Morgan Freeman continues to battle non-factual sexual harassment allegations first brought to everyone’s attention by a CNN investigative piece.

The only problem with all of it is that there was no sexual harassment between Morgan Freeman and the journalist who handled the interview. Now, Freeman’s attorney, Robert M. Schwartz of Irell & Manella has emailed CNN chief Jeff Zucker, hinting a lawsuit is coming soon. Read on…

CelebNMusic247.com thought the accusations made seems rather false, so we steered clear of the alleged claims about actor Morgan Freeman.

Morgan Freeman’s attorney writes:

It has been said that ‘A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.’ In just the few days since CNN published the article on Mr. Freeman, it has traveled all the way around the world and back, millions of times. If CNN has any decency, or any allegiance to journalistic integrity, it will immediate retract the article and issue a public apology to Mr. Freeman.

Shwartz adds:

Under bedrock principles of journalistic integrity, CNN should not have allowed Ms. Melas to work on the story.

That was followed with a very detailed and explanitory email sent by Freeman’s attorney to the head of CNN. The email reads as follows:

VIA E-MAIL
Mr. Jeff Zucker
President, CNN
CNN Center
190 Marietta Street NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Re: Morgan Freeman

Dear Mr. Zucker:

This law firm represents Morgan Freeman. On Thursday, May 24, 2018, Mr. Freeman was the subject of an article that CNN published on its website by reporters Chloe Melas and An Phung.

Given that Mr. Freeman is a world-renowned actor, and that the article sought to associate him with Hollywood actors and executives who have used their positions to trade sex for career advancement, it will come as no surprise to you that CNN’s article attracted explosive attention in newspapers and websites throughout the world.

But no one who read CNN’s article about Mr. Freeman was told that it was the product of malicious intent, falsehoods, slight-of-hand, an absence of editorial control, and journalistic malpractice.

I am writing to bring some of these issues to your attention. Our own investigation has just begun. But at just this early stage, our review confirms that:

• Of the three people CNN identified as being a “victim,” the first, CNN’s own Chloe Melas, had no reasonable basis to have interpreted what Mr. Freeman said or did at the Going In Style interview last year as having been directed at her or as any form of harassment. The videotape confirms that his statement had nothing to do with her and was not harassing. And an independent third party, the Warner Bros. Human Resources Department, investigated her claim and concluded that it was not supported by the facts.
• The second person CNN identified, Tyra Martin, has gone on record twice since CNN published the article to state that CNN misrepresented what she said to CNN and that Mr. Freeman did not harass her.
• The third person CNN identified, Lori McCreary, told CNN that Mr. Freeman never harassed her. And as to CNN’s gratuitous sideswipe at Ms. McCreary herself, yet another independent party investigated the claim when CNN raised it, and found it to be meritless.
• Ms. Melas baited and prodded supposed “witnesses” to say bad things about Mr. Freeman and tried to get them to confirm her bias against him. Thus, no reader of the article can have any confidence that any of the anonymous sources, which make up the balance of CNN’s article, can be relied upon at all.

Based on those facts, and the additional information presented below, it is clear that CNN has defamed Mr. Freeman.

CNN has inflicted serious injury on his reputation and career. At a minimum, CNN immediately needs to issue a retraction and apologize to Mr. Freeman through the same channels, and with the same level of attention, that it used to unjustly attack him on May 24. CNN also needs to retract the portions of the story that concern Lori McCreary and apologize to her for defaming and injuring her.

CNN’s reporter, Chloe Melas, has admitted that she was inspired to write the story and, in fact, to conduct her “whole investigation” into Mr. Freeman, by her experience in 2017 while interviewing Mr. Freeman and his Going In Style co-stars. Here’s what she said when she appeared on CNN Headline News on May 25: The impetus for the story and this whole investigation was actually my own experience with Morgan Freeman at a junket last year, for the movie Going In Style. Right when I walked into the room, he began making sexually suggestive comments to me. Now, as an entertainment reporter for over a decade, it was truly unlike anything I have ever experienced. One of those comments was caught on tape. In this tape, he says to me, “Boy do I wish I was there,” while looking me up and down. I was six months pregnant at the time.

And his co-stars Alan Arkin and Michael Caine were seated on either side of him and actually looked at him when he made this comment to me. Again, it was caught on tape. And take a note of Freeman’s eyes in this clip.

The problem with Ms. Melas’ account, which infected everything that she and CNN thereafter did, is that her version of the interview is false. It is based on her imagining that Mr. Freeman had said or done anything to harass her. However, there is substantial evidence that Ms. Melas imagined an incident, or exaggerated a non-malicious remark wildly out of proportion to reality, to give her a basis to go after Mr. Freeman and cause him the grave harm that CNN’s story has inflicted.

It is correct that, during the interview, Mr. Freeman said, “I wish I was there.” But Ms. Melas had no factual basis to have interpreted that as a statement about her, or as sexual harassment.

The videotape makes clear that Mr. Freeman was in fact responding to a story that Michael Caine had just told.

In that story, Mr. Caine had congratulated a woman on becoming pregnant, only to learn to Mr. Caine’s (and the woman’s) embarrassment that she was not pregnant. When Mr. Freeman said “I wish I was there,” any reasonable viewer would have known that the “there” to which he was referring was the conversation in which Mr. Freeman’s friend, Mr. Caine, had embarrassed himself. That is exactly what Mr. Freeman intended.

Despite what should have been clear to Ms. Melas, she chose to interpret Michael Caine’s anecdote, and Mr. Freeman’s remark about it, as having something to do with her and as harassment. One cannot know if that was the product of something as innocuous as Ms. Melas’ having misheard what Mr. Freeman said, her runaway self-centeredness, or her search for a sexual harassment perpetrator to “expose” so that she could grab attention and advance her career. One also has to ask whether Ms. Melas would have had the same unjustified overreaction if the remark had come from Michael Caine or Alan Arkin.

Regardless, nothing about what Mr. Freeman said—or any “look in his eyes”—supports Ms. Melas’ takeaway. Ms. Melas nonetheless made a conscious decision to treat Mr. Freeman’s comment as a form of sexual harassment, and then set out on a crusade to vilify him. As one person who saw Ms. Melas’ Going In Style interview reacted:

I just can’t believe that not a single person at @CNN or @News Day watched that @Chloe_Melas video and didn’t think to tell her that Morgan Freeman was talking about Michael Caine and not her. Way to play the victim, @Chloe_Melas.

Others have seen the video that served as the “impetus … for this whole investigation” into Mr. Freeman and reacted with equal disgust at how CNN has spun it against him:

[Chloe Melas] is straight up lying about what was said to her and lying that he was even looking at her. Question is why is she still employed?
Another person noted: I call BS on this story, especially the clip where Morgan Freeman says “I wish I was there” in response to a story Michael Caine just finished telling. It is not the responsibility of the victim of CNN’s sloppy and malicious journalism to do the fact-checking that CNN should have done before it ran this scandal-mongering hit piece on Mr. Freeman. But as explained below, it is clear at just this early point in investigation that CNN approached this story with a reckless disregard for the truth and with a malicious intent to harm Mr. Freeman.

1. Under bedrock principles of journalistic integrity, CNN should not have allowed Ms. Melas to work on the story.

As a supposed victim of the article’s subject, Ms. Melas lacked the requisite impartiality and objectivity to fairly cover the story she was chasing. Under those circumstances, CNN should not have allowed her to write it.

Numerous well-respected journalists, including current and former editors of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post have noted CNN’s breach of this basic rule of integrity and expressed surprise that CNN allowed this to happen here.

As Leslie Wayne, a former business reporter at the New York Times, said bluntly, the breakdown in journalistic ethics that CNN inflicted on Mr. Freeman “would not be allowed” at The Times. Id.

If CNN were committed to impartial reporting about Mr. Freeman, on a topic of extreme sensitivity and with the potential to destroy him, CNN should not have allowed that breakdown to occur. But CNN did.

To READ the FULL email from Mr. Freeman head on over to the JasmineBRAND who broke the letter to the public….