Opinion Fox News has been blown to smithereens
“Through its extensive proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact as to falsity,” the judge wrote. Since Fox never disputed falsity, Davis concluded: “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.” Fox’s motion for summary judgment was rejected, meaning the suit will go to trial.
It cannot be repeated enough: Plaintiffs almost never win on the issue of falsity before the trial even begins. Usually, there is some defense that the facts were plausibly true — or at least that the comments were opinion (therefore, not actionable). Not in this case.
Fox’s lawyers and executives have suggested that Fox wasn’t responsible for what its star hosts said. Davis flatly rejected this. “FNN [Fox News Network] is not a passive entity. FNN controls what is broadcast on its various networks. FNN does this through its employees as agents of FNN,” Davis held. He added, “FNN did in fact publish the statements to its viewers.”
Fox claimed it is protected by a “neutral report” privilege — that is, it can repeat false statements that are “newsworthy.” New York law does not recognize such a defense, Davis stated. Moreover, he found, “Even if the neutral report privilege did apply, the evidence does not support that FNN conducted good-faith, disinterested reporting.” He added, “failure to reveal extensive contradicting evidence from the public sphere and Dominion itself indicates its reporting was not disinterested.”
Likewise, Davis wrote, Fox does not get to use the “fair report” privilege, which applies to “substantially accurate reports about proceedings, not the underlying facts.”
Overall, Davis’s ruling means that even before the first witness is heard in Fox’s defamation trail, the jury will be told the network repeatedly published false statements about Dominion that injured its business reputation. That is not exactly saying that Fox acted with malice, which Dominion’s lawyers will have to prove to win the case. Still, a jury might well come to that conclusion considering that the entity didn’t bother to check out an outrageous, obvious lie. Dominion now starts with a powerful advantage: Who’s going to believe anything Fox says at this point?
“The ruling is as significant for Fox News as it is for the whole of right-wing media,” said Angelo Carusone, CEO of Media Matters and who has documented Fox’s antics for years. “For Fox, the ruling underscores their incredibly weak legal position and dramatically increases the likelihood that they Fox will lose at trial.” He added, “Regardless of how this shakes out legally, Fox is on its heels, which means the right-wing echo-chamber is currently without its conductor at a moment when it needs it the most.”
On the issue of malice, Davis’s damning recitation of the facts shows that Fox knew it was lying. Just a brief excerpt from the opinion underscores how much evidence Dominion has:
Dominion points out that Fox witnesses have declined to acknowledge the allegations as true, and in some cases even testified they did not believe the allegations. [Former Fox News host Chris Stirewalt] testified that he [did] not believe the allegations, that “no reasonable person” would have believed them, and confirmed that this was a widely held belief among the news people he talked with. Additionally, the Brainroom addressed many of the allegations and determined the allegations to be untrue. ... In addition to the general knowledge of falsity, Dominion claims that specific evidence shows that each of the following Fox executives expressed disbelief in the allegations, yet engaged in the publication process of the broadcasts — making them each responsible: Ms. Scott, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Lowell, Ms. Cooper, Ms. Petterson, Mr. Clark, Mr. Sammon, Mr. Komissaroff, Ms. Rosenberg, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Schreier, and the Murdochs.
The mountain of internal communication and deposition in which Fox personnel acknowledged these comments were false is shocking but not surprising. After all, fact-checkers and politicians have tracked misinformation, distortions and wacky conspiracy theories on Fox for years. This is just the first time it’s been shown that the network knew its lies were bunk. The motive, reiterated in internal documents, seemed simple: Keep its radicalized viewers satisfied to keep them from fleeing to competitors.
Fox’s arguments appear weak. It claims there’s a difference between not knowing something is true and knowing it’s false. But running something without any evidence that it is true sounds like the very definition of malice — i.e., reckless disregard for the truth.
Fox also claims that the people who knew about specific statements weren’t at the top of the network. But plenty of evidence suggests senior employees knew what was going on. As Davis recounts, “FNN has generally the same answer to all: FNN was waiting for the evidence.” Such unproven, absurd claims wouldn’t have been aired in any legitimate newsroom.
In the end, it will be up to the jury still to decide the issue of malice. It will also decide whether the parent company, Fox Corp., can be held responsible and determine damages. In any case, Fox has already taken a beating. There now exists a legal record of its dishonesty. The public should now understand that Fox personalities are willing to say things they know are false as part of a business model to keep viewers glued to its propaganda machine.
The pretense that Fox is a real news organization is being blown to smithereens — as is a great deal of the right’s narrative about everything from stolen elections to race to immigration. Discredit Fox, and you discredit a huge portion of the right-wing echo chamber and the MAGA pols who thrive in it.
Credible media, elected officials and voters can now stop treating Fox as a legitimate news outlet. If Fox doesn’t believe its own propaganda, why should anyone else?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment