mr. Schwerer, I'm going to hand you with Mark's spirit sign.
	Take a second to read it.
	Thank you.
	That is an email from Rob Dude to yourself, correct?
	No.
	At the top?
	It's an email from Christopher Winter.
	Rob Dew is forwarding with that email, right?
	Yes, it appears that way.
	Okay.
	And it's about a digital story that you could run, correct?
	I would never run that story.
	Because it would hurt people.
	Right.
	Because it's ludicrous.
	Oh.
	Because it's ludicrous.
	Right.
	That's the point.
	There are stories that you run that are ludicrous.
	Some that you run could be ludicrous, but you run them anyway, right?
	No, I never ran this story.
	No, we'd move the PX-9 amendments.
	Any objections?
	Same objections here.
	I'm going to sustain the objections.
	On PX, or I'm sorry, on the story, We had some questions
	about the platforming.
	Thank you.
	All right, for my jury, this is your opportunity to go and write down any questions you may have for Mr. Schreuer.
	I think you've heard my instructions a couple of times already and probably remember them.
	This is an individual exercise.
	All of the rules about not discussing the case with anyone else, even each other, still applies.
	Let's, because it's so early, let's try to do this fairly rapidly.
	So as soon as you can get those questions, if any, to Ms. Matashek-Steele, the sooner I can go over them and decide whether or not Mr. Schreyer will answer them.
	Thank you.
	All rise!
	Mr. Scherzer, I'm just going to ask you once the jury is out in a minute, so wait in the poll.
	All right.
	Thank you so much.
	And I'll come back out when I have any questions, but you probably have five minutes, maybe ten.
	I should have grabbed my ID off of there, so...
	You can make it a court exhibit if you would like.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Who produced your show about the Megyn Kelly interview?
	Thank you.
	Did your producer vet the sources that you used prior to airing?
	Should the producer vet the sources that you used prior to airing?
	Do you ask or check with Alex Jones about your topics before you go to air?
	Do you take the time to make sure what you are going to talk about on your show is true?
	How many times did you go to air on your show in one day?
	Oh, excuse me.
	How many times do you go to air on your show on one day?
	Is there anything you would recant about the Sandy Hook story?
	If so, why?
	From your opinion, are there any changes the company is making because of this incident?
	Are y'all considering When you reported on the Zero Hedge article, were you questioning the parent actually holding his child or Megyn Kelly's facts?
	In your opinion, is the judge a hired actor?
	Please answer yes or no.
	In your opinion, are some or all of the jurors hired actors?
	Please answer yes or no.
	If yes, what is your best estimate of how many jurors are hired actors?
	Can you provide a number between 1 to 16?
	To your knowledge, has anyone that is currently working at Infowars attended college for journalism and successfully graduated?
	Are there any motives to running inflammatory stories that are monetarily based?
	You stated you could have done a better job in the presentation and representation of the broadcast.
	And by that broadcast, Juror put down plaintiff's video exhibit 23, so the one we watched yesterday.
	What, if anything, have you changed as a part of your preparation and presentation of content in broadcasts since?
	Is it your position that you believe that free speech systems and infowars should be exempt from any consequences for recklessly airing harmful lies Because you, quote, didn't mean to harm, unquote.
	If true, what consequences would you expect for a company that purposefully aired harmful content?
	What is your definition of a conspiracy theorist?
	Can you elaborate on why CNN is a conspiracy theorist and you are not?
	It was mentioned that you and InfoWars are airing your opinions about the trial while it has been going on.
	What have you been thinking?
	I think that was the last one.
	Back to the beginning.
	Do you need to hear them again?
	Or do you have objections or don't have objections?
	No objections.
	No objections from the defense.
	Alright, then we can And
	Mr. Schroer, if you'll just go back to the witness seat, please.
	Thank you.
	We're just waiting for the jury.
	Thank you.
	All rise. All rise. All rise. All rise.
	All rise. All rise. All rise.
	All right, you may be seated.
	All right.
	Mr. Shoyer, what happens now is I read a series of questions to you and then you answer them.
	And I'm going to just remind you to answer them succinctly and directly, just exactly the question you're asked.
	Jury, remember if you don't hear your question or it's been changed in any way, that's because of the decision I made and direct all your investigation at me.
	Okay?
	Alright.
	How often does Alex Jones, Free Speech Systems, InfoWars have regrets about something that was claimed or suggested on their shows?
	Not very often.
	How often are audience callers or guests advised to fact check their claims?
	I don't know how it would be possible for us to suggest callers do fact checks, but we do count on our guests.
	We do put trust in our guests.
	I'm going to just repeat the question so you can really focus on the question, okay?
	How often are audience callers or guests advised to fact check their claims?
	Sometimes.
	Does InfoWars ever feel guilty of promoting false beliefs conveyed by mentally unstable or politically extreme individuals and groups?
	When we make mistakes, we apologize.
	Who produced your show about the Megyn Kelly interview?
	That was the Alex Jones show.
	It was not my show, and I'm not sure who was producing it at the time.
	Did your producer vet the sources that you used prior to airing?
	I cannot say.
	Should the producer vet the sources that you use prior to airing?
	Yes.
	Do you ask or check with Alex Jones about your topics before you go to air?
	No.
	Do you take the time to make sure what you are going to talk about on your show is true?
	Yes.
	How many times do you go to air on your show in one day?
	I'm not sure I understand the question, Your Honor.
	Okay.
	Unfortunately, I can't.
	I'll rewrite it for you, so if you don't understand, we'll move on.
	Is there anything you would recant about the Sandy Hook story?
	If so, why?
	I would have just not covered it at all.
	It was not a subject material that I was familiar with, and that four minutes of my life has caused tremendous negative effects on my career and livelihood.
	From your opinion, are there any changes the company is making because of this incident?
	Yes.
	Are you all considering it a learning experience?
	Yes.
	When you reported on the Zero Hedge article, were you questioning the parent actually holding his child or Megyn Kelly's fax?
	I was questioning Megyn Kelly's fax.
	In your opinion, is the judge a hired actor?
	Please answer yes or no.
	No.
	In your opinion, are some or all of the jurors hired actors?
	Please answer yes or no.
	No.
	To your knowledge, has anyone that is currently working at InfoWars attended college for journalism and successfully graduated?
	I attended college for media studies.
	I'm not sure if that counts, and I did graduate.
	Aside from myself, I'm not sure.
	Are there any motives to running inflammatory stories that are monetarily based?
	No.
	You stated you could have done a better job in the presentation and representation of the broadcast.
	That's the one we watched yesterday, Number 23. What, if anything, have you changed as part of your preparation and presentation of content in broadcasts since?
	I am a lot less likely, if at all, to ever take something that is handed to me while on air and go straight to air with it.
	Is it your position that you believe that free speech systems and Infowars should be exempt from any consequences for recklessly airing harmful lies because you, quote, didn't mean to harm, unquote?
	I'm sorry, Your Honor.
	It was a little lengthy in the question.
	I'm not sure I fully understand it.
	Is it your position that you believe that free speech systems and Infowars should be exempt from any consequences?
	for recklessly airing harmful lies because you didn't mean to harm.
	I think that there should be a fair application when it comes to media outlets reporting things that are not true.
	What consequences would you expect for a company that purposefully aired harmful content?
	I think that there is laws that already constitute this on the books, like To my understanding, there can't be a defamation lawsuit unless you mention someone's name specifically, so I would say that the laws on the books properly applied equally are fair.
	What is your definition of a conspiracy theorist?
	An individual who doesn't trust the government, doesn't trust the mainstream news, and would rather do their own investigating, And understands that there's a lot of corruption in the world and just wants to figure out why.
	Can you elaborate on why CNN is a conspiracy theorist and you are not?
	CNN ran with many stories that turned out not to be true.
	For example, the big story of Russian collusion, which never happened, is one example.
	Jussie Smollett claiming that he was attacked with a noose over his neck.
	It turned out that was fake as well.
	So those are just two small examples.
	CNN also goes to basements in Atlanta where they pretend they're in Kuwait getting bombed by Chris Jaco.
	So those are a few examples.
	It was mentioned that you and InfoWars are airing your opinions about the trial while it's been going on.
	What have you been saying?
	I'd have to go back and check the record.
	I don't recall everything I said.
	Alright.
	May this one be released from the rule and any subpoenas.
	No, Your Honor.
	Alright, so what that means for you Mr. Schreuer is that you must still follow the rule and I'm just going to read it to you because you weren't in the courtroom on Tuesday.
	I want to make sure you understand what the rule is.
	You have been placed under the rule which means that it will be necessary for you to remain outside the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying.
