Posted on 04/18/2023 1:16:49 PM PDT by JSM_Liberty
By interviewing people who have doubts about the claims, and airing their reasons why they think the claim is false.
That would show regard for whether or not a claim is true.
Couldn’t they do that in response to the suit, then? Seems pretty simple.
OK, I will re-phrase.
To win a defamation lawsuit one has to CONVINCE A JURY that a media outlet acted with “actual malice.”
And you’re right, that’s different from PROVING anything.
However...
Discovery was not kind to Fox on this one. Their texts and emails were pretty convincing, and their testimony in depositions (from Hannity, to Bartiromo, to Murdoch himself) indicate that none of them believed what Powell and Giuliani were saying.
Murdoch himself is on record (in deposition testimony) saying that they broadcast what they did to boost ratings.
Stupid? Probably not. The cost of litigation being what it is. Gotta remember that Fox is no longer a true conservative news source. They looked at the bottom line.
....FOX paid out over the table...and quite possibly was paid back under the table by Dominion ...to set precedence for settlement..and avoid discovery
turning a national election is worth at least 10’s if not 100’s of billions...no prob at all for Dominion and Fox to swing this scam
They’re not a “news source.” Full stop.
If the accusations were “newsworthy” (as Fox tried to argue) then the source of said claims would have been “newsworthy.”
Fox has been arguing (in court) for years that much of their programming is opinion. (Their argument is famously known as “The Tucker Carlson Defense.”) Their argument (which won in court) was that “no reasonable person” would come to the conclusion that their on-air statements are factual.
Even MSNBC has successfully used this defense (The Rachel Maddow Show).
Link, please?
This settlement was made after the discovery phase.
When the jury already hates you, you don't have to convince them. They are already going to hurt you any way they can.
Discovery was not kind to Fox on this one. Their texts and emails were pretty convincing, and their testimony in depositions (from Hannity, to Bartiromo, to Murdoch himself) indicate that none of them believed what Powell and Giuliani were saying.
What does what they believe have to do with anything? " The opinions put forth by their guests are their own opinions and do not represent the positions of this network or it's affiliates."
Sound familiar?
Murdoch himself is on record (in deposition testimony) saying that they broadcast what they did to boost ratings.
So? Every news network in the world puts on crazy people who make ridiculous accusations. It's still not the responsibility of the network for what crazy people say.
If we are going to play the game that way, all the other networks should be bankrupted after all the lies they have promulgated by allowing their platforms to be exploited by vicious liars.
We cannot have two standards of justice in this nation.
Trillions, and perhaps the deaths of millions. That is the stakes we are seeing now.
Indeed, it seems pretty simple.
I want to make sure we’re on the same page here. This is what the court records of this case show thus far:
Fox published/broadcast the claims without doing such interviews.
Dominion sent Fox multiple warnings that what Fox was broadcasting/publishing was untrue (and why it was untrue). This was Fox’s first opportunity to demonstrate that they had some regard over the veracity of the claims. Fox continued to publish the claims without also airing any official response from Dominion (other than to off-handedly say that Dominion denied the allegations).
Then Fox got sued for defamation. Here’s Fox’s second chance to show that they had regard for the veracity of the claims. Fox may have been able to avoid court completely if they had offered to interview Dominion executives (or to at least report on the specifics of Dominion’s denial) on-air. They didn’t.
So why didn’t they? Discovery (emails/text messages and deposition testimony) shows that they were worried about their ratings.
Fox now has a chance to avoid further court action with Smartmatic, who has filed a $2.7 billion suit against them.
This will be Fox’s 3rd (at least) opportunity to show that they have some regard for the veracity of the claims it published.
So yeah, I agree, it seems simple—unless you’re trying to protect your ratings.
It would appear that this settlement makes no demand that Fox publish/broadcast any admission of wrong doing. So once again Fox has to make the decision to show regard for the truth, or protect their ratings.
discovery stopped right here...
“...upon learning that Fox has delayed the disclosure of Murdoch’s full role at Fox News, a technicality that prevented Dominion from getting access to documents they otherwise would have during the discovery process. It was also during the pretrial hearings that Davis sanctioned Fox News for withholding evidence. Dominion lawyers asserted they’d found out about other documents and material that they should have received during discovery but didn’t. The judge said he would likely start an investigation into the matter.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/fox-dominion-settlement
The same has been claimed for the Dominion v Lindell suit, the Sidney Powell suit and the Rudy suit. Those suits have yet to reveal any of the desired disclosures as they make their way through the process.
“So? Every news network in the world puts on crazy people who make ridiculous accusations. It’s still not the responsibility of the network for what crazy people say.
If we are going to play the game that way, all the other networks should be bankrupted after all the lies they have promulgated by allowing their platforms to be exploited by vicious liars.
We cannot have two standards of justice in this nation.”
As a point of law, if you broadcast/publish a claim or accusation that you know is untrue, or if your broadcast/publication ignores whether or not the claim/accusation is untrue, then you are as liable for defamation as the person making the accusation.
I don’t disagree that the media publishes/broadcasts “ridiculous accusations” on a regular basis. One way that a media outlet can show that they have any regard for the veracity of such accusations is for the outlet to offer the party being accused the opportunity to comment—and to publish/broadcast those official comments. We did not see that happen in this case.
It is also also my opinion that Fox is not the only media outlet that has ever shown a disregard for whether or not a “ridiculous accusation” is true.
So in all those other instances of making “ridiculous claims,” what you need is a plaintiff. The question isn’t whether or there is a double standard of justice. It’s about whether or not you have a plaintiff.
Remember, this is not a criminal trial. It’s a civil suit and as such someone has to be willing to be a plaintiff. Plaintiffs have to deal what the discovery process will reveal. This is probably why so few defamation suits succeed, and why so few people are willing to be a plaintiff in a defamation case.
I think you and I are interpreting this article differently.
WHY did discovery end there?
(from the article you posted... but all emphasis is mine.)
“Davis appeared to repeatedly clash with Fox during the pretrial hearings. At one point last week he told a Fox News attorney that his team had a “credibility problem” upon learning that Fox has delayed the disclosure of Murdoch’s full role at Fox News, a technicality that prevented Dominion from getting access to documents they otherwise would have during the discovery process. It was also during the pretrial hearings that Davis sanctioned Fox News for withholding evidence. DOMINION LAWYERS ASSERTED THEY’D FOUND OUT ABOUT OTHER DOCUMENTS AND MATERIAL THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED DURING DISCOVERY BUT DIDN’T. [!!!!]THE JUDGE SAID HE WOULD LIKELY START AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE MATTER.[!!!!]”
They got caught withholding evidence in discovery and they were about to be investigated as to whether or not they were withholding more evidence.
Any chance at all that this is why Fox was willing to settle?
I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not a journalist.
I did, however, take a course in journalism in college (LONG TIME ago). It turns out that it’s a terrific way to fulfill a writing requirement.
Faculty who teach journalism do spend time instructing how to avoid libel/defamation—not just to keep future journalists out of court, but to promote good journalism. Ah... those where the days.
I’m wondering if “for-profit journalism” isn’t to blame. There are multiple studies that show that people will seek out/pay for information that supports their own biases.
They settled in order to avoid having all of their on-air talent go under oath, on television, and admit they lied about everything they said to convince you lot that the election was stolen.
They’ve said it in print already of course, but since none of you can read, that didn’t have as much impact.
LOL, that’s right, none of us can read. Nice observation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.