Can Coming "Context" From Fox News' Rebut Dominion's Claims

1. 82

   GA Andersonposted 20 months ago

   In its lawsuit against Fox News, Dominion Voting Systems (DVS) included very damaging text message excerpts from the top of the organization that seem to clearly show Fox was more concerned with ratings than the truth of their reporting and presentations.
   
   Here is what Google offers for details: Fox Dominion Lawsuit News
   
   It is a big topic. Fox's response to the allegations is sealed until Feb. 27. Fox says context matters and Dominion cherry-picked stuff and omitted context in their court filing.
   
   It should be a standard agreement that context does matter and their statement is valid. And, their context may dispute the 'malice' part of Dominion's claims.
   
   But . . . what might be a context that mitigates the picture those texts paint: truth is secondary to ratings at Fox?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 87

      tsmogposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Duck Duck Go is Google? Huh? Seems kind of a Fox News strategy to say it is this when really it is that. What is going on here? Talk about 'Truth'! Or, does context come into the conversation? Just playing around . . .
      
      But, an interesting discovery. Both Duck Duck Go and Google searches revealed no Fox News article on the subject. Why?
      
      On the serious side of answering the only question; "But . . . what might be a context that mitigates the picture those texts paint: truth is secondary to ratings at Fox?" I say 'Yes'!!

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         I thought about that DuckDuckGo thing. I use it as a search privacy tool and Google as a label for internet searches. DDG uses Bing for search.
         
         Saying 'Google says . . .' is just a lazy habit ;-)
         
         I didn't look hard, but I didn't see any conservative media articles either.
         
         GA

         replyreport
      2. 87

         tsmogposted 20 months agoin reply to this

         Reading here and there for a few days now I see the complexity of the lawsuit regarding the free speech of the press, malice, and defamation. However, in regard to "truth is secondary to ratings at Fox?" I discovered one article discussing that. I quote below;
         
         "Five days after the election, Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch communicated to Suzanne Scott, Fox News CEO, that the channel was “getting creamed by CNN. Guess our viewers don’t want to watch it,” according to court papers.
         
         Fox News tumbled from first to third in the news network ratings between the Nov. 3, 2020 election and Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021, according to the Nielsen company. Meanwhile, thousands of Fox viewers flocked to the more conservative Newsmax, where prime-time viewership shot from 58,000 the week before the election to 568,000 the week after.
         
         The change shook the foundations of a network that had consistently led in the news ratings for the better part of two decades.
         
         Fox roared back into the lead by tacking more sharply to the right after Biden took office. But in the immediate aftermath of the election, there was genuine worry at its New York headquarters.
         
         Almost immediately, the network went on “war footing,” Dominion said, quoting a Fox executive.
         
         “Do the executives understand how much credibility and trust we’ve lost with our audience?” Fox prime-time star Tucker Carlson wrote to his producer, according to Dominion’s brief. “We’re playing with fire, for real … an alternative like newsmax could be devastating to us.”
         
         Dominion contends that Fox executives made the decision to push false narratives to entice their audience back, and points to claims made by Trump allies like attorney Sidney Powell on programs hosted by Maria Bartiromo and Lou Dobbs."
         
         For me food for thought . . .
         
         The article is; "‘Weak ratings make good journalists do bad things’: Fox News panic over Trump’s loss doing bad numbers laid bare in court" by Fortune Magazine on Feb 18, 2023.
         https://fortune.com/2023/02/18/fox-news … t-murdoch/

         replyreport
   2. 75

      Kathleen Cochranposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      This suit is exactly what we need a return of The Fairness Doctrine, which required news organizations given access to the public airways to tell both or all side of an issue giving equal time to participants.
      
      Thanks, Reagan, for opening the floodgates for what passes for "news" today.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

         I think the Fairness Doctrine should stay right where it is. But that's another topic.
         