	You are not to talk with each other or with any other person, including the parties, about the case, except by permission of the court.
	You may, however, discuss your testimony with the attorneys in the case.
	You are not to read any report of or comment upon the testimony in the case while under the rule.
	Any witness or other person violating these instructions may be punished for contempt of court, and it may result in my striking the witness's testimony.
	I'm going to ask that you remain outside the courtroom, and in this case, because it is covered by the news media and on YouTube, you are also instructed that you may not observe any part of the court proceedings through any other method.
	Do you have any questions about what the rule means?
	No, Your Honor.
	Alright.
	And you understand you have to follow it?
	Yes.
	So you don't have to stay in the building.
	If you need to be called to testify again, can I count on you that if they call and tell you we need you back, you'll come back?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Then I'll release you from the subpoena.
	And just so everyone understands, otherwise, by law, Mr. Schroeder will be required to spend all of his time in the hallway just in case we need him again.
	So you're released from the subpoena with the assurance that you've just given me that you'll come back if we need you, but you're not released from the rule until you hear from me or the trial is over.
	Thank you so much for your time and testimony.
	you are free to go all right get blind eat them has an exhibit right that's the court exhibit and I'm just read for the jury so that they understand exactly what we're doing
	Ladies and gentlemen, in relation to the deposition you are about to hear and other depositions that may be used in the trial, you are instructed as follows.
	A deposition is a procedure usually conducted out of court in which a witness testifies under oath, answering questions asked by one or more attorneys, portions offered by one or both sides.
	The questions and answers are reported and typed by a court reporter and along with any exhibits placed in a bound form.
	The deposition may also be reported by video.
	Under our rules, the deposition may be read or shown by video in court and it should be given the same way by the jury as live in court testimony from the witness stand.
	Alright.
	You may notice that there appear to be gaps or editing in the video.
	The recordings are edited with approval of the court in order to save time and present only that which is relevant and admissible.
	You should not consider that either side is attempting to hide matters from you.
	Excerpts from the original deposition are offered by both parties if they want to offer them.
	Alright.
	And so, as we discussed in pretrial, my court reporter does not make an additional record of the video you're about to play, but you're going to provide me with a court exhibit, right, of what will be played.
	I would like that in an approach.
	Yes, thank you.
	All right.
	All right, so, Mr. Ogden, are you going to queue it up for us?
	Yes, ma'am.
	Oh, sir.
	Please please.
	This is Jacobson.
	That's your own.
	Thank you.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Jacobson.
	Can you introduce yourself for our record?
	I am Robert Jacobson.
	Did you used to work at InfoWars?
	Yes, sir.
	When were you hired by InfoWars?
	I was hired in 2004 by Alex Jones.
	And when did your employment end?
	My employment ended in May 1st of 2017. So, am I right that that's over a decade that you were at Infowork?
	I was there for around 13 years.
	Approximately.
	A few months back, do you remember calling me about this case?
	Yes, sir.
	Why'd you do that?
	I was concerned.
	I wanted to make sure.
	I felt that was part of something, just being in that building when all this was going down.
	I felt terrible what happened.
	Even though I myself know I wasn't directly involved in putting this out there directly, just being in the building, I feel complicit.
	I feel I have to right a wrong that I was involved in.
	Even though I was part of that wrong, I want to at least stack a couple of Sandy Hook.
	Anything that InfoWars put out concerning Sandy Hook, I had absolutely no involvement in.
	During your employment, were you exposed to InfoWars coverage of Sandy Hook?
	During my employment, I had other assignments to do and I wouldn't much pay When I heard about Sandy Hook, it actually bothered me.
	Tell me what you mean by that.
	What did you hear that bothered you?
	I heard them making accusations based on extremely narrow crossceptions of information that I did my best to make the writers and the staff aware that what they were doing was speculation based on not enough information.
	That bothered me that I felt that they had no concept of journalist ethics.
	Did you tell anyone at Infowars your feelings about the Sandy Hook coverage?
	I've attempted to make it as clear as possible to the writers that there is something called journalist ethics and how what they were doing was in a direct violation of that.
	Anytime I caught wind of the Sandy Hook story on Infowars, now mind you, I would like to add that it's not something I was thinking When it would come on the screen, I would make it my business to go into the writers and explain to them as clearly as possible that there is journalist ethics.
	And I tried to demonstrate what those ethics are and why they are violating them and what the damage could possibly be.
	In fact, they remembered...
	I must have been in that room...
	And only to be received with laughter and jokes.
	When it came to coverage of Sandy Hook and the work that was being done by the writers, did you see things that you would consider reckless?
	Yes.
	Tell me who the employees are that you developed opinions about their work on Sandy Hook.
	First and foremost would be Rob Duke.
	Okay, let's start with Mr. Duke.
	Thank you.
	What is your observations about Mr. Dew's journalistic integrity as it respects Sandy Hook allegations?
	I feel that Mr. Dew was overzealous to receive any type of hint that perhaps this might have been a phony act, a staged act, any type of whisper that came through to him.
	He would sell, right?
	You know Don Salazar?
	Yes, sir.
	Did you ever observe any work being done by Don Salazar on Sandy Hook?
	Yes.
	Do you have an opinion as to whether that work was done responsibly by Mr. Salazar?
	I do have an opinion of that.
	Can you tell me what facts and observations you may have seen that would inform that Whenever this subject came up, I would immediately clarify to the writers that there is a journalistic ethics that they're violating.
	And what I pointed out to Adan specifically is that you're taking the word of one witness primarily and a couple of speculative other facts and calling it the truth without actually going down and investigating it ourselves or actually going with our own reporters And corroborating what these people are saying.
	I made it aware to have done that Wolfgang Habig could have a lot of issues that we're not considering.
	So heavily, with such a great accusation that he's accusing people of, was so irresponsible, so damaging.
	I asked him, consider the size of the audience, and Don Salazar responded with, and I'm going to quote him, because he said it to me many times, I want to print up a t-shirt that says, how big was right?
	I want bumper stickers that say, how big was right?
	To a laughing room, can you briefly describe who Mr. Wolfgang Holbeck is?
	I felt that this person may have mental problems.
	This person may have a lot of emotional problems.
	Could be a lonely man.
	Could be somebody looking for attention.
	Did you ever voice any criticism of Mr. Halbig specifically while you were at InfoWars?
	Yes, I did.
	Who did you voice that criticism to?
	I thought Salasak.
	While you were at InfoWars, did you ever hear anybody inside the organization express negative feelings about the Sandy Oak parents?
	You know, except for what Alex said live on the air.
	Were you uncomfortable with the things that Mr. Jones said on the air?
	Yes, I was.
	Had you ever heard while at InfoWars the term crisis actors?
	Or a similar allegation being attached to the Sandy Hook event.
	Yes, I have.
	When you were, as you mentioned earlier, communicating your thoughts to people at Infowars about the Sandy Hook coverage, can you describe to me, what is the level of outrageousness of this conduct that you were trying to impart?
	I mean, it's one thing to make a mistake.
	It's another thing to have somebody come in, and I'm not aware if I was the one and only person or not, but I know I was doing it.
	To come in and say, hey, this is wrong, you're making a mistake.
	It's one thing to actually have a mistake and something else to have it pointed out to you.
	Not just once, but over and over and over again.
	And to not only hear the damage that you're doing to people outside of your zone, but to actually laugh about it.
	Do you today have any sense of guilt about the coverage about Sandy Hook that came out of him for worse?
	Yes, as I've mentioned in my statements previously, the reason why I'm here is because a tremendous amount of guilt that I didn't act faster.
	Maybe I should have quit.
	Thank you.
	Maybe I could have caught the story faster, or been better at explaining, but yes I do.
	all right obviously you can't ask them any questions here so we're just going to move on to the next one this is one more video let's meet Dan okay oh I'm sorry mister
	but on these deposition Alright, so I'm not going to read the whole deposition thing again because you just heard it, but we can play the depo.
	Okay, good morning, Mr. Badani.
	Good morning.
	One thing you mentioned earlier is that you were, you've been inspired in your life to try and pursue a path similar to that of the Founding Fathers.
	Is that fair?
	Yes.
	And is one of the ways you try to do that is through working as a journalist?
	Yes.
	One of the other stories that attracted you to Alex Jones was his claims about 9-11, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And the substance of that claim The government perpetrated the 9-11 attack, correct?
	Yes.
	If I even listen to him I have my own questions because I'm very knowledgeable in the aviation world.
	It is utterly ridiculous to believe that, excuse my friends, but a towelhead with minimal freight training to fly a 747, a 757, sorry, into the towers like that in perfect precision, especially the Pentagon, 50 feet on the ground, that violates so many laws of physics and everything else, and I answer the questions I'd be and stuff.
	Now I'm listening to Alex Jones coming off the same dairies, and I'm like, wow, You know, same thing.
	And many people, Jesse Ventar, former governor of Michigan, you know what I mean?
	And some people, the same things, and it's like, common sense.
	And I worked in the airlines, several airline captains told me the same exact stuff.
	You know what I mean?
	And jet fuel doesn't burn even.
	I mean, just with the jet fuel, the whole nine yards, and I'm questioning this all day, then you're looking at the CIA, they're the ones who have their hands I'm working into every terrorism act across the world, okay?
	Same thing with the FBI, all these criminals.
	I'm not saying anybody in these agencies are criminals.
	I'm saying the ones at the top.
	These people orchestrate terrorism and their fingerprints are all over every piece of terrorism that comes across this planet.
	Let me just tell you something.
	You know a lot more about the details of your views on an issue like this than I do.
	Part of what I'm going to try to do is get to the essence of what the claim is on something like this.
	What I asked you was whether or not the claim that attracted you to When you came out to start working a few days later,
	were you provided with any training materials of any kind?
	It's just like a hands-on.
	I mean, most of the stuff I already knew.
	It's just like, you know, things I've already been doing, you know, I'm doing it as a job, you know?
	So, it was just like a hands-on thing.
	That's all it was.
	And just catch what's going on.
	And being a producer for the radio show and also a reporter for the Nightly News.
	So, I wore many hats in the place.
	I mean, I did a lot of different things.
	And from videotaping to being front of the camera, back of the camera, producing the whole nine yards.
	It was just a hands-on learning, that's all it was.
	Putting aside the equipment and how to use the email system and everything else, did you receive any substantive training concerning how to conduct yourself as a journalist once you arrived at Free Speech Systems?
	Well, just simple.
	Just operation cover your ass.
	If you go to report something, make sure you get documented and tracked so we don't get too done.
	It's a big thing.
	And that was Yeah, I was on Rob Dew's term.
	Is Rob Dew the guy who explained Operation Cover Your Ass to you?
	Yes.
	When you first started at InfoWars as a reporter and a producer, you mentioned earlier that you were a producer for a specific show, is that right?
	Oh yes, Alex Jones Show, the radio show.
	Okay, you were a producer on the Alex Jones Show?
	Yep.
	And so in that capacity, it sounds like you had a lot of interaction with Alex Jones, fair to say?
	Yes.
	Do you recall that the first time you personally interacted with Mr. Halbig was at the Newtown Board of Education?
	Yes.
	And that would have been May 6, 2014. Does that sound right to you?
	Yeah, I mean, I was there, so I don't know what the date was, but yes, I was there because I testified myself.
	And you were there as an InfoWars correspondent, correct?
	Yeah, and I also testified.
	And so how did you know to go cover that Board of Education meeting?
	InfoWars.
	Did Rob do?
	He said you were on that assignment?
	Yeah, he said they were going to be doing things down there so they wanted to cover what was going on.
	And I went down there and did that.
	It was reported that a big circus was coming to town and that we're all a bunch of conspiracy theorists.
	When we got there boy, mind my business and some jackass, oh the circus is in town, we don't want people there and here and all that.
	You bring the circus to town and I'm explaining to these guys, listen I'm here just covering this thing.
	I'm still learning what's going on and everything else and what this is about.
	And they were actually giving Wolfgang a real hard time over that.
	You know, of course me and Kevin and the other people that were there, you know, calling us a big bunch of circus animals.
	And I told the guy to get freaking cool.
	You know what I mean?
	Like, seriously, he was like, I'm here to do my job.
	Piss off.
	You know what I mean?
	And it's just, it's totally, Wolfgang's right, man.
	Like, you can't ask questions without getting, it's ridiculous.
	You know what I mean?
	Yeah, I just wanted to, was Mr. Halbig a hero to you at that time?
	Yes, we're standing up and asking questions.
	Okay.
	At the time when everything was still being asked, there was no official statements, but him being bullied and everything else to stand up and ask him questions and get answers, that's a hero to me.
	That's a pioneer.
	Mr. Badandi, you later covered a Freedom of Information Roger's direction, correct?
	Correct.
	You later returned to Connecticut on behalf of Infowars on September 30, 2015, correct?
	I think so.
	Do you see the tweet before you now on July 6, 2015, in which you indicate that you will be at the Halving hearing And you tweeted that, right?
	Yep.
	Going back to, prior to that hearing, that is the July hearing that we were just watching the video of, you see an email before you on July 3rd, 2015, which you sent to Mr. Du, and then Mr. Du responds, and he tells you to go to Sandy Hook, we will cover that, right?
	Yep.
	When was the last time you What was that communication about?
	Mr. Jones called you after his deposition?
	Yeah, he just told me to stay off the media with the stuff, like the Warren, making Kelly wear him with an entrapment, basically.
	That's why we had to pay, which was disgusting.
	I mean, so he told me to do any media in that contact show to talk about Sandy Hooks, say no.
	That's it.
	protect yourself.
	So, to make sure I understand, he called you about a year ago after his deposition.
	Yeah, like about a week, not even less than a week after his deposition.
	Okay.
	And you understood that he was calling you because it may have appeared to you that he sold you down the river in his deposition?
	Yes.
	Sold you down the river how?
	Well, he was just denying I worked for him and robbed him.
	He didn't have to do, they got different things.
	He didn't understand who robbed him's communication.
	It's already in the depositions.
	I don't need to repeat this stuff anymore.
	Yeah, but the fact that he perceived, he was worried you may have perceived he was selling you down the river is not in the depositions.
	So that's what I'm asking.
	is that he was concerned about.
	He was concerned that, yeah, like, you know, he, I, I, he sold him down, I mean, yeah, I sold him down the river, so he called to clarify that up and said it wasn't the case.
	And it was a misunderstanding and we worked that out, you know what I mean?
	Okay, so he was concerned that you may have thought, upon hearing of his deposition, that he had sold you down the river by suggesting that you hadn't really worked there, right?
	Correct?
	Correct, yep.
	And he also instructed you that if anybody contacted you about Sandy Hook, not to say anything?
	Yes, the mainstream media.
	Did he say the media or just say anybody?
	- Medium, oh, mainstream medium. - And he also, did you acknowledge that you had, that you had felt a little bit like he had misrepresented your affiliation within the horse yeah oh yeah I was not woman I think his one of his lawyers and women's next time at the time and and he was a you know I told him take I felt I was so well
	I told you know he said no this is what happened blah blah and he does just stay off the meeting and all that you know because we don't think that are really only very highly of you and
	and You said his lawyer was with him at the time?
	Can I briefly talk to the gentleman?
	I did give them a contact information.
	and came up on the map.
	I forget the person's name.
	But that's it.
	Then what did the lawyer say to you?
	Just told me the media.
	Alright, thank you.
	What was your next witness?
	Your Honor, before I call my next witness, I just wanted to do the bench conference we had right before, kind of distract me.
	I was going to let the court get the court a heads up that it did include some racially charged language.
	Oh, too late.
	You know, witnesses, Witnesses, it's important that witnesses be themselves.
	So sometimes when we're in court we hear things we might not like from a witness, but I'm not going to, even if you were in person, I wouldn't correct that kind of language from a witness because you need to know who's talking to you.
	all right next witness well did you guys not take a break when the jury was writing questions do Do you need another break?
	No, we're good.
	I just want to check the jury.
	Does the jury need a break?
	No.
	I think we should keep going.
	Unless, I mean, we'll just keep going.
	Good.
	Why don't you just call Fred Simmons?
	Alright.
	That's it.
	Staying with me, please.
	That's right.
	Please, Solomon, swear or affirm, under a council of perjury, that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
	Thank you so much, sir.
	Come have a seat.
	Now, when you get up here, the there's water and cups, microphones.
	If you have a good voice, you shouldn't need to be too close, but close enough.
	It's different for every witness.
	I don't know how much you've testified in the past, if at all, but this is different than a normal conversation.
	It's very important that the lawyers finish their questions and then you begin your answer without any overlap So that my court reporter can make a good record the jury can hear everything you have to say And you agree to let the lawyers finish their questions before you start your answers And then also it's really important that you answer out loud in words and not nods or unnoticed things like that I understand.
	Wonderful.
	Thank you so much.
	And you may begin.
	Please introduce yourself to us.
	Fred Zip, 67 years old, retired daily newspaper journalist and educator.
	Mr. Zip, you've been in the courtroom the last few days and now we're calling you as a witness.
	You're allowed to observe the testimony that was being presented in this case?
	That's correct.
	Mr. Zip, what are you an expert on?
	Well, I think I'm an expert on journalism, reporting and producing content for newspapers, specifically.
	Where are you from?
	My dad was an Army officer.
	I moved around.
	My family background is from Texas.
	Let's talk about some of your education and some of your experiences so you can understand why you're an expert in journalism.
	Where'd you go, sir?
	Duke University graduated in 1977, had degrees in history and French.
	While there I worked on the student newspaper for almost the entire time, a daily newspaper.
	I spent a year in Paris studying film and something called semiotics.
	And then another year in New York, at New York University, at the beginning of a PhD program in French literature.
	Once you got done with your education, where did you start working?
	Beaumont, Texas, 1979. And I was there until 1985. Where did you work in Beaumont?
	The Beaumont Enterprise, in a newspaper.
	What was your position?
	I started out as a knife police reporter in a bureau.
	Which means a branch office, basically.
	I, over the course of my time there, reported the meets I was assigned to included education, county government, city government, court system, federal and state courts, a little bit of business, and at the end of my time there, I was an assistant city editor.
	How many years were you with Beaumont Enterprise?
	Five.
	After the Beaumont Enterprise, where did you begin working?
	I came here to Austin, worked for the Austin American Statesman from 1984 to 1987. What was your employment for the Statesman?
	I started as a sports copy editor, and then I was assistant sports editor, sports editor, And finally, at the end of my time, in 87, I was Assistant City Editor.
	And in 1987, where did you work next?
	In 87, I left for West Palm Beach, Florida, where I worked with the Palm Beach Post from 87 to 98. Most of my time there was spent on what's called Metro Desk.
	I started as a night assistant Metro Editor.
	At the time I left, I was And throughout the past days we've heard a lot of testimony from employees and representatives of the defendant and we hear the term editor thrown around a lot.
	Can you tell us what that position is?
	Well, in my experience at a newspaper, an editor, there's two types.
	There's copy editors and, I guess, lack of a better word, content editors.
	I was a content editor most of the time.
	So what I did was work with reporters to help them identify stories to work on, report those stories, write the stories, and then put them in the paper.
	You got me from 1979 to 1998. So in 1998, where did you move?
	You were in West Palm, I believe?
	West Palm Beach, yeah.
	Where'd you go after that?
	I came back to Austin.
	I was assistant managing editor for all the news operations, for one, for about a year, year and a half.
	Then managing editor for nine years.
	So managing editor runs the entire newsroom.
	At that point, the statesman probably had a I did a little research on the Austin States Network, and it looks like it was one of the first print newspapers that was able to transition Can you tell us a little bit about that?
	Yeah, I don't know.
	Yeah, we were early on.
	We embraced it early.
	You know, it was an exciting and difficult thing because the Internet is a much different animal than print publications.
	Print publications are on a 24-hour cycle.
	Internet is, as somebody described it earlier, it's a 24-hour, or it's a It requires moving fast and trying to do so without compromising the principles that we employ to make sure that we are fair, accurate, balanced, all those things.
	And so once the internet gets involved with how the news is accepted You would agree the speed that an article can get out, correct?
	Whoever's first is usually the one that gets the clicks and makes the revenue, right?
	Yeah.
	It rewards moving quickly.
	Can you tell us the importance of the fact checking and making sure you're right versus making sure you're first?
	Being right is always the paramount objective.
	In your experience, were articles or stories ever rushed and corners cut to make sure that the story was put out first by one of your publications?
	Yes.
	It looks like you said in 2011 you were done with the statesman?
	In 2011 I retired and the next year, 2012, I began working for the University of Texas in the Journalism Department for a program called Reporting Texas.
	Which was essentially a newsroom, just like the one I worked in Beaumont.
	I functioned again as an assistant city editor, worked with the students to identify, report, write, and then ultimately publish on a website stories about Texas.
	Were you a professor at the University of Texas?
	No, I was a visiting editor.
	I will...
	I will contend that you know more about journalism than I do, and so today I'm going to use kind of more of the teaching aspect that you would use with the students on how to do it correctly to teach us what the proper way to get a story, get a tip, and take it to publication with fact check.
	Your Honor, I object under Civil Practice and Memories Code, Section 41.11, to relevancy in this part of the proceeding.
	Over the line.
	May I have a running objection?
	You may.
	What were you asked to do in this case?
	I was asked to fact check 40 some odd assertions made by various Infowars personalities, primarily Alex Jones, by reviewing the clips, video clips of what he said and then video clips of what he said and then using my own resources to try to figure out whether what he said was right or not.
	And the second thing was to assess whether Infowars had met the standard of care that the journalism organization should before publishing some of the things that they did.
	In coming to your conclusions, did you come to conclusions without telling us what they are just yet?
	I did.
	In coming to your conclusions, did you review any documents?
	I did.
	What did you review in this case?
	I reviewed the Connecticut State Police investigation.
	Not all of it.
	It's really voluminous, but a good portion of it.
	Something like 40, 45 video clips from Alex Jones.
	Several depositions.
	I sat in on Mr. Jones's first deposition.
	In 2019, I read the transcript of his subsequent deposition, Rob Dew's deposition, which I believe was given in his capacity as a representative of the business representative.
	Who else?
	Paul Watson's deposition.
	That's where the batshit crazy line came from, I believe.
	And that's with regards to Mr. Halby, correct?
	With regards to Mr. Halby, correct.
	I'm sure I'm not forgetting something, but...
	Did you review any internal correspondence from the defendant, emails, memorandum?
	Yeah, so things obtained in discovery I looked at, pleadings.
	And just to be clear, you were hired by the plaintiffs in this case to be the testifying expert.
	That's right.
	And we're paying you for your time to testify, correct?
	You are.
	You mentioned earlier that You reviewed some documents, but you also did some independent research as you were coming to your conclusions.
	Can you tell us what that was?
	Well, looking at the Connecticut State Police Report, which is a wealth of information on some of the questions Mr. Halby raised and some of the assertions that Alex Jones made on the air.
	Other fact-checking sites, PolitiFact, Snopes, have been engaged on a lot of the issues that Mr. Jones was raising.
	Just to be clear, when you say Snopes and PolitiFact, what are those?
	They're both websites.
	I guess PolitiFact is not actually a website.
	Snopes is a website.
	PolitiFact is just an organization that works with newspapers and does have web presence.
	But they both employ people to Review assertions that various people make about various things and try to assess whether they are accurate or not.
	When you say various people, they also fact check various news outlets as well.
	Oh yes, of course.
	Did you review, you were in the courtroom when we played Megan Kelly's interview and expose on Mr. Jones.
	Did you review that prior to your conclusion?
	I did.
	Mr. Schreuer's video I looked at.
	And then did you look at any videos or footage from Sandy Hook himself?
	Yes.
	Are the opinions in this case based upon a reasonable degree of professional certainty in the journalistic field?
	No.
	Excuse me.
	Are your opinions in this case?
	It's not the opinions that you were asked to affect.
	Yeah, that's different.
	Yes, I think so.
	Would you rephrase the question, please?
	Are the opinions that you have today based upon a reasonable degree of professional certainty in the journalism field?
	Yes, I think so.
	And in coming to your opinions, did you rely on your skill, knowledge, experience, education, and training?
	You said the first item that you were asked to do was fact check the coverage that InfoWars did on Sandy Hook.
	What was your opinion after doing your research and analysis?
	That, Mr. Jones primarily, but I think some other personalities as well, repeatedly published misleading or outright false information.
	Okay.
	Through the 44 or 45 videos that you reviewed, did you find fallacies in the coverage and question the veracity of what was being covered by infowarders?
	I did.
	The second item you were asked to determine is if InfoWars coverage met the standard of care in the journalism industry.
	That's correct.
	Your experience in journalism comes from print media, but transitioning into the internet, did you find that that was applicable to the defendant and how his business is set up?
	Ideally.
	And what that means is, When you open a newspaper, you don't have videos.
	But when you go to the internet, they can be embedded in, and it's the same dissemination of knowledge, correct?
	They have the same responsibilities of making sure that it's true, right?
	In the best of all worlds, correct.
	Let's start with step one.
	Step one, when we joined the University of Texas newspaper, and we say, what do I do first?
	Tell me the initial steps of journalism.
	Well, the first thing is to come up with a story idea.
	And what we teach our students is to You know, some people are more gifted at coming up with story ideas than others.
	But the primary, I guess the primary advice we give them is the best story is the answer to a question.
	So compose the question that you want to answer, get the answer, write the story answering the question.
	And that question can come from a number of different places.
	You can ask it yourself as a reporter?
	Correct.
	You can get a tip?
	Correct.
	You can see something yourself?
	It can be an event, correct.
	So once we have our story, or excuse me, once we have our question, what's the next step?
	Assemble, find sources who can help you Get to the answer.
	Experts who are credible and are willing to talk.
	Is it always a step to go into the experts, or do you start gathering information from a number of different places?
	Well, a number of different places.
	I mean, as a practical matter, I think reporters do best when they have what a friend of mine used to call a guide to the story.
	Somebody who's an expert who can Sort of explain the, what's the word, who can be a mentor about the story.
	That in turn will help the reporters determine what sort of documentary evidence there might be out there to help develop the story, and that particularly in the case of a story that's more invested in and requires more digging and so forth.
	Once you start that process, you get the expert who tells you what you're looking for, and you start gathering your information.
	How does that process go?
	Well, it's, you know, it feeds on itself.
	So you, the expert points you in one direction, you talk to that person, that person gives you a little more, you find a report that perhaps helps you understand the time.
	So, you know, it's just kind of a much You know, at all times, the reporter is trying to assess the credibility of the sources, and in the case of documentary or non-human, let's say, sources, trying to make sure that the document or the video or whatever it might be that the reporter's looking at is, in fact, what it has viewed the reports to be.
	The next step after you've gathered all of your information, And you have your question.
	We've gathered our information.
	We've talked to our experts.
	What are we doing next?
	Sit down, review everything, make sure that the answer you have is actually responsive to the question that you started out on.
	Or maybe by that point you're answering another question.
	Some stories evolve.
	But trying to understand, trying to assess whether you have all the information that's required to write an authoritative, accurate, credible, fair story.
	Once you reach that point, it becomes a little more of an exercise in artfulness because you're actually liking the story.
	Is it uncommon for a journalist to have a question and start gathering information and realize their question wasn't the right one, and the tip or idea that got them to that first question actually evolved into a completely different topic that the evidence actually supports?
	It's very common.
	At that point, I assume we start writing.
	At that point we start writing.
	Okay.
	Once we have our draft and we sit it upstairs, what happens there?
	Oh, then the editor, you know, like the editor, this is what I was doing when I was in Beaumont, again in Austin and West Palm Beach, and then again as an educator, the editor goes through and basically, you know, reads the story, From a 40,000 foot perspective, make sure that it hangs together, that there is a valid question and an authoritative answer.
	But then go through and examine very carefully sort of the argument of the story, you know, the evidence that is brought to bear in the argument.
	And if necessary, get the reporter to show you, show the editor.
	The editor gets the reporter to demonstrate, here is the actual source.
	And then, you know, that inevitably leads to discussions about, well, who is the source?
	Is the source credible?
	You know, well, why is this person an expert?
	Does he have an axe to grind?
	And so forth and so on.
	So we've heard the term fact checking a lot throughout the last few days.
	Is the process that you've just described What are the other parts?
	Assessing the story for fairness, for balance, for clarity of expression, legal exposure in some cases.
	When you say balance, does that include having your story ready to go, but also needing to go and writing it on one side of an issue, but then going to the other side and getting that aspect of it too?
	Yes.
	Or, I mean, it's both that and if a story makes an accusation about somebody, explicitly or implicitly, making very sure that the person About whom the accusation is made has an opportunity to respond.
	Throughout your research and analysis of the publications that have been put out on Sandy Hook, did any evidence come to your attention showing that Parents were reached out for comment or anybody from the other side of the issue, and I say other side of the issue, based on Infowars reporting the other side of the issue, that they were reached out to be given that opportunity.
	You know, I have trouble remembering any instance of that happening other than Alex Jones's Do news outlets and media outlets, do they typically know who their audience is?
	Yes, and with the rise of the internet, news outlets have a much more precise idea, in fact, of who the audience is.
	And news outlets have typically two types of information.
	They'll have what you just described, which is the news.
	Right.
	And then there's sometimes or oftentimes opinions or editorials, correct?
	Correct.
	What's what the differences are?
	News stories are, by and large, just the facts.
	Opinion stories are opinion content, commentary.
	Is generally an expression of a position on an issue.
	So I might write an opinion column saying, I think baseball is the worst sport ever.
	And that would be my opinion.
	It would be in the paper.
	So would you say that the opinions and editorials are more geared towards having some sort of agenda versus the news which should be objective?
	Absolutely.
	Should the audience that you're writing to, should it ever impact how a news story is put together in the collection?
	You reviewed Rob Dew's corporate representative testimony in this case.
	In his testimony, did he describe Infowars, speaking for the company, as more of a media, excuse me, as more as a commentary or more of a journalism news organization?
	He said more journalism.
	When someone says they're a journalist, that switches us more to the objective, presenting the true facts, correct?
	Correct.
	When you say journalism, it implies duties to the people that are putting those stories together and giving them to the public.
	It does.
	And it implies that the public should be able to trust that information that you're putting them, correct?
	That's correct.
	You were in the courtroom when Mr. Schroeder testified, correct?
	I was.
	Did you hear him say, I aggregate stories and then I sit down and decide what news I am presenting.
	I did hear that.
	When you hear a person who considers themselves in the media as sometimes being a journalist presenting news, what does that trigger in your expert?
	Could you rephrase that?
	Sure.
	When Mr. Schroyer said, I decide what news I'm going to present, is that different than if he was sat here and said, I sit down and decide what stories I'm going to tell?
	I'm still not quite following.
	When you hear someone say, I'm presenting you the news, does that person have a duty to follow journalistic ethics principles?
	Of course, yes.
	And I'm going to ask bad questions, don't get me wrong.
	So if I do, just let me know and I'll get there.
	We'll do this together.
	For on-air talent, is there any difference from somebody that is on-air and somebody that's sitting at a news desk typing on a story?
	Do the journalistic integrity and ethics change in any way?
	No.
	So if an on-air talent is sitting on a live show, is handed a story with zero fact checking, and presents it to the world as fact, would you say that complies with journalistic ethics and integrity?
	It does not.
	That's a really bad practice.
	Is that a practice you would ever teach or show your students at the University of Texas?
	No.
	Why is that?
	What's wrong with that practice?
	Let me draw a quick distinction.
	If, you know, those of us who have been around for a while can remember Walter Cronkite being handed a piece of paper saying that President Kennedy had died and then saying that.
	You know, that's a fact.
	He stated a fact that was overwhelmingly supported.
	He had sources.
	He knew who they, he had the person with the president.
	When When Owen Schroyer is handed a document by an anonymous author, a document that he's never seen before, and proceeds to launch into a description or a recitation of what the document says, That's just a recipe for disaster.
	If one of your students was in that position, how would you instruct them to properly handle that situation?
	Don't take a piece of paper, basically.
	I mean, wait until you have a chance to read it and understand what the paper is saying before saying anything on the air.
	Now that we have a better idea of what journalism is and the duties that come with being a journalist, I'm going to talk about what you did in this case.
	How hard was it for you to factor Not particularly difficult.
	What were some of the things you used or did to debunk or divide the claims that were being made?
	Well, the first thing I did before actually going through the claims being made was to read a large part of the Connecticut State Police Report.
	And many of the answers were in there.
	How hard was that for you to do?
	To get?
	it's on the line.
	It's not hard.
	But then beyond that, as I said, if I hit allegations that- or if I was looking at allegations that I didn't feel were covered in the state police report, then I might just use a search engine then I might just use a search engine and see what results I found and follow the
	When you reviewed the 44 videos, were any of the claims made in those videos impossible or hard to debunk?
	I don't recall any.
	You reviewed the video that is the basis of this case, which is, you're running a zero-hedge article and playing those clips, correct?
	Correct.
	When you looked at those clips from your expert perspective, what did those clips show you?
	Well, they both seemed that they ended abruptly.
	Was it apparent to you that they had been clipped in a certain way in the middle of answers, or that an answer may not have been all the way given?
	It wasn't necessarily clear to me that it had been, and I'm not an expert in video editing or video production, but it was clear to me that there was more to the underlying event.
	So in other words, in the case of the medical director, he clearly said more than he was...
	I've shown saying in the Zero Edge report, and I suspected the same thing as the parents.
	With what we know now, based on your investigation and your analysis, were those clips cut in a certain way for a specific incident?
	Well, they were definitely cut in a certain way to Reveal only part of the content of the underlying clips.
	And one always assumes when things are edited that way that there is an agenda of some sort.
	When we talk about journalistic ethics, where do those come from?
	Many news organizations have their own ethical codes, codes of conduct.
	The Society of Professional Journalists has prepared a code of conduct.
