And this is proven by the countless won lawsuits against said media organisations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_...
If you look, there is often a lot of video on the ground of these events, so that you can see beyond a single narrative.
In the same vein, there is a lot of video of what happened in Kenosha leading up to the shootings.
Similar: sometimes I see people saying "this publication had to retract or correct a story, which is proof that you cannot trust them!". The fact that they posted a correction is a reason TO trust them. You should be suspicious of publications that never post corrections, not publications that do.
How are most of them dismissed if none were actually dismissed? Reaching a settlement is also considered 'winning' the suit in these kinds of cases.
As for "most of them dismissed," 30 of 33 claims against WaPo were dismissed. In other words, Sandmann lost on 30 claims, and settled on 3 of them. Two of his other lawsuits were dismissed by the court, and the only lawsuit still alive is the NBC suit. That's not a legal victory; a motion to dismiss at this stage of a lawsuit assumes that everything the plaintiff said is true without taking into consideration any competing facts.
I was going to write exactly this but didn't because it seemed too obvious to do so. The plaintiff ALSO has legal costs if they go for a ruling. This is why I said a settlement is usually considered a victory. If both parties already agree on the outcome then going trough the legal procedure is a waste of time and money. Only if sandmann's lawyers didn't agree on the settlement money then it would be advantageous to push for a ruling. Hence this could be considered 'winning' the suit even though there is no such thing on courts. only rulings(Ex, in favor of) and paying the legal fees of the other party.
That's in interesting conclusion. If CNN settled for a few thousand dollars to make Sandmann go away, did he really win? Either way CNN looses, they either have to pay for lawyers on appeals or settle out of court and end up where we are.
Pretty much every lawyer whose chimed in on the subject says that Sandmann is unlikely to have won a significant amount. So he "won" in the sense of some PR points with people who already thought he was in the right. That's probably about it.
No one would sue and settle with three different news agencies over 'a few thousand' if That was the only money on the table their lawyers would have pushed for a court ruling.