╌>

'Mind Blowingly Nuts': Fox News Hosts And Execs Repeatedly Denounced 2020 Election Fraud Off-Air—Here Are Their Most Scathing Comments

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  last year  •  123 comments

By:   Alison Durkee (Forbes)

'Mind Blowingly Nuts': Fox News Hosts And Execs Repeatedly Denounced 2020 Election Fraud Off-Air—Here Are Their Most Scathing Comments
Dominion Voting Systems, which is suing Fox for defamation, pointed to a slew of examples of Fox News officials calling leading election deniers "ludicrous," "off the rails," "lunatics" and "nuts."

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



0x0.jpg?format=jpg&crop=2412,1357,x0,y4,safe&width=960 Fox News host Tucker Carlson speaks during the[+][-] 2022 FOX Nation Patriot Awards on November 17, 2022 in Hollywood, Florida. Getty Images

Topline


Fox News personalities and executives privately made clear they didn't believe falsehoods being peddled by former President Donald Trump and his allies about fraud in the 2020 election despite pushing them on-air, a new court filing by Dominion Voting Systems alleges, part of a billion-dollar defamation suit the voting company is waging to hold Fox liable for its on-air claims.

Key Facts


Dominion filed a motion for summary judgment with the court as part of its long-running defamation suit against Fox News, which included significant evidence that had previously not been made public in the case—most notably Fox officials allegedly denying the far-right conspiracy theory linking Dominion voting machines to election fraud.

Host Tucker Carlson said in text messages that far-right attorney Sidney Powell "is lying" and called her claims "insane" and "absurd," saying it was "shockingly reckless" to push the Dominion fraud claims and Powell was "poison," an "unguided missile" and "dangerous as hell" and he "hope[s] she's punished."

Carlson also wrote after the January 6 attack that Trump is "a demonic force, a destroyer," and told host Laura Ingraham he "had to make" the Trump White House "disavow" Powell's comments, calling her a "nut."

Host Sean Hannity testified he "did not believe … for one second" that Powell's voter fraud claims were true and it was "obvious" Powell's allegations were false when she appeared on his program, also saying far-right attorney Rudy Giuliani was "acting like an insane person" and calling the lawyers "f'ing lunatics."

Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott also testified she "had a number of conversations with [Hannity] where he wanted the President to accept the results" and said he had believed President Joe Biden had lawfully won the election "for some time."

Ingraham called Powell a "complete nut" and added "ditto with Rudy [Giuliani]," telling Carlson that "no serious lawyer could believe what they were saying" and calling Giuliani "such an idiot."

Fox host Lou Dobbs, who repeatedly hosted Powell on his program, agreed under oath that it was "false" to say that Powell revealed evidence of voter fraud on his show, and Dominion alleges that no Fox witness has testified there's any evidence of voter fraud involving Dominion machines.

Powell's evidence for her voter fraud claims was based on an email from someone who claimed to be "internally decapitated" and said, "the wind tells me I'm a ghost, but I don't believe it"—a message that Fox host Maria Bartiromo acknowledged under oath was "nonsense" and "kooky," but she still put Powell and her claims on her program anyway.

Fox Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch called Giuliani's allegations "really crazy stuff" and "damaging," said he should be taken "with a large grain of salt" and called the fact he was advising Trump "really bad."

Fox Corporation Executive Raj Shah called the voter fraud claims "mind blowingly nuts" and said in a text message to Carlson's producer Alex Pfeiffer, "So many people openly denying the obvious that Powell is clearly full of it," to which Pfeiffer responded that Powell is a "f-king nutcase."

Fox host Dana Perino described the Dominion fraud allegations in texts and emails as "total bs," "insane" and "nonsense," writing, "Where the hell did they even get this Venezuela tie to Dominion? I mean wtf."

Fox host Brett Baier said on November 5, "There is NO evidence of fraud. None."

Crucial Quote


"Fox witness after witness has admitted under oath that they have not seen evidence proving Dominion stole the 2020 Presidential Election or that they do not believe Dominion did," Dominion alleged in its filing. "Not a single Fox witness has presented evidence that Dominion rigged the 2020 election because no evidence, documentary or otherwise, suggests it."

