Dominion Settles With Fox News

Michael Siegel

Michael Siegel is an astronomer living in Pennsylvania. He blogs at his own site, and has written a novel.

Related Post Roulette

42 Responses

  1. Philip H says:

    Yet another reason why the fairness doctrine needs to come back.Report

    • The Fairness Doctrine was unconstitutional, sustained by the twisted logic of Red Lion. Today’s Court would absolutely strike it down. And, in any case, it would never have applied to a cable network like Fox News.Report

      • And getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine was…. grrrrrrrrr…. the right result.Report

        • DensityDuck in reply to Burt Likko says:

          You mean you think it’s okay for people to just go on TV and TELL LIES?!Report

          • SitCom Heavn in reply to DensityDuck says:

            The worst lie people tell on TV is that of the “Dramatic Confrontation.” It’s the sole reason for “Road Rage” and doctors getting attacked on the freeway with boomerangs.

            The next worst lie people tell on TV is that “The Lab Coat is always Right.” This is responsible for about a hundred thousand iatrogenic deaths … in the past few years alone.

            The third worst lie people tell on TV is “Stick up for the Little Guy.” I’m going to blame our entrance into Kuwait and the Ukraine on this one. They were both dumb wars (Iraq I was basically “let’s test some new toys”)…Report

      • Brandon Berg in reply to Michael Siegel says:

        Also, couldn’t it be trivially subverted by inviting on particularly dim-witted or uncharismatic person to take the opposing side?Report

        • InMD in reply to Brandon Berg says:

          The rationale behind it was that there were only a tiny number of channels with government licenses to broadcast on a limited number of frequencies. That hasn’t been the case in forever.Report

          • Philip H in reply to InMD says:

            So update it for the modern reality. This is not hard folks.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

              Yeah, it actually is. We have the first AM and the gov’s desire to prevent opposition to whatever it wants to define as truth.

              Whatever tools we put in place will be used by the next President Trump.

              Even the various “evaluate the truth” groups have seriously beclowned themselves more than once. Thus Obama’s claim that you can keep your doctor was evaluated as truth before the vote and the lie of the year after the roll out.Report

  2. Kazzy says:

    Cancel Culture returns to fight free speech.Report

  3. Dark Matter says:

    It would be nice if we got to the point where news organizations, documentary makers and radio hosts face consequences for promulgating lies.

    The problem is mostly that it takes a long time and not that it doesn’t happen.Report

    • And that a lot of them will make money off the lie and the lawsuit. People are throwing money at Alex Jones right now.Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to Dark Matter says:

      Also, lying is the least harmful form of misinformation, because it’s easier to call out. Prestige media promote false narratives through selective presentation of “the truth…and nothing but the truth.” No need to lie. You just lead your audience down a winding path through the parts of the truth consistent with the narrative and away from the parts that contradict it.

      This is just as effective as lying, but much more resistant to debunking. “That’s technically true, but when you account for X, Y, and Z, you’ll see that the full story is very different from what you’ve been led to believe” is a much less effective rebuttal than “That’s a lie and here’s the proof.”Report

      • Snodgrass in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        When was the last time you called a hospital to verify if the emergency room is actually full?
        (A good friend of mine does this for work — they weren’t full, despite the yearlong propaganda campaign, that neatly fell apart when all the Good Vaxxed Democrats started getting Omicron.)Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Snodgrass says:

          One of my friends in Michigan was an doctor who did ER. The young healthy and unvaxed dying because they’re unvaxed is a thing.Report

          • Snodgrass in reply to Dark Matter says:

            1,684 is the total deaths from COVID19 for the 18-34 cohort in California (first public data in the search engine). Your friend has statistics for how many hospitals?

            I mean, sure, someone died who was in the 18-34 cohort. They weren’t filling up hospital emergency rooms, though. Not in California, and not in Texas, where the liars decided to claim (via bot-armies) there was a problem.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        false narratives through selective presentation of “the truth

        This is my complaint of BLM and some other Blue causes.

        lying is the least harmful form of misinformation

        I disagree. Subtract lying and there is no anti-vax movement and no “stop the steal” movement.

        This is why Trump did so badly in court. Courts have rules against outright lying and take the licenses of lawyers who do it. Thus he had to present stupid arguments rather than outright lies.Report

  4. Chip Daniels says:

    The reaction of the Republican voting base to the “revelations” is what is revelatory.

    As it was revealed that Fox News was a propaganda outfit pushing lies and distortions which even their own personalities knew were lies, how did the base react? With shock and anger, furious that they had been duped?

    Nope. They knew it was all a lie, all along, but just don’t care.

    Tomorrow they will repeat the lies, as if none of this ever happened.
    Its important for us non-reactionaries to refuse to take the bait and accept the premises of the lies.

    For example, when they assert that efforts to manipulate the various state boards of elections have anything to do with “voter fraud” instead of a desire to steal a future election.
    Or that DeSantis’ war against Disney is about “good governance” instead of a desire to crush dissent;
    Or that efforts to ostracize and punish trans people are about “protecting children”;
    Or that attempts to risk a debt default have anything to do with “fiscal responsibility”;

    These are all just lies. Not errors, not honest differences of opinion about which reasonable people can disagree, but simply lies that even the people telling them don’t believe.Report

  5. Pinky says:

    Babylon Bee: Fox News Defamation Trial Over As Jury Votes In Favor Of Dominion 138,000 To 1Report

  6. Marchmaine says:

    I was expecting a low 9-figure settlement… but $785M? Wow.

    “A report commissioned by Dominion and filed with the court laid out about a billion dollars worth of damages the company says it has experienced. Dominion says it has lost $16 million in profits, more than $70 million in potential business, $14 million in legal, security and other expenses and more than $900 million in value”

    I guess Fox got to see what their ‘actual’ valuation/revenue figures must have been vs. the widely reported $40M revenues. Because at $40M revenue, they should likely have been able to simply buy the company for, say, $200-$300M.

    I mean, by any measurable metric, it doesn’t matter what Dominion ever does by way of revenue… they should liquidate and enjoy the win.

    Maybe the core team can start a Voting Systems company as a hobby after a few years of sabbatical.Report

    • PD Shaw in reply to Marchmaine says:

      Probably just insurance money.Report

      • InMD in reply to PD Shaw says:

        Maybe. I hate to think the premium on a policy that pays out that much on this kind of claim.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to InMD says:

          I find it hard to believe that any insurance company is going to cover Fox News against billion dollar “you were lying” lawsuits.

          Further since they’re part of a massive corporation, you’d think they’d be self insuring through Fox Corp.Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

          Probably an extremely ‘reasonable’ premium for this claim. It’s the renewal premium that you gotta watch out for.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to PD Shaw says:

        Maybe… although I’m not sure insurance pays for your own crimes.

        And this is just one settlement. They still have another, larger, voting machine case pending with Dominion’s competitor.

        For perspective, all of Fox combined had a net income of $2.15B in 2021. That’s Fox Entertainment, Fox TV, Fox News, and Fox Sports combined.

        This is past “cost of doing business” territory, especially if we double it with the other lawsuit.Report

        • PD Shaw in reply to Dark Matter says:

          Crimes? The standard commercial general liability policy covers defamation and slander lawsuits. It’s an insurable risk.Report

          • InMD in reply to PD Shaw says:

            It’s definitely insurable, I’m just wondering if it’s insurable to the tune of the settlement amount, or what you have to pay in premiums to have it insurable to those amounts. This is one of those things where you may have made the business decision to be self-insured. Especially if you run a business like Fox News where something like this was bound to happen eventually.Report

          • PD Shaw in reply to PD Shaw says:

            I think journalist know more than they are willing to report on this, but here’s Business Insider:

            “Despite the looming settlement number, the Fox Corporation could ultimately escape relatively unscathed financially. The media source told Insider that insurance typically covers these types of agreements.

            “Fox News representatives and attorneys declined to answer Insider’s questions on their libel insurance.

            “It was not immediately clear on Tuesday how Fox will handle the payout, but back in 2013 when shareholders sued the News Corp. board for not providing more oversight of the newspaper operation, which was accused of hacking the phones of celebrities, insurance paid out the $139 million settlement, according to Reuters. Fox was later spun out of News Corp into a separate company.”Report

            • CJColucci in reply to PD Shaw says:

              Reporters often “know” more than they are willing to report because they can’t back it up if push comes to shove. I don’t see any reason they wouldn’t report this if they had it nailed down. It is true that insurance typically covers things like this, and they reported that, but the real juice is whether there are coverage limits or some other way that the insurer might be able to avoid paying. You’d pretty much have to see the policy, or have the word of someone who knows, to report on that.Report

              • PD Shaw in reply to CJColucci says:

                I didn’t mean to come off as grousing about the Business Insider story I quoted, they did a good job. Reporters can’t report about insurance coverage when nobody will answer questions about whether it exists, unless there is a pending insurance coverage dispute litigation, which would be interesting also.

                But reporters should mention insurance coverage is common because it has explanatory power about how the litigation proceeded and ended. And while I recognize reporters are rarely specialist in all of the areas they cover, they almost certainly understand one of the common benefits from working in a news organization over free-lancing is insurance coverage.Report

    • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

      I was reading some more about this. I wonder if Fox News wasn’t thinking about the long term result of having their biggest stars take the stand and admit they just make stuff up. The lifeblood of cable news and FN in particular I think is a kind of kayfabe. Even if the whole audience knows in their head it isn’t real it could never survive an official admission.

      Anyway yea, this is called sell the IP, the desks, the chairs and the laptops and close up shop. I’m reminded of a situation a dozen years ago or so where Albert Haynesworth punched some random guy in a road rage incident. This is like that but way bigger. They won the defendant lottery.Report

      • Philip H in reply to InMD says:

        I wonder if Fox News wasn’t thinking about the long term result of having their biggest stars take the stand and admit they just make stuff up. The lifeblood of cable news and FN in particular I think is a kind of kayfabe. Even if the whole audience knows in their head it isn’t real it could never survive an official admission.

        Considering that we have seen the emails regarding loosing viewers when they were fact checked by their own news division – yeah I’d say so.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

        it’s also true that the entire premise of the Republican Party in 2023 is kayfabe

        None of the things they say are real positions sincerely held, but propaganda straight out of an Arendt or Orwell essay.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

        Sure, that’s what makes it interesting… basically they were willing to pay more than the company was worth to not have to do that.

        If they’d gone to trial and lost and in the damages phase the $900M in ‘potential’ revenue is scrutinized… well, that’s a risk on Dominion. Counter-Counter point: the punitive damages were in addition to the $1.6B filing. Not sure how those would be calculated. In any circumstance, it just seems curious to get a settlement for multiples greater than the value of the company.

        At any rate, If I were a principal at Dominion, definitely pushing to cash out, buy a yacht and update my LinkedIn with: “Voting Systems are my Passion” and call it a career.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Marchmaine says:

          I’m not seeing well-sourced data on the question, but Fox News is likely worth way more than $787.5 million.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Marchmaine says:

          Lots of things for Fox to be scared about here, the settlement fixed that.

          They’re lying about an election and enabling someone’s attempt to overthrow the country. That’s putting legal risk and political risk (i.e. hostile laws) on the table.

          The Judge has been fair, which unfortunately for them also means “hostile”. What we’ve seen thus far as been so bad that it’s pretty clear they’re guilty, and it’s provable, and they’d end up paying the entire original amount plus penalties. They might even be forced to tell the truth to their viewers.

          And that would be the gift which keeps giving because all the evidence being used against them now would also be used against them in the other lawsuits.Report

  7. Logan Stockton says:

    Freedom of speech means being allowed to speak freely in opposition to a statement or a promoted point of view on a program or a network. We don’t have true freedom of speech in this country, because opposing views were quashed from biased programs and networks by a misguided FCC via removal of the longstanding Doctrine in 1987.
    Restore and codify the Fairness Doctrine. Include cable this time. Cable TV is TV. Require all venues who do news/opinion to allow opposing views in their venues. Penalize those operators who don’t. When the 35-year stench in the air begins to clear, the internet will likely take mitigating measures of its own to curb disinformation, fear-driven hate, and calls to violence.Report

  8. DavidTC says:

    A reminder: if something is only punished with a fine, it is legal for rich people to do.

    Also a reminder: Fox News technically didn’t have to lie about the Dominion systems, and the only reason it ran into trouble here is that the lie was about a specific company that was willing to defend itself. There was just as much damaging misinformation about poll workers and changed ballots and ballot harvesting that was not sued over.

    I.e, this also basically only happened because fox news, or actually the Trump lawyers who went on Fox News, decided to attack Dominion despite not actually needing to, they could have spread just as much misinformation without involving them. Or, to rephrase, Trump’s lawyers are incompetent and have always been incompetent, in every possible way, and this lawsuit happened because of them.

    People seem to think this was some sort of referendum on whether or not you can lie about election information, but the 2030 election pretty much definitively proved you _could_ lie about election information, just repeat as much misinformation as you want, as long as you didn’t target one moderately-sized corporation that would be willing to go after you. (Well, actually, two cuz there’s still the Smartmatic lawsuit.)

    I did quite enjoy the discovery, though, and what I’m really going to enjoy are the Fox shareholder lawsuits that are already in progress, suing the organization for putting itself into disrepute (and thus damaging the stock price) despite knowing it was reporting things that were factually incorrect.Report