	The purpose is to basically prescribe how people in news gatherings should behave, to make sure that they are beyond reproach in their tactics, and to make sure that they do not engage in any behavior that would undermine and to make sure that they do not engage in any behavior that would undermine
	I'm going to hand you with the mark as PX-26.
	Can you tell us, without telling us the content of that document, can you tell us what that document is?
	It is the SPJ, Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
	Any objection?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Relevance under Civil Practice and Remedies Code 4111 and also relevance based on you having already found liability.
	What are you planning to use this for?
	Why is it relevant for this trial?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	It goes to show the defense Okay,
	so those are the only objections?
	Oh, sorry.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Those are overlooked.
	Can we get to the front page of 26, please?
	So, Mr. Zip, when we look at Exhibit 26, we see the front page of the I'm going to skip the preamble and start with what the goal of these ethics and what the goal of journalism is.
	It sits at the bottom.
	Can you read that for us?
	Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair.
	Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting, and interpreting information.
	We'll go to the next page because it lays out a number of items that a journalist should follow.
	Can you walk us through the first one?
	Journalists should take responsibility for the accuracy of their work, verify information before releasing it, use original sources whenever possible.
	Based on what you've heard through the trial so far, from the witnesses that we've heard from so far, do you see journalists taking responsibility for their work?
	No, in fact, Mr. Jones categorically rejects responsibility for report, doesn't he?
	I think that's the question that I was supposed to be answering.
	Can we go to the next one?
	Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
	Why is that important in this case?
	So the format of InfoWars, as Mr. Schoyer said up here earlier, I think, kind of mixes a host sitting on what appears to be a TV set, a TV news operation set, and a TV set but essentially conducting a talk show.
	And so in that talk show format, and the speed with which everything moves, it's very hard to Possibly even.
	To do just the basic work of journalism, which is to understand sources, test the accuracy of information that's being handed to them.
	You mentioned Mr. Jones's studio set.
	When we look at the studio setup, does it look more like a talk show, or does it look more like a news desk?
	Like a news desk.
	And when Mr. Jones is presenting the information that he chooses to present, does he do it in a way that's more of a talk show, or does he do it more as a newscaster?
	I would say newscaster.
	He very rarely says this is opinion or commentary.
	He is giving facts.
	And there are television shows and magazines and editorials that are solely opinionated, correct?
	Correct.
	And are those made apparent to the listener?
	I think for the most part, yeah.
	Yes.
	Let's go to the next paragraph here.
	It says, starting number three, provide context.
	Provide context, take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing, or summarizing a story.
	Did info wars comply with this principle?
	Rarely, if ever, in the content that I reviewed.
	And the 44 videos that you reviewed were all with regards to the Sandy Hook coverage?
	They were.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Gather.
	Gather, update, and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
	Tell us why it's important to correct and to continue gathering information and correct.
	Well, the fact situation about a story or a topic, a question, evolves over time.
	And sometimes it evolves to the extent that what It's no longer accurate.
	Once that happens, it's important to make sure the audience is aware of that.
	You would agree, reviewing the corporate representative testimony that Mr. Dew gave on behalf of the company, that to this day, he still has not corrected some of the assertions that they've made with him.
	That's correct.
	Let's go to the next principle.
	Be cautious.
	Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
	What's that mean?
	I think that has more to do with the relationship between reporters and sources, right?
	So that when reporters are Doing their work.
	Sources often ask for things in return, like, be sure to get this point in the story, or things of that sort.
	And as the Code says, be careful making any promises.
	You know, really don't make any promises, I would say.
	In cases like the one we're in here today, you have to know who your source is to make sure you're not making any promises, correct?
	Correct.
	When you see articles in the news that's cited anonymous sources, it's anonymous to the public, not the author, correct?
	That's correct.
	Which brings us to our next point.
	Identify sources clearly.
	The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
	Why is that important?
	It gives readers the opportunity to assess for themselves the reliability of the source.
	At times do sources have motivations?
	Always.
	In your experience as a journalist did you ever run into that issue?
	Frequently.
	Can you give us an example of a time when that would happen?
	Well, this is completely hypothetical, but say, for example, I'm writing a story about a rezoning case and a source She presents herself to me and says she is utterly opposed to rezoning for X,
	Y, and Z, does not say that she owns property around the rezoning request, whose value is going to be affected by the outcome, and that would affect her Motivation.
	And those underlying motivations are why fact checking is such an important part of your job.
	Yes, fact checking and source checking.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Consider sources motives.
	Consider sources motives before promising anonymity, reserve anonymity for sources who may face damage or retribution or other harm.
	I'm sorry, Mr. Zip, everyone does this.
	They speed up when they read.
	Sorry?
	But my reporter is still trying to write down this day.
	So if you could read more slowly for us, please.
	That's my fault when I'm telling you to slow down and she'll throw stuff at me.
	Do yourself throw stuff?
	Oh, Mr. Wah has never thrown anything in a program.
	I hope to keep it that way.
	Reserve anonymity.
	Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution, or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere.
	Explain why anonymity was granted.
	That kind of relates to this case with anonymous sourcing, which is you have to be able to verify it in other ways, not just take someone's word for it, correct?
	Correct.
	Why is that?
	It gets back to the idea that readers need to know where information is coming from so that they can evaluate it on their own.
	And most news organizations do strongly suggest that stories using anonymous sources explain very clearly why anonymity is necessary.
	Thank you.
	Go to the next ethical principle.
	Diligently seek.
	Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
	And we kind of already touched on that one earlier as to why that's important.
	Correct.
	It's important because it's sort of the foundation of our system of law, certainly, but also of just simple fairness that if somebody accuses somebody else of doing something, the second person should have an opportunity to respond.
	And you do that, is that important because you want the story to be true?
	Correct.
	true and fair.
	Let's go turn the page and we'll go to the next principle.
	Okay.
	Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
	So in this case, We've heard in the courtroom so far that there was iBankCoin.com anonymously published a story that was then published again by ZeroHedge.com by an anonymous author and then republished by Infowars a couple of times on air.
	Is that the information that you would traditionally gather and sources that you would traditionally use to gather information to produce a story?
	No, it's not.
	Why is that?
	Because the reporter had no idea.
	The reporter had not done any of the reporting himself.
	In reviewing the materials in this case, did you find that a common theme for the coverage Again.
	You go to the next principle.
	Be vigilant.
	Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
	Give voice to the voiceless.
	Did someone like Alex Jones have a voice that could be heard?
	I think so.
	How would you compare that to the voice that Neal and Scarlett have?
	I would say it's considerably more powerful.
	Each day Mr. Jones goes on air, he can produce a voice to hundreds of thousands if not millions of people and he can correct or tell his side of the story, correct?
	Correct.
	How does an average person An average person has to convince somebody who does have the voice to tell their story.
	And I think that's what this part of the Code of Ethics is about, is telling reporters to look for people who otherwise have no opportunity to tell their story and tell it.
	Let's go to the next principle.
	Support the opening.
	Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
	Reviewing the materials in this case, did you find any of their coverage to show both sides or competing ideas?
	Not really.
	Not really.
	Any time that Mr. Jones would Go and say, okay, I do believe in this, or maybe they did happen.
	What would happen after that?
	Very often what would happen is he would, sometime advance and then he would start repeating the same assertions.
	Let's go to the next principle.
	Recognize a special application.
	Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government to seek to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that public records are open to all.
	In your expert opinion, does InfoWars do that?
	You know, it says that the first part there recognizes a special obligation as sort of its reason for being.
	Seeking to ensure the public's business is conducted in the open, I have not seen much of that.
	And when it comes to the report, the voluminous report that you went through, InfoWars could access that as well, correct?
	Correct.
	They just didn't.
	If they did, they didn't reflect that in any of the content they put on the air.
	So what is that next principle?
	I think that's an important one for this case.
	Provide access.
	Provide access to source materials when it is relevant and appropriate.
	Oftentimes, for your review, does InfoWars even know who their sources are?
	Oftentimes, it does not appear to, anyway.
	Did you find, in your research, stories of InfoWars that have links to their sources?
	Not very often.
	I'm not sure I saw him.
	The next one I want to focus on is label advocacy and commentary.
	You see that one?
	I do.
	Does InvoWars do that?
	You know, again, I can't say categorically it does not, can say in the material that I reviewed and more that I saw outside of what I was asked to review, no, it's not.
	When you're someone like Mr. Schroyer, who wears a number of different hats at work, why is it important to label whether or not you're advocating something or making commentary?
	To avoid any confusion in the audience's The assertions made are facts or opinions.
	Based on your review of InfoWars' coverage of Sandy Hook, how, if any, clear did InfoWars make it with regards to labeling something commentary or news?
	How clear did they make it?
	When they're covering Sandy Hook, how clear did they say this is opinion or this is fact and news?
