Dominion v. Fox News

[RiverDog]

I'm sure that this subject doesn't need a formal introduction, that most of us are familiar with the background, so I'll save us all some time. It ought to be interesting. The judge has already made a couple of decisions prior to the start of the trial:

Jurors will be peppered with questions about their news consumption habits, including whether they watch Fox News. But Judge Eric Davis has narrowed the scope of the questioning — he doesn’t want jurors to be asked if they believe the 2020 election was legitimate, or if they had any connection to the January 6 insurrection.

The judge has already rejected several First Amendment defenses that Fox hoped to invoke, and he further constrained Fox in a flurry of pretrial rulings this week, stopping the right-wing network from trying to argue that the allegedly defamatory statements were “newsworthy” and thus deserved coverage.

An in an 11th-hour twist, the judge sanctioned Fox on Wednesday for withholding evidence from Dominion, and said he’d assign an outside attorney to investigate whether Fox misled the court and deliberately hid any additional material from Dominion.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/ju ... r-AA19OE3n

The trial is expected to get underway Monday and last about 6 weeks.

[c_hawkbob]

I'll be surprised if this goes the distance, FOX and Murdoch are toast and they know it, they'll settle and it'll be huge!

[Aseahawkfan]

I think Fox will settle. No one has been able to prove the voting machines have issues. It's pure horsecrap pushed by Trump and his cronies who just insist the election had problems with no proof.

[RiverDog]

I agree, it makes a ton of sense for Fox to settle out of court. If they don't, it could do irreparable damage to their business, similar to what Carol Burnett's lawsuit did to the National Enquirer, which is the only analogy that I can think of.

And I can hear everyone but Cbob and myself: Who the f*** is Carol Burnett and what the hell is the National Enquirer?

[Aseahawkfan]

I remember Carol Burnett and the National Enquirer.

[c_hawkbob]

I agree, it makes a ton of sense for Fox to settle out of court. If they don't, it could do irreparable damage to their business, similar to what Carol Burnett's lawsuit did to the National Enquirer, which is the only analogy that I can think of.

And I can hear everyone but Cbob and myself: Who the f*** is Carol Burnett and what the hell is the National Enquirer?

LOL! Good analogy!

[RiverDog]

It would seem that Fox News is dirtier than all get out, especially if the evidence that their hosts and other employees are shown not to have believed in the conspiracy theory, meaning that they were promoting it strictly to cater to their audience and maintain ratings stands up. It's stuff like that of which Murdoch doesn't want made public in a court room as it could do to the news organization what Carol Burnett did to the Enquirer.

But on the other hand, they have to prove that Fox acted with malice, and sometimes that's a pretty high bar to clear. Dominion is the plaintiff, meaning that the burden of proof falls with them.

There are two other analogies I can think of, although neither of them made it to court. One is CNN's Peter Arnett's Operation Tailwind scandal and the other CBS/Dan Rather and the Bush Texas Air National Guard scandal.

[NorthHawk]

I thought that a large component of their lawsuit was that possibly irreparable damage was done and the Fox information was knowingly incorrect in doing so. After all Fox News and programming perpetuated the myth of their voting machines being untrustworthy let alone compromised in favor of the Democrats. Trust is pretty much their entire business. Without it they will disappear and lose billions in doing so.

[RiverDog]

I thought that a large component of their lawsuit was that possibly irreparable damage was done and the Fox information was knowingly incorrect in doing so. After all Fox News and programming perpetuated the myth of their voting machines being untrustworthy let alone compromised in favor of the Democrats. Trust is pretty much their entire business. Without it they will disappear and lose billions in doing so.

Currently, Fox News is the most watched cable TV news in the country by far and 3rd highest news network overall. They'd have to experience a huge exodus of viewers in order for them to fall to the point of irrelevancy. If they lose, it's obviously going to hurt them, but I don't see it causing them to go out of business or even marginalized.

