Fox settles admitting they provided fake news about Dominion

[Aldo Raine]

You don't know the first thing about it. You couldn't (and other bigmouth Democrats here) answer those questions if your life depended on it.

Only answer for bullshit is to call it bullshit.

 

[protectionist]

Only answer for bullshit is to call it bullshit.

Yeah! That is exactly the only "answer" you have, Mr Quiz Zero, because you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Yeah! That is exactly the only "answer" you have, Mr Quiz Zero, because you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

Says a bullshit artist that believes in stolen election even though not 1 of approximately 63 cases agrees with you!

Mr. Zero Intelligence!

 

[protectionist]

Says a bullshit artist that believes in stolen election even though not 1 of approximately 63 cases agrees with you!

Mr. Zero Intelligence!

"cases" ? Those were not cases of any degree of validity. If your only platform is to cite the courts, you dont HAVE a platform. There you go with the brain "courts" line again, as if that had some worthy foundation to it.

"Court cases" is what Democrats keep harping about, but they have a hollow argument. Ho hum. Some judges were biased Democrats. Some were anti-Trump RINOs, including a few whom Trump appointed. And some, like the Supreme Court, just didn't want to bring politics into the courtroom. And not "ALL" US courts ruled against Trump. Some ruled favorable to him. The "courts" argument doesn't have an ounce of credibility.

What DOES have credibility is >>> Post # s >>> 589....590....591.....592.....594.....595.....596, in this thread,
which you know nothing about.

 

[Faun]

Faun thinks he can erase away realities just by saying so. Old Indian saying "Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his mocassins."

When Faun (or anyone), is 92 years old and frail, like Murdoch, THEN he can comment on the viability of sitting in a courtroom waiting for his case to come up on the calender. And how far away is the courtroom from where Murdoch lives ? Has that been discussed in this thread ? Maybe it's a long way from home for him, and it would involve some complicated traveling with a nurse, and what about medications ? How would they fit into this scenario ?

I once worked as an aide in a nursing home, and I can tell you that life as a 92 year old for most people (if they are even still alive at that age) is quite different than life for young, middle aged people, or even semi-aged folks like me at age 77.

I find the notion of Murdoch agreeing to settle with Dominion just to make the whole thing go away, to be very reasonable, if not self-evident.

LOLOL

Yeah, Murdoch is so frail, he's running the Fox conglomerate. You delude yourself into believing something is real as long as all you do is say it. Yet another symptom of your senility. Sadly, you're so stupid, you can't even grasp just how stupid the shit you post is.

 

[Faun]

Nobody in this thread has presented a shred of evidence that what Fox claims to have said falsely, had anything whatever to do with "election fraud".

In fact, I don't recall seeing/hearing a video here proving that what is claimed to have been said by Fox, was even ever said by anyone from Fox, at all. All that is coming forth here is WORDS from liberals, and liberal publications, which is worth about as much as bread mold.

 

[Faun]

You DO UNDERSTAND, Faun. That >>
1. you took a legitimate chart and DOCTORED it to make it appear to be what you wanted it to be.
2. You LIED, CHEATED, VANDALIZED that chart and a USMB post.
3. You continue to LIE, CHEAT and VANDALIZE every time you post without admitted your misdeed, and apologizing to me, fivethirtyeight, and every one in this forum, whom you LIED to.
4. An then you have the gall to come in here and crab about Fox lying, when you have been caught red-handed doing just that.

LOL

Imbecile, by "doctored," you mean I made the hidden red line visible. What a shame you're utterly incapable of showing how that changed the data comprising that chart.

 

[Faun]

My Post 845 matters. The judge's "ruling" doesn't, because it ISN'T A RULING, as in situations where there is a settlement, there IS NO RULING.

LOLOLOL

It cracks me up how you think that post of yours matters.

 

[MagicMike]

Nobody in this thread has presented a shred of evidence that what Fox claims to have said falsely, had anything whatever to do with "election fraud".

In fact, I don't recall seeing/hearing a video here proving that what is claimed to have been said by Fox, was even ever said by anyone from Fox, at all. All that is coming forth here is WORDS from liberals, and liberal publications, which is worth about as much as bread mold.

Wrong!

Asked by a Dominion attorney whether "Fox endorsed at times this false notion of a stolen election," Murdoch demurred, saying, "Not Fox, no. Not Fox. But maybe Lou Dobbs, maybe Maria [Bartiromo] as commentators."

The lawyer pressed on. Did Fox's Bartiromo endorse it?

Murdoch's reply: "Yes. C'mon."

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro? "I think so."

