Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:03 pm

In the Dominion v Fox court proceedings yesterday, it was revealed that Fox executives and hosts have stated in sworn testimony that they knew the claims of election fraud were false. They are joining a long line of conservatives who have reversed their position under oath, from what they have said publicly.

"I did not believe it for one second," Hannity testified, according to an attorney for Colorado-based Dominion Voting Systems, who was offering it as a precise quote.

Meade Cooper, Fox News' executive vice president, "confirmed under oath she never believed the lies about Dominion," the Dominion attorney, Stephen Shackelford, Jr., also said.

"Tucker Carlson, he tried to squirm out of it at his deposition," Shackelford added, and then alluded to the Fox News star's texts from November and December 2020, when Judge Eric Davis cut Shackelford off.


It appears that Tucker Carlson is the lone holdout, who has maintained the election fraud claims are valid.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/11449263 ... suit-trump
 
johns624
Posts: 7328
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:06 pm

The "true believers" won't care. They'll just say that they've joined the "swamp".
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 19548
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:09 pm

johns624 wrote:
The "true believers" won't care. They'll just say that they've joined the "swamp".


Of course, because they lack the emotional maturity to admit being wrong.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 16972
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:14 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
The "true believers" won't care. They'll just say that they've joined the "swamp".


Of course, because they lack the emotional maturity to admit being wrong.


It''s narcissism. They can't be wrong becasue then they aren't "winning",.

Even if everyone else abandons them.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 16972
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:27 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
In the Dominion v Fox court proceedings yesterday, it was revealed that Fox executives and hosts have stated in sworn testimony that they knew the claims of election fraud were false. They are joining a long line of conservatives who have reversed their position under oath, from what they have said publicly.

"I did not believe it for one second," Hannity testified, according to an attorney for Colorado-based Dominion Voting Systems, who was offering it as a precise quote.

Meade Cooper, Fox News' executive vice president, "confirmed under oath she never believed the lies about Dominion," the Dominion attorney, Stephen Shackelford, Jr., also said.

"Tucker Carlson, he tried to squirm out of it at his deposition," Shackelford added, and then alluded to the Fox News star's texts from November and December 2020, when Judge Eric Davis cut Shackelford off.


It appears that Tucker Carlson is the lone holdout, who has maintained the election fraud claims are valid.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/11449263 ... suit-trump



Anyway you slice it though Fox news is in deep trouble. These celebrities are why most MAGA's beleive. They made money off of selling these lies, and punishing real hard working election officials and private companies.

From the article.

o win in court, Dominion must build a defamation case showing Fox stars and decision-makers knew these claims of election fraud were lies, but let them be broadcast anyway, or were negligent in disregarding strong warning signs. The remarks by Hannity and Cooper appear to help the voting tech firm's legal team construct its case. Hannity made similar remarks saying Trump had lost in private texts with his final White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows; in this instance, however, Hannity has sworn under oath that he never believed any of the former president's claims.
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:52 pm

casinterest wrote:

Anyway you slice it though Fox news is in deep trouble. These celebrities are why most MAGA's believe. They made money off of selling these lies, and punishing real hard working election officials and private companies.

From the article.

To win in court, Dominion must build a defamation case showing Fox stars and decision-makers knew these claims of election fraud were lies, but let them be broadcast anyway, or were negligent in disregarding strong warning signs. The remarks by Hannity and Cooper appear to help the voting tech firm's legal team construct its case. Hannity made similar remarks saying Trump had lost in private texts with his final White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows; in this instance, however, Hannity has sworn under oath that he never believed any of the former president's claims.


This shows the importance of getting people under oath, and why all the conspirators have tried to avoid it. With the evidence already amassed, they can either come clean, perjure themselves, or plead the Fifth Amendment.
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 5020
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:07 pm

Avatar2go wrote:

It appears that Tucker Carlson is the lone holdout, who has maintained the election fraud claims are valid.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/11449263 ... suit-trump


Tucker Carlson is beyond redemption. Cannot watch him for more than 30 seconds. He's too far gone to ever come back to sanity.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 23156
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Thu Dec 22, 2022 7:27 pm

ER757 wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:

It appears that Tucker Carlson is the lone holdout, who has maintained the election fraud claims are valid.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/11449263 ... suit-trump


Tucker Carlson is beyond redemption. Cannot watch him for more than 30 seconds. He's too far gone to ever come back to sanity.


30 seconds? I admire your patience. If he came on my TV with that puzzled/constipated look on his face, I’d throw the remote at it!
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Fri Feb 17, 2023 1:27 am

Wow!! Dominion is going to have Fox News for breakfast, lunch, and dinner!

A new filing by Dominion lists some of the evidence collected from Fox hosts and management. Although much of it is redacted to preserve the rights of those individuals, what is there is completely damning.

In a group text among Fox hosts Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham, they all derided the Trump legal team and their false allegations of election fraud. While at the same time, their on-air coverage supported those claims. So they knew the whole time and willfully lied to the public.

As did the entire Fox organization, all the way to Murdoch himself. Not a single Fox employee has testified that they didn't know the allegations of fraud against Dominion were false.

"Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane,” Mr. Carlson wrote to Ms. Ingraham on Nov. 18, 2020.

Ms. Ingraham responded: “Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy.”

Mr. Carlson continued, “Our viewers are good people and they believe it,” he added, making clear that he did not.

The messages also show that such doubts extended to the highest levels of the Fox Corporation, with Rupert Murdoch, its chairman, calling Mr. Trump’s voter fraud claims “really crazy stuff.”

On one occasion, as Mr. Murdoch watched Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell on television, he told Suzanne Scott, chief executive of Fox News Media, “Terrible stuff damaging everybody, I fear.”


Further, the reason they lied was to restore the massive ratings loss that ensued after they called Arizona in favor of Biden, on election night. When a Fox reporter correctly challenged the Trump claims, the Fox hosts tried to get her fired.

On Nov. 12, in a group text chain among Ms. Ingraham, Mr. Carlson and Mr. Hannity, Mr. Carlson pointed to a tweet in which a Fox reporter, Jacqui Heinrich, fact-checked a tweet from Mr. Trump referring to Fox broadcasts and said there was no evidence of voter fraud from Dominion.

“Please get her fired, ”Mr. Carlson said. He added: “It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.” Ms. Heinrich had deleted her tweet by the next morning.


Fox is as corrupt as any organization could possibly be. They claim that they have a journalistic responsibility to report the Trump claims, even if they were false. And simultaneously, that their on-air endorsement of those claims was entertainment, and as such is opinion, not fact, and not journalism.

