Fox lied as a matter of law

[TexasTiger 13,000]

34 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Most big companies will settle out of court whether they did something wrong or not because:

1. they don't want to risk the outcome to a jury.

2. Going to trial and court brings lots of bad publicity. Even if they didn't do anything wrong they will settle outside of court to save their public image.

In the case of the Covington student, some outlets did sloppy reporting that cast a high school student as the villainous, disrespectful face of young MAGA. The most frequent image gave the impression he got directly in the face of the elder Native American. That kid would have likely been more sympathetic to the average juror than many folks who may claim they were unfairly presented. But it’s interesting he did not win at trial against any of them.

[AU9377 5,024]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Funny how Fox rails about immigration and it’s owned by the most destructive immigrant we’ve ever had.

Sort of like a President complaining about chain immigration while being married to a Slovenian nude model, who happened to bring her entire family to the U.S. by way of said chain migration.

[AU9377 5,024]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

On which point exactly?  When Joe Biden swore he wasn’t going to institute a vaccine mandate?  Or when Rachel Maddow swore Trump was a Russian asset?  Should you be in the running for the Director of the Ministry of Truth?

Let us compare Rachel Maddow's statement with Fox's statement concerning Dominion voting machines and the 2020 election.

You know why Maddow's statement isn't subjecting her to civil liability?  Because there were facts that could lead a reasonable person to conclude that he was in fact a Russian asset.  Therefore, she could give her opinion based on those facts.  As a public figure, he has no recourse.

In comparison, Dominion is a private corporation that provides election systems equipment to jurisdictions across the country.  Fox has admitted that they knew that the allegations made on air by their personalities were false.  Making claims that they knew or should have known were false that results in damages gives rise to a valid claim of defamation.

[I_M4_AU 7,951]

5 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Because there were facts that could lead a reasonable person to conclude that he was in fact a Russian asset

There were no *facts* in her reporting Trump was a Russian agent.  Those *facts* were based on a lie.  Maddow didn’t do her own research, just relied on the Dossier.  But, no matter, it was to bring down a sitting President named Trump so it was all good.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

It is amazing what you come up with regarding a simple statement that is a reference to *1984*. Who here, or in government, is capable to immediately determine what is truth and what is a lie?  Fifty?  You?  Rachel Maddow?  That would be censorship, would it not?

This case is a great example.  It had to go through the court system to determine if it was a lie or not.

It’s determined by basic facts. Truth isn’t a matter of opinion.

[I_M4_AU 7,951]

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It’s determined by basic facts. Truth isn’t a matter of opinion.

The question remains, who is the determinant of the truth in the instant it hits social media?  In the matter of Dominion there is basic facts and has been brought to light. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 Does FOX et al have the opportunity to defend themselves?

Fox has already admitted to lying.

[I_M4_AU 7,951]

33 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Fox has already admitted to lying.

As I understand it FOX can put up a defense against malice.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

32 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

As I understand it FOX can put up a defense against malice.

Should be interesting. Will probably be full of lies.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The question remains, who is the determinant of the truth in the instant it hits social media?  In the matter of Dominion there is basic facts and has been brought to light. 

What on earth are you talking about?

[Leftfield 2,643]

34 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

What on earth are you talking about?

Might still be drunk.

[AURex 2,029]

Geez, this thread quickly devolved into garbage. What a load of crap being spewed here, Ugh!

 

[DKW 86 7,440]

1) This is why I quit listening to Fox back in 2005.

2) This is a fact-based presentation, won in a court of law, clearly showing that the hosts, etc  of Fox News KNEW that what they were saying on air was 100% BS.

We need to remember this in the coming years. I am 100% confident that MSNBC, CNN, et al are doing much the same, maybe just not on the Industrial Scale of Fox News.

THE POINT IN ALL THIS: Fox is still #1 on cable news by a mile. That tells us that much if not most of America really doesn't care about facts as long as they see confirmation bias.

[I_M4_AU 7,951]

15 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

What on earth are you talking about?

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,509]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 

What does any of this have to do with Fox lying on air about Dominion and the 2020 election?

[I_M4_AU 7,951]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

What does any of this have to do with Fox lying on air about Dominion and the 2020 election?

You asked, I answered.  

[TitanTiger 20,509]

44 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You asked, I answered.  

With blithering nonsense.

[homersapien 11,427]

On 4/2/2023 at 11:27 AM, TexasTiger said:

Pretty damn obvious to most of us.

As well as in the 60+ judicial rulings issued on post-election challenges.

Edited April 3, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 13,000]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 

Rob should stick to making copies.

[I_M4_AU 7,951]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Rob should stick to making copies.

How do you feel about Matt Taibbi?

[TexasTiger 13,000]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

How do you feel about Matt Taibbi?

Showboat more concerned with getting attention than promoting understanding of complex issues.

[AU9377 5,024]

23 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

There were no *facts* in her reporting Trump was a Russian agent.  Those *facts* were based on a lie.  Maddow didn’t do her own research, just relied on the Dossier.  But, no matter, it was to bring down a sitting President named Trump so it was all good.

Poor innocent Donald.  He brings none of it on himself?  Just a few facts.  His campaign manager had direct ties to the Russian government and had been on their payroll when working for the pro Russian former President of Ukraine. This is taken from the linked article below:

"Trump’s de facto campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was a longtime consultant to Viktor Yanukovich, the Russian-backed president of Ukraine who was overthrown in 2014. Manafort also has done multimillion-dollar business deals with Russian oligarchs. Trump’s foreign policy advisor Carter Page has his own business ties to the state-controlled Russian oil giant Gazprom. … Another Trump foreign policy advisor, retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, flew to Moscow last year to attend a gala banquet celebrating Russia Today, the Kremlin’s propaganda channel, and was seated at the head table near Putin."

https://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

Don't pretend that there were no connections worthy of raising an eyebrow.  Nobody in the U.S. forced the U.S. President to get on a stage and announce that he trusted Putin over U.S. intelligence.

[I_M4_AU 7,951]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Poor innocent Donald.  He brings none of it on himself?  Just a few facts.  His campaign manager had direct ties to the Russian government and had been on their payroll when working for the pro Russian former President of Ukraine. This is taken from the linked article below:

"Trump’s de facto campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was a longtime consultant to Viktor Yanukovich, the Russian-backed president of Ukraine who was overthrown in 2014. Manafort also has done multimillion-dollar business deals with Russian oligarchs. Trump’s foreign policy advisor Carter Page has his own business ties to the state-controlled Russian oil giant Gazprom. … Another Trump foreign policy advisor, retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, flew to Moscow last year to attend a gala banquet celebrating Russia Today, the Kremlin’s propaganda channel, and was seated at the head table near Putin."

https://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

Don't pretend that there were no connections worthy of raising an eyebrow.  Nobody in the U.S. forced the U.S. President to get on a stage and announce that he trusted Putin over U.S. intelligence.

There was a lot of speculation, I agree.  Maddow called him a Russian asset.  Was Trump a Russian asset?  Was he a traitor?  That’s the point.  What Maddow and others called him were not *facts*.  The *fact* is, Trump is not a Russian asset and has not been proven otherwise.  What you want to believe is not factual.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

There was a lot of speculation, I agree.  Maddow called him a Russian asset.  Was Trump a Russian asset?  Was he a traitor?  That’s the point.  What Maddow and others called him were not *facts*.  The *fact* is, Trump is not a Russian asset and has not been proven otherwise.  What you want to believe is not factual.

 If Trump sued over that it would not be held by a judge to be untrue as a matter of law. There’s ample evidence for a jury to consider that he was a Russian agent. More to the point, there’s likely no evidence they knew or even believed they were lying.

[I_M4_AU 7,951]

13 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

 If Trump sued over that it would not be held by a judge to be untrue as a matter of law. There’s ample evidence for a jury to consider that he was a Russian agent. More to the point, there’s likely no evidence they knew or even believed they were lying.

I don’t think it would make it to trial, but that isn’t the point.  The point being Maddow et.al lied about Trump being a Russian asset.  It was ludicrous at the time to accuse a sitting President of treason all from a source that his main rival had made up.