Chief Critic


"There will be a lot of noise and confusion generated by Dominion and their opportunistic private equity owners, but the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v. Sullivan," Fox said in a statement in response to the court filing Thursday. A spokesperson for the network further argued the filing "takes an extreme and unsupported view of defamation law" and accused the voting company of "mischaracteriz[ing] the record, cherry-pick[ing] quotes stripped of key context, and spill[ing] considerable ink on facts that are irrelevant under black-letter principles of defamation law."

What To Watch For


Both Dominion and Fox News have filed motions for summary judgment that ask the court to make a ruling in the case without it going to trial, which the court will now consider. The case had been scheduled to go to trial in April in Delaware, which it will if their motions fail. Dominion is asking Fox to pay $1.6 billion in damages if the state court rules in the voting company's favor.

Contra


Fox News' own motion for summary judgment defends the company's airing of the Dominion fraud claims, alleging the company was justified in airing the fraud allegations because they were newsworthy and the comments made on the network are protected First Amendment speech. "Fox News did exactly what the First Amendment protects: It ensured that the public had access to newsmakers and newsworthy information that would help foster 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' debate on rapidly developing events of unparalleled importance," the motion alleged.

Key Background


Dominion's lawsuit against Fox News is one of more than a dozen defamation challenges that the company and competitor Smartmatic have filed in the wake of the 2020 election, after the allegations linking their voting machines to fraud gained widespread traction on the right. Dominion is also suing Powell and Giuliani directly, along with MyPillow and its CEO Mike Lindell; right-wing networks One America News and Newsmax and former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, and Smartmatic is suing all of the same defendants except for Byrne. Dominion is also separately suing Fox Corporation in addition to the Fox News lawsuit, seeking to hold Fox executives including Murdoch and his son Lachlan liable for the fraud claims after they tried to evade responsibility in the Fox News suit. None of the defamation lawsuits have yet been resolved in court, but Dominion and Smartmatic's cases have so far kept moving forward as courts have largely rejected motions to dismiss the litigation. The Fox News case may be the first to reach a conclusion, as the April trial date is sooner than other cases are expected to be heard.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    last year

And, this is what Forbes is saying!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1    last year

WE all knew as well as Faux 'news' that there was no election fraud and they also knew that the former 'president' incited and led the failed insurrection coup on 1/6 but if they didn't back the lifelong fraud that the big fat pig loser would destroy them.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    last year

eeeeek!

those commie libs are hell bent on destroying the only "fair and balanced" news source for all of the racists, xenophobes, white supremacists, neo-nazis, fascists, knuckle dragging trumpsters, and gullible morons in america. /s

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.1.1    last year

one thing is for certain, the coming GOP primaries are going to be hilarious. watching them try to keep a lid on all the festering internal disputes will be highly entertaining. rwnj radio pundits are  picking sides on the airwaves now and signed loyalty pledges will be required before entry to rwnj events. I look forward to watching trump blow even more holes into the bottom of the SS GOP ...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.3  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    last year

poor rwnj's, there's no way they'll hear about this story on FOX...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.4  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.1.3    last year

trumpsters to the dumpsters...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.5  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.1.3    last year

if they don't talk about it they can convince themselves it never happened...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.6  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.1.5    last year

... their cheese has gone bad.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.7  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.1.6    last year

... and their sausage is rotten.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    last year

In a just world this astonishing story would result in Fox News being forced to remove the word "News" from their name. 

Easily one of the worst scandals ever to hit television journalism. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @2    last year

Fox won in court years ago: they're NOT news; they're entertainment.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1    last year

That was when Fox's defense was "that no reasonable person would believe Carson Tucker."

They aren't entertainment, they are propaganda for a political ideology.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.1    last year

the "state" broadcast channel for autocrats...

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1.3  bbl-1  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1    last year

Not exactly.  FOX won in a Florida Supreme Court case which decreed that lie speech is free speech.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
2.1.4  Freewill  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.1    last year
They aren't entertainment, they are propaganda for a political ideology.