You would have to be a complete & total idiot to accept that contradictory argument as legitimate or truthful.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/busi ... wsuit.html

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... f/full.pdf
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 19548
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Fri Feb 17, 2023 1:45 am

Avatar2go wrote:
Wow!! Dominion is going to have Fox News for breakfast, lunch, and dinner!

A new filing by Dominion lists some of the evidence collected from Fox hosts and management. Although much of it is redacted to preserve the rights of those individuals, what is there is completely damning.

In a group text among Fox hosts Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham, they all derided the Trump legal team and their false allegations of election fraud. While at the same time, their on-air coverage supported those claims. So they knew the whole time and willfully lied to the public.

As did the entire Fox organization, all the way to Murdoch himself. Not a single Fox employee has testified that they didn't know the allegations of fraud against Dominion were false.

"Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane,” Mr. Carlson wrote to Ms. Ingraham on Nov. 18, 2020.

Ms. Ingraham responded: “Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy.”

Mr. Carlson continued, “Our viewers are good people and they believe it,” he added, making clear that he did not.

The messages also show that such doubts extended to the highest levels of the Fox Corporation, with Rupert Murdoch, its chairman, calling Mr. Trump’s voter fraud claims “really crazy stuff.”

On one occasion, as Mr. Murdoch watched Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell on television, he told Suzanne Scott, chief executive of Fox News Media, “Terrible stuff damaging everybody, I fear.”


Further, the reason they lied was to restore the massive ratings loss that ensued after they called Arizona in favor of Biden, on election night. When a Fox reporter correctly challenged the Trump claims, the Fox hosts tried to get her fired.

On Nov. 12, in a group text chain among Ms. Ingraham, Mr. Carlson and Mr. Hannity, Mr. Carlson pointed to a tweet in which a Fox reporter, Jacqui Heinrich, fact-checked a tweet from Mr. Trump referring to Fox broadcasts and said there was no evidence of voter fraud from Dominion.

“Please get her fired, ”Mr. Carlson said. He added: “It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.” Ms. Heinrich had deleted her tweet by the next morning.


Fox is as corrupt as any organization could possibly be. They claim that they have a journalistic responsibility to report the Trump claims, even if they were false. And simultaneously, that their on-air endorsement of those claims was entertainment, and as such is opinion, not fact, and not journalism.

You would have to be a complete & total idiot to accept that contradictory argument as legitimate or truthful.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/busi ... wsuit.html

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... f/full.pdf


Just stomach-turning. As has been said before, these people are quite intelligent and know exactly what they are doing. They are enriching themselves sowing social division, then go on air every night and fake outrage about how the country is divided and changing. Charlatans, all.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 19258
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Fri Feb 17, 2023 1:54 am

This is really incredible. Surprising no one, Fox News is just nonstop lies from bottom all the way to the CEO and beyond and everywhere in between--and they KNOW they're lying. They admit it all over the place in writing and in texts. Anyone at Fox who dares fact check their insane conspiracy du jour is called out to be fired.
https://twitter.com/existentialfish/sta ... 3281183745

My favorite is Sidney Powell saying Scalia was on a human hunting trip when he died and that she talks to ghosts. Now that sounds believable. :rotfl:

Avatar2go wrote:
Wow!! Dominion is going to have Fox News for breakfast, lunch, and dinner!

A new filing by Dominion lists some of the evidence collected from Fox hosts and management. Although much of it is redacted to preserve the rights of those individuals, what is there is completely damning.

In a group text among Fox hosts Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham, they all derided the Trump legal team and their false allegations of election fraud. While at the same time, their on-air coverage supported those claims. So they knew the whole time and willfully lied to the public.

As did the entire Fox organization, all the way to Murdoch himself. Not a single Fox employee has testified that they didn't know the allegations of fraud against Dominion were false.

"Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane,” Mr. Carlson wrote to Ms. Ingraham on Nov. 18, 2020.

Ms. Ingraham responded: “Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy.”

Mr. Carlson continued, “Our viewers are good people and they believe it,” he added, making clear that he did not.

The messages also show that such doubts extended to the highest levels of the Fox Corporation, with Rupert Murdoch, its chairman, calling Mr. Trump’s voter fraud claims “really crazy stuff.”

On one occasion, as Mr. Murdoch watched Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell on television, he told Suzanne Scott, chief executive of Fox News Media, “Terrible stuff damaging everybody, I fear.”


Further, the reason they lied was to restore the massive ratings loss that ensued after they called Arizona in favor of Biden, on election night. When a Fox reporter correctly challenged the Trump claims, the Fox hosts tried to get her fired.

On Nov. 12, in a group text chain among Ms. Ingraham, Mr. Carlson and Mr. Hannity, Mr. Carlson pointed to a tweet in which a Fox reporter, Jacqui Heinrich, fact-checked a tweet from Mr. Trump referring to Fox broadcasts and said there was no evidence of voter fraud from Dominion.

“Please get her fired, ”Mr. Carlson said. He added: “It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.” Ms. Heinrich had deleted her tweet by the next morning.


Fox is as corrupt as any organization could possibly be. They claim that they have a journalistic responsibility to report the Trump claims, even if they were false. And simultaneously, that their on-air endorsement of those claims was entertainment, and as such is opinion, not fact, and not journalism.

You would have to be a complete & total idiot to accept that contradictory argument as legitimate or truthful.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/busi ... wsuit.html

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... f/full.pdf

I love the hand wringing over Newsmax, "we have journalistic standards! They do not!" Fox, are these journalistic standards in the room with us right now? :rotfl:
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Fri Feb 17, 2023 4:21 am

Not sure if anyone here has read "The Fountainhead", but there is an analogy between the Gail Wynand character and Rupert Murdoch.

In the book, Wynand panders to the lowest aspects of human nature, and in so doing, builds a media empire that he believes gives him control of popular opinion, and makes him extremely wealthy.

One example of this method was to repeatedly attack and condemn a prominent architect, causing the public to reject his buildings and his work, even though they are excellent designs.

Then to prove to the architect that he controls the public, he reverses his criticism and directs his publications to praise the work, believing that the public will follow along with his whim.

But he learns instead, that the public actually controls him, when his readership turns on him and threatens to destroy his empire, and his wealth. Thus he faces a dilemma, in that he must either sacrifice his wealth, or submit to the control of the public he trained to refute the truth.

This presents an excellent character study on the value of integrity, and the loss that occurs without it.

