From: allin
The Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit against Fox News has brought significant attention to media accountability and defamation laws in the United States [01:12:11]. Dominion is suing Fox for 1.6 billion dollars in damages over claims made on air regarding technology-enabled election fraud [01:12:11].
Allegations of False Claims
During the period following the last election cycle, Fox News hosts were accused of knowingly spreading false claims that the election was stolen [01:12:21], despite internal knowledge that these claims were untrue [01:12:36]. This engagement was described as an “entertainment” approach, allowing individuals to present baseless allegations on air [01:12:44].
Rupert Murdoch, chairman of Fox News, admitted under oath that he “could have” stopped the hosts from highlighting these false allegations but did not [01:13:00]. He stated he would have liked the network to be stronger in denouncing the claims in hindsight [01:12:52]. His motivation for allowing the claims was attributed to a fear of their audience segment going to rival networks [01:18:12], essentially prioritizing “greed” (audience retention) over truth [01:18:19].
Different Approaches by Fox Hosts
Within Fox News, there were reportedly two groups of hosts:
- Trump Loyalists: Some hosts, such as Hannity, not only platformed but also endorsed the false claims made by figures like Sydney Powell [01:15:20]. Hannity’s text messages indicated he didn’t believe the story but endorsed it as a Trump loyalist [01:20:39].
- Skeptics: Other hosts, including Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, were skeptical of the Sydney Powell theory [01:15:42]. Tucker Carlson notably grilled Sydney Powell in a 20-minute interview, pressing her for evidence and effectively dismantling her claims on air [01:15:59].
Defamation Laws and “Actual Malice”
The legal standard for defamation in the U.S., stemming from New York Times v. Sullivan, requires plaintiffs to prove “actual malice” – meaning the defamatory statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not [01:17:35]. Rupert Murdoch’s testimony, while admitting to platforming known falsehoods due to fear of losing audience, did not explicitly admit to “actual malice” [01:18:19]. This highlights a critical aspect of existing libel laws [01:17:29].
The Debate on Media Accountability
There is a strong argument for rewriting defamation laws, potentially overturning New York Times v. Sullivan, to make media outlets liable for knowingly false information without requiring proof of malicious intent [01:18:27]. This change would affect not only outlets like Fox News but also others like CNN and MSNBC, requiring them to revise their coverage practices [01:18:51]. It’s argued that if media entities knew information was false and published it, that should be sufficient for liability [01:18:46].
This discussion is part of a broader conversation about media bias and journalism activism and the loss of trust in media [01:18:58]. The principle of freedom of speech is generally valued, but there’s a question of whether it extends to knowingly lying and platforming conspiracy theories [01:17:09].