Indeed, as are most of the major networks.  Reuters and AP are probably the best sources for news, rarely tinged with political agenda/propaganda, particularly Reuters.  All news organizations are concerned with gaining audience, market share, and profit, and they are run by people, so occasional bias and spin is inevitable.  They either want to say what they think their audience wants to hear, or they are beholden to Owners/shareholders.  That's just how it works in a capitalist economy within the framework of a democratic republic that regards free speech as an inalienable right.  Once one understands that, one can see how having the opportunity to watch all of them and distill the information down to the raw facts, is at least better than state run media to which many in the rest of the world are exclusively limited.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.1.5  al Jizzerror  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.1    last year
That was when Fox's defense was "that no reasonable person would believe Carson Tucker."

512

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.6  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.5    last year

FOX viewers/believers are fucking stupid, period.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Freewill @2.1.4    last year

No, Faux 'news' is nothing more than propaganda and bullshit and lies.  They're not classified as news but entertainment.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.1.6    last year

And that's the truth!  PERIOD.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.9  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.1    last year

the now popular "it's not our fault our audience is fucking stupid" FOX defense...

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.2  afrayedknot  replied to  JohnRussell @2    last year

“Fox News being forced to remove the word "News" from their name.”

Let them continue, as is their prerogative…but let every one of us understand just how self-serving the motivation. Ratings are one thing, the truth will always be the final arbiter. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.1  devangelical  replied to  afrayedknot @2.2    last year

FOX news journalistic credibility is in the shitter and those that still support them are too.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    last year

This whole thing can be explained in a couple sentences.  After the election Newsmax was eating into Fox News ratings, and I guess stock price, by promoting the election lies the MAGA mob wanted to hear. To save their ratings and stock price Fox personalities decided to lie about the voter fraud accusations in order to win their viewers back. 

They should all be banned from the airwaves. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year
To save their ratings and stock price Fox personalities decided to lie about the voter fraud accusations in order to win their viewers back. 

On the good news side however, these revelations are turning the tide for Dominion Voting Systems to win the 1.6 billion dollar lawsuit against FoxNews.  The hardest part to the entire lawsuit was proving that Fox personalities KNEW that what they were saying were lies, but said it anyway.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  cjcold  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    last year

Pretty sure that the hot blonds on Fox were hired for their ability to lie.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Expert
3.1.2  George  replied to  cjcold @3.1.1    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.4  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @3.1.1    last year

yeah, on their backs in the FOX executive suites upstairs ...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1.4    last year

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.5    last year

boo hoo hoo, the truth really hurts those fragile foxtards...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.7  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @3.1.6    last year

... so heap it upon them.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
3.2  MonsterMash  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year
They should all be banned from the airwaves. 

Yah John, you think all organizations not towing the Democratic party line should be banned. [deleted]

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
3.3  Freewill  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year
They should all be banned from the airwaves.

Yikes!  How about we just refute them with the facts, or even ignore them?  Who should ban them all John?  The government?  Maybe get the FCC to ban all but what the current party in charge wants people to hear?  Christ!  And there were some calling Republicans fascists here this past week, yet I don't hear any Republicans saying that we should ban MSNBC, CNN, AlterNet.org, Daily Beast, or The Democratic Underground from the airwaves..

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.3.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Freewill @3.3    last year

Fox News has been exposed in court for knowingly misinforming its audience, butt keep making false equivalence if you must.  

I doubt Fox News viewers care about this...

As evidenced by excuses made for them!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.2  Ender  replied to  Freewill @3.3    last year

If some people get their wish with gutting section 230, we might see a different internet.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.3.3  cjcold  replied to  JBB @3.3.1    last year

Fox viewers don't even care that folk who watch no cable news are much more informed on world events than folk who watched Fox exclusively.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
3.3.4  Freewill  replied to  JBB @3.3.1    last year
Fox News has been exposed in court for knowingly misinforming its audience

Excellent!  Then the bad actors should be culled and bear the consequences if the court finds that there were legal damages.  Free speech includes the right to object to the speech of others and make one's own case. 

But banning entire organizations from the airwaves because of the dishonesty of some in the organization, or disagreement with their political philosophy is the opposite of free speech.  It is one of those "better be careful what you wish for" type situations.  The way it should work is that the lies are exposed, proven in court to have caused damages, heads roll, and that people learn to use their right to free speech more responsibly.  The lesson should not be that we forcibly ban them all from the airwaves because they say shit we don't like (or in this case they don't say shit we do like), which is how I read John's post.