Murdoch is essentially Wynand, except rather than falsely tearing down an architect, he falsely built up Trump. But when Trump became too crazy even for him, and Fox called Arizona for Biden and said the election was legitimate, the same backlash against his empire occurred. The public that he had trained to refute the truth, abandoned him when he tried to be truthful, and threatened his empire.

This is clearly laid out in the Dominion legal brief.

Also on November 9, the impact of Fox's Arizona call became more evident to Fox executives. Carlson told Scott directly "I've never seen a reaction like this, to any media company. Kills me to watch it."

Scott separately noted, "The audience feels like we crapped on [them] and we have damaged their trust and belief in [us]. We can fix this but we cannot smirk at our viewers any longer".

Scott immediately relayed the email to Lachlan Murdoch. She said executives did not understand the impact to the brand and the "arrogance" in calling AZ, which she found astonishing given that the top executive job was to protect the brand. And on that day one, as Scott termed it, Fox executives made an explicit decision to push narratives to entice their audience back.

Fox executives also began to criticize Fox hosts for truthful reporting. On November 9, Fox anchor Neil Cavuto cut away from a White House Press Conference when Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany began making unsubstantiated allegations about election fraud. The brand team led by Raj Shah notified senior Fox News and Fox Corporation leadership of the "Brand Threat" posed by Cavuto's action. Other reporters were also chastised.

The viewer backlash that Fox Executives had hoped would fade, only became worse. Rupert Murdoch to Suzanne Scott, "Getting creamed by CNN! Guess our viewers don't want to watch us." And reality began to set in. An executive wrote on the evening of November 7, "our viewers left this week after AZ".

Carlson also texted his producer: "Do the executives understand how much credibility and trust we've lost with our audience? We're playing with fire." The response was "for real, an alternative like NewsMax could be devastating to us." Carlson agreed.

While the Executives were waking up to the "war footing" with NewsMax by November 10, key Fox hosts had understood the crisis immediately after Election Night. On November 5, Tucker Carlson texted regarding election coverage, "We've got to be incredibly careful right now. We could get hurt."

By November 11, Sean Hannity recognized the critical role the Dominion fraud narrative would play in winning back viewers. Hannity told Carlson and Ingraham on November 12, "In one week they destroyed a brand that took 25 years to build and the damage is incalculable." Tucker responded: "It's vandalism." By November 12, Dominion became a focal point of discussion within multiple shows at Fox.


The key difference between Wynand and Murdoch, is that in the book, Wynand went down with the ship, exhausting his resources before finally giving in to his readers, as a broken man. Whereas Murdoch & Fox immediately caved to viewer pressure, and in so doing preserved their own wealth and well-being. Absolutely zero integrity or regard for the truth, within any of them.
 
GDB
Posts: 18171
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Fri Feb 17, 2023 7:23 am

To quote reply #10 on the DeSantis thread, ha ha, what a joke, deluded MAGA’s believed FOX.

On a more fact driven note, which makes sense at least, apologies from the UK, we had Murdoch on the ropes, at least with with his tabloids, which are the print version of FOX, lots of lies, lots of hate, for the nasty and plain thick. Sound familiar?
However the investigation into the criminal activities into News International while damaging, the promised next stage promised by PM David Cameron was junked since the company was Tory supporting, as well as it reaching higher up, the links with the Metropolitan Police and what was now the government.
Cameron’s media advisor in Downing Street was convicted and served time for these offenses, sadly his boss, Rebecca (she spells it wrong) Brooks slithered away from them.

The former has got darker as it seems much of the phone hacking was done was suspects, one a former detective from a station known for corruption, in the murder of private detective Daniel Morgan in 1987, (found in a pub car park with an axe buried in his head), which the Met has somehow never solved, indeed the former head of it, the cover up queen Cressida Dick was before getting the top job, censured for interfering with the investigation.
A continued investigation would likely have made Murdoch vulnerable to the US Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act.

However, the papers over here don’t make Murdoch money, they are for influence, FOX makes it so this, if they are fined sufficiently, could change that.
It won’t affect the hate filled dopes who believe it’s content, unless that content actually becomes news or no longer exists.
But FOX was set up to do GOP propaganda by someone upset that the media uncovered Nixon’s corruption and law breaking, getting a boost by those changes in broadcasting legislation in 1987, basically a license to lie.
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Fri Feb 17, 2023 9:06 am

GDB wrote:
The former has got darker as it seems much of the phone hacking was done was suspects, one a former detective from a station known for corruption, in the murder of private detective Daniel Morgan in 1987, (found in a pub car park with an axe buried in his head), which the Met has somehow never solved, indeed the former head of it, the cover up queen Cressida Dick was before getting the top job, censured for interfering with the investigation.
A continued investigation would likely have made Murdoch vulnerable to the US Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act.


In these UK cases, Murdoch was able to claim he had no awareness of what his underlings were doing. Despite that being fairly ludicrous, given the recidivism within his organizations, and their general behavior.

In this case Dominion has Murdoch cold, he's on the record that he knew the statements were false, but agreed that they had to be broadcast in order to pander to the MAGA's and restore Fox News ratings.

So he will have to pay the damages, but he's wealthy enough that it won't matter that much. What's unbelievable is the extent to which the Fox News top-line executives and marquee hosts, self-censored the truth for financial gain. Hilarious that they now complain about social media censorship.

Also interesting that the Wynand character, written in the 1930's, was modeled on William Randolph Hearst, who made his fortune with scandal rags. So here we are 90 years later, with an even worse character in Murdoch. I guess some things never change.

Murdoch should be banned from using the word "News", in any of his organizations. I don't know how these "journalists" can not slink into a hole somewhere and hide. They are totally discredited.
 
GDB
Posts: 18171
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Fri Feb 17, 2023 11:08 am

Avatar2go wrote:
GDB wrote:
The former has got darker as it seems much of the phone hacking was done was suspects, one a former detective from a station known for corruption, in the murder of private detective Daniel Morgan in 1987, (found in a pub car park with an axe buried in his head), which the Met has somehow never solved, indeed the former head of it, the cover up queen Cressida Dick was before getting the top job, censured for interfering with the investigation.
A continued investigation would likely have made Murdoch vulnerable to the US Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act.


In these UK cases, Murdoch was able to claim he had no awareness of what his underlings were doing. Despite that being fairly ludicrous, given the recidivism within his organizations, and their general behavior.

In this case Dominion has Murdoch cold, he's on the record that he knew the statements were false, but agreed that they had to be broadcast in order to pander to the MAGA's and restore Fox News ratings.

So he will have to pay the damages, but he's wealthy enough that it won't matter that much. What's unbelievable is the extent to which the Fox News top-line executives and marquee hosts, self-censored the truth for financial gain. Hilarious that they now complain about social media censorship.

Also interesting that the Wynand character, written in the 1930's, was modeled on William Randolph Hearst, who made his fortune with scandal rags. So here we are 90 years later, with an even worse character in Murdoch. I guess some things never change.

Murdoch should be banned from using the word "News", in any of his organizations. I don't know how these "journalists" can not slink into a hole somewhere and hide. They are totally discredited.


Murdoch in a faux act of contrition did apologize, that was in the early stages. None of that would touch US legislation, which is why the second stage was needed. Though yes, you would need proof that he was aware of any lawbreaking, a communications trail for instance. But with no further investigation......
That US law was mooted at the time should things progress and the ex Aussie, now US citizen Murdoch would have feared it.

His Sunday paper most identified with the illegal acts, the News Of The World, was axed, it was baggage he could easily afford to lose, the Sun too if necessary which stopped making money long ago, sadly not ditched.
Since FOX funds the whole empire so if, in a rare occurrence in the 21st century, the law is actually applied to Billionaires, any fine must be enough to make its viability questionable, at least without major restructuring.
 
WkndWanderer
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:36 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:17 pm

Tucker Carlson saying (in text messages no less) that a reporter needs to be fired because she hurt the stock price by reporting something truthful and doing her jobs is full blown loony tunes.
 
luckyone
Posts: 5321
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:37 pm

For those who needed proof, the tail wags the dog for these "infotainment" media outlets.
 
stlgph
Posts: 12267
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Fri Feb 17, 2023 6:55 pm

 
WkndWanderer
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:36 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Fri Feb 17, 2023 7:07 pm

stlgph wrote:


Pure gold. Fox President Jay Wallace: “the North Koreans do a more nuanced show” than Lou Dobbs.
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Fri Feb 17, 2023 11:36 pm

The truly amazing thing about this, is that it won't affect their ratings. Their viewers made it very clear what they wanted to hear, and they don't want to hear anything else. So Fox will comply, no matter what.

It's interesting that this amounts to the audience dictating the "news" that is presented to them, rather than reality. Not sure where you even go with that. It's the logical conclusion of Kellyann Conway and "alternate facts".

It's what happens when conservative media trains their audience to refute the truth. Those fools think they control audience opinion, but the audience really controls them. Rand identified this as the outcome almost 100 years ago. But learning and attention to history or facts, is not their strong suit.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10252
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Fri Feb 17, 2023 11:58 pm

We need to hope for Jury Members who have at least half a brain, which will cost FOX $1.6 Billion. With luck the Jury will return the full amount (or increase it) and move a chunk to Punitive Damages as they cannot be hid behind bankruptcy.

Hopefully FOX will fire those behind this farce- leaving them to pay their part of the Jury Awards out of their own pocket. Pull Tucker's pay and the dude is going to be crying all over the companies that will put him on there air,
 
Ken777
Posts: 10252
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Fri Feb 17, 2023 11:59 pm

Ken777 wrote:
We need to hope for Jury Members who have at least half a brain, which will cost FOX $1.6 Billion. With luck the Jury will return the full amount (or increase it) and move a chunk to Punitive Damages as they cannot be hid behind bankruptcy.

Hopefully FOX will fire those behind this farce- leaving them to pay their part of the Jury Awards out of their own pocket. Pull Tucker's pay and the dude is going to be crying all over the companies that will put him on there air,

And, if fo goes under, the country will be a better place!
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sat Feb 18, 2023 12:13 am

It would be great if the entire Murdoch empire went under, all around the world. All they have done is create mischief and mayhem.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 6370
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sat Feb 18, 2023 1:27 am

"It's interesting that this amounts to the audience dictating the "news" that is presented to them, rather than reality. Not sure where you even go with that. It's the logical conclusion of Kellyann Conway and "alternate facts"."

Both the NYT and the WA Post have op-eds who regularly distort the news, I assume the keep them so to keep their right wing readers happy.
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sat Feb 18, 2023 1:49 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
"It's interesting that this amounts to the audience dictating the "news" that is presented to them, rather than reality. Not sure where you even go with that. It's the logical conclusion of Kellyann Conway and "alternate facts"."

Both the NYT and the WA Post have op-eds who regularly distort the news, I assume the keep them so to keep their right wing readers happy.


It's true that both sides do opinion pieces that skew interpretations one way or the other. The Fox event is significantly different, though.

Note that Fox reported the truth, which was first that Biden was projected to win, and then actually did win, in Arizona. But the Fox audience rejected the truth, and left the network specifically because Fox was truthful. They went instead to NewsMax and OAN, who were still broadcasting the lie of election fraud, and that Trump had actually won Arizona. This was categorically false.

In response to the audience exodus, Fox then dropped the truth, and disciplined their reporters who told the truth. Then began reporting the lies, in order to win their viewers back.

That is an unprecedented event in the history of journalism. The only comparable event I know of, was the fictional depiction of Gail Wynand in the 1930's novel "The Fountainhead". Which is truly an example of truth being stranger than fiction.

That is in no way equivalent to op-ed activity. An audience actually forced a news organization to lie. The network had to choose between truthfulness and financial survival. So they chose the latter.

We need to be very clear here, that the Fox audience was not only deceived, they demanded to be deceived, or else. That is the mind-boggling aspect of this, that I don't know how to process.
Last edited by Avatar2go on Sat Feb 18, 2023 1:51 am, edited 3 times in total.
 
johns624
Posts: 7328
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sat Feb 18, 2023 1:49 am

If Fox went under, the zealots would just switch over to OAN, Newsmax, etc. Many already think Fox has sold out and have moved on. For some really scary stuff, check out citizenfreepress, zerohedge and gatewaypundit.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 6370
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sat Feb 18, 2023 3:22 am

ACDC - concur
 
ltbewr
Posts: 16758
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sat Feb 18, 2023 4:36 am

The discovery disclosures by Fox News executives and of Rupert Murdoch shows how sick the management was to allow on-air personalities were spread horrible lies about the results of the 2020 Presidential election to boost ratings and ad revenues. Part of the false attacks by their on-air news commentators including saying Dominion had bad election equipment that was able to be manipulated to favor Democrats.Those lying statements defamed Dominion, causing serious financial damage to their business, losing customers, ruining their reputation.Those comments and others also caused massive damage to the respect of election in the country.
Generally in the USA news media and publications are protected from lawsuits for deformation by public figures (here a public company is the Plaintiff) unless actual or intentional malice occurs. Because the management per their internal discussion disclosed Friday from the discovery in the case shows that despite knowing their on-air personalities said lies that were acts of deformation as to Dominion, that were intentional to cause harm to Dominion, means the company was responsible. That was grounds for Dominion to sue Fox News and some key employees over it for $1.6 Billion in damages. I hope Dominion gets all that and more to put Fox News out of business or at least replace their executives, management, get rid of their rabid dog commentators and broadcast the news with less bias in the future. The fear is that this case is appealed to the current US Supreme Court and overturn a possible civil Judgment and sharply narrow protections of the news and other media from attacks by minor and true reporting on pubic and political figures.
 
