an extraordinary news report came out of syria soon after the fall of the assad regime from cnn's star correspondent clarissa ward. she'd gone to the notorious saydnaya prison, and while there, a man was discovered inside a cell under a blanket. "i'm a civilian," he says. "i'm a civilian. " it's ok, it's ok. it's ok. he speaks arabic. he tells the fighter he is from the city of homs and has been in the cell for three months. 0k. 0k, you're 0k, you're 0k, you're 0k. you're 0k. he clutches my arm tightly with both hands. 0k. does anyone have any water? water. speaks arabic.

0k. it's water, it's water. the report went viral, but from the start, questions were being asked. there were lots of suggestions online that it looked staged, that the man in question looked too well—fed, that he didn't flinch when he was led into the sunlight. then a syrian fact—checking operation called verify—sy said that they had identified the man in question, that he wasn't the civilian he'd claimed he was, and in fact had served in assad's air force intelligence directorate and was accused of human rights abuses. cnn has since confirmed this and says the man misled them. to talk through the implications, we were joined by david folkenflik from npr. look, i don't want to claim any credit for scepticism, but i must say i looked sideways at it a little bit. i felt that this was a gentleman who, you know, it wasn't quite possible for me to figure out how this guy emerged with a fairly

clean pair ofjeans, a very nice—looking overcoat, uh, and perhaps a degree of surprise is what i experienced. now, you know, clarissa ward, i want to say there's no evidence or belief that i had then or now that she knowingly fabricated anything here. but, you know, it seemed to me as though the drama, which was both literally and figuratively gripping for her, was less so for me as a viewer. and it turned out that there were reasons for that, that hadn't fully crystallised in my mind as to what it might be that that this guy might have actually been part of the regime that was being overthrown in, you know, over these very dramatic days. and what do we know about the editorial processes that may have been followed inside cnn once this had been filmed and before it was put into the public domain? we don't know a lot. cnn has not, for example, told us how they got this exclusive access to the liberation of this element of that notorious prison where so many tortures and,

you know, horrible inflictions of pain had been said to...had been, uh, executed by the assad regime. you know, they were there with one of the rebel fighters. you know, we learned that they were told they had to turn off the camera in order to shoot off the lock. there's no reason to believe that that didn't transpire the way in which it was described but we don't know enough, really, about the circumstances and about the decisions. to me, what's striking is they had an exclusive. right? and so they could have turned this around quickly, as they did, to share this with the world, get the acclaim and get the attention on this. my gosh, the liberation of man. or they could have taken a beat and said, now let's use the kinds of technology they later used to identify, with they say 99% certainty, using face imagery of digital pictures. right? figure out more about who this was, where he was from, perhaps go back to his village and really develop a full story as opposed to a moment. and i think that was sort of the journalistic and editorial lapse there on the part notjust of ward,

but of people overseeing herteam and directing the coverage more broadly. and i'm not passing judgment at all on clarissa ward when i note that in this particular report she shows emotion. you can see her shock at the discovery. you can see that she's moved by what she's seeing. is that usual within american tv news coverage? i think you tend to see more latitude for that in more dramatic moments. so, for example, in the coverage of the devastation of hurricanes and encountering victims during wars or famines, there is a way in which the foreign correspondent — and i think you've seen this in the british tradition as well at times — but, you know, is allowed to acknowledge their own humanity and the humanity of those they encounter as a way of being a stand—in for those who aren't there, for their listeners and readers and viewers. i must say, i think it was also — this may be presumptive of me, but in some ways it felt as though it was informed by the fact that she very explicitly, like many journalists, has been hoping to find out what happened

to austin tice, an american journalist who's been there over a decade, held...believed to be held in captivity by the assad regime. and therefore, you know, had hoped that perhaps this person underneath the blankets to be revealed might be this journalist that she and others had been hoping to find out the fate of, and hoping to reveal was alive and well. and so i think there was some inclusion of that and emotion wrapped up in that from what i... from what we've seen from her reports and heard from her colleagues. david, hello. it's katie here. hi, katie. hi. cnn — i wonder what you make of their response because they haven't apologised. they've talked about pursuing further information and it's quite careful language. it's careful language. as she put out on, i believe, social media posts and the network did put out, i believe, late on monday night a fuller piece acknowledging verify—sy's reservations and in fact contradiction of their report, and ultimately folding it into their own, saying, "we have done our own additional reporting." i do think that good reporting

is a good way to try to cure bad reporting, and i think it's important to be transparent and share things as things arise. i am surprised not to have seen more on the television network, you know, on the video component where the story was first presented so dramatically, right? like, this would be something that you would think they would walk through and explain in a broader way to the viewers, more likely to be the people who saw it on their television networks as well as online. but, uh, you know, ithink it's...there's sort of a moderate degree of transparency here, rather than the fullness that that one might prefer to see in this case. and do you think the whole thing raises ethical questions about this kind of reporting, about reporting this sort of moment when you come across it and how fast you put that out as a journalist? i think that care is more important than speed. our ability technologically to convey things across the globe instantaneously is, you know, almost unconfined now. and it's impressive.

and it allows us to connect on a human level from events that might seem very different from americans who may not have a personal or family stake, or some understanding of the strategic stakes of that part of the world. at the same time, i think due care is, as i say, must be paramount, that really in this age where trust in media in our country as well as yours is really at an ebb, that we must be seen to be taking every effort to be accurate and fair and contextualised rather than immediate and first, even though that's not always the way in which we are commercially rewarded. and i think in this case, cbs — excuse me — cnn allowed the drama of the moment, the human element of it — which, i must say, i didn't find as compelling as they did — i think they imbued it with the meaning that it would be, had an austin tice or had a victim who had been in that prison for many years would have afforded. but in fact, you know, turns out to be a very different story. and i think it's, you know, in some ways a wrinkle

of the ways in which it's hard to tell immediately what's actually happening in moments of chaos as well as liberation. david, for the moment, thank you very much indeed. that's david folkenflik from npr. a cnn spokesperson has told the bbc... it's been revealed that abc news has settled a high—profile defamation lawsuit with donald trump, and given him $15 million. this stems from an interview conducted by abc's star anchor george stephanopoulos with congresswoman nancy mace.

during the course of the interview, george stephanopoulos several times indicated that donald trump had been found liable for rape in a civil case that he'd lost. critics of the settlement have accused abc news of giving up for political reasons. for some analysis, we spoke to katie fallow, who is a legal expert at the knight first amendment institute. this was in the lawsuit brought by e jean carroll against trump for both rape and sexual abuse, and for defamation when trump denied her charges or her claims that she had been raped. and the jury in that case found that trump was liable for conduct that did not qualify under the narrow definition of rape under new york law but that he was liable for forced penetration by his fingers, which is sexual abuse under new york law. so when george stephanopoulos

said rape, you know, trump argues that is factually inaccurate. um, on the other hand, the standard for proving defamation is extremely high under american law. and because trump is a public figure, he would have had to demonstrate that the statement was factually false and that stephanopoulos knew that it was false when he made it. and one thing that... so was there...are you suggesting, then — sorry to interrupt — that if abc had chosen to defend, it would have had a case and it would have been quite hard for donald trump to win this? yeah. i think that abc had a number of very strong defences, especially given this high standard. i mean, one big fact was that the judge in this case held that trump, in considering the justification for the damage award, the judge held that the common use of the term rape and, in fact, the definition of rape under other jurisdictions,

including under federal law, would cover the conduct that trump was found liable for engaging in. i think there would also be the question of whether he was additionally defamed by saying rape versus sexual abuse. but more importantly than that for defamation law, they would have had to show that stephanopoulos knew that it was factually inaccurate or false to say that he was found liable for rape and that he knew it at the time, and particularly given the judge's comments in the case and holding in the case and the ambiguity, i think they would have had a strong defence. and so i think some of the reaction was that this was done so early in the case, and the concern is that you're having a major media outlet — as, you know, you were referring to in some of the social media posts — seen as caving to appease the president. and it's all very public. we know the facts of it. it's in the public domain.

and some commentators have noted, you know, that there isn't, of course, an nda. otherwise we wouldn't know about it. is that something that abc could have asked for? well, certainly, you know, any litigant can ask for an nba in a settlement of a case. i mean, my sort of reading of the apology, the public apology in this case, in addition to the significant settlement amount, is that abc was agreeing to essentially vindicate trump's position and that that was a major goal of trump in seeking this settlement. david folkenflik from npr, you're listening to our conversation here. let's bring you back in. how do you read the consequences of this decision by abc for the broadcast media more broadly? well, look, we don't know- what kinds of embarrassing or, uh, damning material might have lcome to light had the case gonel forward this week. stephanopoulos and trump - were both scheduled or ordered

