Fox News settles with Dominion for $787 million . . .

Lawyers representing Dominion Voting Systems proved to a jury that Fox News employees like Rupert Murdoch, his son Lachlan, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson all knew that Trump's claims that the election was rigged were false but went ahead and broadcast them anyway.

At the last possible minute, Fox agreed to pay a settlement (the largest defamation settlement in US history involving a media company) rather than let the case go to court which - if they'd lost - would have resulted in them having to go on air and explain to the millions of Trumpanzees who watch them that they knowingly lied to them about the election being rigged.

I wonder if brainwashed, ignorant, Fox-watching, Tucker-worshipping half-wits like Baboon-ou, fArt, ou Maaik and ButtPlug are feel ing suitably foolish around about now . . . knowing that they swallowed all the propaganda that was fed to them by the discredited and humilated "news" outlet they all get their information from.

LMAO!

Eina ............ I know someone who's now once again trying to avoid 'throwing up' ........ agsiestog, 

You know they won't Roo, they are in love with their insanity to much to let something like the truth shit on their delusions.

It will be more of the same, Democrat conspiracy and Fox news just deciding that this was the cheapest way out. At least they won't be stupid enough to claim this is fake news though, would they?

It does explain the world shortage of eggs though Beenshit and Dumbmike are wearing them bwahahaha

Will be interesting to see the fallout from this, twenty years ago a news agency admitting they reported lies (on purpose) would have meant the end for that agency but somehow I doubt Fox will fold, there are far to many gimps that have swallowed all the bullshit and cannot face the humiliation. They will just double down on the stupidity like beenshit and dumbmike have done over the years and I bet that is what Murdoch is relying on he knows stupid people don't become smart people just by putting facts in front of them. 

"As their admission of guilt shows, they lied."

That's not what a settlement is.

"Will be interesting to see the fallout from this, twenty years ago a news agency admitting they reported lies (on purpose) "

They did not admit anything, the settled outside of court to prevent it from being decided as such by the court...bad optics but still much better than losing in court...risk management...their insurance probably decided to settle after what happened to small fry Alex Jones.

Very often in these cases in the States,  lawyers are saying they can win the case, but the downside risk of not winning is grim enough that companies settle…even if it’s not dictated by the probabilities.

The whole post election thing was a huge mistake. If Trump had been a gracious loser he would be odds on favorite to retake the presidency. There is a moment the battle is lost, where the country is not going to reverse course, Trump and his team failed to see that.

I don’t believe Fox News in the era of Bill O’Reilly would have got so far over their skis on this issue. It was a thunderous mistake.

That said one can’t help but wonder how the mainstream media escaped the Russia debacle unscathed. It was an even more naive episode.

Your kidding right, lets pay out 787 million dollars when we are innocent bwahahaha.

If they were innocent do you seriously think they would pay out that sort of money, do you think the insurance company would just say its only 787 million its chump change. (somehow doubt an insurance company would be picking up the tab for this. I would be surprised if any insurance covers willful deception) that money will be coming straight out of Murdochs back pocket I suspect.

They knew they had been caught with their pants down and Trump was on the gravy stroke, they had all the proof that no one at Fox believed any of it but broadcast it anyway just to keep their moron followers happy as they knew that's what they wanted to hear.

The proof or lack of proof will be in the details, which we will now never get to see.

@Draad, If facts don't support your reality, just be like an ostrich and put your head in the sand...

Fox News Settled because they knew that Rupert Murdoch, Hannity, and Co would have to take the stand in court and swear under oath that they believe it was a fact that Trump did not lose the election. 

They could have ended up breaking other laws in doing so, which meant the best option was to settle.

Another US voting technology company, Smartmatic, is pursuing its own defamation lawsuit seeking $2.7bn (£2.2bn) in damages from Fox in a New York state court.

You can criticize people and organizations.
The problem starts when you are making money from it and do it on such a broad scale it damages the reputation of an innocent party (e.g Alex Jones)

All this time the Trumpanzees hated Dominion because their master told them that Dominion cheated them...

That is how these religious lunatics behave.
There is always a new day, with a new Saviour (E.g. Putin) and a new Devil (E.g. Bill Gates).

Underlying their nonsense, these people know that they are wrong. They are living like a child in an adult's body that can't false the truth or reality. 

Sensible conservatives are at least in touch with reality - and just differ in opinion and interpretation. 

The DumPanzees and Religious zealots are in their own Arabic reality. These people do not belong in the 21st century - just like the radical Islamists. No matter how much they believe in BS, it can never make it true. 

Joe Biden got the highest voting numbers in the history of US elections...ever, even more than Obama...Trump is second of all time... in the same election... what are the odds? Have you seen the idiot bumbling along?

The fact that something could not be proven is not proof that it didn't happen either...there are many inconsistencies and shortcomings in the US election process....but your hatred for the orange man blinds you to the other inconsistencies in narrative...enjoy your tee in fool's paradise. 

Nope I’m not kidding. Fox News has a market cap of $17 billion. It’s lost 10% of its value over the last few months as this lawsuit became serious. That’s more than double the settlement. 

A negative result could have doubled the value loss. And the reputational damage of a loss vs a settlement could have effected viewership and advertising revenue. The longer this continued the more it could have hurt the franchise.

Unless you had a very high probability case, settlement was the smart move….put it behind you and write if off against your taxes.

That's not the logic they were looking for...

And I agree with, Draad. That election was very shady. 

It was either a sign of things to come where politics dominates social media and results in higher voter turnout...or it was rigged.

On the plus side, I do think that most people are generally good, and it's better for more people to have an interest in politics. We should probably also keep Elon Musk alive because, as he recently exposed the fact that the government had free access to people's Twitter accounts and their private messages. And that means that they probably have access to all your other communications and online activities on other platforms too. It's not even a left or right thing, since it started under Republican watch, albeit at a unique time in history.  

If greater interest in politics is the cure, then government and social media companies should require warrants etc and stay out of people's private lives. They should be elected because of what they have done and what they say from the podium. Not because they had deals aligned in illegal ways with companies that obviously have a disproportionate influence on public opinion. 

While reading the above, the lefties desperately wanted to quote their old line..."Those companies can align with whomever they like..."

...then they remembered that Musk now owns Twitter. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/the-secret-source-of-putins-evil

Blob, for what it's worth, my advice is to just let ButtPlug seethe.

He's a very angry person who cannot articulate what makes him so angry . . . hence his frustration and the quality of his contributions to this forum.

Smartmatic will certainly also win against Fox. Probably another out-of-court settlement, but it would be nice if they took it to court. 

Smartmatic are sueing for $2.7bn. They will win . . . especially after this precedent , , , but will probably get around $1.2 bn. If Fox had any case they would have fought it. I don't care who you are, $2bn is a lot of money that no self-respecting corporation would pay if they had a case.

Fox News' credibility is completely shot. The only thing they have in their favour is that their viewers are too stupid to recognise it.

"Smartmatic are sueing for $2.7bn. They will win . . . especially after this precedent , , , but will probably get around $1.2 bn."

A settlement isn't legal precedent.

Will be interesting to see the fallout from this, twenty years ago a news agency admitting they reported lies (on purpose) would have meant the end for that agency

The situation is so fiercely downplayed. As per usual, globalists prefer to side track rather than to focuse.
They reduce a core society problem to a mere commercial dispute.
Globalists sell the idea their political system is different as a population gets governed through consent.
Consent is gathered through the election process.
Anyone with this belief is held to consider heavily an accusation on the election process. It jeopardizes too much to be taken lightly. On this ground, the problem is larger than a mere journalism issue.
While it is correct to claim that this news outlet could have been sued for deontological failure, fact checking is basic to journalism, the suit is on defamation. Making the journalistic side is incidental: it measures the amount of damage done to the victim,  anyone who has similar words is liable to defamation suit, they cause less damage though and may be less profitable to sue.

As a reminder, defamation is hard to prove in the US.

 In this case, it does not take to prove that people lied. It takes to prove that people lied with the purpose of lying.

 A newspaper that had fail to fact check could have invoke gross professional misconduct, or neglect,or whatever meaning while they lied they did not lie on purpose.

In this case, it happens that the charge for defamation could be hold as people were self confessed liars.

They lied and they knew they were lying. That is a different beast.

And they lied about a core tenet of their own political ideology, that the consent of the governed is secured through the election process. Unreliable election process means unreliable consent.

But what, globalists lack inner self, as shown again in this situation, they are prone to compromize their self professed beliefs for a quick buck.

They do not care. Actually, they are the worst threat to their own fulfillment.
They often blame usual suspects like quota people, muslims, gays etc as the guilty ones for not being able to deliver on theirs promises but nothing has more power than themselves to destroy and thwart.

This situation, a massive assault on their core tenets is being downplayed to a mere commercial dispute.
Not dismissing the damage done to the company, but it is only a blip on the radar. The assault is on a core political tenet and the damage done is bigger than the damage done to the company.

And as expected from the liberal system, those guys wont be hold accountable for it.

Joe Biden got the highest voting numbers in the history of US elections...ever, even more than Obama...Trump is second of all time... in the same election... what are the odds? Have you seen the idiot bumbling along?

And I agree with, Draad. That election was very shady.

Globalists enjoy tales. They do have an authority problem (even though they have no issue with power)

As stated, globalists consider their system allow people to be governed with consent.

A population of 100 people: a person with the said belief will thrive to ensure that all of the 100 people can vote and do vote. The consent is secured.

Yet globalists have no inner self, which gives them flexibility at the expense of the ability of being moral beings.

Somebody figured out that a 50 pc voting turnout elects people as well as a 100 pc turnout. Which means that getting people not to vote is one way to secure a victory in an election.

Once done, usually, remaining voters are entrenched in their opinion, they can not be moved out of their voting opinion by a political offer.

Now preventing people from voting is one way to secure a victory.

Side B is supposed to collect 26 votes out of 50. Whenever side A manages to prevent 4 of those voters from voting at the expense of one from their side, side A wins. Gives Side B:22 votes, SideA: 23 votes.

That is winning an election through a voter suppression strategy.

That election showed the extent of the voter suppression as it happened in the US and revealed one side is more efficient at it than the other.

There is nothing else.

Globalist Donald Junior Trump can feel hard done. He could have been upfront about it: he had his voter suppression strategy right, was cruising to victory and the change in circumstances as capitalized on by globalist Biden negated Trump's efforts.

Voter suppression is done publically. He could have spoken about it.

Trump is a globalist though. He had to deny public behaviour. And take shelter in tales. Could not have reported what is obvious, that voter suppression engineering would have led him to victory.

Nothing else happened during the election: the extent of voter suppression was revealed. As a result, both candidates secured more votes than usual since voter suppression was out of the picture.

Next time, as voter suppression strategies kick in, the levels will be back to normal.

All this time the Trumpanzees hated Dominion because their master told them that Dominion cheated them...

That is how these religious lunatics behave.

How not.

Globalists are filled with contempt.

In the example, people did not believe. They did not spend any resources to dig further and unearth a truth (a recurring topic among globalists)

They knew. They lied.They see their lie as a profit to be made.

Nothiing indicates that anyone in the same mindset did not behave the same way.

They know it is a lie and choose to believe in it. There is no misleading. Only calculation.

But hey, it is more comfortable to believe that these guys are lunatics, that they were led to believe instead of admitting there is no difference in this regard between the news outlet and those followers.

Obviously, as they put aside one of the core beliefs of their hallowed system on the purpose of making a profit, it is more convenient to spin a tale about it, about poor people who were lied to.

Massive problem for globalists: they keep spreading a system they themselves do not believe in, are unrestrained to deform and mock.

Way more embarassing than the tale about them being dumb or somewhat.

Globalist system best system ever. Yet at first opportunity, globalists prefer something else.

I see the Traditionalist talks just as much twaddle about politics as he does rugby.

Apparently likes to use lots of words to say almost nothing, in the most illogical way possible...quite a skill playing that role so consistently over so many years...

Nobody wants to pay these settlements. But the alternative is high risk. The  key assets of Fox, their anchors,  are going to have to testify under oath. 

If the question is posed whether they doubted the Dominion allegations and they say no, all you need is one witness to say they expressed doubt, to put them at risk of perjury. As Martha Stewart discovered, perjury is a jailable offense.

What they say as a result will be at odds with their on air brands. It puts their credibility and as a result, the whole company at risk.

Suppose they also settle with Smartmatic. That number will be shaped by actual damages and as Forbes points out the company is private, but probably not worth more than $750 million. Settle at that level and you have a $1.5 billion settlement. After tax let’s say $1.2 billion.

That’s a one time payment that could be earned back in a year. Give up a year in the company’s life to avoid the risk severely damaging your franchise in a number of ways, permanently. Even if you think you have a case, with hostile judges the decision is obvious. Settle and move on.

All of which is not to say that what Trump and Fox did after the election was not incredibly stupid. You have to maintain enough independence to decouple when your candidate has lost the plot.

I don’t believe the protests at the Capitol were a coup, but they were pointless and incredibly damaging. Biden is the most incompetent president ever and any credible candidate should beat him…Trump in the eyes of a large part of the swing vote, is no longer a credible candidate.

What are the limits of democracy?

There is a difference between reporting that Trump claims it was fraud, but implying it yourself in the media profession must have limits.
Then anyone can just blame who ever first created it. 

Fox's actions could be seen as treason because they are pushing an agenda that the current government regime is not legitimate. (e.g. that it was only the result of fraud). 

You mean almost like the Russian hoax pestered the Trump presidency?...This is not nearly as severe though...

@Draad,

In general, settlements are not legal precedent in the same way that court decisions or statutes are. Legal precedent refers to a judicial decision that establishes a rule or principle that must be followed by other courts in similar cases.

Settlements, on the other hand, are agreements reached between parties in a dispute to resolve the matter outside of court. While settlements can be legally binding and enforceable, they do not establish legal precedent in the same way that court decisions do.

However, there are some situations where a settlement agreement may have an impact on future cases. For example, if the settlement agreement contains admissions of fact or legal conclusions, these may be used in future cases as evidence or persuasive authority. Additionally, if the settlement agreement involves a c onsent decree or court-approved settlement, the terms of the agreement may be enforceable in court and could be considered binding precedent in that specific case.

@ Snark

"if the settlement agreement contains admissions of fact or legal conclusions, these may be used in future cases as evidence or persuasive authority."

You forgot about the part I put in bold...was that the case? Don't think so...they're not that stupid/foolish.

"I don’t think Fox’s settlement contained any clear admissions of fact."

That would be stupid with the bigger case pending.

Fox said Tuesday's settlement in one of the most anticipated defamation trials in recent US history reflected its "commitment to the highest journalistic standards".

The Fox statement added without elaborating that the network "acknowledges the court's rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false".

-------------

Said in a wishy, washy way -
but inside a courtroom or in the outside court settlement, surely this would be accepted as admitting to the fact about having made false claims