Then-Fox Business Network host Dobbs? "Oh, a lot."

Fox News prime-time star Sean Hannity? "A bit."

Pressed whether they endorsed the narrative of a stolen election, Murdoch finally gave in: "Yes. They endorsed."

 

[Aldo Raine]

"cases" ? Those were not cases of any degree of validity. If your only platform is to cite the courts, you dont HAVE a platform. There you go with the brain "courts" line again, as if that had some worthy foundation to it.

"Court cases" is what Democrats keep harping about, but they have a hollow argument. Ho hum. Some judges were biased Democrats. Some were anti-Trump RINOs, including a few whom Trump appointed. And some, like the Supreme Court, just didn't want to bring politics into the courtroom. And not "ALL" US courts ruled against Trump. Some ruled favorable to him. The "courts" argument doesn't have an ounce of credibility.

What DOES have credibility is >>> Post # s >>> 589....590....591.....592.....594.....595.....596, in this thread,
which you know nothing about.

Loony tunes, you assclowns got your asses handed to you in all posts AND court cases. Try harder, fail better!

 

[Skylar]

IOW no video. Just words coming from worthless, leftist media

They never mentioned this ruling on OANN or NewsMax, did they? You're wholly ignorant of the findings of the court on falsity, because you only consume sources that IGNORE it. And even now, refuse to read it.

With the $787,000,000 settlement against Fox, hows ignoring the court ruling working out for you?

Oh, and for those that aren't desperately, habitually and willfully ignorant, here are multiple media outlets with the same quote I've offered.

Dominion didn’t need a trial for a victory over Fox

Fox News will pay $787.5 million to Dominion Voting Systems to settle a defamation lawsuit that was just about to go to trial. While technically not a win for Dominion, it’s hard to see the settlement any other way.

www.yahoo.com

What you need to know about the Dominion v. Fox News trial

The voting machine company was the subject of baseless conspiracies as Donald Trump and his allies relentlessly pushed the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

www.nbcnews.com

Dominion Settlement Is Just the Beginning of Fox’s Nightmare

The $787.5M settlement in the Dominion lawsuit will lead to further litigation and controversy for Fox and Rupert Murdoch, writes Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Steven Tian

time.com

 

[Skylar]

WHAT lying ? Nothing has shown Fox to have been lying about anything.
For the 200th time, false does not = lying. And we dont even know WHAT was false. Could be something very trivial.

Actually, the courts found that NONE of the contested statements that Fox made about Dominion were true.


"The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true. Therefore, the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of Dominion on the element of falsity."


You refuse to even acknowledge the ruling exists, let alone read it. And then insist that because you refuse to look at the court ruling, the court ruling doesn't exist.

Laughing.......that's not how any of this works.

 

[AsherN]

No, if you have an “iron clad” case you wouldn’t take less than half of your demand. They knew a trial would be a disaster for them with all the evidence coming out.

Seriously? What planet do you live n? Dominion had a great case. To go to trial means 2 things. 1) the award is at the whim of the jury and 2) Fox would appeal.

A jury would have found in favour of Dominion, but could have awarded anywhere between $1 and $1.6b. It's a sound business decision. You get half of what you asked for, immediately.

 

[brokedickdog]

#becauseitsacult

#americafirst #maga

I know you want to believe that millions of Americans are in a "cult". Wanting something to be true does not make it true. Good luck with your TDS.

 

[Delldude]

Once again.....you REALLY should do a little research on what you are trying to sound knowledgeable about before posting here and making a fool of yourself.

If you think for an instant that Jack Smith would base an indictment against Trump on anything that those clowns referred to DOJ, you are the fool. A half wit attorney would make mincemeat out of the highly partisan, politically motivated attack 'referrals'.

 

[BackAgain]

Update:

Thread headline is still false.

 

[billyerock123]

Neither you or anyone else here, has shown a shred of evidence of that. Ho hum.

750 million dollars of evidence ... do you honestly think Fox News is going to give them 750 million out of the kindness of their heart you are stupid ... here's your shred of evidence...

One of the year’s most hotly anticipated trials reached a stunning conclusion before it even began. Poised to face off in the courtroom this afternoon, with jury selection complete, Dominion Voting Systems and Fox News instead reached a settlement. The last-minute agreement makes clear just how sticky a situation Fox was headed for if the trial did occur.


Lawyers for Dominion announced that Fox News (and parent company Fox Corporation) had agreed to settle the case for $787.5 million — less than half of Dominion’s claim for $1.6 billion in damages but nevertheless a historic rebuke for the influential conservative media outlet.