by the judge to sit - for questioning under oath as part of the process. leading towards a trial. so disney wanted to certainly avert that. j uh, and there's some reportingl from the new york times of late that disney, also the parent company of abc news, - was very concerned that if they were to lose, - particularly up at the supreme court level on a court - dominated by trump appointees and their conservative allies, . that it might wipe away. a 60—year precedent that, you know, really sets a high bar protecting the press - against these kinds of suits i wantonly from public officials. all of that said, i think it leaves the press, uh... i you know, people were reeling throughout the media industryl this weekend as this news came to light. | the fact that it was public, i the fact that it was such a big dollarfigure, relative. to the usual size of such things, and the fact that it was settled i when they did, as we've just heard, have a number- of strong legal defences. it means that it happens- in a context where you've seen

a number of news organisations position themselves _ to essentially accommodate or, uh, seek to appease trump. . it's very hard to view them | any otherway, these...uh, the killed editorial— endorsements in the los angeles times and the washington post just, of vice president harris i against trump just days before the november elections. - owned — these papers, proud papers, owned by billionairesj with significant business interests that stand - before federal regulators. you know, there's a number of actions done by media - organisations and social medial organisations just before trump takes office once again seeking to get on his right side. - and ijust want to point out also, this week he said - at a press conference i at mar—a—lago that he's going to be doing more of this. he just sued a pollster in iowa for getting it wrong _ and seeming to show- kamala harris with a lead a couple days before the election. - he's claiming that was election interference. i he has these other suits, - and it's as though he's saying he has to hold the press accountable, which is. an inversion of what we think of in this country, _ where the press holds powerful governmentl officials to account. but there's a counter to this

on the issue of endorsements. in fact, i discussed this with you when i was in washington a few weeks back. there's an argument that endorsements by newspapers are out of date, and that the washington post was correct. and on the issue of what happened with abc, former fox news host, now very successful podcaster megyn kelly said of what abc had said on air, this wasjust so egregious and they did it over and over again, and she is glad, and trump supporters are glad that he is taking a more muscular approach when they feel they've been inaccurately represented. i think it's a great totem - of our polarised age that this is being viewed through highly partisan and highly— ideological lenses. i think we are also, you know, grown—up enough to be able l to hold two ideas in our head at the same time. i wouldn't defend what george stephanopoulos said. - i think abc news should have cleaned it up and done - so quickly. you know, what he said needed to accommodate the fact - that the jury in that i civil case was offered the opportunity to find - donald trump liable for raping e jean carroll-

and did not do so. it did not find him liable. it did find him liable of this. other count of sexual abuse, which is like sexual assault. and as the judge said, i you know, in his rulings explicitly, you know, - this would be seen by many people and defined in other jurisdictions as rape. - if stephanopoulos had simply said that, it's a damning - enough characterisation| of what trump did, then he could have beenj justified in doing it. he didn't. that needed to be cleaned up. that's different from saying that abc news defamed - the president, who has been accused by multiple people i of sexual assault and other sexual improprieties - over the years. the idea that this is— a brand—new kind of allegation against him isn't the case. you know... 0k. sorry to interrupt. ijust wanted to bring david... i just want to bring katie fallow back in from columbia university. david was talking there about other areas where... other media outlets where trump is suing. do we have a sense of his success rate? yeah, his success rate is very low.

i'm not aware of any other case where he has filed a defamation claim oranother claim against a media outlet orjournalist where he has either prevailed in court or won a settlement. and, you know, he has been an extremely litigious person as an individual and as a president and as a, um, ex—president and now future president. i mean, ithink, you know, i agree with david that there was, you know, an argument here that what stephanopoulos said was factually inaccurate and should be cleaned up. but almost all of the other cases that he has filed, including this recent case against the pollster, including his case against cbs for how it edited its interview with kamala harris, you know, in my mind, as a lawyer, border on frivolous and appear to be part of a strategy. in fact, ithink, you know, trump has essentially said it to intimidate critics and shutdown criticism

of trump and his policies. and, you know, as sort of david mentioned, you know, there's a polarisation in how this case is being seen. but this protection for critical coverage of our public officials applies across the political spectrum and will protect the speech of people like megyn kelly. so i think what he is doing here, by filing all these litigation...all these lawsuits, is to stifle public discourse, and that's really dangerous. katie fallow from the knight first amendment institute at columbia university, thank you very much indeed. thanks, too, to david folkenflik from npr. we should add an abc spokesperson said in a statement the company was... of all the weird and wonderful things that go big online, would you have maps at the top of your list? well, whether you do or you don't, we're going to talk about the map men. they're a pair of british

comedians who've turned their interest in, or should we say passion for maps into a global phenomenon. and they have just won an award from tiktok for one of their videos. before we hear from jay foreman, one half of the map men, let's have a listen to the winning video. how many of those did you know, ros? uh, most. not all. i didn't know towcester. what is it, jay?

