Just like with Richard Jewel, doing this to a relative nobody -- let alone a hero in Jewel's case, although the Covington kids were actually defending the native American (a huge reason why the kid was 'smug' -- "No good deed goes unpunished") -- most media conglomerates are quick-to-settle, because they destroyed the name of a non-public figure. In the case of Jewel, they could easily prove -- via surveys -- how much of the US considered him guilty (even years later, after the actual bomber was convicted).
CNN (e.g., Blitzer, et al.) were in the same boat on Covington as NBC (e.g., especially Brokaw) was on Jewel. They make completely false statements, and knowingly. The fact that CNN was still doing this days after videos had been published, and CNN technicians were aware, but wouldn't 'challenge the narrative,' was really a poor position to be in.
In the Jewel-NBC case (especially Brokaw), the network could not provide any no support whatsoever, not even a lying eyewitness or other 'provided details' (even if false) that backed up what they stated. That's just deadly, because the US courts are extremely protective of the US Media. Even the AJC 'won' against Jewel because it proved -- in court -- the FBI directly mislead them about the 'state' of their 'lone bomber' theory, and completely retracted that theory the second the FBI 'changed direction.'
Zimmerman also lost his lawsuit against NBC, over the Miami affiliate, because corporate ordered the local affiliate producers fired the second they found out they didn't even use 'elipses' when removing the dispatcher's question. Even though the 'elipses' were 'questionable' when added later, it made it factual, instead of the intentional lie by the original, two (2) producers. The judge was very explicit, that while NBC did violate Zimmerman's civil liberties, they were not liable.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
