All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 26, 2024 - Depositions & Trials
55:32
Deposition Testimony of Corporate Representative of Louder With Crowder LLC
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right.
Today's date is August 26, 2024. The time is 11.01 a.m.
Central Time, and we are on the record.
Mr. Morgan, if you'll raise your right hand, I'll swear you in.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do.
Thank you.
Morning, Mr. Morgan.
Can you please state and spell your name for the record?
Sure.
It's Gerald Morgan, G-E-R-A-L-D-M-O-R-G-A-N. Thank you.
My name is Greg Adler.
I'm one of the attorneys representing the plaintiff in this case, Mauricio Garcia.
Do you understand?
Yes.
Okay.
Have you ever had your deposition taken before?
I think one time.
It was a long time ago.
Okay.
Since you've had it taken before, I'll kind of breeze through what I call the admonitions, just some basic ground rules to make sure that we have a...
A nice clean and clear record, mainly.
If your answer to a question is I don't know, that's okay.
Just try not to guess.
So the difference, one way I like to illustrate it is there's a difference between estimating how tall your attorney is versus guessing how much cash she has in her purse.
One of them you could give an estimate, the other one you'd just be guessing.
So just make sure you don't guess.
We'll try not to talk over each other.
Try to let me finish my question before you start your answer.
I know just in regular speaking, you know, we tend to kind of jump in at the end of the other person's sentence, but to make it easy on Wendy, let's just make sure that I finish my question, you start your answer, and then I'll be sure not to cut you off when you're doing your answer as well, okay?
If you need a break, use the bathroom, whatever, just say so.
It's no problem.
We should have plenty of time, okay?
You have any other questions before we get started?
No.
All right.
So you understand that you're giving this deposition as an authorized representative of Louder with Crowder LLC, right?
Yes.
Okay.
And when were you first told that you'd be giving this deposition?
I am not sure the exact date.
You have an estimate?
I believe it was probably a month or so ago, something like that, maybe in the last couple of months.
Okay.
Now, did you meet with your attorney about this deposition?
I did, yes.
When?
I met with her on, I believe, Friday of last week.
Okay.
And how long did y'all meet?
Approximately two hours.
Okay.
Did you review any documents in preparation for your deposition?
I don't know if we reviewed any documents, no.
Okay.
Nothing that was potentially attached to your motion that forms the basis for this deposition?
Nothing like that?
I had reviewed those documents, but I don't know that we actually went over those documents on Friday.
Did you do any independent research on any of the topics we notified you about for this deposition?
I don't believe that I did.
I had some data that I had pulled together in preparation for the deposition myself, but I didn't go online or do anything like that.
And what kind of data was that?
Just going back and looking at video.
Of the air date of our episode.
I think it was on the 8th.
That would be May 8th, 2020?
Yes.
Okay.
So how much time total did you devote to preparing to testify?
Maybe three or four hours total.
Okay.
Did you talk to anyone other than your attorney about the subject matter of your testimony?
I did, yes.
And who was that?
Steven Crowder.
And Lane Kendall.
Okay.
Who's Lane Kendall?
Lane Kendall acts kind of as our lead researcher, putting stories together for us before we go on air.
Okay.
All right.
Now, I'd like to ask you a few questions about the company itself.
Louder with Crowder LLC. If I say the company, that's what I mean.
Just kind of shorthand so I don't have to say it every time.
Or if I say LWC, we know what we mean.
Yes, absolutely.
Okay.
So, Louder with Crowder LLC is a media company?
Yes.
Okay.
LWC publishes articles and videos on the internet, correct?
We do, yes.
Okay.
Who has ultimate editorial authority at Louder with Crowder LLC? I think, ultimately, it does come down to the owner of the company, Steven Crowder.
Okay.
And there's no print version of the website, right?
It's all online?
Correct.
Okay.
The articles on louderwithcrowder.com also aren't printed in a periodical or magazine, right?
No, they are not.
Okay.
Does LWC have a broadcast license or operate under a broadcast license?
I do not believe so, no.
Okay.
Does LLWC have any broadcasting equipment?
Do you mean cameras and things like that?
No, I mean like big radio towers.
Oh, no.
No, we don't.
Is the company an owner of a radio or television station or network of stations?
No, we are not.
Is the company a licensee of a radio or television station or network of stations?
Can you repeat the question?
Is the company a licensee of a radio or television station or network of stations?
I don't believe so, no.
Is the company an operator of a radio or television station or network of stations?
Hey, Mr. Adler, what topic does this fall under?
That was my last question anyway on the topic, but broadcasting.
Okay, can you repeat that question?
Sorry.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Is the company an operator of a radio or television station or network of stations?
No.
Okay.
All right.
I'd like to transition a little bit over to your efforts to preserve and locate evidence for this case, okay?
Sure.
Did LWC order its employees to preserve evidence?
Yes.
Okay.
When did Ladder with Crowder order its employees to preserve evidence?
I don't remember the specific date, but once we were notified by our attorneys that there were questions.
Okay.
Can you give me an estimate?
I don't believe that I could accurately give you an estimate, though.
I can look back, though.
We were contacted by our attorneys, so I'm sure that they would have that information.
Would this have been sometime in the summer of 2023, or would it have been more recently, like in the past couple of months, in 2024?
I believe that it would be older than the last couple of months.
Okay.
Were those instructions in writing?
I don't know.
I'd have to look back.
So just so I'm clear, you don't remember whether the instructions you gave to employees to preserve evidence was verbal or in writing?
No, I thought you meant were the instructions from my attorneys to me in writing.
And that's what I was saying.
I'm not sure.
That's why I'm clarifying.
I don't want to get into communications you've had with your attorney.
That's privileged, okay?
I'm not going to ask you about that.
So let me just ask it again so we're clear.
Sure.
You said that Ladderworth Crowder instructed its employees to preserve evidence, correct?
Correct.
And were those instructions written or verbal?
Verbal.
Okay.
Were all the documents relating to the company's knowledge of the events surrounding the publication of my client's photo and the company's decision-making process preserved?
Were any documents lost?
I believe they were all preserved.
Do you know for sure?
To the extent that they exist, they were preserved.
The company was asked to provide an authentic copy of the May 8th episode that you mentioned, I believe, a couple of minutes ago of Louder with Crowder, correct?
Yes.
And the company was able to locate an authentic copy?
We were, yes.
And that was provided to the company's attorney to provide to us?
Correct.
Who at the company authenticated the video as being a true and correct copy?
That would be me.
Okay.
So, I'd like to ask you a little bit about the circumstances of your acquisition of the plaintiff's photograph, shifting gears again, okay?
Now, it's my understanding that the company acquired the photograph from something called Today News Africa, is that right?
Correct.
Okay.
In May 2023, was it the company's understanding that Today News Africa was a news organization?
It was our understanding that the reporter that posted that photo in an article was a White House judicial reporter.
Okay.
We'll get to the reporter in a minute.
Let's start with Today News Africa.
They're two separate things, so let's make sure we keep them separate, right?
So let me ask the question again.
Back in May of 2023, was it the company's understanding that Today News Africa was a news organization?
I don't know what our understanding was.
I don't know that we were aware or unaware of what they did.
I don't know that they had come up before.
Okay.
So I'll just ask this kind of open-ended that you've kind of already answered it, but I'll give you a chance to elaborate if you want.
What did the company know back in May of 2023?
About Today News Africa?
I don't know that we knew much, if anything, about them.
Okay.
So now going to the second part, the reporter that you referenced, Today News Africa is run by a man named Simon Ateba.
Are you aware of that?
Yes.
Okay.
Now, did the company know if anyone other than Simon Ateba did any reporting for Today News Africa?
Not to my knowledge.
So you're pretty sure it was just him?
I don't know.
I don't know if it's a larger organization than just Hamlet or not.
Okay.
Now, had the company ever previously cited Today News Africa in one of its own reports?
Not to my knowledge, no.
Okay.
What basis did the company have to believe that Today News Africa was reliable?
That it was a White House credentialed reporter.
Okay.
Well, what does that mean?
A White House credentialed reporter?
Objection form.
Go ahead and answer.
That the person has gone through whatever steps are necessary to attain White House credentials.
Okay.
What did you do to confirm that Simon Ateba was actually a White House credential reporter?
My staff essentially said that this was a White House credential reporter as they had cited themselves.
And I know that he has a social media account as well.
Okay, so aside from your staff drawing that conclusion and Mr. Ateba having a social media account, what kind of research or investigation did your staff do to confirm that Mr. Ateba actually had White House credentials, White House press credentials?
I'm unaware of any additional steps they took.
Okay, so what did the company do to confirm that Mr. Ateba was reliable?
Objection form.
Can you repeat the question?
What did the company do to confirm that Mr. Ateba was reliable?
We relied on the fact that he's a White House credentialed reporter.
So if you knew that Mr. Ateba was actually not a White House credentialed reporter, would you still have considered him reliable?
Objection form.
Go ahead.
I think at that point we would have made sure that we had a primary source.
Other than him?
Correct.
Let's move over to the circumstances of your decision to publish the plaintiff's photograph, okay?
Mm-hmm.
So, you would agree that Ladder with Crowder published our client's image on both May 8th and May 9th of 2023?
I agree that we did on May 8th.
I am not sure that we did on May 9th.
I just don't know.
If I were to represent to you that there was the initial broadcast, the initial publication, the video story on May 8th, and then a written story on May 9th, would that help you remember?
If you're referring to the website, then yes.
Yeah, the website would be on May 9th?
I believe.
I don't know the date of that, but I would imagine it would have been on the site on that day.
Okay.
In both cases, Ladder with Crowder knew it was publishing the plaintiff's image for the purpose of identifying the shooter at the Allen outlet, right?
Objection for him.
Can you repeat the question?
Yeah.
In both cases, on May 8th and May 9th of 2023, the company knew it was publishing the plaintiff's image for the purpose of identifying the shooter at the Allen outlet.
Yes.
Same objection.
Who had ultimate responsibility for deciding whether the company would be publishing Mr. García's photograph?
I believe Stephen Crowder would still be the person responsible, ultimately.
Okay.
Okay.
And you talked to him about this?
I didn't talk to him about his responsibility in this, but as the owner of the company, ultimately the responsibility falls on him.
Okay.
Before publishing the image, did the company know if it was looking at the original image?
I don't believe so.
Okay.
Did the company know who took the original image?
I don't believe so, no.
Did the company know when the photo was taken?
No.
Did the company know where the photo was taken?
No.
Last one.
Did the company know why the photo was taken?
No.
Okay.
So, let's focus on the May 8th video show, Stephen's show, called Louderwood Talk.
What time of day does the company publish the show?
I'm sorry, you say what time of day?
Yeah.
We go live at 9 a.m.
Central.
The show usually starts at 9.10.
Okay.
So, the company was reviewing a lot of media coverage about the shooting at that time.
Is that correct?
Yes.
Okay.
And the review of the media coverage, I'm guessing it would have been prior to that, around 9, 9, 10 that morning, showed that Today News Africa was the only news organization or outfit that was showing the shooter's face.
I don't believe so.
I thought there was at least one other that was showing the face as well, reporting on that article.
Okay.
Do you remember Something from that publication, and I'm going to read you the quote.
It says, we're pulling this from Today News Africa.
It's because it's the only news outfit showing you the shooter's face, end quote.
Oh, from the show?
Yeah.
Sound right?
Yes, I do remember Stephen saying that.
Okay.
So at that point, Today News Africa sounds like that was the only one you were aware of that was showing the shooter's face.
Would you agree?
No.
To clarify his comments, in context to the story, we were discussing legacy media.
He didn't say that specifically, but we went on to cite legacy media that was not posting the photo.
There were other people posting the photo as well.
So, Today's News Africa is not legacy media, correct?
I would not think so, no.
Okay.
So that would be a non-legacy media outfit that was showing the shooter's face.
Which means that legacy media or mainstream media at that point had not shown the shooter's face, correct?
To my knowledge, at that point, they had not.
Okay.
So the company basically told its viewers that mainstream media outlets were hiding the picture from the public then, right?
We did, yes.
Okay.
And part of the decision to publish the photo...
Was that the company wanted its viewers to see the truth being hidden by the mainstream media.
Would you agree?
Yes, that it was a Hispanic shooter.
Okay.
And I'll read you another quote from the episode.
Quote, they want to tell you that he was a white supremacist and not see his very Hispanic-looking face.
End quote.
You remember that?
I do, yes.
Okay.
And so the point of showing the shooter's, quote, very Hispanic-looking face, end quote, through publication of my client's photo, was to refute what the company believed was the mainstream media's lies that the shooter was a white supremacist, right?
I believe more accurately is to challenge the coverage from the mainstream media when it didn't fit the narrative.
Okay.
And what was the narrative?
That when it's a white supremacist or someone they can show a white picture of the media tends to stay on the story longer than when it's not.
Okay.
Shouldn't it have occurred to the company that the mainstream media hadn't published the shooter's photo because they were still trying to make sure they identified the right person?
I don't know what they were trying to do at the time.
I don't know why they had not, but we...
We had a theory as to why they were not.
So I'm not really asking you to comment on what they were doing.
I'm asking you to comment on what you were thinking at the time the company was thinking.
So let me ask the question again.
Shouldn't it have occurred to the company that the mainstream media hadn't published the shooter's photo yet because they were still trying to figure out whether they had identified the right person?
Objection form.
I think my answer remains the same.
We had a theory as to why we weren't assuming they were trying to confirm the identity of a shooter.
And what's that theory?
The theory was that it didn't fit the narrative, and so that the media coverage would then dissipate.
Okay.
But the company would have known on May 8th that that was a legitimate possibility, though, right?
That the mainstream media had not yet...
Confirmed that the photo of my client was the right person.
I disagree.
I don't know that it would have.
I don't think that that's something that we would have been considering at the time, given the argument that we were making.
Right.
But I'm not asking about the argument you're making.
I'm asking about, is it possible that the mainstream media Didn't publish a photo of the shooter yet because they hadn't confirmed who it was.
Is that possible?
I believe it's possible, but I don't know why they weren't posting that photo.
Sure.
I'm not asking you what they would have known.
You couldn't know that.
All right.
Let's go to your knowledge of the Allen Outlet Mall shooter at the time Lentis Photograph was published.
Did Lauder with Crowder follow the official announcements from the Allen Police Department?
I am unaware.
If we follow them, I know that those types of announcements are things that we typically run across when we're covering a story.
You don't remember if you were following the announcements from the Allen Police Department as it pertains to this story, though?
I don't.
No, I don't.
Okay.
And same question, but regarding the Texas Department of Public Safety, were you following those announcements?
Again, I don't know for sure if we were following all of their announcements.
Okay.
So on May 7th, 2023, the company was aware that Allen Police and Texas DPS announced the suspect was Mauricio Garcia, 33 years of age, of Dallas, Texas, right?
I believe so.
I don't know if our team saw those specific posts or not, though.
Okay.
Did you ever ask them if they saw them?
I did not.
Okay.
By May 8th, the date of the first publication, May 2023, Louder with Crowder was aware of the suspect's name and age, right?
Correct, as reported by other outlets at that point.
Okay.
Let's go ahead and pull up tab 1 which will be marked as exhibit 1. If we can, we'll go to...
already there.
Let's zoom in if we could, please.
Okay, I'm going to read this to you.
This is from the...
May 8th publication.
It says, there was a deadly mass shooting in Allen, Texas, and we have information on the killer, Mauricio Garcia.
We'll be refuting the media's lies about the fact that he was a white supremacist and so much more.
So, according to your website, Stephen Crowder had information on the killer and would be refuting the media's lies that he was a white supremacist.
Brett?
Objection form.
Correct.
And that was based on our client having what Mr. Crowder called a quote, very Hispanic looking face?
No, it was based on the fact that we didn't see any evidence of white supremacy in any of the information that was available.
So what you're saying then is that the It was meant to suggest that the shooter could not be a white supremacist because he was Hispanic, therefore the media was lying, right?
We thought the story was a little difficult to believe.
Understood.
But when it says we'll be refuting the media's lies about the fact that he was a white supremacist, what you're saying is...
The media is claiming he's a white supremacist and that cannot be true because he's Hispanic, correct?
We were going to make the argument that we didn't believe that it was a white supremacist or somebody motivated by white supremacy.
Because the actual shooter was Hispanic, correct?
That and the reason that we didn't find anything else about white supremacy tied to it.
Okay.
So...
The company was trying to point out that the media was being dishonest because it was insinuating that white people were somehow blameworthy for a crime committed by a non-white person.
Correct?
Can you restate that?
Yeah, so the company was trying to point out that the media was being dishonest because it was insinuating that white people We're somehow blameworthy for a crime committed by a non-white person.
Right?
That's the narrative.
I think also the bigger point we were making is that the coverage of the shooting would then trail off because it turned out not to be a white person that did the shooting.
Okay.
So since this all unfolded over the past 15 months, you've seen photos of the actual shooter, correct?
I don't know that I have.
So, in preparing for this deposition, you didn't take any time to look up who the actual shooter was?
I did not.
Okay.
So, if I were to represent to you that the actual shooter was, in fact, Hispanic, would you have any reason to disagree with that?
No.
The pictures on the ground at this scene showed that, I think, as well.
Okay.
You're aware that the actual shooter had tattoos of a swastika and SS lightning bolts?
I saw pictures of that immediately following, but not at the time of publication.
So at some point after that?
Yes.
And you understand that those symbols are associated with Nazism and white supremacy?
Yes.
So the company understood that Hispanic people can also be neo-Nazis or white supremacists?
I would disagree.
I don't know that we understood that.
I think that was part of the confusion.
Do you understand that now, though?
I still think I would be surprised.
Okay, so just to summarize real quick, your testimony is that you understand that the actual shooter was Hispanic, correct?
And that he also had tattoos.
Of a swastika and SS lightning bolts, correct?
Correct.
And that those symbols are associated with Nazism and white supremacy, right?
Correct.
So you understand that Hispanic people can also be neo-Nazis or white supremacists?
Objection.
I understand that they can have the tattoos.
I don't know why this person had those tattoos or what other actions they had that would have confirmed that.
I see.
So is there any other meaning having a swastika tattoo or SS lightning bolts?
Somebody tattoos that on themselves?
No, I don't think so.
It's a pretty bold step.
Okay.
So the possibility that the shooter was actually a Hispanic neo-Nazi or Hispanic white supremacist is not something the company considered before it published my client's photo linking him to the shooting.
I think we were all a little surprised by that.
I understand.
But is that something the company considered before it published the photo?
I don't believe so.
So I think it surprised us that that claim is being made by the media.
Okay.
Is it the company's understanding that some Hispanic people consider themselves white?
Some do not.
Therefore, Hispanic people can also be white supremacists?
Objection form.
I don't know what Hispanic people consider themselves potentially as it relates to this.
I'm not sure.
Have you ever filled out a form somewhere where they ask you to identify your race and it'll say something like, Asian, African-American, and then it gets to white, and then there's like a subcategory where it says Hispanic or non-Hispanic.
You ever seen that?
I have, yes.
So you can be a white Hispanic.
Objection form.
Mr. Adler, what topic does this fall under?
Because I'm not sure how the shooter identifies as relevant to any of the topics here.
I'm not asking that.
I'm happy to let it continue.
I'm sorry?
I said if you can explain to me how that fits under one of these topics, I'm happy to let it continue.
I just don't know how that's relevant here.
Last question anyway.
Can you please answer it?
Can you repeat the question?
Sure.
I gave you an example.
You said yes, you've seen that on a forum where a person can check Hispanic and they can check white or non-white.
So would you agree?
White or non-white is a subsection of the Hispanic on the form?
Is that how you're laying it out?
No, white or Hispanic, non-Hispanic.
So there are Hispanic people who consider themselves white.
You've seen that on the form, right?
Objection form.
That's not what I was saying yes to.
I was saying yes to seeing a form that has Hispanic and then white and black.
You said non-Hispanic.
I thought it was another category.
I didn't know if it was a subset of another category.
I really don't know.
If Hispanics consider themselves to be white in some cases or not, I don't know.
Okay.
Let's go to the circumstances of the decision to use the picture in the May 9th article on louderwithcrowder.com.
And if we could, let's pull up.
The first exhibit we're going to mark as exhibit one.
This one will be Exhibit 2.
If we can zoom in on the look at the so we can see the date.
We can just zoom everything in.
Zoom the whole thing in a little bit more.
Okay.
Mr. Morgan, you see right there it says May 9th?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Do you know what time the article was published?
I do not know.
Okay.
And if we scroll up a little bit so that we can see the headline and then scroll down so that we can see the article.
The article shows our client's image both in the headline that would be there and then keep going down and in the article itself.
Would you agree?
Yes.
Okay.
Now, the article states, quote, I tend not to like to share photos of killers, but since the media refuses to, this is the new face of white supremacy.
End quote.
You see that?
I do, yes.
Now, Stephen Crowder had already approved the use of the photo since he had used it on his show the previous day, right?
When you say approved, I said ultimate responsibility falls on him as the owner.
Of the company, but he was not involved, to my knowledge, in the approval of this particular story or photo.
Okay, but he had approved using it the previous day?
When we used it, yes.
But I just wanted to make sure I clarified.
Okay.
So I take it there aren't any additional circumstances behind the decision to use this photo on May 9th that we haven't already talked about on May 8th, right?
The reason's the same.
Objection form.
Go ahead.
Yes.
When the article says the media refuses to share photos of the killer, do you think that was still true on May 9th, three days after the shooting?
Objection form.
I believe so.
I don't believe any legacy media had shared the photo yet.
Had the company done any investigation to see if the media had shared photos of the killer?
I believe our team constantly is on the lookout to see if those things have been shared or not.
Okay.
Now, in this article, the company did not qualify its statement that the photo of the person in the article was the shooter, correct?
I think that is the implication, but I don't know.
I'd have to go back and read the article.
Well, it's pretty short.
And we can scroll through it if that helps refresh your memory.
But it doesn't look to me, like in here, that the company attributed the identification of the plaintiff's photo to anyone else.
Oh, I see what you mean.
I don't know that we did.
Yeah, if it's not in there, I don't know that we did.
Okay.
I do know that he was specifically talking about Elon Musk commenting on this as well.
Okay.
But the article doesn't cite as the basis for the company's reporting any other sources identified my client as the shooter, correct?
Not to my knowledge in this article, but like I said, I haven't read all the way through it.
And the article does not claim to be reporting on something that some other news organization published, right?
I don't know if they put any links to sources down at the bottom or not.
But I didn't see anything in the text.
Okay.
So, based on my reading, and you're free to, if you remember differently, the article simply states as fact that my client was the shooter.
And I'd like to read you a quote from the article.
It says, Posted on a Russian one no one has heard of.
End the quote there.
So, before this article was published, the company was aware that the actual shooter had been posting on a Russian social media platform, correct?
I believe that's what he's saying there, yes.
Which means the company could have checked the shooter's social media profile to verify whether my client was really the shooter before publishing his photo and linking him to the shooting, right?
Objection form.
I'm not aware of what information they actually came across on that site.
All I know is that there was questions about the shooter's identity.
Okay, so in light of the fact that the company knew about the shooter's social media page before publishing this article, that also means the company possessed or could have at least seen photos of the real shooter who was not our client before it published this article.
Correct?
Objection form.
I believe that mistakes his testimony.
I don't think he said he knew what time the article was posted.
Well, I don't think it matters.
You have to have the knowledge of the social media, the existence of the social media postings before you write about them.
He can still answer the question.
I'm just making my objection.
Yeah, I think as we noted in the article, it's a Russian social media page that nobody Had ever heard of, and that was from a latest report, not necessarily just us going to it.
I think we're questioning the validity of a lot of things at this date.
Again, I don't know what time of day, but I know we're still asking questions about what was really going on.
Okay, so just to recap, the company must have known about the existence of the social media site.
Prior to publishing this article, otherwise it could not have referenced it in the article, correct?
We were aware of reporting about the social media site by other agencies.
And it was, I think, starting to circulate at that point on Twitter as well.
Twitter at the time.
Okay.
Did the company check that social media profile to verify whether my client was really the shooter before publishing his photo in this article?
I don't know.
Okay.
If the company had checked the real shooter's social media profile, it would have caused significant doubts that the photo of our client depicted the actual shooter, right?
I don't know.
Let's talk a little bit about your policies, guidelines, or requirements for the verification or vetting of information or images you publish.
Do you have written editorial standards?
We have editorial standards.
I'm unaware if they are written or just verbally communicated at that time.
Okay.
What are your requirements for publishing a photo allegedly showing a mass murderer?
Objection form.
I think any time that we're commenting on information that is out in the media being talked about and being reported on, we want to make sure that we have two sources, one primary and then one additional source.
Okay.
Would you agree that it's the usual practice of your company to take steps to verify accuracy of the images it publishes?
If the media is already talking about those images, then we can confirm at least.
If two organizations are talking about it, then we do take steps to make sure that we follow those guidelines.
Did you get two sources to verify the accuracy of the photo of my client in this case?
Yes, we did.
What sources were those?
That was the article from Simon Ateba, and then the Hollywood Unlocked site was reporting on it.
And I believe there was one more, but I'm not sure if at that time we were considering that a source or not.
You're not sure if the Hollywood Unlocked was considered...
An additional one.
A lot of social media accounts were talking about it, but we try not to just go based off of the social media posts and stuff like that.
And the Hollywood Unlocked would have been more of a social media post?
No, I wasn't referring to Hollywood Unlocked.
They were one of the additional sources outside of Simon Etapa's article.
But I believe there were other people talking about it, but we didn't cite them as a source at that time.
Okay, and so you said a primary source is one of the two sources that you would want to make sure you have, correct?
Correct.
And of the two, which was the primary source?
Simon Ateba?
Yeah, the White House credential reporter was the primary source for us on this.
Are the following statements consistent with your company's editorial requirements?
You should not display an image of a suspected mass murderer unless the image has been confirmed by someone involved in the official investigation or by reference to some kind of primary sourcing.
I believe primary sourcing, yes.
We don't always have the information from somebody conducting the investigation.
You failed to fulfill your responsibility in verifying the photo of a mass murderer by assuming another news website verified the image.
Correct?
Can you repeat that?
Sure.
Would you agree that you failed to fulfill your responsibility in verifying the photo of a mass murderer by assuming another news website verified the image?
I would disagree with that.
Why is that?
We had a primary source and a secondary source reporting on that, so the mistake for posting that photo would have been made by Simon Ateba.
That's the originator of it.
Okay.
And that's assuming that Simon Ateba was actually a White House credentialed reporter?
Yes.
Would you agree that you should take special care with reporting information that, if fault, might cause grief or damage reputations?
Yes.
Okay.
Would it be fair to say that the company's policies required all employees to comply with the safeguards we've discussed today to ensure the publication of information is correct and accurate?
I think everybody at the company involved with publication of stories, yes.
So, logically, would it be also fair to say that the company requires those safeguards because it understands that failing to uphold those safeguards can cause damage to innocent people?
Yes.
When it comes to the decision to show this photo, do you believe the company did anything wrong to our client, Mauricio Garcia, that had nothing to do with this?
I believe that we followed the practices that we would institute in any case when we're talking about a story that's out in the media.
Do you think the company should have been a little bit more careful deciding to show plaintiff's photo?
I believe that we followed the practices that we would normally follow with two sources for the information.
Did the company investigate the truth or falsity of the photo before publishing it?
I think, like I said, we followed our procedures to make sure that we had a primary source and a secondary source before we talked about information that was already out in the public.
So you don't think the company should have investigated a little bit more fully to make sure that picture was accurate?
I don't think that there was anything more that the company at that time would have done to follow our policies to make sure that we're reporting accurately on what's actually out in the media already.
When the company learned that it had published a photo of someone who had nothing to do with the shooting, did it take steps to remove publications from the internet?
From the internet specifically?
Are you talking about the video or the article or both?
All of it.
Once there was a question about the identity of the shooter, to be cautious we changed the thumbnail on our video and then subsequently privated that video and removed it from the internet on the the website portion that operates.
A little bit more autonomously.
I don't think that we were even aware that that photo had been used on the website.
Okay.
Any other steps taken by the company?
During the subsequent broadcast on May 9th, we addressed the fact that this was now in dispute and that there was a significant question about the identity of the shooter.
Okay.
So did the company instruct its employees to remove anything that they had posted showing the identity of the shooter?
The wrong shooter?
Wrong person as the shooter?
We, like I said, we took the thumbnail down and changed it on the video and then made the video private subsequently from there, but there was no general directive that went out.
Okay, but whatever instruction was given to employees that would also include Steven Crowder, correct?
I don't know that Steven was a part of that decision.
Who was part of that decision?
Me and the research team with Lane Kendall.
Okay.
Would the company agree that it's important to take down all of those publications to not cause further harm to an innocent person?
Yes.
Okay.
Now, you remember earlier we discussed company locating and authenticating a copy of the May 8th episode, right?
Correct, yes.
And you understand that when the company provided that copy to us about three weeks ago, it did so with a link to a website?
That was not what I was referring to when you asked me that question.
I found the video on Friday of last week as the original video and sent it to my lawyers.
I think at the time that you're referring to, we were unsure if that video still existed in our database or not.
Okay, so three weeks ago, in response to our discovery request, your attorney sent us a link to the original May 8th episode.
Are you aware of that?
Yes.
Do you know the website address to that?
I'm sorry, go ahead.
I think it's a ripping site that basically rips in.
Repost people's video illegally.
Which site is that?
The one I've seen, I think it has like TVMU or something like that, TVMU something dot TV to it, the website address.
I've seen that particular clip of the video.
Okay.
So you're saying that's a ripping site?
I believe that's what it is.
There are sites that will rip videos down from YouTube and repost them as original content.
To try to siphon views.
If I told you it was MGTOW.TV, would that ring a bell?
It sounds right.
Okay.
Do you know if the company...
I'm sorry, go ahead.
I said, sorry, I didn't mean to talk to you, Greg.
We don't publish there, though.
Okay, so you don't have an account on that site?
Not to my knowledge.
Okay.
So if I told you that the link to that article is still live on the internet right now, would that be something that if you did have an account, you should have taken down?
Injection form?
If we had an account, yes.
But like I said, we don't publish to that site.
Okay.
So just so I'm clear, it sounds like we were given a link to a live version.
of the May 8th episode that's still on the internet as of today, but you're not sure if that's ripped or an account that Ladder with Crowder has on that website.
I'm pretty sure that that is not a site that we publish to.
That's never been a site that we've talked about publishing to.
It's a site I think that rips videos and posts them as original content.
Something we would have no control over.
Okay.
Is there any reason, to your knowledge, you said you were the person who authenticated a copy of that video, right?
I was referring to the video that I gave to my attorney on Friday.
Okay.
Which one was that?
It was an original link from YouTube.
So the video did exist in the YouTube archives.
And I think there was some debate as to whether that was accurate or not a few weeks ago.
And so they tried to find a copy of the video somewhere.
And that's why you ended up with the copy that you had.
So I ended up with a copy of the MGTOW.TV one because you had not been able to find one on YouTube until last Friday.
Until Friday, yeah.
Okay.
All right.
We've been at it for almost an hour.
Let's take a...
Let's take just a short 10-minute break and go off the record.
We'll come back in a few minutes to see if you have any final questions for me.
We shouldn't be going too much longer.
I appreciate your straightforward answers.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Off the record at 1151 a.m.
The time is 1202 p.m.
and we're back on the record.
Great.
Just as a housekeeping, I just want to make sure that both of those exhibits have been marked.
Wendy, are we good?
You're on mute, I think, still.
Can you hear me now?
Yeah.
Thank you.
Okay, perfect.
Thanks.
Okay.
Mr. Morgan, just a few more questions, please.
Could you please identify any individual besides your attorney that you discuss the subject matter of your testimony you'd be giving today?
Steven Crowder and Elaine Kendall.
Okay.
Anyone else?
I don't believe, other than mentioning that I had to give a deposition today, I don't believe there was anybody else.
No one on the research team?
Elaine Kendall's on the research team.
He's the one that I spoke with about it.
No one else?
Not to my knowledge.
It's a close group of people sitting around, so if somebody overheard us, they were not the person I was talking to.
Understood.
Okay.
What do you think primary source means?
For us, primary source means some kind of accredited source, something that has some credibility standard to it.
Okay.
I'd like you to assume, just for the purpose of this question, that primary source means the first-hand or contemporary account of an event or topic that was created by people that were actually present or involved at the time.
Under that definition, did the company have a primary source?
Under that definition, no.
Again, using that definition, would the company think it's okay to show someone's image as a mass murderer without a primary source?
I think if you're breaking the story and you're the first person to do it, then you would need, I believe, that definition of a primary source, but not if you're commenting on what is out in the media already.
Okay, so you're saying that...
If you don't have your own primary source, it's okay to publish the image?
Is that what you're saying?
Let me clarify the definition because you're using a definition that we do not use.
My definition of primary source means sources with credibility that are already reporting on these stories and we're simply discussing what they're reporting on.
Under a new definition of primary source, which might be more accurate than the word that I'm using, I would think that we need, to be able to break a story, we would need more first-hand source information to be able to break a story.
Okay.
So repeating a story that somebody else had already published does not fall under the same standard in your view?
I think it falls under the standard that I've outlined for us to have primary source information plus an additional source to make sure that the information that we are discussing We're representing what they have reported accurately.
I understand.
But going back to, let's say, the article, we already established that there was no reference or attribution to any other source in that article, correct?
It did say according to the latest report, I believe, in the article, and it did seem like it was blue and highlighted.
I don't know if that was hyperlinked to a source.
But the article also showed other people commenting on it, like Elon Musk, as well.
Did the company know where Simon Ateba sourced the photo?
Not to my knowledge, no.
What is Hollywood Unlocked?
I don't know much about Hollywood Unlocked, otherwise, other than it's just an internet site.
Is it a gossip site?
I don't know.
If you don't know what Hollywood Unlocked is, and that was one of your two sources, how is that any better than a social media post?
I think social media posts, if they come from sources that we would count as primary sources, credibility can still count.
But it was a secondary source to a White House credentialed reporter who had already reported on this.
But you don't know what Hollywood Unlocked is, correct?
I do not personally, no, no.
You don't know that it's a gossip site or not?
I don't know what they do, no.
I think that's it.
I think that's all I have.
Mr. Morgan, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Tyler.
I appreciate it.
▲
Export Selection