         GA

         replyreport
2. 85

   Sharlee01posted 20 months ago

   "A filing in Delaware state court by Dominion Voting Systems as part of the company’s blockbuster lawsuit against Fox News and its parent company contains never-before-revealed vignettes from inside the network in the days that followed the 2020 election.
   
   Text messages, emails and testimony contained in the filing show the outlet’s top executives and hosts casting doubt on former President Trump’s false claims of a stolen election, and worrying about how fact-checking those assertions on the air might be received by the conservative media outlet’s massive audience.
   
   Dominion is suing Fox for defamation, seeking $1.6 billion in damages, alleging the network knowingly aired false information about its software based on competitive and political pressure. "
   
   Fox made the decision to cover Trump's claims of election fraud and did report the many claims Trump and many of his associates were offering up.
   
   From what I gleaned is that the talking heads (although emails show did not believe the claims) reported them. However, they seem to have covered themselves with the context in reporting the allegations --- using words such as allegations, and Fox is unable to substantiate. As well as, we put a call into Dominion, and have not received a callback.
   
   Or the best cover ever, I received this from a source. Which we all know can and will be protected by journalists. 
   
   Were these journalists offered new reports that did not believe, and were told to push a narrative by Fox? Certainly looks that way. Can the hosts be sued for doing what the network told them to do? 
   
   I don't think so, due to the very careful context in reporting they used. Did they slip up and not cover their butts here or there? Perhaps. Can the network come out winning this case just due to the context that it was being carefully reported? Maybe, those hosts offered Trump news in a context that did not claim the allegations could be fully verified.
   
   Was this ethical, IMO, no.

   replyreport
3. 92

   IslandBitesposted 20 months ago

   What might be a context that mitigates the picture those texts paint: truth is secondary to ratings at Fox?
   
   They'll have a hard time with that one.

   replyreport
4. 75

   Kathleen Cochranposted 20 months ago

   Freedom of the Press has always required the Fourth Estate to be self-correcting. Sometimes it is a slow process, especially when there are entities  involved who make a living by playing fast and loose with established principles. And sometimes entities will only self-correct when litigation forces them to. This case, however it concludes, will be studied in journalism schools the same way Watergate and the Pentagon Papers were.

   replyreport
5. 82

   GA Andersonposted 19 months ago

   Just a bump to put this thread back in play.
   
   I caught a few blurbs about Murdock's response to Dominion's claims. It doesn't look good for the Fox personalities.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 92

      IslandBitesposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      Yup. I'd say for the whole company.
      
      "It was wrong... I could have (stopped it). But I didn't...It is not red or blue, it is green." - Murdoch
      
      Murdoch even spoke to Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott on Jan. 5, 2021, the day before Trump supporters would storm the Capitol, about whether to push Hannity, Carlson and Laura Ingraham to say something to effect of "The election is over and Joe Biden won," according to the filing.
      
      According to the filing, Scott told Murdoch that “privately they [the hosts] are all there” but “we need to be careful about using the shows and pissing off the viewers.”
      
      *Also, waiting for the outrage from the right...
      
      Rupert Murdoch gave Jared Kushner, son-in-law of former President Donald Trump, “confidential information about [President Joe] Biden’s ads, along with debate strategy” in 2020, “providing Kushner a preview of Biden’s ads before they were public.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         tsmogposted 19 months agoin reply to this

         And,
         
         " Fox News accused Dominion of trying to “generate headlines” in a statement provided to Rolling Stone.
         
         “Dominion’s lawsuit has always been more about what will generate headlines than what can withstand legal and factual scrutiny, as illustrated by them now being forced to slash their fanciful damages demand by more than half a billion dollars after their own expert debunked its implausible claims. Their summary judgment motion took an extreme, unsupported view of defamation law that would prevent journalists from basic reporting and their efforts to publicly smear FOX for covering and commenting on allegations by a sitting President of the United States should be recognized for what it is: a blatant violation of the First Amendment.”
         
