DE - Dominion Voting Systems vs. Fox News, $1.6B Defamation Trial for 2020 election lies, 17 Apr 2023 *Settled $787m* + add’l trials

[Smelly Squirrel]

NPR's Michel Martin talks to Justin Nelson, co-lead counsel for Dominion Voting Systems, about its $787 million settlement with Fox News over the falsehoods it aired about the 2020 election.

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/19/1170802305/the-trial-over-fox-news-false-election-fraud-claims-is-settled-at-the-last-minut

Good interview, starts at about the 1 minute mark.

That reporter is good with the follow up questions.

The lawyers did well for their client with the settlement, but they can't say that this gets the truth out to the viewers who heard and believed the lies that harmed their client. To have the best chance to get through, that would have to come as retractions from the same people who said them.

 

[musicaljoke]

That reporter is good with the follow up questions.

The lawyers did well for their client with the settlement, but they can't say that this gets the truth out to the viewers who heard and believed the lies that harmed their client. To have the best chance to get through, that would have to come as retractions from the same people who said them.

Yes, and even then, even if those who spoke the lies retract them, I don't think it will change what many people believe about the voting machines. They will brush off the retraction as meaningless, something the big guys had to do to keep the voting machine company from suing them in court.

Discerning truth is difficult. When one hears a constant stream of lies, it starts to sound true. The brain gives up when it is challenged by the truth.

Your Brain Gives Up When Discerning Truth From Lies Gets Too Hard

A rather bleak forecast for the next four years.

www.thecut.com

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

FOX News / FOX National is no longer an approved source at Websleuths.

This is not to be confused with local FOX affiliates that are are still okay to link to.

Any questions, please use the Report feature to enquire.

Thanks

 

[Stunned]

ADMIN NOTE:

FOX News / FOX National is no longer an approved source at Websleuths.

That will show them! Good move! Everyone should do that.

 

[branmuffin]

I think that Fox made a mistake in this case and payed a price for that mistake.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't trust Fox News. Rather it shows that people can mistakes and still be good overall. JMO.

It should go down as the longest mistake in history then. They had ample opportunity over more than 24 months to come clean and tell the truth yet they chose to continue to lie to their viewers. Their private messages to one another belie the stance they took on air. That's not a mistake. That's a concerted effort to obfuscate facts, tell blatant lies and perform character assassinations on anyone who didn't toe the line because it was in their best interests to do so.

It really came down to money. Their own bottom line. They were terrified to tell the truth so they just continued to lie to their viewers. I guess like Trump they not only loved their uneducated viewers they relied on them to fill their coffers.

They aren't good people. They are the world's best paid propagandists and it looks good on them that they just had to shell out nearly one billion dollars for their lies. And that tap will continue to drip dollars exposing them as mealy-mouthed cowards who didn't give a damn about truth or America.

You know, I was watching CNN here in Canada on January 6, 2021. I was watching it on CNN because I just knew something bad was going to happen that day because Fox had already started polishing their rhetoric regarding the Big Lie. I didn't watch Fox because most people the world over knew they wouldn't report what was happening without editing.

I actually took pics on my phone when I saw the scaffold for Pence and the Secret Service pointing their weapons at those criminals trying to break in. I took pics of Ashli Babbitt getting shot. As a domestic terrorist she deserved it. Those insurrectionists had already broken the windows to the House Chamber where the votes were being counted. Oh sure, you've seen it on Fox now packaged with a narrative. That's who Fox is, propagandists for money.

Edited for clarity

 

[Lilibet]

ADMIN NOTE:

FOX News / FOX National is no longer an approved source at Websleuths.

This is not to be confused with local FOX affiliates that are are still okay to link to.

Any questions, please use the Report feature to enquire.

Thanks

THANK YOU!!!!! Fox has now been proven to lie for the sake of its bottom line…something most of us have known/suspected for a long time. It’s a relief to see Fox ditched as an approved source on Websleuths. Again, thank you.

 

[Sundog]

I don't think that it will affect other news organizations at all.

And I think that Fox will continue to provide viewers with quality programs that I personally love to watch. JMO.

Me, too.

 

[MyBelle]

With all due respect @RANCH, it is not a “mistake” to deliberately promote falsehoods as Fox did about Dominion facilitating a “stolen election.” These “overall good people,” Tucker Carlson and the rest that were quoted, chose lies over truth because doing so catered to their viewers and to Fox’s bottom line. That was not a “mistake.” It was not “good.” It was unethical, cynical and dishonest no matter how you slice and dice it. Surely you read the behind-the-scenes texts admitting they knew the “stolen election” was all a Big Lie. So IMO people should seriously question how trustworthy Fox is. But they won’t because they want to believe the lies IMO.

And just for the record, I would say the same thing no matter which news organization a lawsuit had been brought against if they had been spewing deliberate falsehoods causing harm to others. We have to be discerning about what we are taking in…is it news or is it propaganda? Are we gullible or are we willing to make an effort to find out if what we are being told (sold) is the truth or lies.
JMO

ITA. I think Fox advertisers are the ones who will flee because they know supporting propaganda is dangerous.

Look at all the people who believed the propaganda that the election was stolen so they showed up on January 6th and broke into the Capitol. I prefer to get my news from the broadcast networks that are regulated by the FCC.

 

[Stunned]

It should go down as the longest mistake in history then. They had ample opportunity over more than 24 months to come clean and tell the truth yet they chose to continue to lie to their viewers. Their private messages to one another belie the stance they took on air. That's not a mistake. That's a concerted effort to obfuscate facts, tell blatant lies and perform character assassinations on anyone who didn't toe the line because it was in their best interests to do so.

It really came down to money. Their own bottom line. They were terrified to tell the truth so they just continued to lie to their viewers. I guess like Trump they not only loved their uneducated viewers they relied on them to fill their coffers.

They aren't good people. They are the world's best paid propagandists and it looks good on them that they just had to shell out nearly one billion dollars for their lies. And that tap will continue to drip dollars exposing them as mealy-mouthed cowards who didn't give a damn about truth or America.

You know, I was watching CNN here in Canada on January 6, 2021. I was watching it on CNN because I just knew something bad was going to happen that day because Fox had already started polishing their rhetoric regarding the Big Lie. I didn't watch Fox because most people the world over knew they wouldn't report what was happening without editing.

I actually took pics on my phone when I saw the scaffold for Pence and the Secret Service pointing their weapons at those criminals trying to break in. I took pics of Ashli Babbitt getting shot. As a domestic terrorist she deserved it. Those insurrectionists had already broken the windows to the House Chamber where the votes were being counted. Oh sure, you've seen it on Fox now packaged with a narrative. That's who Fox is, propagandists for money.

Edited for clarity

Yes! Yes! Yes! They love their uneducated viewers just like #45. Except my father was the smartest man I knew until #45 and Faux came along. Retired after a very successful life in law, very well off very well spoken and spoken of. He was a total #45 man. He voted for him in Nov. celebrated his victory and died in February. Horrible to remember all the arguments the last months of his life. His rage at me for being a Hilary supporter. Oh well, maybe one day we’ll finish the conversation, hopefully he’s calmed down!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

It's astounding to think that all because Trump couldn't simply admit he lost, it has ultimately cost Fox $787M (and counting), and led to the criminal prosecution of 1,000+ of his followers.

 

[vls12345]

It's astounding to think that all because Trump couldn't simply admit he lost, it has ultimately cost Fox $787B (and counting), and led to the criminal prosecution of 1,000+ of his followers.

In 2016, Lindsey Graham wrote, "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed ... and we will deserve it."

LG wasn't wrong (that time).

From:

Maybe Lindsey Graham's anti-Trump prediction was right after all

In 2016, Lindsey Graham wrote, "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed ... and we will deserve it." Five years later, the line is relevant anew.

www.msnbc.com

 

[MyBelle]

It's astounding to think that all because Trump couldn't simply admit he lost, it has ultimately cost Fox $787B (and counting), and led to the criminal prosecution of 1,000+ of his followers.

It is astounding to me as well.

 

[branmuffin]

It's astounding to think that all because Trump couldn't simply admit he lost, it has ultimately cost Fox $787B (and counting), and led to the criminal prosecution of 1,000+ of his followers.

Still time to correct your billion to million!

 

[Auntie Cipation]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> ... I'd like to say that in decades past and perhaps since time immemorial, it seems to me that the difference between conservative and liberal perspectives was a distinction between VALUES, in other words differing subjective opinions about what issues are more or less important than other issues.

Nowadays it seems that the two sides disagree about what is or isn't true FACTUALLY, which is insane.

As in, the very idea of what makes something "known" is no longer universally recognized. Logic. Reason. Scientific studies.

What constitutes a reliable source is no longer universally understood.

And of all entities, our news organizations ought not to get caught up in the trendy furor that entails pretending things are true that they know not to be true.

Somewhere along the line, someone said "if I just keep insisting X is true, people will believe it." And there will always be charlatans who play that game, but in the age of instant worldwide media coverage and social media connections, we can't let that become the way our supposedly trustworthy institutions operate.

Anyone on a street corner can claim (for example) the moonshot was a hoax, but when a news organization makes that sort of claim while knowing it's not factually correct, something is very wrong.

Personally I don't have a problem with people having differing values, which can then be discussed, but I can't fathom a useful connection with people with conflicting concepts of what is or isn't reality.

MOO

 

[musicaljoke]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> ... Many of us here are from countries with several parties and lean in ways other than left or right. Supporting a political party does not mean that one also supports criminal activity within that party.

 

[MyBelle]

Do you think Fox lied about Jan 6? Have you seen the texts and emails between Fox news apparatchiks and their enablers regarding their true opinions of Trump, Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, of the election results, and the instigators of Jan 6 insurrection? Can't you be conservative leaning and still be shocked and dismayed and even betrayed by the narrative Fox continued to spout for two years?

I consider myself to be a conservative and trust me, I'm more than shocked and dismayed with Fox. I'm totally disgusted that they all arrogantly assumed they could get away with their lies. How many more lawsuits are there to go?

 

[anneg]

I can't directly address your question, but I'd like to say that in decades past and perhaps since time immemorial, it seems to me that the difference between conservative and liberal perspectives was a distinction between VALUES, in other words differing subjective opinions about what issues are more or less important than other issues.

Nowadays it seems that the two sides disagree about what is or isn't true FACTUALLY, which is insane.

As in, the very idea of what makes something "known" is no longer universally recognized. Logic. Reason. Scientific studies.

What constitutes a reliable source is no longer universally understood.

And of all entities, our news organizations ought not to get caught up in the trendy furor that entails pretending things are true that they know not to be true.

Somewhere along the line, someone said "if I just keep insisting X is true, people will believe it." And there will always be charlatans who play that game, but in the age of instant worldwide media coverage and social media connections, we can't let that become the way our supposedly trustworthy institutions operate.

Anyone on a street corner can claim (for example) the moonshot was a hoax, but when a news organization makes that sort of claim while knowing it's not factually correct, something is very wrong.

Personally I don't have a problem with people having differing values, which can then be discussed, but I can't fathom a useful connection with people with conflicting concepts of what is or isn't reality.

MOO

AKA "alternative facts"... which are not facts at all.

 

[MyBelle]

I can't directly address your question, but I'd like to say that in decades past and perhaps since time immemorial, it seems to me that the difference between conservative and liberal perspectives was a distinction between VALUES, in other words differing subjective opinions about what issues are more or less important than other issues.

Nowadays it seems that the two sides disagree about what is or isn't true FACTUALLY, which is insane.

As in, the very idea of what makes something "known" is no longer universally recognized. Logic. Reason. Scientific studies.

What constitutes a reliable source is no longer universally understood.

And of all entities, our news organizations ought not to get caught up in the trendy furor that entails pretending things are true that they know not to be true.

Somewhere along the line, someone said "if I just keep insisting X is true, people will believe it." And there will always be charlatans who play that game, but in the age of instant worldwide media coverage and social media connections, we can't let that become the way our supposedly trustworthy institutions operate.

Anyone on a street corner can claim (for example) the moonshot was a hoax, but when a news organization makes that sort of claim while knowing it's not factually correct, something is very wrong.

Personally I don't have a problem with people having differing values, which can then be discussed, but I can't fathom a useful connection with people with conflicting concepts of what is or isn't reality.

MOO

BBM. I never considered Fox News to be a news organization which is why I rarely, if at all, watched it. News organizations usually keep their reporting and editorializing separate and make sure viewers know the difference. If they discover a report is incorrect, a news organization is supposed to issue a retraction or clarification.

Fox has proved to me they don't practice ethical journalism. They knowingly violated their own Standards of Business Conduct:

That’s also true of our participation in the business world generally, where we protect our reputation for honesty, transparency and fair competition. Our credibility is at the core of our success.

https://media.foxcorporation.com/wp-content/uploads/prod/2022/06/17135056/Fox-6.15.22-SOBC.pdf

 

[Lilibet]

I’m rather partial to this link that evaluates news sources for their bias and reliability.

Interactive Chart | Ad Fontes Media

Interactive Media Bias Chart® 0 Total sources Video Tutorial Our Methodology Upgrade Options Member Access 0 Total sources Video Tutorial Our Methodology Upgrade Options Member Access Use search box to find thousands of sources not displayed by default See More with Premium and Pro Premium IMBC...

adfontesmedia.com

It’s not perfect, but they describe their methodology and do the best they can.
JMO

 

[Auntie Cipation]

BBM. I never considered Fox News to be a news organization which is why I rarely, if at all, watched it. News organizations usually keep their reporting and editorializing separate and make sure viewers know the difference. If they discover a report is incorrect, a news organization is supposed to issue a retraction or clarification.

Fox has proved to me they don't practice ethical journalism. They knowingly violated their own Standards of Business Conduct:

That’s also true of our participation in the business world generally, where we protect our reputation for honesty, transparency and fair competition. Our credibility is at the core of our success.

https://media.foxcorporation.com/wp-content/uploads/prod/2022/06/17135056/Fox-6.15.22-SOBC.pdf

I'm not a journalist, but I am aware of some of the conventions that I thought were universally agreed upon in that field, such as getting two independent confirmations of something before reporting it as factual, remembering to label things "alleged" or "accused" until facts are known, etc.

This seems like it's also the underlying basis for WS's rules about stating something is opinion if there is no MSM link, because we (generic cultural we, not WS specifically) have become linguistically lazy about shortcutting our sentences and phrasing things as if they are given fact when they are actually subjective opinions or assumptions of fact.

I was taught years ago to "always state your assumptions" -- that doesn't mean don't say something, but it means be clear when something is known factually vs when it's not but you are assuming it for the purpose of the conversation, vs when you are saying something subjective, ie opinion, values, beliefs etc.

But then I'm generally pedantic so it makes sense to me to notice those details. I understand language evolving and cultural shortcuts, but then when we become culturally divided by whether X tangible thing actually happened or not, or when someone claims there is "evidence" but never produces it, but nevertheless expects people to believe it exists (as if the mere claim is the evidence itself), we have allowed our casual use of language to develop into a much more serious problem where people decide who to trust based on their politics rather than based on their factual expertise.

MOO