About Me

My photo
SEEKONK, MASSACHUSETTS, United States

Wednesday, April 19, 2023

FOX SETTLES DOMINION LAWSUIT FOR $787.5 MILLION OVER U.S. ELECTION LIES. REUTERS.

 

      [1/5] Dominion CEO John Poulos and lawyers speak to the media after Dominion Voting Systems and Fox settled a defamation lawsuit for $787.5 million,


WILMINGTON, Delaware, April 18 (Reuters) - Fox Corp (FOXA.O) and Fox News on Tuesday settled a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million, averting a trial putting one of the world's top media companies in the crosshairs over its coverage of false vote-rigging claims in the 2020 U.S. election.

The settlement, which legal experts said was the largest struck by an American media company, was announced by the two sides and the judge in the case at the 11th hour.

The jury had been selected earlier in the day and the trial poised for opening statements in Wilmington, Delaware. Dominion had sought $1.6 billion in damages in the lawsuit filed in 2021.

Dominion CEO John Poulos called the settlement "historic."

"Fox has admitted to telling lies about Dominion that caused enormous damage to my company, our employees and our customers," Poulos said in a statement.

"Truthful reporting in the media is essential to our democracy," Poulos said.

At issue in the lawsuit was whether Fox was liable for airing the false claims that Denver-based Dominion's ballot-counting machines were used to manipulate the presidential election in favor of Democrat Joe Biden over then-President Donald Trump, a Republican.

Tuesday's settlement spared Fox the peril of having some of its best-known figures called to the witness stand and subjected to potentially withering questioning, including executives such as Rupert Murdoch, the 92-year-old who serves as Fox Corp chairman, as well as on-air hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro.

Fox anchor Neil Cavuto broke into his news show "Your World" about 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time to report the settlement. A statement by Fox was read on air.

"We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems," the statement said. "We acknowledge the Court's rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects FOX's continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues."

FOX HAS BILLIONS IN CASH

Shares of Fox Corp closed up slightly at $34 per share, but were down 1% in after-hours trading following disclosure of the settlement amount. Fox has cash on hand to pay for a settlement. It committed $3 billion to buy back shares in the first quarter after revenues beat estimates. Fox Corp CEO Lachlan Murdoch told Wall Street analysts in February that the company had about $4 billion cash on hand.

Dominion lawyers declined to answer questions about whether Fox News would apologize publicly or make changes.

Fox News is the most-watched U.S. cable news network.

The settlement of $787.5 million is the largest amount of money paid to conclude an American media libel case, said Richard Tofel, principal of Gallatin Advisory. The previously highest payment occurred in 2017 when Walt Disney Co paid $177 million, in addition to insurance recoveries, to settle the "pink slime" defamation case against its ABC network by Beef Products Inc.

Dominion sued Fox Corp and Fox News, contending that its business was ruined by the false vote-rigging claims that were aired by the news outlet known for its roster of conservative commentators. The trial was to have tested whether Fox's coverage crossed the line between ethical journalism and the pursuit of ratings, as Dominion alleged and Fox denied. Fox had portrayed itself in the pretrial skirmishing as a defender of press freedom.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis, presiding over the case, had ordered a one-day trial postponement on Monday. Fox was pursuing settlement talks, two sources familiar with the matter said. Davis delayed the trial on Tuesday, as the two sides appeared to hammer out the deal in private.

The primary question for jurors was to be whether Fox knowingly spread false information or recklessly disregarded the truth, the standard of "actual malice" that Dominion must show to prevail in a defamation case.

In February court filings, Dominion cited a trove of internal communications in which Murdoch and other Fox figures privately acknowledged that the vote-rigging claims made about Dominion on-air were false. Dominion said Fox amplified the untrue claims to boost its ratings and prevent its viewers from migrating to other media competitors on the right.

ANOTHER LAWSUIT PENDING

Adding to the legal risks for Fox, another U.S. voting technology company, Smartmatic, is pursuing its own defamation lawsuit seeking $2.7 billion in damages in a New York state court.

"For many plaintiffs, a court holding, and admission by the defendant about falsity, are even more important than any actual money damages," said Mary-Rose Papandrea, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

Fox had earlier argued that claims by Trump and his lawyers about the election were inherently newsworthy and protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Davis ruled in March that Fox could not use those arguments as a defense, finding its coverage was false, defamatory and not protected by the First Amendment.

The lawsuit referenced instances in which Trump allies including his former lawyers Rudolph Giuliani and Sidney Powell appeared on Fox News to advance the false allegations.

Murdoch internally described the election-rigging claims as "really crazy" and "damaging" but declined to wield his editorial power to stop them and conceded under oath that some Fox hosts nonetheless "endorsed" the baseless claims, Dominion told the court in a filing.

Under questioning from a Dominion lawyer, Murdoch testified that he thought everything about the election was on the "up-and-up" and doubted the rigging claims from the very beginning, according to Dominion's filing.

Asked if he could have intervened to stop Giuliani from continuing to spread falsehoods on air, Murdoch responded, "I could have. But I didn't," the filing said.

Reporting by Helen Coster in Wilmington and Jack Queen in New York; Editing by Will Dunham

Tuesday, April 18, 2023

FACT CHECKING TRUMP, AND ANYONE ELSE. PART 2.



So, why should we fact-check?

IN LOGIC, THE CONCLUSION TO ANY VALID ARGUMENT IS ONLY AS STRONG AS THE

PREMISES GIVEN TO SUPPORT IT.

Premises are the Foundation, but if they are Weak or Unsupportable then your Conclusion will

collapse. So, if someone is basing a Conclusion on certain specific facts given as all or part of

a premise(s), it is necessary to evaluate whether or not said facts are true.


EXAMPLE:

PREMISE 1- All Members of Party A Voted against Issue B.

PREMISE 2- Issue B, if passed, will lower taxes.

CONCLUSION: PARTY A VOTED AGAINST LOWERING TAXES.

This is a very basic example, but I find that some form of it is being used constantly

by Politicians trying to drag down the opposition.


FOR THE CONCLUSION TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, WE MUST FIRST ESTABLISH THAT

BOTH PREMISES ARE FACTUAL.

As you see, Premises 1 and 2 are quite different from each other, in how difficult it would be to 

establish each as factual. The first premise would need only a simple survey of voting records to

establish its reality, but it alone does not lead to said conclusion.

The Second Premise is a different story. JUST CLAIMING THAT ISSUE B WILL LOWER TAXES

DOES NOT ESTABLISH IT AS A STATEMENT OF FACT.

to be continued...

MORE FROM THE FASCIST TWITTER FEED, LED BY ELON MUSK. (UPDATE)

 

Townhall.com
TUCKER: "How do you run the company with only 20% of the staff?" .: "If you're not trying to run some sort of glorified activist organization, and you don't care that much about censorship, then you can really let go of a lot of people." TUCKER: *bursts out laughing*


MY RESPONSE:

Well yeah, if you don't employ Editors, Fact Checkers, Researchers, or anyone else that might challenge the Truth, Validity, or Moral Justification for publishing Bogus and False Material, you can cut down on staff. Which gives you the Twitter quality you get now, like FOX NEWS.




TONY™️

This video got many banned from Twitter back in the day.

Glad we can share it now thanks to This is how they stole the election 👇🏼

MY RESPONSE:
Hey, why don't you take this evidence into court, or to Congress? I'm sure Trump and the GOP will appreciate it. Of course, the opposition will be able to analyze its facts, but that's no problem, right? I'm sure this is will change everything. Who needs editorial standards?

I'm surprised about one thing? Why didn't FOX use it to defend itself against the DOMINION LAWSUIT? Why would they not show such a "Brilliant" piece of Video Research and Critical Reasoning for all to see? It is mystifying.



The Republican-led House has passed more than 50 bills, including the Parents Bill of Rights. Schumer's Senate has passed 10 bills—less than 1 per week—plus a nonbinding resolution “recognizing the importance of maple syrup and designating March 26 as ‘Maine Maple Sunday.’"

MY RESPONSE:
...And how many of the 50 have been signed into law? Just because you push dozens of Bills to lead this country into becoming a FASCIST UTOPIA, destroying our Constitutional Republic, doesn't mean the Senate and White House are going to sit back and let you do it.
Sorry, Trump Jr.


Monday, April 17, 2023

"NO REASONABLE VIEWER TAKES TUCKER CARLSON SERIOUSLY." FOX ADMITS IT IN COURT.



FROM INSIDER, SEPTEMBER FOURTH, 2020.

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit against Fox News after lawyers for the network argued that no "reasonable viewer" takes the primetime host Tucker Carlson seriously, a new court filing said.

The case was brought by the former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who said Carlson defamed her on his show, "Tucker Carlson Tonight," by saying she extorted President Donald Trump "out of approximately $150,000 in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair," the filing said.

Fox News asked the judge to toss out McDougal's case by arguing that "Carlson's statements were not statements of fact and that she failed adequately to allege actual malice."

McDougal said two of Carlson's statements during the episode on December 10, 2018, were defamatory:

  • Carlson's claim that McDougal "approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn't give them money."
  • Carlson's claim that McDougal's actions amounted to "a classic case of extortion."

But Fox News argued that Carlson "cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect," the ruling said.

It added that Fox News "submits that the use of that word or an accusation of extortion, absent more, is simply 'loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language' that does not give rise to a defamation claim."

US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed with Fox's premise, adding that the network "persuasively argues" that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes."

"This 'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary,'" the ruling said.

McDougal made headlines in 2018 when it surfaced that Michael Cohen, Trump's longtime lawyer and fixer, had arranged for American Media Inc., the owner of the tabloid the National Enquirer, to pay her $150,000 for her story that she had an affair with Trump in 2006. AMI purchased but never published McDougal's story to shield Trump in the weeks before the 2016 election, a practice known as "catch and kill."

Carlson has made several racist and controversial statements during his tenure as one of Fox News' primetime stars.

Last year, after a mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, in which the suspect wrote a manifesto about a "Hispanic invasion of Texas," Carlson argued that white supremacy was a "hoax" and "not a real problem."

In December 2018, Carlson claimed that immigrants would make the US "poorer and dirtier." Nearly three dozen advertisers then cut ties with Carlson's show.

Three months later, the host again found himself in hot water when tapes surfaced featuring him describing women as "primitive" and saying they "just need to be quiet," comparing them to dogs, and defending the convicted pedophile Warren Jeffs. Carlson refused to apologize and invited those who disagreed with him to appear on his show.

In June, as protests erupted across the US following the police killing of George Floyd, the host said the demonstrations were "definitely not about Black lives" and told viewers to "remember that when they come for you."

Carlson saw another exodus of advertisers following his remarks about the protests.