I mean hell, I'd think you'd be happy to hear that all these folks actually agreed with you, even if they did keep those opinions behind the scenes.  They actually committed the crime of throttling their own free speech to make a buck.  Nobody's ever done that before eh?

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
3.3.5  Freewill  replied to  cjcold @3.3.3    last year
Fox viewers don't even care that folk who watch no cable news are much more informed on world events than folk who watched Fox exclusively.

I'd be curious to know how you know that, but it wouldn't surprise me that anyone who puts all their eggs in one network "news" basket is not going to get the full picture and all the facts they need to cultivate an informed opinion.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
3.3.6  Freewill  replied to  Ender @3.3.2    last year
If some people get their wish with gutting section 230, we might see a different internet.

Indeed.  The SCOTUS begins hearing arguments this upcoming week.  Certainly one to keep an eye on as both parties want to see key parts of it dismantled, albeit for different reasons.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.3.7  Ender  replied to  Freewill @3.3.6    last year

I wonder if it would impact us on a site like this. We would be liable and not able to hold up in court. If only money wise.

We are basically all liable if it is gutted.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
3.3.8  Freewill  replied to  Ender @3.3.7    last year
We are basically all liable if it is gutted.

"We" are always liable for what we say in a forum such as this, or anywhere for that matter.  That's why we should use our right to free speech responsibly and within the rules of the forum in which we participate.  And like you said below, just exercise some common decency.

Section 230 has to do with whether the Owners of a venue such as this are liable for what "we" say.  Having said that, I doubt that Newstalkers would be worth a lawyers time and effort (no offense Perrie), they'd be looking for more the Facebooks and the Googles of the world without the Section 230 protections.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Freewill @3.3    last year
Yikes!  How about we just refute them with the facts, or even ignore them?  Who should ban them all John?  The government?  Maybe get the FCC to ban all but what the current party in charge wants people to hear?  Christ!  And there were some calling Republicans fascists here this past week, yet I don't hear any Republicans saying that we should ban MSNBC, CNN, AlterNet.org, Daily Beast, or The Democratic Underground from the airwaves..

You had instances where Fox hosts like Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham ,which IS Fox News primetime lineup, sending each other emails saying Giuliani and Sydney whats her face were "nuts" and then continuing to actively promote and advance their nuttery on the air. 

This is journalistic malpractice on steroids. It is a huge scandal, and yes, in a just world, all three would be fired. 

I'm not sure what your defense of this is. 

As far as refuting them with facts, people have been refuting Fox News with facts for 20 years and it has barely put a dent in the willingness of "conservatives" to listen to Fox News as gospel. 

How about some action involving these lies? , we dont need any more "both sides do it" talk in regards to this particular story. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Freewill @3.3.5    last year
I'd be curious to know how you know that, but it wouldn't surprise me that anyone who puts all their eggs in one network "news" basket is not going to get the full picture and all the facts they need to cultivate an informed opinion.

To be honest, it sounds like you are looking for a way to say this wasnt so bad. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Freewill @3.3.5    last year
Fox viewers don't even care that folk who watch no cable news are much more informed on world events than folk who watched Fox exclusively.
I'd be curious to know how you know that,

There have been a couple studies done on that, I dont know how recent they are, but that was the finding. The researchers quizzed two groups of people, those who get all their news from Fox, and those who dont watch tv news at all. The Fox only group was more uninformed and misinformed than the group that watches no news. I assume the latter reads newspapers etc. 

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
3.3.12  Freewill  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.9    last year
I'm not sure what your defense of this is.

I'm not sure either because I'm not defending it.

How about some action involving these lies? 

How about it, that would be great!  Let's see how this plays out and what can be proven in the court of law. 

we dont need any more "both sides do it" talk in regards to this particular story. 

Sure we do.  If "journalists" are going to run with a story that they think is bullshit, just because it fits a political narrative, or conversely hide a story that is counter to their political narrative, lets throw sunlight on that shit baby!  That is largely what we are all here for right?  NewsTalkers....say it with me Johnny...

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
3.3.13  Freewill  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.10    last year
To be honest, it sounds like you are looking for a way to say this wasnt so bad.

That is you being honest?  Did I not make it clear that anyone confining their news viewing to a single network that spins a political narrative is not going to be fully informed?  Fox is among the worst at that, no doubt.  It's all bad and this story is particularly bad... a poster child for why we need to seek less bias sources and do our due diligence when forming our opinions.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
3.3.14  Freewill  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.11    last year
There have been a couple studies done on that, I dont know how recent they are, but that was the finding.

Interesting.  I'll see if I can look those up.  Like I said, it would not surprise me if it were true. 

The part I was addressing when I said "I'd be curious to know how you know that" is the bit where cjcold said, "Fox viewers don't even care..." .   How does cjcold at NewsTalkers know what other people care about? 

My hope is that some might read this story and consider supplementing their news viewing sources.  In fact, anyone who cares about the truth should consider the bias of the source(s) they typically use for their news and seek additional sources to make sure they are seeing a topic from all angles and getting all the facts, so that they can arrive a more informed opinion.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.3.15  seeder  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.11    last year

For the older know-it-all Cliff Claven from Cheers type of Fox News viewers it would cause for an existential crisis to face the fact that they are sadly misinformed and that their "#1 New Source" made fools of them. That they are so wrong-headed...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.3.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3.3.15    last year

A MAGA postman is an odd bird indeed.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.3.17  seeder  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.16    last year

I never mentioned Trump or MAGA. You projected that...

We all know government workers aren’t immune from it!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
3.3.18  al Jizzerror  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.16    last year
A MAGA postman is an odd bird indeed.

According to Cliff Claven MAGA is a layer of molten lava under the Earth's crust.  So flaming MAGA postal workers were assigned to handle Republican mail-in ballots in 2020.  Many Trump ballots got vaporized and that's how the election was stolen.

512

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.19  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.9    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
4  Bob Nelson    last year

Is anyone... ANYONE... surprised by Fox hypocrisy? I'm sure that Fox viewers know they're being fed BS.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
4.1  Split Personality  replied to  Bob Nelson @4    last year

Maybe now...but I doubt it.  The viewers will just spin it to save face,

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
4.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Split Personality @4.1    last year

It's really hard to admit you've been played for a fool. All those millions of Fox viewers....

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
5  pat wilson    last year

Let's hear from the Fox"News" fans. You've all been duped.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @5    last year

you'll have to wait until monday morning to get the synced spin from the seditious faithful on this story...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @5.1    last year

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif Ya they need to get their spin/talking points from Faux 'news' and each other.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  pat wilson @5    last year

Their responses to my news seeds lately have been mainly limited to, "Nunt Uh!", and, "LIAR!"

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  JBB @5.2    last year
Their responses to my news seeds lately have been mainly limited to, "Nunt Uh!", and, "LIAR!"

Lately?  When has it ever been otherwise?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6  Tacos!    last year

If all they have is that Fox hosts didn’t believe the claims, then Dominion will likely lose - Unless, they can show the hosts making the defamatory claims. And even then, that doesn’t necessarily make the corporation liable. Simply giving airtime to a lunatic does not make Fox liable for defamation. It’s not the responsibility of the network to fact check everyone they interview. It might be good journalism, but it’s not a legal duty.

That’s just the state of the law.

For 50 years, TV news shows like 60 minutes have been putting microphones in front of people that the journalists don’t believe. They may express that doubt on air, or they may not. It’s the whole “we report, you decide” thing.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @6    last year

The owners and employees of Dominion Voting Systems suffered damages, plus all of this...

original

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @6.1    last year

I didn't question whether or not they suffered damages. My post was about who is liable for those damages under the law.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.1    last year

Juries sure have laid it to Alex Jones...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @6.1.2    last year

Because he’s the one making the defamatory statements.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.4  seeder  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.3    last year

original

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @6.1.4    last year

Maybe you should comment on a topic you understand.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.5    last year
Carlson and his fellow hosts continued to push the idea that the election was fraudulent, regularly inviting conspiracy theorists onto their shows. Carlson was even pushing it on Thursday night, right around the time the filing was made public.

“How did senile hermit Joe Biden get 15 million more votes than his boss, rockstar crowd surfer Barack Obama?” he asked. “Results like that would seem to defy the laws of known physics and qualify instead as a miracle. Was the 2020 election a miracle?”

Seems to me it is about defamation of a company. If a company is a person, why wouldn't they have a legal standing?

If some kid can sue and get millions because he was 'defamed' then why cannot a corporation...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.7  seeder  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.5    last year

I seeded this article but am not the topic!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @6.1.6    last year

I also didn't say anything about standing. My comment was on liability. I keep reiterating that, but no one seems to understand it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @6.1.7    last year
I seeded this article but am not the topic!

For the 2nd? 3rd? 4th? time, my comment was about liability. Observing that you don't seem to understand and won't address it in your replies is hardly making you the topic.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.10  seeder  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.9    last year

Did Fox News do harm to Dominion? If Fox knew what they reported was not true yet reported it anyway, then Fox is liable...

Casting shade on my understanding is a personal dig and you damn well know it!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.11  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.8    last year

We all understand that. I just don't see where they would not have a case or 'standing'.

Like I said, if a kid can say he was defamed and win millions, an actually company that was hit hard on their bottom line would definitely have a case.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.1.12  cjcold  replied to  JBB @6.1.2    last year
Alex Jones..

Who is employed by ALEC.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Tacos! @6    last year

They may be in trouble due to the sheer amount of coverage the bullshit claims got on their network and their hosts repeatedly, for months and years, throwing them out there. These messages showing that none of the big wigs at fox believed that shit, yet still peddled it complicates things immensely for Fox. Now they cannot claim that they are just morons who honestly believe incredibly stupid garbage.

They are now in the position of having to basically admit they knew it was all horseshit from the get go, but ran it anyways and extensively. That moves them uncomfortably close to libel territory.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.2    last year

FOX's legal issues are now a double edged sword. their detractors have been solidly vindicated, any journalistic credibility they had left among the semi-sane members of their audience is now out the window and the trump faithful feel fully betrayed. I don't think the realization of being strung along for months and months by their broadcast oracles of truth, that promised them the honest journalism they deserved, is sitting too well. but luckily for FOX, their prime audience attention span and memory are short. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.2    last year
I seeded this article but am not the topic!

Nutjob pundits, and even respectable journalists and networks have been playing this game for a long time and they know all the tricks. They attribute claims and evidence to a source. They then refrain from saying that it's true. Instead, they'll say something like, "If true, this spells disaster for the republic" or some such shit and go on with their hysteria for the next hour. But ultimately, they aren't the ones making the defamatory statements - their sources or guests are.

That's why they rarely lose these cases.

Of course, as a plaintiff, you don't go after the panelist or guest because there's no money there. That's why you sue the network.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.3  seeder  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.2    last year

Except Fox hosts expounded themselves!

Go watch what was said about Dominion.

It wasn't just guests who slandered them!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.2.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.2    last year

IMO it really all depends on what exactly the hosts were saying on air, and again, there sheer volume and time they gave to the election fraud nonsense makes it difficult for them to claim they weren’t actively pushing it in my mind. But we will just have to see how it all plays out.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.2    last year

To distill this down to generalities -  If Giuliani lied about the election on Wednesday, and you as a Fox News host sent an email to your colleagues on Thursday saying that "Giuliani is nuts" and that the election fraud claims are "lies", what is the ethical justification for going on the air on Friday with Giuliani and giving him additional airtime for his lies? 

I dont think there is any such justification. 

As a country we put too much emphasis on what the law is, as opposed to what right and wrong is. 

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
6.2.6  Freewill  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.5    last year
As a country we put too much emphasis on what the law is, as opposed to what right and wrong is. 

If that were true, then who should be the arbiter of what is right and wrong if not the legal system?  Shall we opt for mob justice, hangings in the public square without a trial?  The court of public opinion is fine, until they come after you.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.7  seeder  JBB  replied to  Freewill @6.2.6    last year

In the case of Fox News they can be sued into bankruptcy!

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
6.2.8  Freewill  replied to  JBB @6.2.7    last year
In the case of Fox News they can be sued into bankruptcy!

Thats correct!  The emphasis being back on what the law is, not on the opinions of those with an axe to grind as to what is right or wrong. The justice system isn’t perfect and it certainly won’t make all of us happy all the time, but it is far better than not having one and returning to tribalistic mob rule.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.2.9  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.5    last year
what is the ethical justification for going on the air on Friday with Giuliani and giving him additional airtime for his lies?  I dont think there is any such justification. 

I wouldn’t put him on the air either, unless it was to challenge his claims.

As a country we put too much emphasis on what the law is, as opposed to what right and wrong is.

If that’s what you believe, then you’re no better than the Trump supporters who wanted us throw out a legal election.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7  bbl-1    last year

Amazing that a 'cabal' of wealthy Americans are able and permitted to foster propaganda against the very nation and Constitution that affords them protection to do so.  Perhaps it is just me, but something doesn't feel right here.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
8  Thrawn 31    last year

Big shock, the biggest folks at Fox knew the election denial claims were bullshit, ridiculed those peddling them, but in the interest of the bottom line pushed and endorsed those claims themselves. Repeatedly, for months/years, never issuing any sort of correction.

And the reason? To keep a bunch of idiots watching and keep the ad $s coming no matter what. The news media has its credibility issues, but Fox takes it to a totally different level.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
9  Split Personality    last year

Don Lemmon gets suspended for saying Nikki Haley is "not in her prime" but the people on Fox are

heroes

for fostering election results lies and slandering the POTUS and VPOTUS on a daily basis.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
9.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Split Personality @9    last year

Don Lemmon is a young fool.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
9.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Split Personality @9    last year

Was a pretty fucking dumb elaboration on his part. Initially I thought he meant political prime, then he went into the 20s, 30s, and 40s, thing. His suspension is not a surprise. At Fox he would be promoted, but not everything is Fox.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.3  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @9    last year

He deserves it, though. What he was said was only superficially about Nikki Haley. What he was really saying was that women in general can't be competent in their jobs if they aren't properly fertile or something, but a man is good forever. That dude is overdue for a suspension.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
9.3.1  pat wilson  replied to  Tacos! @9.3    last year

His comment reflects the cultural attitudes of our society in general.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
9.3.2  MonsterMash  replied to  Tacos! @9.3    last year

Lemon is a woman hating misogynist.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
10  Hallux    last year

Chanting 'Free Speech' has become the excuse for lying.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @10    last year

... along with "different ideas/opinions" based on "other facts".

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
10.1.1  pat wilson  replied to  devangelical @10.1    last year

Or Kelly Ann's "alternate facts".... WTF ??

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.2  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @10.1.1    last year

yikes. that woman is a reptile hybrid. successfully bailed the trump dumpster fire before being burned, she's got a lot of work done, unloaded her rino/lib husband, and now getting into game mode for 2024. 

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
10.2  Freewill  replied to  Hallux @10    last year
Chanting 'Free Speech' has become the excuse for lying.

Interesting.  At one time it also became the basis for freedom, liberty, democracy, and the cornerstone of our modern democratic republic.  Imagine living in a place where there is no free speech, or where speech against the state or a particular party lands you in prison or dead.  There are still places like that on earth.

The thing about free speech is that it does not force one to listen.  If one doesn't like certain speech, one can change the channel, tune it out, not listen.  If one believes that another's free speech is a lie one can refute it, debate it, or ignore it.  But when one insists that another's free speech needs to be silenced by whoever is in charge, one opens the door to the day when one's own speech is called a lie and is subsequently silenced.  At that point free speech is no more, and freedom, liberty, and democracy fall with it.  JMHO

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
10.2.1  Ender  replied to  Freewill @10.2    last year

Sorry but no. I cannot call for a death of someone on social media.

Free speech is not absolute.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10.2.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Freewill @10.2    last year

Then explain the Alex Jones verdicts...

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
10.2.3  Freewill  replied to  Ender @10.2.1    last year
Sorry but no. I cannot call for a death of someone on social media.

Of course not, that would objectively be incitement to murder which is a punishable crime.  That is a far cry from the more subjective accusation of "lying", or politically objectionable speech being a basis for banning/silencing.

Free speech is not absolute.

Never said it was.  But speech that breaks laws is not what we were talking about. I never said that free speech can't have negative consequences, it most certainly can.  That is why it should be used responsibly, just like any other right.  

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
10.2.4  Freewill  replied to  JBB @10.2.2    last year
Then explain the Alex Jones verdicts...

What about them?  That is EXACTLY how free speech should work.  If one uses their right to it irresponsibly and cause people harm that can be adjudicated in a court of law, then one should bear the consequences.  But to call for the silencing of larger groups of people based merely on unadjudicated accusations of lying, or based on objectionable political speech that counters ones ideology, is not the same thing.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
10.2.5  Ender  replied to  Freewill @10.2.3    last year

Just by saying there are laws against certain speech just proves my point. There can be regulations.

