Thankyou, Tucker Carlson!!

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Joe Bauer- you're engaging in wishful thinking. they've only been knocked down in the eyes of the bubble that already does not view Fox favorably. There will not be any appreciable impact in the other bubble. Fox wont lose eyeballs. There will only be real impact if this causese advertisers to leave the network. the revealations will have no impact on viewership. I'm not sure why you dont get it.   

[Pat Speer]

28 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Joe Bauer- you're engaging in wishful thinking. they've only been knocked down in the eyes of the bubble that already does not view Fox favorably. There will not be any appreciable impact in the other bubble. Fox wont lose eyeballs. There will only be real impact if this causese advertisers to leave the network. the revealations will have no impact on viewership. I'm not sure why you dont get it.   

And yet a billion-dollar loss and some heads on a stick to assure shareholders it doesn't happen again might lead to a new direction--one spun to the right but not to outright lies. 

Remember Glenn Beck? Lou Dobbs? Bill O'Reilly? Roger Ailes?

They are living (and dead) proof that that the brand is more important than the brand-carrier, and that Tucker could be dumped any minute. No one really cares about him. He has always been a crap "journalist" and his trying to save himself by re-inventing Jan 6 is a PR disaster that will almost certainly backfire.

I mean, can you imagine, say, Chet Huntley, spending night after night replaying My Lai footage to prove not EVERY child was murdered, and that those doing the murdering didn't all have scowls on their faces!

Paging Mr. Pulitzer!

 

Edited March 14, 2023 by Pat Speer

[W. Niederhut]

Thank you, Tucker Carlson!

[Bob Ness]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I am no lawyer, but Glenn Greenwald seems to think the Dominion case is iffy.

Don't worry about that. Greenwald isn't either.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Lawrence Schnapf]

if there was any verdict against Fox, i doubt it would be in the billion dollar range. Dominion is going to be hard pressed to show damages exceeding anything approaching the amount from what I have seen so far. And any damages approaching that amount would likely be overturned by the Supreme Court based on its recent jurisprudence.   

[Bob Ness]

8 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

if there was any verdict against Fox, i doubt it would be in the billion dollar range. Dominion is going to be hard pressed to show damages exceeding anything approaching the amount from what I have seen so far. And any damages approaching that amount would likely be overturned by the Supreme Court based on its recent jurisprudence.   

Smartmatic is asking for $2.7 billion. Dominion is just first in line.

Let's face it the "news" companies nowadays are little more than content for advertisers and it's been that way for some time. Like Chomsky says, since profits depend on the advertising models rather than viewership or subscriptions (direct audience generated revenue) those organizations will have no interest in changing their editorial slant until such time as their advertisers demand it or leave. But much of what we're talking about isn't "editorial slant". It's outright fabricated information which "Fox NEWS" (NOT Fox opinion) put forth at the same time they apparently knew the information was fabricated. This absolutely impacts both Dominion and Smartmatic's ability to do business as they are multi-billion dollar businesses with employees and the whole lot who are now at least partially seen as not credible.

The news organizations receive protection specifically in the constitution but that also comes with a responsibility to investigate the veracity of their claims. Usually, cases don't make the docket unless a strong set of issues make it likely a plaintiff will prevail. People can't just sue every time they disagree with what a newspaper opines. It's a waste of money and court resources. What you seem to be saying is they get to play both sides: "Hey we weren't reporting news! We're an opinion organization!" But we get to claim the protection of a news organization!" Which is it?

An entity claiming to "give an opinion" is absolutely subject to all the legal remedies available to a plaintiff if they maliciously malign, slander or defame them. Courts have consistently held that news organizations can't recklessly disregard the truth when reporting on matters of public concern. In this case, they're not saying so and so is a bad candidate or it's a shame he won (an opinion many would agree with) they were saying the entire voting procedure, effecting all voters, was fraudulent and of great PUBLIC CONCERN. They're including ALL voters and not a subsection or segment, which has been shown to be false and known to Fox NEWS at that time. They knew there wasn't a fire and not only claimed otherwise, used the near full extent of their massive resources to perpetuate the lie.

Finally, courts have also held that news organizations are liable for damages if they publish or broadcast defamatory statements with a "reckless disregard" for the truth.

tl;dr

Taint that hard methinks. Would have been dismissed long ago but hey, IANAL.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Bob Ness- you making broad general statements about potential liability of news organizationsm and the viability of parties bringing lawsuits  that resembles magical thinking which is ok- just recognize it .

This case will turn on specific allegations that the plaintiffs must prove along with  their damages.  I have already explained how Fox can try to defend this case. read the preceding discussions.  This case is far from a slam dunk. All we have so far is the complaint and the selective leaks from deposition testimony. You havent even heard Fox's side of the story yet. They have very good lawyers. this will become very muddled after Fox tells its story.          