         On and on it goes . . .

         replyreport
         1. 82

            GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

            Just to add some 'kick' to the discussion, I think the bones of Fox's 'Free speech' argument are valid. Even though most of the flesh of that argument is rotten, the bones are still right.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 87

               tsmogposted 19 months agoin reply to this

               Frankly, I don't know about the free speech issue. So, as usual, I poked about finding one article about free speech and defamation. From that, it appears it is very tricky to prove either one. It will be fun to see how it unfolds.
               
               Defamation of Character or Free Speech? (It is a short read)
               https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/ci … peech.html
               
               On that journey, I came upon actual court documents that gave clarity, though they are lengthy reads They are from Dominion's website. The actual recent summary judgment filing on Feb 16 is there.
               
               It lays out the whole story. It would be nice to read Fox's petition for a summary judgment. The PDF link is found on Dominion's website.
               
               Dominion seems to be forthright in reporting their cases not only with Fox Broadcasting but the others being sued. They share the actual court documents so there is no media slant. In other words straight from the horse's mouth.
               
               They go back to 2021 with the original filing against Fox. They are PDF documents. Some you can open online, and some you have to download and use a PDF reader like Acrobat.
               
               Dominion Voting - Legal Updates
               https://www.dominionvoting.com/legal-up … -dominion/ 
               
               The next link is also from Dominion's website.
               
               SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: FACTS ABOUT DOMINION (Feb 28, 2023)
               https://www.dominionvoting.com/setting- … -straight/

               replyreport
            2. 75

               Kathleen Cochranposted 19 months agoin reply to this

               How is broadcasting known falsehoods any different from yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater? Free speech has limitations when it harms others.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, free speech does have limitations. Our legal system has defined those limitations. Telling a non-fire-type lie is not one of them.
                  
                  My 'bones' comment wasn't about whether the broadcasts were harmful but that the protected right to make them was a constitutional free speech issue. It was also noted that the details and supporting rationales were knowingly wrong—the flesh on those bones was rotten.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Kathleen Cochranposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                     We don't know for certain that these lies were or were not "non-fire-type". If you look at Jan. 6 they were. People died.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                        Back up a step. I'm not saying Fox has a case or that their actions aren't as dangerous as you described. I think they are. Strongly enough to compare them to Pres. Trump's Jan. 6 Mall speech.
                        
                        I am saying that framing their defense as a freedom of speech issue, as in censoring the press, can be a valid starting point. I don't see any of Dominion's claims as based on that issue. So Fox's defense isn't to the point and I bet the courts won't let them 'get out of the gates' with it.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 75

                           Kathleen Cochranposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                           You may be right. I guess in the coming days, weeks, months we'll see.

                           replyreport
               2. 71

                  Ken Burgessposted 19 months agoin reply to this

                  One should keep that in mind when considering the litany of falsehoods and fabrications by CNN that have been exposed over the years.
                  
                  Of course, no one should be taking anything our MSM sites say as anything more than biased information that is suspect.
                  
                  They are ALL in it for the profit, they ALL cater to corporate interests, they  exist to create ratings, create ad revenue, and beat the drum of whatever messaging they promote... progressive, conservative, foreign, federal, etc.
                  
                  You want the Left side watch MSNBC and CNN.
                  
                  You want the Right watch FOX or OANN.
                  
                  You want the Russian slant watch RT, the Arabic slant Al Jazeera, etc.

                  replyreport
   2. 84

      peoplepower73posted 19 months agoin reply to this

      This is what can happen with unfettered capitalism.
      
      Rupert Murdoch said  Fox was bringing in big bucks for allowing the My Pillow Guy, Mike Lindell, to broadcast his lies.  He says what matters is not the color blue or red, but green.  Meaning green back dollars, because if Lindell told the truth, they would be losing a big portion of their  audience.
      