Of course common decency could go a long way but we all know how that goes....

Imo it is like the second amendment. Name me any actual thinking American that would want to get rid of it.

I bet we could have Liberal and Conservative factions all wanting to keep our right. No matter the rhetoric of extremists, most Liberals do not want to get rid of guns. Hell, most of us have them.

Point being the rhetoric becomes Liberals hate guns and want to get rid of them just because they may want simple regulations.

I am rambling I know....

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10.2.6  seeder  JBB  replied to  Freewill @10.2.4    last year

original

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
10.2.7  Freewill  replied to  JBB @10.2.6    last year

The skull looks familiar.  Is that Fucker Carlson? 

When I go network news surfing occasionally, I'll pop in and listen to him for a bit, usually just for a good laugh. He can make a decent point from time to time, but then invariably seems to step in his own shit.  I watch all the networks until I can't stomach their bullshit any longer, then off to read Reuters or other less bias and more reliable sources.

Or I come here and shoot the shit with all you fine people, which is way more fun. jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
10.2.8  al Jizzerror  replied to  Freewill @10.2.7    last year
Is that Fucker Carlson?

Fucker Carlson is a huge supporter of Putin.

512

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.2.9  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @10.2.8    last year

FOX is the most popular cable news channel in russia too...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.2.10  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @10.2.9    last year

oh wait, uh oh...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
11  seeder  JBB    last year

It seems the obvious Fox News viewers above only want to quibble about technicalities of the law and censorship while they skip right past the fact that Fox News has zero respect for them personally and is perfectly happy keeping them mad as all hell about fake news stories so that they will not realize they are voting against theirs and their family's own best interests...

original

 
 
 
freepress
Freshman Silent
12  freepress    last year

"Infotainment, Angertainment, Entertainment but not actually "news". Every time they get hit with a lawsuit like previous suitw against some of their hosts, they get off by claiming that no person would believe or should believe the nonsense their hosts spew out for entertainment.

Now they cannot use that as an excuse in this lawsuit because lying was pervasive, willful and a management decision to lie and mislead viewers with talking points and allow liars on the air to spew harmful lies to their own audience. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13  devangelical    last year

funny how this story hasn't gotten much airtime on FOX or any other rwnj media outlets.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @13    last year

NPR says that this story has never been discussed on FOX by the on air personalities in question.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
13.1.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  devangelical @13.1    last year
NPR says that this story has never been discussed on FOX by the on air personalities in question.

Does anyone believe that Fox (or Donald Trump) will ever take responsibility for the lies they told?

512

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1.2  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @13.1.1    last year

I think dominion voting machines has a pretty good chance of cashing in.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
14  al Jizzerror    last year

512

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
14.1  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @14    last year

FOX viewers are too fucking stupid to discern the truth. they want to hear what they're thinking is right.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
14.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  devangelical @14.1    last year

And Rupert says they keep running Mike Lindell ads hourly  because he's never bounced a check, his money is green, cold cash and Fox is in business to make Murdoch even richer than he already is...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
14.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Split Personality @14.1.1    last year

See? It's all about the money. Murdoch is no journalist

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
14.1.3  afrayedknot  replied to  Trout Giggles @14.1.2    last year

“It's all about the money. Murdoch…”

…,is about to write a $1.6 B check…

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
14.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @14.1.3    last year

Indeed.

… Money makes the world go around
The world go around
The world go around
Money makes the world go around
It makes the world go 'round.
… A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound
A buck or a yen
A buck or a pound.
Is all that makes the world go around
That clinking, clanking sound
Can make the world go 'round

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
14.1.5  devangelical  replied to  afrayedknot @14.1.3    last year
about to write a $1.6 B check…

maybe one of his major shareholders will show him where khashoggi is buried...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
15  al Jizzerror    last year

512

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
15.1  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @15    last year

I had a cheerleader puke in my backseat once, when I was in high school, luckily I was holding her hair...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
15.1.1  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @15.1    last year

she always had it in a ponytail on the weekends...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
15.1.2  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @15.1.1    last year

... which took me about 20 more years to figure out why.

 
 

Who is online





89 visitors