User avatar
QF7
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:42 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sat Feb 18, 2023 4:58 am

Avatar2go wrote:
We need to be very clear here, that the Fox audience was not only deceived, they demanded to be deceived, or else. That is the mind-boggling aspect of this, that I don't know how to process.

There has been a lot of research into the psychology behind all this. People become very wedded to their particular worldview and then such phenomena as confirmation bias, perceptual filters, single-source information, and how they resolve cognitive dissonance, come into play. Healthy skepticism and critical thinking skills are forgotten or become twisted. There is almost a narcotic effect in being told that what you believe is correct, that you are on the right side of history. Folks seek out other like-minded folks which leads to a self-perpetuating reinforcement cycle.

It must be said of course that this is not unique to right-wing conservatives. People on the far left fall into the same trap, just on the flip side of the coin.

Members of religious cults and other ideological extremist groups exhibit the same traits.
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sat Feb 18, 2023 6:00 am

QF7 wrote:

There has been a lot of research into the psychology behind all this. People become very wedded to their particular worldview and then such phenomena as confirmation bias, perceptual filters, single-source information, and how they resolve cognitive dissonance, come into play. Healthy skepticism and critical thinking skills are forgotten or become twisted. There is almost a narcotic effect in being told that what you believe is correct, that you are on the right side of history. Folks seek out other like-minded folks which leads to a self-perpetuating reinforcement cycle.

It must be said of course that this is not unique to right-wing conservatives. People on the far left fall into the same trap, just on the flip side of the coin.

Members of religious cults and other ideological extremist groups exhibit the same traits.


Agreed with all of this, and in fact have argued these points myself here before.

The thing that makes this different, though, is that almost universally, authoritative sources resist the distortion of the facts and the truth, which has the effect of tempering those views, and those groups.

In the case of Fox, you actually had the authoritative source adopting the distortions and lies, in favor of the facts and the truth. And furthermore, doing that with full knowledge that they were distortions and lies. And furthermore, doing so for financial gain.

As stated, that is unprecedented in the world of journalism, outside the realm of fiction. There is no equivalent, and it can't be explained away with psychology.

The fact that the audience is deluded, I can accept. The fact the news organization is a complicit partner in the delusion, at every level, as an intentional and knowing act, for profit, is not acceptable.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 19258
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sat Feb 18, 2023 9:46 am

WkndWanderer wrote:
stlgph wrote:


Pure gold. Fox President Jay Wallace: “the North Koreans do a more nuanced show” than Lou Dobbs.

My favorite is Sidney Powell talking to ghosts and accusing Scalia of hunting humans which…honestly seems believable

https://twitter.com/existentialfish/sta ... v-aqbNq8NQ

Also Fox News worrying about Kayleigh Mcenany’s inability to tell the truth (and then of course hiring her because that is their brand):

https://twitter.com/existentialfish/sta ... v-aqbNq8NQ
 
User avatar
QF7
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:42 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sat Feb 18, 2023 1:59 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
As stated, that is unprecedented in the world of journalism, outside the realm of fiction. There is no equivalent, and it can't be explained away with psychology.

The fact that the audience is deluded, I can accept. The fact the news organization is a complicit partner in the delusion, at every level, as an intentional and knowing act, for profit, is not acceptable.

I get your point and don’t mean to argue. But remember that there have always been certain people willing to engage in dishonest practices in return for profit, prestige, power, etc. Just consider all the used car salesmen knowingly selling defective cars, internet scammers, pretenders to high society (Anna Delvey), resume fabricators (George Santos), financial fraudsters (Sam Bankman-Fried), and endless others. There is definitely a psychological component that enables these people to be the deluders and to be able to live with themselves or not even see a problem in the first place.

Murdoch and his minions are merely bringing this kind of amoral behavior to the field of journalism. Whether it is acceptable to some of the rest of us or not doesn’t even enter in.
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sat Feb 18, 2023 2:28 pm

QF7 wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
As stated, that is unprecedented in the world of journalism, outside the realm of fiction. There is no equivalent, and it can't be explained away with psychology.

The fact that the audience is deluded, I can accept. The fact the news organization is a complicit partner in the delusion, at every level, as an intentional and knowing act, for profit, is not acceptable.

I get your point and don’t mean to argue. But remember that there have always been certain people willing to engage in dishonest practices in return for profit, prestige, power, etc. Just consider all the used car salesmen knowingly selling defective cars, internet scammers, pretenders to high society (Anna Delvey), resume fabricators (George Santos), financial fraudsters (Sam Bankman-Fried), and endless others. There is definitely a psychological component that enables these people to be the deluders and to be able to live with themselves or not even see a problem in the first place.

Murdoch and his minions are merely bringing this kind of amoral behavior to the field of journalism. Whether it is acceptable to some of the rest of us or not doesn’t even enter in.


I too don't wish to argue. But for a news organization whose sole function is to present the facts and the truth to the public, to then willfully do the opposite, is not acceptable practice, by any measure, and for any
reason. There is not a valid equivalence to the other examples you gave. And acceptability does enter in, if we want to stand up for the principles involved.

When you say "merely", that's basically saying it's an expected behavior. So let me be extraordinarily clear, it's not. Nor has it ever been, by any journalistic standard. And if we ever get to the point that it is, we're done as a society. Just hand it over to the lunatics and the conspiracy theorists, because that's all that will remain, if the truth is for sale by journalists, and that becomes accepted.
 
User avatar
QF7
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:42 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sat Feb 18, 2023 2:44 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
But for a news organization whose sole function is to present the facts and the truth to the public, to then willfully do the opposite, is not acceptable practice, by any measure, and for any reason.

As it happens I studied journalism in college and I agree.

All I’m saying is that there are some people in this world who do not care about “acceptable practice.”
 
