On Wednesday the jury in the civil defamation trial reached a conclusion that was largely in Johnny Depp’s favor. They agreed Amber Heard had defamed him in three instances but also allowed that she had been defamed by Depp’s lawyer in one instance. He was awarded $15 million (which was reduced by state law to just over $10 million) and she was awarded $2 million.

The fact that the jury found fault with both sides while clearly siding more with the man has been very upsetting to a number of writers. Buzzfeed did a story on all of the celebrities who liked Johnny Depp’s post-trial statement. It included a lot of people who probably aren’t closeted Republicans though that didn’t seem to matter to the people citing it.

Media Matters did its thing and produced a list of people on the right saying the trail verdict was the end of #MeToo, at least a version of #MeToo that insisted women were always to be believed.

The Washington Post‘s Taylor Lorenz promoted this article which sided with Amber Heard and wildly misstated Johnny Depp’s claims in the case.

“Depp’s core claim — women advance their careers by accusing powerful men of abuse — doesn’t even hold up to the evidence…Heard is ruined; Depp is in pre-production for his next role; other alleged abusers are already copying his legal strategy.” https://t.co/vSqLkbo3BN

— Taylor Lorenz (@TaylorLorenz) June 2, 2022

Lorenz had her own take on the case in which she backed away from focusing on the outcome and instead wrote about online content creators engaged with the trial.

A forward-looking column showing how the Depp-Heard trial serves as a dark preview of an emerging media environment — led by engagement-chasing creators who see themselves as breaking news authorities and who audiences rely on to shape narratives online https://t.co/iUjFoKYRdy

— Hamza Shaban (@hshaban) June 3, 2022

Lorenz tweeted out a quote from her piece in which an Instagram channel that used to publish images of handsome men had shifted focus to the Depp trial. The implication was that know-nothings looking for clout had found a way to cash in on the spectacle of the trial.

“I do want to cover more news and big things happening in the world. Before [the trial], my account was about posting random videos of men, but as my account grows, I want to be diving more into these events reporting on them.

Kind of like news outlets.” https://t.co/lwJ3pekgis

— Taylor Lorenz (@TaylorLorenz) June 2, 2022

Vox published a story titled “The Me Too backlash is here” which basically agreed with those people on the right saying that #MeToo was over.

Depp’s supporters argue that his victory represents not the end of Me Too but an expansion of the movement. According to Depp, it is he, not Heard, who is the true domestic violence victim in this story, and as such, his supporters argue, he is helping to break down the stigma against men identifying as abuse victims. After all, how can anyone say that real men don’t get abused when Captain Jack Sparrow told the world he was a victim of domestic violence? This trial, the narrative goes, is a necessary corrective to the #BelieveWomen hashtag that trended in the heady early days of Me Too: The point is not to believe all women, but to believe all victims, including male victims…

One of the lessons of Me Too was supposed to be that victims do not have to be perfect in order to deserve justice, and that people who have behaved badly still do not deserve to be abused. That lesson seems to have vanished here.

Depp’s victory is not an expansion of the gains of Me Too. It is a cynical appropriation of the rhetoric of Me Too, applied now to its end.

Not to be outdone, Michelle Goldberg wrote a piece for the NY Times titled “The Amber Heard Verdict Was a Travesty. Others Will Follow.”

This finding echoes the conventional wisdom of the internet, where Depp is widely viewed as the sensitive prey of a vicious and conniving gold-digger, and of much of the conservative movement, which has cheered Depp, a man who once joked about assassinating Trump, for slaying the #MeToo gorgon. After the verdict was announced, the official Twitter account of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee tweeted out a GIF of Depp as the pirate Jack Sparrow, looking dashing and determined. If there’s one thing they hate more than decadent Hollywood elites, it’s mouthy women…

The repercussions of this case will reach far beyond Heard. All victims of domestic or sexual abuse must now contend with the possibility that, should they decide to tell their story publicly, they could end up bankrupted by their abusers. Depp’s friend Marilyn Manson is already suing the actress Evan Rachel Wood, one of a number of women who have alleged sadistic abuse at his hands. He won’t be the last.

In other words, this verdict will be the end of #MeToo. For a certain kind of media feminist this has become conventional wisdom. In their view, Johnny Depp used his wealth, fame and personal charm to beguile a rogue’s gallery of angry conservatives and greedy influencers, persuading them to tear down the edifice of #MeToo.

But not everyone is buying it. I didn’t watch the trial but a lot of people out there watched every minute of it and they don’t seem to agree with these takes on what happened. Vox doesn’t have comments but the Washington Post does. Some of the commenters there are letting Taylor Lorenz have it.

This article is poorly written and lacking in basic facts. It doesn’t mention that many of these ‘internet journalists’ covering the Depp trial were run by lawyers – Emily D Baker, Alyte M at Legal Bytes, all other LawTube channels. These channels concentrate on legal cases and matters, they we’re not set up to capitalize on the trial. I have been watching LawTube for years…. Taylor did NOT reach out to Legal Bytes or to TUG for comment as this article says. It is disingenuous that the writer didn’t mention that the ‘internet journalists’ were in many cases specialists in their field covering legal content or doing in-depth investigation into this topic.

Where can you find channels with full trial coverage with active analysis of lawyers, nurses and behavioral experts simultaneously? The MSM is completely off base in this shade it’s casting on ‘internet journalists’. Internet journalists like The Umbrella Guy, were the ones covering Depp V Heard for YEARS. They knew the facts of the case, the players and the evidence. On the other hand, the MSM was pushing a #MeToo line supporting Heard whom, as the jury correctly found after a 6 week trial, to be a fabulist, liar, defamer and abuser. Facts are facts and the jury correctly found for Johnny Depp.

Another one:

Your article does not mention that Alyte Mazeika is a licensed attorney or that her channel is about law. She did not pivot her content to cover the trial. She was always going to cover it. Lawyers have a code of conduct they have to adhere to, which I would argue stricter than “journalistic norms.” This article also removed a statement that Ms. Mazeika did not respond for comment when, according to her twitter response to this article, she had not been contacted for comment. The lack disclosure here is concerning, and causes me to reconsider my subscription to The Post. My hope is the you learn from the journalistic norms of fair truthful unbiased reporting that has been violated here and you do better in the future.

There are more like this but you get the gyst. Over at the NY Times, Michelle Goldberg is hearing similar complaints. This one has been upvoted more than 3,000 times:

I am really starting to get sick of these partial articles, of the cherry picked facts, of the caveats and concessions for Amber’s side when presenting this trial in the media.

I am a progressive, a feminist, work in human rights. I am not a conservative or a wild Johnny Depp ‘tik tok’ fan. I watched the whole trial. I was on Heard’s side, for years. But it was clear as the trial went on, that it is very likely that Heard has fabricated the allegations – something absolutely heinous to do, to destroy someone else’s life.

Please Michelle, don’t be dishonest here. Everyone watching the trial could see the facts as they were presented; most people are smart enough to infer their own conclusions that Heard acted with malice.

And it just keeps going like this. Lots of people who watched the trial think the jury got it right. This person compared Goldberg’s column to the actions of Jan. 6 rioters:

It’s distressing to read this sort of opinion piece. A jury put in six hard weeks of listening to evidence before coming to a conclusion, and because Ms. Goldberg clearly doesn’t agree with it, she calls it a “travesty.” It is the same logic that led to the Capital building being stormed on Jan 6 – don’t like the outcome, well, just assert then that it was flawed. In fact, take it a step further, use the flawed outcome to “validate” the bias in the system. These attacks on our institutions, from the right and the left, will one day destroy the country.

Another example:

Miss Goldberg conducts her own trial in this column, rules Mr. Depp is guilty and vents outrage that the jury does not agree as if it is common sense he is guilty. An opinion piece that advances no new arguments and simply assumes the woman is always innocent.

I’m not exaggerating when I say nearly all of the comments disagree strongly with Goldberg. One more for the road:

I’m happy for Mr. Depp and his family, his friends and his career. My son was a senior in high school and was dating a young woman. When graduation approached and both kids had separate plans, my son decided to end the relationship. The young woman was so upset at the break up; he accused my son of things and actions he never did. The young woman’s family called my cell phone threatening our family. It was a horrible experience. Never in a million years, did this sweet girl I had met and liked; had shown this dark side of her. It cost our family thousands of dollars in attorneys fees and healthcare professionals and at least 3 years for my sons mental health to recover, it took a toll on him because everyone believed “her” (her good looks, her innocence). Abuse happens to MEN, all the time… and I am a woman who has worked in a male dominated industry; (engineering); championing women’s causes. However, after experiencing what was done to my son, I do not believe every woman out there anymore. I can’t and can no longer champion women’s causes , nor the ACLU. Real victims come in all genders.

I don’t think this trial had any impact on #MeToo as a call to pay more attention to women who claim to be abused but in this particular case the public and the jury did not find the woman credible. That has to matter too if justice is going to prevail.