The massive payout reflects the fact that Dominion had put together a strong case that Fox had acted with “actual malice,” a high bar under defamation law that has historically been difficult for plaintiffs suing media outlets to satisfy. Dominion’s considerable success in this case indicates that Fox acutely understood that there was a high risk that the jury would side with Dominion on this crucial legal point. The settlement also spares the network from weeks of embarrassing testimony that would have put the widespread internal dysfunction at Fox News on full public display.

Dominion had alleged that the network defamed the election technology company in the wake of the 2020 election, focusing on a series of segments in which Fox hosts allowed lawyers affiliated with Donald Trump to falsely claim that the company had rigged the election against the former president. After two years of pretrial litigation, the network found itself struggling to defend itself: A recent decision by presiding judge Eric M. Davis substantially bolstered Dominion’s position heading into trial by concluding that the evidence from pretrial discovery had already established that several key issues — including whether the claims at issue were actually false — were indisputable at trial. The ruling was a major win for Dominion and a major loss for Fox, which no doubt helps to explain today’s settlement.
Before the settlement was announced, there were some unexpected antics that appeared to provide even more reason to think that Fox was in for a very rough ride if the case had gone forward. Caley Cronin, a spokesperson for Fox News, was thrown out of the Wilmington, Del. courtroom after she violated a court order that prohibited taking photographs in the courtroom. It was just the latest embarrassing incident in which representatives for the network had antagonized the judge, who had otherwise drawn praise from observers for his steady hand and even temperament presiding over the case.

The trial was expected to focus on whether Fox News or Fox Corporation acted with “actual malice” in disseminating the false claims against Dominion. Under Supreme Court precedent, this would have required Dominion to show that individuals responsible for broadcasting the segments either knew that they were false or acted with “reckless disregard” as to the falsity of the claims.


This has traditionally been a very difficult standard for defamation plaintiffs to satisfy, since First Amendment law generally provides wide latitude to media organizations engaged in traditional newsgathering, but legal analysts broadly agreed that Dominion had put together an unusually compelling case on this point. In particular, the company’s lawyers amassed internal communications among Fox executives, hosts, and employees with editorial responsibilities in which they appeared to acknowledge in real time and to varying degrees that the claims aired against Dominion were false. Those communications involved some of the most prominent people at the network, including Rupert Murdoch himself and primetime hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. The prospect of these people taking the witness stand and having to explain them away could not have been appealing for Fox.


One reason that Dominion succeeded in getting this far while other defamation plaintiffs have not is that the underlying false claims made against the company were unusually ridiculous — like the assertion that former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez had played a key role in creating the company, or that Dominion had a secret algorithm that allowed it to switch votes from Trump to Joe Biden. The company’s lawyers also appeared to have succeeded in casting a wide net in the course of discovery, which allowed them to obtain the internal communications that became central to the case. Murdoch, for instance, at one point watched the infamous press conference hosted by Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell in November 2020 in which they peddled similar falsehoods. The network’s owner wrote, “Really crazy stuff. And damaging.” There were plenty more of these colorful and embarrassing exchanges among the network’s boldface names.


In recent months, Fox had insisted that a victory for Dominion would pose a broader threat to media protections in this country, but it is not clear whether or to what extent this is correct. The reason is that, despite hundreds of pages of pretrial filings, Fox never managed to identify a single instance of legitimate newsgathering that would have been credibly endangered in the future if Dominion prevailed, as the company has now done. And, of course, the backdrop here is that Fox’s business model has for years drawn intense criticism from media analysts who have argued that the network routinely crosses the boundaries of responsible reporting by pandering to its mostly conservative audience and elevating dubious but politically convenient claims.


The settlement appears to have less to do with other media outlets than it does with the particularly outrageous facts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of Fox, its executives, and employees toward Dominion. This was a stunning case of media malpractice, and Fox is now paying for it.

 

[MagicMike]

If you think for an instant that Jack Smith would base an indictment against Trump on anything that those clowns referred to DOJ, you are the fool. A half wit attorney would make mincemeat out of the highly partisan, politically motivated attack 'referrals'.

Hide and watch Skippy.

 

[Delldude]

Hide and watch Skippy.

DOJ does their own investigations. Nothing in the J6 politically motivated, biased "investigation" will be entered into or used as evidence.

It's just that biased.

Jack Smith isn't an idiot.

 

[MagicMike]

DOJ does their own investigations. Nothing in the J6 politically motivated, biased "investigation" will be entered into or used as evidence.

It's just that biased.

Jack Smith isn't an idiot.

Wrong