towcester is actually pronounced "toaster". "toaster" ? i did not know that one. well, we didn't know it until we started doing the research for that video. the interesting thing was we put that video out originally on youtube. and, of course, because it's youtube, there were loads of comments appearing underneath in the comments section, and thankfully nobody said that we got any of the pronunciations wrong... you didn't... no—one picked you up? no, but worse than that, there were loads of people saying, "you missed out this one. you should have talked "about happisburgh. you should have talked about "all the other ones that we missed." it's a follow—up video waiting to be made, right? yeah. it's the paradox of releasing a video on youtube is, uh, the best way to do research for a topic is you make a video about it, put it on youtube, and then wait for all the corrections to come in in the comments section underneath! so you are one half of the map men, and i guess the place we should start is, where did the two of you come across the idea or decide to get behind the idea that you were going to make viral videos about maps? so mark cooper—jones and i met on the comedy circuit, because we're both comedians as a background, and we both had an interest in geography and maps. and we thought, "let's do something together." and we were umming and ahing

whether it should be maybe a live show. and then we decided, let's make it a video series. and, you know, we can put it on this video sharing website, youtube.com, and maybe, if we're lucky, it could lead to a job in so—called proper tv. now, that didn't happen, but instead, very slowly, gradually, the videos that we were making on youtube just for ourselves, for our own entertainment started doing really well and they've now become a means to an end. and a lot of people in the comments section are saying, "well, why don't you put this on tv? "wouldn't you rather be on tv?" and the answer is these days, especially with tv being what it is, we're quite happy where we are. we've got a very dedicated audience and a steady stream of income, and those are both things that you don't really get guaranteed with tv any more. and how do you settle on what map to focus on? do you get a large atlas out? do you open up google maps and think, "where shall we go next?" it depends. sometimes we'll find...we'll come across a map just by scrolling through atlases or looking on google maps, and sometimes we'll see a map and go, "that looks interesting, that looks like something "we could turn into a funny story." and then sometimes it's

the other way around. sometimes we come up with a story that we know we could fill with funny sketches and make it entertaining and then decide, "right, well, where's a map "that fits that story?" because in many ways you can tell almost any story using a map. a map isjust like a one... a dimension through which you can see almost any story. anyone who's seen them will know there's a decent amount of production that goes into them. they're quite long. there's a lot happening. i wonder how many of you are involved in making them and how long they take. it's mostlyjust the two of us, and sometimes my wife helps out with the filming, but because it's youtube and not tv, we have this amazing luxury that we can take as long as we decide to make an episode. so we could decide that, you know, this episode or this one deserves our attention — let's spend a good three months making sure that we edit it meticulously. let's do loads of revisions on the script until we're happy with it. and that's something that i think makes us a little bit unusual on youtube, is that we tend to upload maybe four or five times a year maximum. and a lot of people, especially on tiktok, where we now are as well, people are uploading several times a week and we're not able to catch up with that.

that is quite tiring, though, isn't it? they're going to burn out, whereas you're going to carry on forever. youtube, obviously, as you said, is your main platform and you prefer it. you say you don't want to get into tv. how does it compare to tv, do you think, in terms of your editorial freedom? well, the main difference is that we're our own bosses on youtube. and because youtube has, like i said, you know, you can have a stable income, you can have a large audience, the prestige of tv is gone. and what you get with tv that you don't get on youtube is many layers of management that have to approve everything. and you're restricted also in terms of something you make has to fit into a slot, which means it has to be a certain length of time, it has to tick a certain number of boxes — and almost none of that applies on youtube, apart from you're not allowed to say things that might put off your sponsors. and in general, there's very little that we could put in our videos that might put people off. so, effectively, the best thing about youtube and also now tiktok is that we're our own bosses. and are you able to make a lot of money out of it? is it a good living? yeah, there's four ways yeah, there's four ways that you can make money that you can make money on youtube videos. on youtube videos. so one of them is, you know so one of them is, you know

when you click on a youtube when you click on a youtube video and you're served video and you're served an advert that says, an advert that says, "you may skip this "you may skip this in five seconds"? in five seconds"? for each one of those, for each one of those, we make 0.0001p, but it we make 0.0001p, but it all adds up! all adds up! and we're also able and we're also able to do sponsorship. to do sponsorship. so halfway through our video, so halfway through our video, we'll cut to a funny sketch we'll cut to a funny sketch that's advertising a product that's advertising a product such as a vpn or an educational such as a vpn or an educational course. we also have patreon, course. we also have patreon, where if people like where if people like what we do, they can what we do, they can voluntarily subscribe voluntarily subscribe on a monthly basis. on a monthly basis. and there's also a march store and there's also a march store where you can buy t—shirts where you can buy t—shirts and mugs and badges and so on. and mugs and badges and so on. we've got 45 seconds, we've got 45 seconds, and i'm going to use some and i'm going to use some of those to ask what your of those to ask what your next map video is on. next map video is on. well, we don't know well, we don't know at the moment because we're at the moment because we're busy working on some other projects in between, busy working on some other projects in between, and it might be the first time and it might be the first time that we do a map video that we do a map video with very little time to spare. with very little time to spare. so i can't say for the so i can't say for the moment, but stay tuned. moment, but stay tuned. there will be more episodes there will be more episodes of map men next spring. of map men next spring. but not always british maps? but not always british maps? no, so we've got... no, so we've got... most of our viewers most of our viewers are in the uk, but we do are in the uk, but we do try to mix it up and we're try to mix it up and we're trying to get maps from all trying to get maps from all different sorts of different sorts of parts of the world. we had one recently all parts of the world. about the, um, why the us...why it's got the name america with lots of people watching in america. ok, brilliant. i'm going to have

to end it there. thank you so much, jay foreman.

out towards exposed coastal areas of north—west scotland, there could even be some gusts of wind of up to 80mph through the day on saturday, but widely gusts of 50—60mph an hour across northern ireland and into north—west england too. now, there's an area of cloud and rain gradually pushing further southwards and eastwards across england and wales as we head through the second half of the day. sunny spells but also blustery showers digging in behind. the winds are pretty brisk towards the south as well, although lighter than further north and west, and this is how we'll end the afternoon. still that mild air hanging on towards the southern half of the uk, 12 or 13 degrees celsius. but it will soon be replaced on saturday night into sunday by these much colder—feeling conditions. low pressure pushing eastwards towards the north of the uk, so the winds come down from the north—west. and there's a tight squeeze on the isobars, so it remains very blustery out towards the north—west, with some of the strongest of the winds transferring a little further southwards as the as the night wears on. wintry showers — watch out for those icy surfaces.

it could be very tricky for travelling with those strong gusty winds. and this is how we'll start off the day on sunday, on a much colder—feeling note. now, this is the area of most concern on sunday. this is where we'll see the strongest winds, up to 50—60mph. so that now includes much of wales and down through south—west england. and there will be some more showers around again, likely to be wintry over the higher ground, particularly across the hills of scotland, although it will turn quite quickly back to rain, i think, as we head through the afternoon, with some slightly milder—feeling air. but elsewhere, it is set to be really quite chilly through the day. a lot of added wind chill and temperatures won't make it much past 6—7 celsius. there will be some weak winter sunshine, but it won't do much for the temperatures. milderfeeling conditions, though, by the time we get to monday. into christmas eve and christmas day, it looks a lot quieter, largely dry and mild too. bye— bye.

live from washington. this is bbc news. a car drives into a crowd of shoppers at a christmas market in germany — killing two and injuring dozens more. down to the wire. the senate prepares to vote on an eleventh hour spending bill — to avert a looming government shutdown. us diplomats visit damascus for their first official meeting with syria's new de facto leaders. hello i'm carl nasman. we're watching two major stories at this hour. here in washington, lawmakers arejust one hour away from a midnight deadline to pass a spending bill orface a partial government shutdown.

you can see live pictures there from the floor of the us senate — where senators are preparing to take their own vote on the bill, after the house passed it earlier. senate majority leader chuck schumer sounded optimistic on the bill's prospects, saying in the past few minutes that "democrats and republicans havejust "reached an agreement that will allow us to vote on the cr "tonight before the midnight deadline." we'll have more on that later. but first, our other top story in germany, authorities are investigating a deadly incident at a christmas market. that's where a car ploughed through crowds on friday, leaving at least two people dead — including a small child — and injuring more than 60. the suspect is said to be a 50—year—old doctor who's a saudi national and who has been in germany since 2006. saudi arabia's government has come out with a strong statement condemning the attack and expressing solidarity with germany. the attack happened in the centre of magdeburg in east germany. here's our correspondent frances read.