	No, it was not clear.
	There was no distinction drawn for the most part.
	Then the last principle that I want to touch on is at the bottom of this page.
	Can you read that for us?
	Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information, Clearly labeled illustrations and reenactments.
	In your expert opinion, how did Infobars do with that?
	Um, you know, the basis of Alex Jones's repeated segments, his repeated thoughts on Sandy Hook his repeated thoughts on Sandy Hook Were things like the video of people walking in and out of the fire station, which were misrepresented?
	Police, can you go to page 451?
	Or just go to page 451?
	After you look out the ethics and principles, this next section is Instead of reading all the way through it slowly, I'm going to ask you a couple of questions specifically.
	Did, in any way, the second point, did you see that InfoWars showed compassion with their reporting on the parents of Sandy Hook?
	No.
	What did you see?
	Contempt for the parents.
	Or sometimes contempt, sometimes just denial that they exist almost, right?
	I'm going to go to the next one.
	Is that what a journalist with following the rules of ethics does?
	It's not.
	The last paragraph of this page is realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves and public figures than others who seek power, influence, or attention.
	Why is that important?
	To the extent that a person inserts herself, himself, into public affairs, they open themselves up to scrutiny.
	About their public and private behavior.
	When people- and there's a spectrum there, clearly.
	People who choose not to adopt public roles are owed a little more privacy.
	Is that because private people don't have the ability to go on air and explain something to fans or viewers?
	Correct.
	Outside of hiring a law firm and taking a news organization to trial, how would a private person get out and tell a story if a news media outlet won't do it?
	Why an advertisement?
	If we turn the page, the last one I'm going to talk about is avoid pandering to lurid curiosity even if others do.
	How many times so far in this trial have we heard, I was just asking questions.
	This, other people were asking it, I was just asking the question for them.
	How many times have we heard that?
	In your analysis of the Fax in this case, in the Sandy Hook coverage of InfoWars, did you ever see them actually go and look for the answer?
	We saw them go.
	We saw Mr. Badandi go to Newtown.
	We saw his deposition and we saw the clip that he did live.
	Was he actually looking for answers to the questions that InfoWars was If you don't care what the answer is, and you don't go looking for it, is it really a question?
	No.
	It's an assertion.
	Just because someone puts a question mark at the end of a statement doesn't make it a question.
	It does not.
	If I say, Mr. Zipp, why are you lying to us right now?
	That's not a question.
	That's already establishing that you're lying, correct?
	different.
	We went through the principles of ethics and how not to do harm pursuant to the society of journalism.
	Did you see in your review InfoWars comply with any of them?
	None of the ones that we reviewed specifically.
	Thank you Mr. Zir.
	Thank you.
	Good afternoon Mr. Zir.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Would you agree with me that people should be free to, should be free to what to watch or not to watch?
	Yes.
	And people should be free to choose what to read or not to read?
	Correct.
	And they should be free to choose what to listen to or not to listen to?
	I agree.
	And they should be free to choose what to think?
	I agree.
	What does it mean to be a journalist? - Actually, there's a good, may I agree?
	Because I think it's a really good summation.
	Just a second.
	Journals should be honest and courageous in gathering reporting and interpreting information.
	So a journalist, would you say that a For you, being a journalist is limited to somebody who gathers and reports information?
	Being a journalist is limited to somebody who gathers and reports information?
	That's fair.
	Would you say that somebody who comments on information that's reported by other people as a journalist?
	If they are not, if the person is not also gathering and reporting information, I would say that person is not a journalist.
	Maybe that person is engaging in journalistic commentary?
	Sure.
	Would that be sort of akin to saying somebody is maybe a, I think the term I've heard before is a pundit?
	Would you define what's a pundit?
	I've always had trouble with what exactly a pundit is, but my understanding of a pundit is more like somebody who is not a journalist, but who is dragged into answering questions for the consumption of an audience.
	What would you describe, let's say, Howard Stern as?
	A talk show host?
	Joe Rogan?
	I've never watched Joe Rogan, but I think my understanding is talk show books.
	And I don't want to belabor the point, but...
	Do you recall watching the video of Alex Jones on the day of Sandy Hook?
	Yes.
	It's about a 50 minute long video.
	Correct.
	He was acting as a talk show host, was he not?
	As I recall, he was sitting in front of a microphone, sort of pre-associating about, about, already, right then, within an hour or so, whatever it was, within an hour or so, whatever it was, about, what do they call false flags and other, just crazy stuff.
	Is that gathering and reporting information?
	No, that's not what he was doing.
	He wasn't engaging in journalism, was he?
	No, but he was engaging in asserting facts.
	He was assuring propositions that he thought were factual.
	So when he says words to the effect of, and I'm not going to play the whole video again, folks, this could be a false flag.
	Do you think he's making an assertion of fact or an assertion of opinion?
	I think it's impossible to do. - Thank you. - Can you take it?
	He's not providing any cues to allow the viewer to tell what he's doing.
	He's kind of ranting.
	It's your position that any person watching the Alex Jones show would be confused as to the fact that he's Ranting about his own opinions?
	Do I think that anybody would be, a watcher, a viewer would be confused?
	- Potentially, sure. - Would you suggest that there should be sort of a ticker running across the bottom?
	Any, what?
	Have you ever listened to the Rush Limbaugh show?
	Rarely, but occasionally.
	Similar to the Alex Jones show in a lot of ways?
	Yes.
	Also a talk show host?
	I don't know.
	I don't know how to categorize Rush Limbaugh.
	He also seems to be somebody who just sits in front of a microphone and makes ludicrous claims.
	David Barrett?
	He's more of a Houston guy.
	The fact is, in our nation we have a long tradition of people who sit in front of microphones and free associate and talk about what's going on.
	Isn't that true?
	I think so.
	Yeah, it goes back a while.
	And there's nothing wrong with that, isn't it?
	So long as the ranting is not injuring people, it's perfectly fine.
	Let's talk about...
	When you say injuring someone, you mean inflicting a specific harm on it?
	Or encouraging somebody else to inflict a specific harm.
	And that would be something like somebody losing their job?
	Correct.
	Or being denied access to an organization?
	Correct.
	Or being held in disrepute by their friends and neighbors?
	Check your relevance.
	I'm going to overrule relevance.
	I would like to make your questions a little more specific.
	You've stated, Mr. Zip, that you think it's fine for people to express their opinions in a free-flowing manner on a radio show or a show like Alex Jones, as long as they don't hurt anyone.
	And I take it that by that you mean that the line between their freedom of speech and us being in this courtroom is imposing a harm.
	Right?
	Well, why don't you tell us what you mean.
	Mr. Zip, you're not a lawyer, are you?
	I am not.
	You are here to testify about the ethics of journalism.
	Correct.
	And as an expert on the ethics of journalism, it's your opinion that the rules change if what you say harms them.
	Is that correct?
	The rules of journalism?
	The ethical code of conduct.
	The ethical code of conduct applies to all conduct, like any journalist, whether there's harm likely to occur because of the activity or not.
	Okay.
	And it's your position that Alex Jones, when he's on the show, is a journalist?
	Did you say, is it my opinion?
	Is it your opinion here as an expert, having watched these videos, that when he's on the show, He's a journalist.
	My opinion is that he tries to, that he often carries himself as a journalist, in particular on the shows that are, he said that he awards news shows.
	Yes, he adopts sort of the guise of a journalist while engaging in activities that are contrary to Now, what does it mean to be a citizen or an independent journalist?
	That would be somebody who engages in journalistic activity, but independent of any news organization.
	And obviously there's no licensing requirement in order to be a journalist.
	That's exactly right.
	The SBJ code of ethics, I mean, this doesn't have the force of law, does it?
	It does not.
	Because if it did, it would violate the Constitution, right?
	I'm not a lawyer.
	So would you agree that citizen journalists have been, or independent journalists, have been responsible for breaking some of the most important stories of the last decade?
	Thank you.
	I'm not sure I would agree with that.
	Well, how about George Floyd?
	Those people who stood there and put their cameras up, were they acting as citizen journalists when they did that?
	They were.
	Would you say that that is one of the most important stories that has come out in the last decade?
	Yes, it's important.
	Now, when you're on a radio calling show, Have you ever worked in radio?
	I have not.
	You're on a radio call-in show, and you have open lines, and somebody calls in, you don't know what they're going to say, right?
	Actually, let me back up for a second.
	I have, on a couple of occasions in the 1980s, appeared on a sports call-in radio show.
	Were you the caller or the host?
	I was a guest.
	Did the host of the show know what you were going to say?
	Well, in that instance, there was somebody taking the calls who was not the host who would at least get some idea of what the caller wanted to talk about.
	But it's unscripted, right?
	Correct.
	And do you think that the host of the show should be responsible if the caller says something that is incorrect or hurtful?
	Are you asking a legal...?
	I'm asking your opinion.
	You've testified as a...
	Journalistically, you're asking.
	Well, do you think that that person is acting as a journalist when they host that show?
	I guess before maybe you're you know that's the first question.
	So, since they're acting as a journalist, is it ethical to have a call and show if it's unscripted, in your opinion?
	Is it ethical?
	I think it could be.
	So it could be ethical and it could be unethical?
	Correct.
	How could it be unethical to have a call-in show that is unscripted?
	Well, I don't think the ethical question is whether there's a script or not.
	The ethical question is, how are the assertions of the callers handled by the host?
	Have you ever conducted interviews with prominent people?
	Not really.
	It's not been my brief as a journalist.
	I mean, let me back up for a second.
	As a reporter, I have conducted interviews with prominent people that have never been broadcast.
	That's what you're asking.
	Understood.
	And is it fair inquiry to conduct what are called person on the street interviews?
	It is fair.
	Thank you.
	And is it fair to interview, or should a person be allowed to, under the Journalistic Code of Ethics, interview somebody who's got very controversial ideas?
	I need some clarification there.
	Are we talking about man on the street or people with controversial ideas or both?
	Well, they could be both.
	Right.
	But let's go with controversial.
	Is it, you know, is that legitimate journalistic ethical behavior to interview somebody who has controversial ideas?
	Yes.
	And does the journalist have to, in order to comply with the codes of ethics, does the journalist have to put a disclaimer on before they interview the person?
	Mark, your answer, maybe?
	Okay.
	So, we were talking about interviewing controversial people, and I think my last question was, should there be a disclaimer before the interview saying, you know, this person is very controversial, their ideas might not all be correct?
	or should the person interrupt them every once in a while and give the viewer a little reminder, very controversial, is that your position?
	Yeah, I'm not sure that I see any, not aware of any best practice on that.
	Let me give you an example.
	Let's say somebody's a documentarian.
	Would they be a journalist?
	Yes.
	And would you agree that a documentarian's job is to document the reality as best they can of some person or some event?
	Objection relevance.
	Spain.
	Do you think that it is the journalist's job to inject themselves into the narrative that they are reporting on?
	Or to let the person speak?
	What do you mean by inject themselves into the narrative?
	By, for example, you know, cutting away from the person they're interviewing and saying, you know, We just wanted to conduct this interview.
	Everybody should be very careful about what they're hearing.
	this person, you know, their ideas aren't in line with popular beliefs.
	Again, not aware of a best practice.
	The vast majority of...
	well, you've reviewed a lot of InfoWars content, true?
	Yes, sir.
	The vast majority of InfoWars' content is sourced online and from the mainstream media, right?
	I wouldn't say the vast majority.
	That's not my experience.
	Let me say that a little bit.
	It's clear to somebody who's watching the Alex Jones show or the Owen Shorter show or any of these, the David Knight, Nightly News show, that the people they're watching on the screen do not have personal that the people they're watching on the screen do not have personal knowledge of the events that they're Is that true?
	Speculation.
	Same.
	Would you agree, as we heard from Mr. Schroer now and as we saw in the Zero Hedge clip, That generally, the hosts on InfoWars make an attempt, when they're discussing an article, to put it up on the screen or to state where the article comes from?
	Would I agree that the President General practices it into awards?
	Yeah.
	Would you agree that InfoWars leaves it up to the viewer to decide what they want to credit or discredit in terms of what they're watching on the screen?
	The President General is a good person.
	The President General is a good person.
	Leaves it up to the viewer?
	I don't understand the question.
	In other words, that somebody watching InfoWars is free to To say, you know, I believe this, or I disagree with this, or I want to research it more.
	Yes, but what's the alternative?
	What other way to do it would there be?
	Get online, just like you did.
	Look it up.
	Do some independent research.
	Answer the questions for yourself.
	I guess I don't really know where you're driving.
	I don't understand the question.
	I don't understand the question.
	I answered some questions about the Owen Schroer's reporting on the Zero Hedge article.
	Do you recall that?
	I wouldn't call it reporting, but yes, I did answer some questions about his presentation of other people's reporting.
	I think that's a fair point.
	The actual reporting there was done by Somebody and then it was republished on Zero Hedge.
	We don't know who did the one point.
	That was what I wanted to get to.
	So when we talk about anonymous sourcing, we're concerned primarily with somebody who is asserting personal knowledge of an event.
	Rather than somebody who is simply reporting what somebody else who asserts personal knowledge who is named is saying about it.
	When you were discussing anonymous sourcing, were you Were you referring to anonymous authors of articles?
	Or were you referring to anonymous sources of information that appear in articles?
	The latter.
	Anonymous sources of information that appear in articles?
	Correct.
	So, a writer of an article can be anonymous.
	Not in a reputable major organization.
	I mean, there might be some very narrow instances in which that makes sense, but, for example, I think Somebody anonymously, as I recall, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post about Trump during his term as president.
	That was an op-ed.
	And that person also is asserting personal knowledge of what they viewed inside the White House, right?
	As I recall, that's what the person was doing.
	Now, if somebody were reporting, let's say, from Russia about what somebody is telling them and naming the person but prefers to remain anonymous for their own Safety, that would be fine, wouldn't it?
	It would be, I think it would be, one could argue that it's appropriate.
	And the Zero Hedge article does name the sources of its information, doesn't it?
	I have some.
	Well, it says, This is what was in the Dr. Carver clip, right?
	So it says, Dr. Carver said this.
	It misrepresents the information that it attributes to the appropriate source.
	We'll get the misrepresentation in a second.
	I'm asking you, does it properly attribute the sources of its information inside the article itself?
	Yes.
	As a journalist, reading the Zero Hedge article,
	is it a fair reading of the article is it a fair reading of the article that they were not disputing that the children's bodies had ever been returned to the families, but rather disputing whether Mr. Heslin held his child on the day of the grant?
	Thank you.
	You know, I'd like to read the story again.
	Would you like me to go?
	Sure.
	Sure.
	Thank you.
	If you don't mind, you can just have to scroll down.
	I'm sure you played this exhibit.
	This is fine, but 20 should be in the notebook right there.
	Because it's been admitted.
	I don't believe it is.
	It needs to be.
	I don't believe it.
	No?
	Okay.
	occasionally people accidentally walk away with it okay so I'm sorry what was the question here oh was it used maybe on the monitor no I think this is just Okay.
	It might be easier for him to look at a paper version and then Mr. Reynolds can have his computer back.
	Would you like a paper version, Professor Zip?
	Not a professor.
	Emeritus.
	writer and editor in residence.
	Very well.
	Okay, so I'm sorry, the question again?
	The question was, you know, you've watched the, you've read the article, you've You've watched the Megyn Kelly profile.
	Is it fair to say that a fair reading of the article was that they were disputing Megyn Kelly's fact checking of Mr. Heslin having held his son?
	Judge, Your Honor, that is a direct violation of the motion.
	He's not asking the question as to whether or not they could face the clients instead of trying to say to Megyn Kelly they were working.
	I'll reframe the question.
	Okay, thank you.
	I...
	Assuming that the gist of Mr. Schroyer's broadcast, as we must, assuming that the gist of his broadcast was that Mr. Hesman was lying about that, putting that aside for a moment, reading the article, do you see the assertion being that He never ever got his child back or that he didn't hold him on that day.
	Same objection.
	I'm not sure it's relevant anyway.
	Because you're asking about the article separate from Infowars and Troyer.
	My understanding, Your Honor, is that your ruling is that the statement was defanator.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	The objection is sustained.
	Now this time, let's leave it up here.
	All right, it is 11.59.
	We can take our lunch break now.
	Remember all of my prior instructions to the jury.
	No conversation, no research, nothing like that.
	We'll come back at 1.30.
	You may be excused now.
	go back down and you would now just remember to shut that door behind me please
	Yeah, you're free to stay.
	Everyone may be seated.
	Okay, so Mr. Randall, I know that you wanted to make a motion on the record after Mr. Moria's testimony concluded, and I asked you to wait so that I didn't have to send the jury out after every day.
	So let me do that now.
	At this time, we would move for a mistrial based on the introduction That was it.
	Alright, and just to be clear, this case doesn't have a compensatory and punitive damages phase.
	It has one phase for all damages, with a second phase for evidence regarding net worth.
	So, the evidence admitted during this phase of the trial can include all compensatory and punitive damages except for net worth.
	And your motion is not.

▲