BN747
Posts: 8139
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sat Feb 18, 2023 3:05 pm

TV News...

Pick up the hand off from the days of Radio news (Entertainment)..a huge leap in widespread information, Radio was powerful in that the more commanding the voice, the more ears tuned in. One could be the most abject illiterate (and most were) but you were able to grasp what everyone was discussing and talking about.

What reached your ears.... 'was the news' when it was commercial entertainment programming filling the airways mining for your every penny, Sears, Coca-Cola, etc...

For the most part, reported news was frank and pretty straight forward..of course select narratives and delivery was tailor to local preferences.
Above that crowd was the better, formally educated New York Times reading crowd....not for the semi-literate.

Then Facetime, Faces that made early news even more real, better than Radio voices - you could see the expressions of the reported news,

Walter Cronkite (1961) was the face of flawless professional journalism on air, he was the Tiger Woods of tv news and all others tried to be him - in their own way.
Then they found their legs and developed their personalities like John Chancellor, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley..as a kid I liked all those guys..

And now we've soiled the best news platforms of any nation has ever had with Fox News.

Just as George Santos has taken a giant crap on the 'slimy politician' model by becoming the physical model of it's definition.

Media, Polluted by Liars - Fox and spinoffs OANN, etc) feeding to those who love being lied to because it makes them feel good.
Politics, Polluted by Liars - TraitorTrump (Admin - several years to uncover), George Santos (unmasked as a fraud before being seated)
Supreme Court, polluted by Liars - (Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh , Thomas and Gorsach) to get on the Court to personally affect law to select personal views over the masses.
State Governments, polluted by Liars and the greedy, Sam Brownback/Kansas, Huckabeast/Arkansas, DeSantis/Florida using the tried and true path of minority scapegoating minorities, gays LGBTq Demos to score political points ( like every Republican of the modern era - since Civil Rights)

An advancing society must recognize these threats before falling victim to them.

Like guns, either you care...Or you Don't.

BN747
 
User avatar
QF7
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:42 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sun Feb 19, 2023 12:41 am

BN747 wrote:
An advancing society must recognize these threats before falling victim to them.

I admire your optimism that we are advancing! :lol:

So if the fundamental issue is self-styled news outlets deliberately publishing/broadcasting false information… what do we do about it?

I feel confident most of us would agree that in a free society we value freedom of the press. Indeed, a free society may only be able to exist because of a free press.

The press has an obligation, a duty, to report the news as it happened, without “spin”, without bias, without selective editing, without fear or favor.

Ethical news organizations do their best to adhere to these principles, they adopt and follow codes of ethics, they apply rigorous editorial standards, and when they get it wrong they issue retractions and apologies and set the record straight.

But… as we can plainly see, not all news organizations are ethical. Some are masquerading as news organizations in order to advance an agenda, to propagandize, to influence or manipulate public opinion and actions. Others are simply putting out whatever will sell or attract eyeballs.

Possible remedies:

1. Industry self-policing. Works fine up to a point where somebody decides to ignore the rules. No trade body has the legal authority to force someone off the air or to shut down their printing presses.

2. Governmental regulation. Two huge problems with this. First, the basic precept of freedom of the press means being free of government control, i.e., censorship. Second, even if a totally honest and unbiased agency could be devised to serve such a function how do you keep it from being politically captured and ideologically altered by some future president or congress?

3. Clear delineation between news and opinion. Whether it is Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity or Joy Reid or Don Lemon (to pick some at random) much of what appears on “news” networks is really not news reporting, it is opinions about the news. If you believe in freedom of speech you really cannot be opposed to people expressing opinions as long as it is clearly identified as such and does not cross the line into libel and defamation. But, as in point 1, how do you enforce it?

4. Boycotts of offending organizations and their advertisers. While these can hurt the pocket books of those being boycotted they tend to be very hard to sustain for very long. It takes a really strong commitment over a lengthy period across a large number of people to have much effect.

5. Significant financial losses. Whether someone is in it purely for financial rewards or for ideological reasons, it takes money to operate. So lawsuits for damages might be the best hope for driving the purveyors of false information out of the “news” business. Look at what happened to Alex Jones (although I don’t think he ever pretended to be a Walter Cronkite).

“Yellow journalism” has been in existence for as long as there have been newspapers and will be with us always. The question is how to keep it from having undue influence.
 
BN747
Posts: 8139
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sun Feb 19, 2023 3:51 am

QF7 wrote:
BN747 wrote:
An advancing society must recognize these threats before falling victim to them.

I admire your optimism that we are advancing! :lol:

.


Glad you enjoyed the laugh..but you concocted my optimism for me. I said 'an advancing society must (and would)'...not that I framed America that way because America wears an albatross around it's neck from the Trump/Fox News/DeSantis hate on sexual truths and Black history (esp. Florida's horrific racists past) and GOP'ers wanting beat women back into the kitchen - those are not the calling cards of an advancing society, and past GOP/Fox past 6 years (unecessarily) has left us with damaging, long lasting dire effects.

BN747
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sun Feb 19, 2023 10:22 am

QF7 wrote:
I admire your optimism that we are advancing! :lol:

So if the fundamental issue is self-styled news outlets deliberately publishing/broadcasting false information… what do we do about it?

I feel confident most of us would agree that in a free society we value freedom of the press. Indeed, a free society may only be able to exist because of a free press.

The press has an obligation, a duty, to report the news as it happened, without “spin”, without bias, without selective editing, without fear or favor.

Ethical news organizations do their best to adhere to these principles, they adopt and follow codes of ethics, they apply rigorous editorial standards, and when they get it wrong they issue retractions and apologies and set the record straight.

But… as we can plainly see, not all news organizations are ethical. Some are masquerading as news organizations in order to advance an agenda, to propagandize, to influence or manipulate public opinion and actions. Others are simply putting out whatever will sell or attract eyeballs.

Possible remedies:

1. Industry self-policing. Works fine up to a point where somebody decides to ignore the rules. No trade body has the legal authority to force someone off the air or to shut down their printing presses.

2. Governmental regulation. Two huge problems with this. First, the basic precept of freedom of the press means being free of government control, i.e., censorship. Second, even if a totally honest and unbiased agency could be devised to serve such a function how do you keep it from being politically captured and ideologically altered by some future president or congress?

3. Clear delineation between news and opinion. Whether it is Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity or Joy Reid or Don Lemon (to pick some at random) much of what appears on “news” networks is really not news reporting, it is opinions about the news. If you believe in freedom of speech you really cannot be opposed to people expressing opinions as long as it is clearly identified as such and does not cross the line into libel and defamation. But, as in point 1, how do you enforce it?

