Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

By George will, noted conservative intellectual and commentator:

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and wouldn’t lose any voters.” — Donald Trump

Fox News could plop one of its prime time anchors at a desk in the middle of Sixth Avenue, in front of Fox’s headquarters, and the anchor could report that John Wilkes Booth killed Marilyn Monroe on the grassy knoll in Dallas’s Dealey Plaza. And Fox News would not lose its core viewers.

In recent months there has been an avalanche of evidence that Fox News thinks of its audience as akin to campus snowflakes easily triggered into trauma. And that Fox News should be their “safe space” where viewers will encounter nothing, such as news (e.g., there is no evidence for anything Trump said about 2020 voting irregularities), that might make them sad. Otherwise they might bolt to Newsmax or some other source of solace. Fox News’s robust ratings indicate that its viewers’ appetite for the preposterous exceeds their pride.

Tuesday’s decision by Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems to settle Dominion’s defamation suit was good for both parties. And for the law.

Before Fox News’s agreeing to pay Dominion $787.5 million, the voting machine company had received redundant, well-publicized vindications of its probity: Fox News never ventured onto the thin ice of arguing that it ever had even a smidgen of evidence to support what was said by the Dominion detractors — Trump lawyers and a pillow-hawking acolyte — to whom Fox News gave abundant airtime. (My Pillow’s Mike Lindell to Tucker Carlson, Jan. 26, 2021: “I have the evidence … I dare Dominion to sue me because then it will get out faster … they don’t want to talk about it.” Carlson: “No they don’t.”)

By settling, thereby avoiding a trial, Fox News was spared further dissemination of embarrassments. These include internal communications that prove two things:

First, pecuniary motives led Fox News to pander to Trump adorers who, furious that on election night the channel had correctly called Arizona for Joe Biden, were fleeing like lemmings to Newsmax, an unwavering defender of the indefensible. (Carlson to his producer: “We’re playing with fire, for real. With Trump behind it, an alternative like Newsmax could be devastating to us.”)

Second, when not toadying to Trump, some Fox News personnel were saying, in effect, that they wished that he, like the Wicked Witch of the West, would melt away. (Carlson: “I hate him passionately … He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.”)

Fox News’s anticipated defense in a trial was to be: We were just neutrally reporting, not endorsing, newsworthy accusations of vast election fraud, accusations made by public figures. So, imagine the faces of the lawyers for Rupert Murdoch, chair of Fox Corp., when during a sworn deposition he said (as reported by the Wall Street Journal, a Murdoch property) that some of Fox News’s on-air personnel “endorsed” charges that the election had been stolen.

Earlier in his career, Murdoch said: “We’re not here to pass ourselves off as intellectuals. We’re here to give the public what they want.” Fox News, defending its practice of telling viewers what they wanted to hear about the 2020 election, could have argued: Journalistic entities do this constantly — e.g., saying particular extreme weather events are caused by climate change. Such conclusions please news consumers by ratifying their beliefs, but are scientifically indefensible. Some of Fox News’s journalistic despisers should be relieved that the trial did not occur.

In the trial, few facts would have been in dispute, but national passions would have been engaged. It would not have been an ideal occasion for rethinking the law of defamation.

It currently holds that defamation occurs when a person makes statements that show “reckless disregard” for the truth (a component of defamation), or “actual malice” (another component) in making statements known by the speaker to be false. What might look like reckless disregard for the truth might merely be indifference to it. And what might look like malice could be merely the breezy exuberance of entertainers. These distinctions (like the distinctions between “endorsing,” “amplifying,” “ratifying” and “promoting” falsehoods) are often not obvious.

Fox News could not have comfortably defended its on-air personnel as entertainers, not journalists, and innocent of defamation because they are anti-intellectual sociopaths. But any port in a storm.

Besides, Bishop Joseph Butler (1692-1752) was right: Everything is what it is, and not another thing. Regarding the election fraud claims, Fox News, citing Butler, could have argued that neither cupidity nor cowardice are synonyms for malice.

Truth Seeker Loc: High Mountains of the Western US

And now back to Don Lemon.

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

The only way for George Will to be appear relevant today is for him to pen tripe like this. Some people just don't know how or when to retire. As people stop listening to a political writer their nature is to get more sensational and inflammatory. The left rewards anyone making Fox look bad.

CrazyJane Loc: Limbo

Still on the FUX News bandwagon, are you?

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

Very funny, I guess we know where the Crazy in CrazyJane comes from. By the way, that's not how you spell "Faux"

Fox News put people on the air that were making false statements. This happens with all networks. Fox News was stupid to give these people a venue and I'm sure they did it for ratings. That said, every network does this. If the tables were turned, CNN would be liable for every Russian collusion story they aired. The big difference is that CNN would stand a good chance of successfully defending themselves in a civil action while Fox would not. Settlement was easier than a lengthy trial that might have left Fox owing even more money. The amount of the settlement to Dominion is ludicrous. They can't prove they've lost any business over the Fox programs.

Triple G

That's why so many defamation cases are settled - juries on those are very unpredictable. Especially when against big corporations.

How do you put a certain $ value on reputation, lost sales, etc.

Internet defamation along with all other media is going to skyrocket. Forewarned is forearmed.

https://www.robertdmitchell.com/internet-defamation

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/defamation-lawsuit-guide/

CrazyJane Loc: Limbo

This is actually not true and I think on some level you know this. The Washington Post, the NY Times, the LA Times ... on and on, they do not invent coverage in order to please their audience. You know this. And when a legitimate news source errs, they print a retraction. And by the way, FUX News (just say it, don't read it) was intentional. Thanks for the help, though.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Hilarious Baz, you and George Will would have some credibility were you to do a similar review of the Russia lie that tore this country apart at the seams and dominated the US congress for 4 years.... It is all BS and holding Fox News to standards that are set aside when considering the reporting of the MSM is just another example of liberal insanity.

Caribou Loc: St. Louis, MO

The reaction to this among the Trumpies is predictable. It's the way they react to anything negative about Trump. They live in their own little world. Trump understands his cult better than anyone. It takes a certain kind of person to be that gullible.

Truth Seeker Loc: High Mountains of the Western US

Nailed it!

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Well nobody's making Fox News looks bad except for themselves. Fox News was pushing this propaganda and they got caught and they should pay which they are. Now it's time to go after CNN and MSNBC for their propaganda BS lies. Yes, it should be the beginning of suing every single one of them for their BS propaganda lies and maybe they will stop being so biased.

Caribou Loc: St. Louis, MO

Good point. Include ABC, NBC and CBS. There is no denying these networks practice "agenda journalism". I think I'm smart and informed enough to recognize it on both sides but an awful lot of people buy it.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

And they all do it and get away with it because their viewers allow them to. There's definitely blind sheep on each side. There are people on the far right that will believe anything Fox News says without question, just as they are the many blind sheep on the far left that will believe anything CNN, MSNBC and the others that are pushing their propaganda BS lies. The consumer of all these broadcasts are also to blame for allowing them to continue.

FrumCA

George Will is generally an equal opportunity basher, but he seems to be moving further and further left with his OPs. He's definitely moving away from his libertarian/conservative background.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Is George Will really moving away from his libertarian/conservative background or has the party moved away from him? I have no idea.