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.
“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.