4. Boycotts of offending organizations and their advertisers. While these can hurt the pocket books of those being boycotted they tend to be very hard to sustain for very long. It takes a really strong commitment over a lengthy period across a large number of people to have much effect.

5. Significant financial losses. Whether someone is in it purely for financial rewards or for ideological reasons, it takes money to operate. So lawsuits for damages might be the best hope for driving the purveyors of false information out of the “news” business. Look at what happened to Alex Jones (although I don’t think he ever pretended to be a Walter Cronkite).

“Yellow journalism” has been in existence for as long as there have been newspapers and will be with us always. The question is how to keep it from having undue influence.


This is a great analysis of the issue. I would add three basic points:

First, for your #4 item on boycotts, the notable thing is that a boycott caused Fox to immediately falsify their reporting, after they had made some attempts to be truthful. This shows that a boycott works in both directions, and the direction is chosen by the audience. That is one of the unprecedented things about this, that the audience preferred the lie.

Second, another solution that has been used in the business community, would be to ramp up ethics training in journalism schools and the workplace. At my university, the Arthur Anderson accounting scandal rocked the department, because a large fraction of the people involved were alumni. There was a major effort dedicated to teaching ethical compliance, as well as financial. This had been more or less assumed, before that event, but no longer.

Third, as BN747 pointed out, the era of TV journalistic integrity (Murrow, Cronkite, Brinkley) became blurred with the advent of news as a profit center. When news was accepted as a loss leader, it remained fairly free of bias. The main selling points were accuracy and coverage. Once it was asked to make money, that's when the opinionating and personalities crept in (Brokaw, Rather, Wallace). Fox is the next generational progression of that, with news as entertainment (Carlson, Hannity, Dobbs). And to be fair, the other cable news shows have fallen in line with their own offerings, although not quite as egregious as Fox.

So I wonder if maybe a solution is a return to news as a public service, that the providers must produce as part of their licensing privilege. Maybe more based on the PBS or BBC model. But then I don't know how the 24/7 news channels would survive. Which maybe means that we don't really need 24/7 news? I don't really know the answer, but it seems like balancing ethics with profitability is at the root of the issue.

Maybe the solution is a combination of these things, with an injection of ethical auditing & review, and a clear separation between news and entertainment, as we used to have with clearly defined editorial segments. But that also depends on the audience wanting ethical and accurate news. As we've seen, the Fox viewers did not.
 
pune
Posts: 1935
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sun Feb 19, 2023 10:57 am

In India, we have fallen on the same things. One thing you guys need to be grateful that you still have some modicum of judicial integrity. Here that has been a failure as well.The same in the case of the Election Commission. A very recent case, hardly 24 hours ago. 2 parties were arguing over a name and symbol. The case is in the SC, Election Commission gave it to one without waiting for Judicial result.

The party to whom the symbol is given is one which supports the Central Govt. By all rights and logic, it should have gone the other way. It is what it is :(

Now coming to news 24x7, we have a whole mass of people who are either retired or who have no jobs (joblessness is rampant here). If you take out 24x7 news how will they pass the time. More than 50% is surviving on Govt. rations. This tells you the state of things.

They have no answers on joblessness, inflation, price rise etc. hence culture wars, whether it is RW here or elsewhere.
 
User avatar
QF7
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:42 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sun Feb 19, 2023 6:18 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
Second, another solution that has been used in the business community, would be to ramp up ethics training in journalism schools and the workplace.

I agree with your comments. To extend on this one, ethics training is a good thing, particularly in providing guidance and methods for resolving genuine ethical dilemmas that arise (e.g., the public’s right to know vs. a legitimate governmental need for secrecy, etc.)

However, as noted earlier, some people are willing to behave unethically and that will be true no matter how much ethics training they have been given.

In other professions there are disciplining mechanisms available, for example a doctor may lose his license to practice or a lawyer may be disbarred.

Perhaps some sort of Licensed Professional Journalist accreditation could be devised which would have its own strict code of ethics and which would not be granted to opinion hosts and columnists and bloggers.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 12765
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sun Feb 19, 2023 7:51 pm

Avatar2go wrote:
[...], the era of TV journalistic integrity (Murrow, Cronkite, Brinkley) became blurred with the advent of news as a profit center. [...]

That is a fallacy news has been a profit center for a long time. Pulitzer, Hearst, Scripps, they all focused on being profitable to grow and take out competition and worked to influence politics in ways that they saw as beneficial. So news has used the profit factor forever for their purposes.

Tugg
 
bennett123
Posts: 12549
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sun Feb 19, 2023 7:57 pm

QF7 wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
Second, another solution that has been used in the business community, would be to ramp up ethics training in journalism schools and the workplace.

I agree with your comments. To extend on this one, ethics training is a good thing, particularly in providing guidance and methods for resolving genuine ethical dilemmas that arise (e.g., the public’s right to know vs. a legitimate governmental need for secrecy, etc.)

However, as noted earlier, some people are willing to behave unethically and that will be true no matter how much ethics training they have been given.

In other professions there are disciplining mechanisms available, for example a doctor may lose his license to practice or a lawyer may be disbarred.

Perhaps some sort of Licensed Professional Journalist accreditation could be devised which would have its own strict code of ethics and which would not be granted to opinion hosts and columnists and bloggers.


I work in Financial Services, and Ethics training is something you go through.

IMO it is really simple.

Would you give this advice to your family?

Would you do/say this if the customer/your boss/the regulator was standing behind you?.

If the answer to either question is 'no', then it is a fail.

Something unethical usually smells wrong.
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sun Feb 19, 2023 8:49 pm

Tugger wrote:
That is a fallacy news has been a profit center for a long time. Pulitzer, Hearst, Scripps, they all focused on being profitable to grow and take out competition and worked to influence politics in ways that they saw as beneficial. So news has used the profit factor forever for their purposes.


Please note I qualified my remarks to broadcast journalism, which began life as a public service requirement to obtain FCC broadcast licensing. Stations were required to set aside a given amount of time each day to serve the public, since they were using the public airwaves. Most of them chose to do that with news.

So my statement is truthful and not a fallacy. The turning point was "60 Minutes", a news magazine that many in the industry expected to fail, based on general news ratings. But instead it took off, and networks began to realize they could boost their news broadcast ratings, and make money, with the same techniques. Adopt a point of view, and then present news that supports that view.