[Leslie Sharp]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I am no lawyer, but Glenn Greenwald seems to think the Dominion case is iffy.

Years ago in California there was a problem with "SLAP" suits.

That is, if a large company wanted to shut someone up, they would sue them. In the US, you must answer a complaint, and that costs $10k out of the gate. 

Whatever the merits of the Dominion case, they may just want to make it expensive for anybody to investigate voting-machine issues. 

BTW, this was a NYT magazine cover story in 2018:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/magazine/election-security-crisis-midterms.html

They said voting machines were very vulnerable. A "crisis." 

Interesting how tunes change. 

 if a large company wanted to shut someone up, they would sue them.

Risking aboutism (among the more annoying contemporary debate tactics), you're familiar with Trump's track record?

[Leslie Sharp]

15 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Leslie- I'll ask Rex. Thanks!

Full disclosure, Rex may remember my name as a member of a small camp of researchers concerned by the privatization of the Ferrell collection.  

 

I trust he'll distinguish this project from that history.

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Smartmatic is asking for $2.7 billion. Dominion is just first in line.

Let's face it the "news" companies nowadays are little more than content for advertisers and it's been that way for some time. Like Chomsky says, since profits depend on the advertising models rather than viewership or subscriptions (direct audience generated revenue) those organizations will have no interest in changing their editorial slant until such time as their advertisers demand it or leave. But much of what we're talking about isn't "editorial slant". It's outright fabricated information which "Fox NEWS" (NOT Fox opinion) put forth at the same time they apparently knew the information was fabricated. This absolutely impacts both Dominion and Smartmatic's ability to do business as they are multi-billion dollar businesses with employees and the whole lot who are now at least partially seen as not credible.

The news organizations receive protection specifically in the constitution but that also comes with a responsibility to investigate the veracity of their claims. Usually, cases don't make the docket unless a strong set of issues make it likely a plaintiff will prevail. People can't just sue every time they disagree with what a newspaper opines. It's a waste of money and court resources. What you seem to be saying is they get to play both sides: "Hey we weren't reporting news! We're an opinion organization!" But we get to claim the protection of a news organization!" Which is it?

An entity claiming to "give an opinion" is absolutely subject to all the legal remedies available to a plaintiff if they maliciously malign, slander or defame them. Courts have consistently held that news organizations can't recklessly disregard the truth when reporting on matters of public concern. In this case, they're not saying so and so is a bad candidate or it's a shame he won (an opinion many would agree with) they were saying the entire voting procedure, effecting all voters, was fraudulent and of great PUBLIC CONCERN. They're including ALL voters and not a subsection or segment, which has been shown to be false and known to Fox NEWS at that time. They knew there wasn't a fire and not only claimed otherwise, used the near full extent of their massive resources to perpetuate the lie.

Finally, courts have also held that news organizations are liable for damages if they publish or broadcast defamatory statements with a "reckless disregard" for the truth.

tl;dr

Taint that hard methinks. Would have been dismissed long ago but hey, IANAL.

They knew there wasn't a fire and not only claimed otherwise, used the near full extent of their massive resources to perpetuate the lie.

Succinct and to the point.  

QED

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Here is a NYT piece discussing how the selective transcripts may never get into court. I'm in the process of obtaining the briefs filed by both sides. the trial is supposed to start on april 17th. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/12/business/media/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-evidence.html

Edited March 14, 2023 by Lawrence Schnapf

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Thank you, Tucker Carlson!

 Perfect - thanks. I was really losing it when a few poste

 

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Thank you, Tucker Carlson!

I was really going nuts when a few posters started pushing the idea that Jan 6 was a deep state operation to damage Trump, and that they enlisted Ukrainian Azov types to do so. I don’t recall any of those posters responding when I said that if those Ukrainians were there they must have been working for, not against Trump. 

[Matt Allison]

23 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I was really going nuts when a few posters started pushing the idea that Jan 6 was a deep state operation to damage Trump, and that they enlisted Ukrainian Azov types to do so.

I wouldn't sweat it.

If a person wanted to, they could quite literally spend all day fact-checking the dumb sh*t posted on the internet by MAGA k00ks. The internet is the primary player in the evolution of human's critical thinking skills, but there is no way to rush along those that are slower learners.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 if a large company wanted to shut someone up, they would sue them.

Risking aboutism (among the more annoying contemporary debate tactics), you're familiar with Trump's track record?

I have heard about Trump, yes....

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Don't worry about that. Greenwald isn't either.

Actually, Greenwald is a lawyer, if not practicing presently. 

Glenn Edward Greenwald^[1] (born March 6, 1967) is an American journalist, author and lawyer. In 2014, he cofounded The Intercept, of which he was an editor until he resigned in October 2020. Greenwald subsequently started self-publishing on Substack.^[2]