What would have to happen is for some other news agency, say Bloomberg perhaps, to step in and give conservative viewers an option to Fox. Currently, amongst the top news networks, Fox is the only one with a conservative POV. There's a large percentage of the population that would cut off their right arm before they'd watch CNN, MSNBC, or any of the broadcast networks, our friend Idahawkman being one of them.

[Aseahawkfan]

They would have to prove the damages. It has to be real damages to profits and such for the end result to be too big.

RD is right. A lot of conservatives won't watch what they consider the news arm of the Democratic Party. To them the Democrats are stupid people that hate the country and want to see America destroyed.

Democrats love crime and protect criminals over citizens. Democrats love drugs and drug users over protecting communities. Democrats hate America and view it as a racist country. Democrats view America as a hateful sexist country. Democrats want to take everyone's guns away so they can control them. Democrats are anti-American evil and/or stupid people who vote politicians that are bad for America. All the stuff they get sold on Fox News and other conservative outlets. And let's not forget: Democrats hate unborn children and want to abort as many possible.

When this is what you believe and what you get sold on conservative media, you're unlikely to watch another news station that's promoting a lot of what you disagree with and/or hate.

[RiverDog]

They've delayed the start of the trial until tomorrow, but I didn't catch why they delayed it.

I did see this move by Fox that may give us a preview of their defense:

The night before the trial's scheduled start, attorneys for Fox News filed documents imploring the judge overseeing the case to allow them to introduce evidence arguing the company's allegedly defamatory claims against Dominion's voting machines were primarily inspired by Trump's own rhetoric that the election—with Dominion's involvement—was specifically rigged against him.

Such a development, if accepted, could play a key role in the development of the case. To successfully win a defamation suit, the allegedly defamed entity would have to prove the person or organization who defamed it did so with harmful intent.

Because Trump was the president, Fox News' attorneys argued, his comments about the company were therefore newsworthy, raising questions about whether the conservative network's personalities were acting with "actual malice" in repeating them on the air.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... r-AA19YgXp

I don't agree with the defense. If a news network knows a story is false, it shouldn't be repeated as fact no matter who is saying it, the President or some common layman, at least not without some sort of disclaimer noting that the claims are baseless, and if they do, they're liable for any damages suffered as a result of such reporting.

A rather comical thing that happened this weekend is that Trump claims that the police and court officers were crying during his arraignment even though court room cameras didn't record anyone showing any signs of distress.

Former US President Donald Trump has said court officials "were crying" as he was indicted last week on business fraud charges, in his first interview since the historic arraignment.

Speaking to Fox News, Mr Trump said many of the staff at the Manhattan court "were in tears or close to it".

n the interview aired on Tuesday on the Tucker Carlson Tonight show, Mr Trump described how he was processed at the criminal court by officials, including police. He said "tears were pouring down their eyes".

"They were incredible," he said of the staff. "When I went to the courthouse, which is also a prison in a sense, they signed me in and I'll tell you people were crying. "People that work there. Professionally work there that have no problems putting in murderers and they see everybody. "It's a tough, tough place and they were crying. They were actually crying. They said, 'I'm sorry.'"

A law enforcement source familiar with the arraignment has described Mr Trump's claim as "absolute BS". "There were zero people crying. There were zero people saying 'I'm sorry,'" the source told Yahoo News.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-polic ... 23466.html

[c_hawkbob]

Settled for $787M. And this is just the first at bat.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dominion-fox ... 38134.html

[RiverDog]

I'm disappointed that it didn't go to court as now, Fox can claim at least a minor victory although in reality, they knew they were as guilty as sin. But in Dominion's eyes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, which is just about right as they settled for roughly half of what they were asking for.

[c_hawkbob]

Next up is Smartmatic to the tune of $2.7B, half of that is still nearly double this one, and there's a couple more beyond that from a former producer as well as a case FOX filed in Australia when they were still pretending they were legit that goes to trial in Sydney in October. I'm sure there's an Aussie version of a countersuit involved there too.

[Aseahawkfan]

That is quite the settlement. Must have been some real damage to Dominion's business for that amount. Nice to see Fox News suffering. I despise that news station and their talking heads.

[RiverDog]

That is quite the settlement. Must have been some real damage to Dominion's business for that amount. Nice to see Fox News suffering. I despise that news station and their talking heads.

I used to watch Fox News on Sunday morning when they had Chris Wallace working for them, who was one of my all time favorite news commentators, and I'd watch them casually when they were on in our lunch room at work or at the gym. At least before they started embracing Trump's election conspiracy theories, their news reporting was fine, it was their commentary that was hugly biased, ie Tucker Carlson, Jesse Waters, Sean Hannity, and those guys. But I haven't watched them at all since the 2020 election.

Fox isn't the first news network to knowingly embrace a false story. CBS and Dan Rather did it when they used obviously falsified documents to smear George W Bush in the Texas Air National Guard scandal. But that one was peanuts when compared to what Fox has done by embracing Trump's election conspiracy.

[RiverDog]

Tucker Carlson, Fox News' most popular host, and the network are parting ways:

Fox News said Monday it has “agreed to part ways” with Tucker Carlson, its popular and controversial host, less than a week after settling a lawsuit over the network’s 2020 election reporting.

The network said in a press release that the last program of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” aired Friday. “We thank him for his service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor,” the press release from the network said.

There was no immediate explanation from Fox about why Carlson was leaving. A text message to Carlson seeking comment was not immediately returned.

https://apnews.com/article/tucker-carls ... osition_01

[c_hawkbob]

Looks like they're positioning themselves for the Smartmatic suit.

[RiverDog]

Looks like they're positioning themselves for the Smartmatic suit.

Can you elaborate? And I say that in all seriousness, as I don't see how firing him at this point in time helps their case. It doesn't change his documented statements or potential testimony.

There's a couple of possibilities. They've released comments with Carlson saying that he "hates Trump". Is the network trying to shore up their standing with the pro-Trump viewers? Or is Carlson fed up with the network execs, forcing him to go on air and say things that he doesn't believe in, ie the stolen election conspiracy? Or are they afraid that his behavior might lead to lawsuits involving a toxic work environment for female employees as alleged by fired news producer Abby Grossberg?

[mykc14]

Some of the behind the scenes stuff that came out because of the Dominion Lawsuit surrounding Tucker Carlson is pretty interesting. He clearly does not like Trump and was glad that he lost the election. It would be interesting to see why they ended up parting ways- was it because of the lawsuits, or because of the background information coming out? Could it possibly be that he was just done with the extreme conservatism? At any rate he will probably go on to make a ton of money with some sort of podcast or something like Joe Rogan. What would be nice would be if his huge following goes with him and he turns out to be much more moderate than he was on his show. That could really help to move a number of extreme republicans towards sanity. Now if Don Lemon would do the same with Liberals maybe we could get away from the extreme agenda on both sides.

[RiverDog]

Some of the behind the scenes stuff that came out because of the Dominion Lawsuit surrounding Tucker Carlson is pretty interesting. He clearly does not like Trump and was glad that he lost the election. It would be interesting to see why they ended up parting ways- was it because of the lawsuits, or because of the background information coming out? Could it possibly be that he was just done with the extreme conservatism? At any rate he will probably go on to make a ton of money with some sort of podcast or something like Joe Rogan. What would be nice would be if his huge following goes with him and he turns out to be much more moderate than he was on his show. That could really help to move a number of extreme republicans towards sanity. Now if Don Lemon would do the same with Liberals maybe we could get away from the extreme agenda on both sides.

I doubt that Carlson causes a significant number of his huge following to look at themselves in the mirror and admit that they've been wrong. The human ego just doesn't bring itself to admit it was wrong that easily. It's more of a gradual realization that, if it does occur, is measured in years. That is, unless there is a significant life altering event, such as George Wallace experienced in the assassination attempt on him, or if something really big happens, like 9/11.

[mykc14]

I doubt that Carlson causes a significant number of his huge following to look at themselves in the mirror and admit that they've been wrong. The human ego just doesn't bring itself to admit it was wrong that easily. It's more of a gradual realization that, if it does occur, is measured in years. That is, unless there is a significant life altering event, such as George Wallace experienced in the assassination attempt on him, or if something really big happens, like 9/11.

Yeah, my hope would be that he doesn't just go out and start spouting about how much he hates Trump but does a show that covers all topics, and eventually gets to how he feels about a guy like Trump. He does know where his money is made so maybe he would attack a topic like that with some tact- in a way that they don't have to admit that they were wrong?

[Aseahawkfan]

Tucker Carlson, Fox News' most popular host, and the network are parting ways:

Fox News said Monday it has “agreed to part ways” with Tucker Carlson, its popular and controversial host, less than a week after settling a lawsuit over the network’s 2020 election reporting.

The network said in a press release that the last program of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” aired Friday. “We thank him for his service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor,” the press release from the network said.

There was no immediate explanation from Fox about why Carlson was leaving. A text message to Carlson seeking comment was not immediately returned.

https://apnews.com/article/tucker-carls ... osition_01

I wonder who will step up to be the next shill for Fox to push the divide for higher ratings? Gutfeld? I guess we'll see. Or maybe Fox will shift away for a while given the huge lawsuit they have to pay due to supporting a liar like Trump.

[mykc14]

Or maybe Fox will shift away for a while given the huge lawsuit they have to pay due to supporting a liar like Trump.

That's what I'm hoping!

[RiverDog]

Tucker Carlson, Fox News' most popular host, and the network are parting ways:

Fox News said Monday it has “agreed to part ways” with Tucker Carlson, its popular and controversial host, less than a week after settling a lawsuit over the network’s 2020 election reporting.

The network said in a press release that the last program of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” aired Friday. “We thank him for his service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor,” the press release from the network said.

There was no immediate explanation from Fox about why Carlson was leaving. A text message to Carlson seeking comment was not immediately returned.

https://apnews.com/article/tucker-carls ... osition_01

I wonder who will step up to be the next shill for Fox to push the divide for higher ratings? Gutfeld? I guess we'll see. Or maybe Fox will shift away for a while given the huge lawsuit they have to pay due to supporting a liar like Trump.

Someone will step in to fill the void. The audience will still be there.

But I don't think Fox will suddenly shift away from their bell cow subjects. Oh, they'll quit promoting the election conspiracy as it seems to have run its course, but I don't think they'll suddenly disown Trump, at least not openly.

Fox is the only network that reports on subjects that conservatives are most interested in, and until another one rises to challenge their monopoly, I don't see them veering away from what has made them the most popular cable news network in the country. I don't think the lawsuits change anything. They'll consider them an expense of doing business.

[I-5]

Didn't Fox already disown Trump months ago? That's what he's been complaining about ad nauseum, and why he gave his first interview after Tucker's firing to NewsMax. Obviously, NewsMax is not comparable to the scale of Fox, but he obiviously is looking for symbolism. That's what he does.

I'm done commenting on 45 for the day. He doesn't deserve thought, and I don't think he has a legit chance to be president again...if he somehow made it to the ticket, we'd see the largest voter turnout in history just to make he loses. He has lost a lot of supporters already, though not enough supporters in congress.

[RiverDog]

It's becoming evident that this decision to let Carlson go came straight from the top, Rupert Murdock, known for giving his subordinates a lot of slack then suddenly cutting them off. And IMO it has little to do with their settlement with Dominion or the upcoming lawsuit by Smartmatic, rather it's more likely that Murdock got fed up with Carlson's criticisms of Fox's management and the lawsuit filed by a former employee:

The seeds of Carlson's demise at the network may have been planted in a lawsuit; not the Fox-Dominion lawsuit, which cost the network $787.7m to settle, but in lesser-known litigation brought by a former producer.

Abby Grossberg, who formerly worked on Carlson's show, sued Fox News, alleging that Carlson and his producer, Justin Wells, had displayed rampant misogyny and anti-Semitism in the workplace.

Ms Grossberg claims in a federal court filing that Carlson's show "subjugates women based on vile sexist stereotypes" and that it "typecasts" religious minorities and "belittles their traditions."

The filing includes examples of the alleged misconduct, like Mr Wells asking her if then-Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo — who Ms Gorssberg formerly worked for — has slept with House Majority Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

She said that people in Carlson's shop made crude comments about women politicians' looks and theorised on which had slept their way into their positions in government.

It's very possible that the old man himself has finally gotten fed up with Carlson and didn't like fighting a two headed monster, with the network having to defend itself on two fronts, the election conspiracy and the toxic workplace environment.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/why-w ... r-AA1amjCV

[c_hawkbob]

More trouble for Murdoch in Australia: One ruling by Australia’s media regulator has found the Aussie portion of the mogul's media empire (Foxit) guilty of misleading Australians about climate change and another about covid-19 vaccines.

“The program has an obligation to its audience to clearly separate fact from comment,” said Nerida O’Loughlin, chair of ACMA, in a statement. “Across a number of its episodes Outsiders failed to do so and did not present news content either accurately or fairly.”

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/murd ... 00525.html

Gee, wish we had some sort of such "regulator" here...

[RiverDog]

More trouble for Murdoch in Australia: One ruling by Australia’s media regulator has found the Aussie portion of the mogul's media empire (Foxit) guilty of misleading Australians about climate change and another about covid-19 vaccines.

“The program has an obligation to its audience to clearly separate fact from comment,” said Nerida O’Loughlin, chair of ACMA, in a statement. “Across a number of its episodes Outsiders failed to do so and did not present news content either accurately or fairly.”
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/murd ... 00525.html

Gee, wish we had some sort of such "regulator" here...

Interesting article. I hadn't heard of it until now.

Although I agree that news networks that utilize a public domain have an obligation to report information accurately and fairly and that some sort of regulation is needed, establishing a government controlled regulatory agency in this country like the one in Australia would almost certainly bump up against the first amendment that insures a free press. It's one of the founding principles of our country.

Rather than a federal agency like the one in the article above, my preference would be for some sort of self-regulatory organization similar to what they have in the financial industry, ie the New York Stock Exchange, Chicago Board of Trade, etc. Perhaps if Fox News gets their nose bloodied enough that they'd be willing to join the other major networks in establishing some sort of standards and review board.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is an independent, nongovernmental organization that writes and enforces the rules governing registered brokers and broker-dealer firms in the United States.

Its stated mission is "to safeguard the investing public against fraud and bad practices." It is considered a self-regulatory organization

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/finra.asp

[c_hawkbob]

Self regulation is a joke. Catholic priests and corrupt courts are self regulating. And I don't buy the 1st amendment argument, editorializing allows for all the say what you want required. Requiring a clear delineation between news and opinion is no infringement.

[RiverDog]

Self regulation is a joke. Catholic priests and corrupt courts are self regulating. And I don't buy the 1st amendment argument, editorializing allows for all the say what you want required. Requiring a clear delineation between news and opinion is no infringement.

There's already a huge amount of mistrust of the government from a significant segment of the population, and now you want to create a government agency that's going to filter what we get in the way of news and opinion? Good luck with that.

Self-regulation can work. It works in the financial industry, in medicine (see the AMA), there's no reason why it can't work in the collection and distribution of news and opinion.

[c_hawkbob]

"Financial Industry" is the worst bolster for an argument ever! Self regulation has been great for them, but no less than an absolute disaster for the country.

[RiverDog]

"Financial Industry" is the worst bolster for an argument ever! Self regulation has been great for them, but no less than an absolute disaster for the country.

Oh, horsepucky!

But if you don't like that one, how about Underwriter's Laboratories, the private company that sets safety standards for things like electrical appliances. Or how about the American Medical Association, or Certified Public Accounts, or the National Fire Prevention Organization, or the American Bar Association. There's a whole host of non-governmental organizations that set ethical and safety standards similar to what we're talking about with the dissemination of news.