      I understand, Fox is not carrying any news about about Murdoch, Dominion, or the law suit. So I think their audience is not affected by any of this.  They could care less if Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, Powell et al. lied to give their audience the narrative they wanted to hear, not the truth about what was happening.
      
      
      https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/ … ng-systems

      replyreport
6. 92

   IslandBitesposted 19 months ago

   In a Jan. 12 email exchange with former House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., Murdoch said "everything changed" on the day of the riot.
   
   "Trump's troubles multiplying. His businesses now ruined! Who is going to throw a party at one of his golf clubs or hotels?"
   
   He went on: "Could he still resign and get Pence to pardon, then just disappear? Would Mike Pence agree?"
   
   
   They were lying, they still keep lying, they're complicit... with someone that they believe needed a pardon, uhm?
   
   Still waiting for that context.
   
   More
   https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … -rcna73669

   replyreport
   1. 82

      GA Andersonposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      It looks like we are getting more 'context.' I saw blurbs today concerning another Tucker Carlson text in the filing. Things aren't looking any better for Fox.
      
      GA

      replyreport
   2. 75

      Kathleen Cochranposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      Ryan couldn't have been more wrong. Jan. 6 was inevitable at the moment Trump came down that escalator five years earlier.

      replyreport
7. 92

   IslandBitesposted 19 months ago

   Raj Shah (who had served as a senior aide in Donald Trump’s White House for two years before his hiring at Fox as senior vice president of Fox Corp)
   
   Shah and a Carlson producer weighed whether Carlson should devote time in his next show to Powell’s claim that she had an affidavit that would link Dominion to Venezuela.
   
   “Might wanna address this, but this stuff is so f------ insane. Vote rigging to the tune of millions? C’mon,” Shah wrote.
   
   Carlson’s producer, Alex Pfeiffer, responded: “It is so insane but our viewers believe it so addressing again how her stupid Venezuela affidavit isn’t proof might insult them.”
   
   Pfeiffer, who has since left the network, answered that the delicate dance was “surreal.”
   
   “Like negotiating with terrorists,” he added, “but especially dumb ones. Cousin f----- types not saudi royalty.”
   
   ________________
   
   On Jan. 3 — three days before the Capitol was attacked by Trump supporters as Congress met to confirm Biden’s win — Shah exchanged text messages with another former White House spokesman, Josh Raffel, who had been primarily responsible for handling communications for Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband, senior adviser Jared Kushner.
   
   Raffel flagged to Shah a tweet noting that Trump’s daily schedule now carried with it the vague assurance that the president would make “many calls and have many meetings” and “work from early in the morning until late in the evening.”
   
   “I think what they meant is The President will wake up early and commit many, many crimes including but not limited to obstruction of justice, attempted fraud, and treason in an effort to conduct a coup. Then he’ll fly to a rally in furtherance of the same,” Raffel wrote. (Now a public relations executive in New York, Raffel declined to comment on the text.)
   
   “It’s really disheartening,” Shah responded. “The only clear cut evidence for voter fraud is the failed attempts from Trump.”
   
   
   These were Trump people, not liberals, not democrats, not moderates... They knew, they know.

   replyreport
8. 92

   IslandBitesposted 19 months ago

   Fox News host Tucker Carlson said he is angry that his private text messages about former President Trump to fellow network employees were made public as part of an ongoing defamation lawsuit facing the company.
   
   In one text exchange with a fellow Fox employee, Carlson said of Trump “I hate him passionately.”
   
   “Oh, let’s see. I spent four years defending his policies and I, I’m going to defend them again tonight,” Carlson said. “And actually, and I’m pretty straight forward, I’m um I love Trump. Like, as a person, I think Trump is funny and insightful.”
   
   “And I said this to Trump when he called me, you know, all wounded about those texts,” he continued. “That was a moment in time where I was absolutely infuriated.”
   
   
   
   From a little b%*+h to a pathetic little man. How lovely!

   replyreport