 |
| Rant About Emily D. Baker's Coverage of Depp Trial from Graduated Law Student |
I am currently studying for the NY bar and I'm taking a break (I don't deserve it...but here we are) to address something that has really bothered me about the Depp coverage.
I used to be a fan of Emily D. Baker especially with her Housewives and Spears coverage. She touts herself as being about "facts not fuckery," but she has engaged in a lot of fuckery in her approach to covering the Depp trial. She is manipulating her legal background to distort the Depp proceedings. She is basically mining views by making her legal commentary confirm the biases of her viewers. She presents her commentary as agnostic legal analysis, when in fact her coverage is nothing but cheerleading for Depp's legal team strategies.
Today, Heard's team put former Depp colleagues and management on the stand. Emily made it seem like these were just former disgruntled employees of Depp used to sour Depp's credibility with the jury. But the defense was using their testimony to prove that Amber's Washington Post op-ed was not the cause of Depp's declining capital in Hollywood. His unprofessionalism on set preceded any public allegations of abuse. Depp's team made a big deal of Depp losing his Pirates role because of Heard's op-ed, while his management team at the time attests to Depp never having been even given an option contract.
Whatever your opinions, a key element of defamation is showing how an alleged defamed statement causes material damages*(see edits below). Emily knows this is a key factor in proving damages from the op-ed, but she seems to just skim over that fact. Moreover, she doesn't engage much with the "actual malice" standard, which means even the most minute evidence of Depp's verbal abuse discredits the argument that Heard wrote the op-ed with actual malice ("with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not" New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)).
But Emily did not explain this to her audience. She instead casts doubt on everything the witnesses said, going as far as to make it seem like most legal analysts would find these testimonies "sketchy" and "not credible."
She even mentions that she knows nothing about Depp's suit with his former management company, despite the fact there there are several sources about the settlement reached
and the disputed expenses
involved (case was in superior court of LA in 2018, Case No. BC 646882 for anyone with access to Pacer).
A cursory search would reveal that his management team worked very hard to appease Depp in the midst of his financial turmoil. They ultimately could not prevent a default on one of his loans, which is when he turned on them. Depp himself in a Rolling Stones interview
highlights that they low-balled his lavish spending, scoffing at the idea that he spent only $30K a year on wine and that it cost only $3M to shoot the ashes of Hunter S. Thompson into the sky (he claims it was $5M).
Emily even dips heavily into the realm of unprofessional analysis. She has mocked witnesses, for example making fun of one witness' shoulder movements and desk clutter, despite the fact that she has acknowledged that Depp's mannerisms could be the results of his ADHD diagnosis. That same willingness to extend grace to Depp is not offered to the witnesses on the stand she does not like. And it heavily skews her viewer's perspective on what is actually happening in the proceedings.
I find Emily dangerous because many people watch her to feel affirmed in their hatred for Heard and perception that this is a slam-dunk case for Depp. She is far from the only lawyer capitalizing on this moment (really disappointed in Bravo Docket's podcast
on the UK case, which fed into the unsubstantiated theory
that Depp's counter evidence was not reviewed by the court), but Emily has received the most attention from her coverage.
In general, this case has taught me how lawyers can be pop culture grifters. I sort of always knew (see Michael Avenatti
and to a lesser extent Ben Crump
), but seeing how people rely on Emily's commentary when her commentary is extremely biased and at times out right wrong, gives context as to how dangerous narratives persist.
For more measured legal coverage, I would recommend listening to Puck's "The Town"
which is hosted by Matt Belloni, who was a lawyer before his career in entertainment journalism.
I end this by saying, I don't believe there is really any such thing as "objective." Reviewing legal complaints and responses reveal how the same set of facts can be construed to tell completely different stories. Trust the person willing to acknowledge their biases and present opposing facts fairly. Lawyers are not inherent authorities of the law and are lauded not for telling the truth, but eliciting the better story.
EDIT: for typos...sorry!
I've decided not to respond to comments because I don't want this to be a bashing post. I just want to give a PSA on how legal commentators can manipulate public perceptions for personal gain. Thank you so much for reading and engaging with comments.
EDIT ON DAMAGES: This article
gives a great overview of the Virginia defamation standard, which is far more relaxed than many other jurisdictions. Defamation per se applies to the statements in contention in this case.
To clarify, there are 3 statements being reviewed under the per se standard (below). Depp's team has to still prove that the statements were made with actual malice("with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not"), but if they pass that hurdle, it's defamation per se and they do not have to prove a causal relationship to damages.
- “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.”- “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.”- “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”
0 Comments