If you include print journalism, then yes, that has been for-profit for a long time, and the same mechanisms have been in play there. The best publications, with the highest readership, were the ones with high journalistic standards. That was an audience choice.

Now, after 35 years of conservative media, that trend has reversed. They have successfully trained their audience to make the opposite choice, so the worst journalistic standards are now the most watched, on cable news.
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Sun Feb 19, 2023 8:51 pm

QF7 wrote:
I agree with your comments. To extend on this one, ethics training is a good thing, particularly in providing guidance and methods for resolving genuine ethical dilemmas that arise (e.g., the public’s right to know vs. a legitimate governmental need for secrecy, etc.)

However, as noted earlier, some people are willing to behave unethically and that will be true no matter how much ethics training they have been given.

In other professions there are disciplining mechanisms available, for example a doctor may lose his license to practice or a lawyer may be disbarred.

Perhaps some sort of Licensed Professional Journalist accreditation could be devised which would have its own strict code of ethics and which would not be granted to opinion hosts and columnists and bloggers.


These are all good ideas. I hope something like this could be done within journalism. It would clean up a lot of the mess we have now.
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Mon Feb 20, 2023 5:08 pm

Here is a good analysis by PBS NewsHour columnists.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EefwrTT-Ouc
 
Avatar2go
Topic Author
Posts: 4039
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:41 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:51 am

Another filing from Dominion continues to highlight the struggle at Fox News over the misinformation being provided on-air by its hosts and guests, relative to what the management knew to be false.

In particular, Rupert Murdoch acknowledged that "it's not blue or red, it's green". Meaning that financial consequences of alienating the Fox audience were paramount in the decision to allow Hannity, Carlson, Pirro, Bartiromo, Ingraham, and Dobbs, to continue presenting election fraud claims, without significant challenge.

The "Brand Team" at Fox conducted polling after the election, which indicated the audience view of Fox had swung hugely negative. Placing the network financially "underwater", with the worst ratings in their history.

As other media outlets such as WaPo began to seek comment from Fox about their dilemma, they internally decided not to respond, as they "had nothing" with which to refute the claims.

After Jan 6, Fox management finally took the decision to "pivot" away from Trump and the election fraud claims. But also emphasized it had to be done carefully, so as to lead and retain the audience. They could not outright disavow Trump, after the audience had been conditioned to endorse his claims. So the hosts were permitted to continue to present those claims, but were asked to challenge them on-air.

Also they were forbidden to host any more of Trump's attorneys, but allowed the Tucker Carlson interview with Mike Lindell, because he was a loyal advertiser, on whom the network depended. Murdoch testified that he would not have blocked that appearance, no matter what conspiracy theories Lindell would put forth.

In addition, before the election, Fox was feeding information about Biden campaign ads and recommending strategy to the Trump campaign. This extended from the hosts, all the way to Murdoch himself. They effectively operated as an operational wing of the campaign, both promoting Trump on air, and providing and advising him on oppositional research.

I don't see how they can do those things, and then claim they are a news organization exercising their First Amendment rights. It just seems like another massive charade.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... lg0223.pdf
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 6370
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Tue Feb 28, 2023 2:43 pm

Two of the great, arguably at or near the top of the list, along with their more notable student:
Socrates and his student Alcibiades
Aristotle and his student Alexander (the Great)

My comments - evolutionary behavior usually triumphs and it always has the last word. I know which two of the four Fox News and the Proud Boys would choose.
 
wingman
Posts: 4477
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Tue Feb 28, 2023 3:52 pm

One possible outcome of this lawsuit that would provide cover for Fox in the future would be to simply drop "News" from all advertising. The could replace that with "FOX, the #1 White Christian Sociopathic Echo Chamber in America!". They'd be telling the truth for the first time in their existence, they'd avoid any and all lawsuits like Dominion's and they'd probably increase their viewership.
 
luckyone
Posts: 5321
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Tue Feb 28, 2023 4:00 pm

wingman wrote:
One possible outcome of this lawsuit that would provide cover for Fox in the future would be to simply drop "News" from all advertising. The could replace that with "FOX, the #1 White Christian Sociopathic Echo Chamber in America!". They'd be telling the truth for the first time in their existence, they'd avoid any and all lawsuits like Dominion's and they'd probably increase their viewership.

Another pickle for Fox--and obviously all news/infotainment outlets--is the effort by many conservatives to increase the liability of media outlets. I can't wait for the howling that will come from the right wing sheep when they realize that such a rule inevitably will affect their favorite talking heads.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 19258
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Dominion v Fox Lawsuit

Tue Feb 28, 2023 5:49 pm

For decades we've known Fox News pushes lies to make money, and here we have an endless string of texts and testimonies that quite literally spell out that fact:

"When asked why Fox continues to give a
platform to Lindell—who continues to this day to spout lies about Dominion—
Murdoch agreed that 'It is not red or blue, it is green.'”

https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/16 ... 0934013955

Tugger wrote:
Avatar2go wrote:
[...], the era of TV journalistic integrity (Murrow, Cronkite, Brinkley) became blurred with the advent of news as a profit center. [...]

That is a fallacy news has been a profit center for a long time. Pulitzer, Hearst, Scripps, they all focused on being profitable to grow and take out competition and worked to influence politics in ways that they saw as beneficial. So news has used the profit factor forever for their purposes.

Tugg

Yeah this reminds me of people reminiscing about the Golden Age on the other forum. "Let's all remember the good old days as they never were"...as if the robber barons and their scions didn't have every interest to manipulate the news back then, and probably had more cover between a colluding government and limited avenues for alternative information.

luckyone wrote:
wingman wrote:
One possible outcome of this lawsuit that would provide cover for Fox in the future would be to simply drop "News" from all advertising. The could replace that with "FOX, the #1 White Christian Sociopathic Echo Chamber in America!". They'd be telling the truth for the first time in their existence, they'd avoid any and all lawsuits like Dominion's and they'd probably increase their viewership.

Another pickle for Fox--and obviously all news/infotainment outlets--is the effort by many conservatives to increase the liability of media outlets. I can't wait for the howling that will come from the right wing sheep when they realize that such a rule inevitably will affect their favorite talking heads.

I don't really understand the angle conservatives have on things like Section 230, since exposing platforms to liability would do them the most damage between things like Fox/OANN/Newsmax and their buddies like Shapiro/Owens/Bannon/Crowder/etc.. I don't doubt they're using it for cynical political points now but heaven forbid they were to ever catch that bus, they'd be the first canceled :rotfl:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FLYFIRSTCLASS and 51 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos