This is not one run-of-the-mill "personal use copyright infringement" suit. Some important things make this case special:
1. The plaintiff is an intelectual property lawyer
2. The use of the video was for profit
3. As the article says many other news outlets sought permission or licensed the clip but these two, despite knowing the clip was copyrighted, choose to use them anyway.
If Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay $1,920,000 for making 22 mp3 available for download (not for profit) how much should these media be liable in this lawsuit? How many other videos they use without proper licensing and/or attribution?
This could be the first of many similar cases considering the media worldwide assume that if a video is available on Youtube they are free to reproduce them in their TV news and shows.