Rupert Murdoch has distanced himself from Fox News’ election denial

fox faces a huge legal battle, and surviving it will be more about damage control than winning in court.

As of 2021, Fox NEwS BECOMES prevention of defamation and libel cases because of allegations that the network was known to be spreading lies that the 2020 presidential election was rigged.

The conservative news network’s highest-profile legal battle is over Dominion Voting Systems, the electronic voting machine and software supplier. That company Fox was sued in 2021 for $1.6 billion about false claims by Fox hosts during the 2020 election that Dominion helped Joe Biden win a fraudulent election against Donald Trump.

The case is in its early stages, when the court reviews the evidence to decide whether it can rule in favor of a party without a settlement. Arguments are currently scheduled to begin on April 17.

But after weeks of damning public evidence against Fox, including texts and emails involving on-air personalities as well as top executives, legal experts say it’s rare that there is a clear path to victory for a plaintiff in a high-profile defamation case. case. Even without going to trial, the case could have lasting consequences for the remaining credibility of Fox News, and much of the work may have been done by Fox itself.

“This case provides more evidence of falsehood than most experts in the field are used to seeing in a major media case,” RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor of media law at the University of Utah, said. speaking luck.

Last month, Dominion publicly announced the filing in Delaware court an extraordinary series of internal exchanges involving Fox personalities. Dominion claimed that the released messages revealed that star on-air broadcasters including Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham, as well as Fox co-founder Rupert Murdoch, did not believe the allegations. claims of election fraud in 2020 that they or their network sold the time.

During a deposition in which Murdoch was asked under oath whether Fox anchors endorsed Trump’s stolen election claims, the executive acknowledged that they had, THE New York Times reported this week.

“I wish we would have been stronger in criticizing this going forward,” he replied.

But Murdoch rejected accusations that Fox News, as a whole, endorsed Donald Trump’s stolen election claims and appeared to distance himself and the Fox Corporation from the anchors’ statements. When asked if the company endorsed the accounts, he replied: “Not Fox. No. Not Fox.”

Legal experts say Murdoch may try to shift some of the blame for the fraudulent statements away from the company and onto the hosts.

“I think there are more than a few people who might suspect that Fox News will try to deviate, and maybe try to find scapegoats,” Joseph Russomanno, a professor of media law at Arizona State University, said. . luck.

“A lot of what we saw in Rupert Murdoch’s comments was his attempt to protect the Fox News brand, to protect the company, and to protect himself while pointing the finger of blame at others,” he added.

Russomanno said recent evidence, particularly Murdoch’s comments, may suggest that “Fox News will go a long way in helping Dominion prove its case with what it has revealed.” He called it “unique, if not unprecedented.”

Lie or opinion?

The foundation of Fox’s defense is that the network reported newsworthy claims of election fraud made by Trump, and that biased reporting is protected by the First Amendment.

Fox’s position is that Dominion’s legal interpretation “would prevent journalists from doing basic reporting,” a Fox spokesman said. luck. “According to Dominion, the press has a responsibility to report newsworthy allegations made by a sitting President of the United States even if the press makes it clear that the allegations are unproven and that many people are against this.”

Dominion rejected Fox’s defense, arguing that the First Amendment did not apply in this situation. “Dominion is a firm believer in the First Amendment and its protections. As long-settled law makes clear, the First Amendment does not shield broadcasters knowingly or recklessly spreading falsehoods,” a company spokesperson said. luck.

At issue for Fox is whether the plaintiffs can prove the network knew at the time that its statements were false, which would make an easier case for Dominion to argue.

“The most important thing to understand is Fox has the right to be biased,” David Korzenik, an attorney specializing in media law and the First Amendment, said. luck. But he added, “It has no right to publish things it knows to be false or believes to be false.”

The case will likely come down to whether Dominion can prove that Fox published the false statements with “actual malice,” a standard established by 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan. It requires “public figures” in defamation suits to prove that defendants made statements with “knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard as to whether they were false or not.”

In most defamation cases, plaintiffs often argue the second part of the precedent—that an accused party acted without regard to the truth, according to Arizona State’s Russomanno. But the Fox case stands because of the evidence that allowed Dominion to argue for the first—that Fox’s hosts were fully aware that they were publishing lies.

“In this situation, it became clear through Fox’s own testimony that they knew the information was false and then went ahead and published it,” he said.

Put on the fire

Accusations of defamation and incriminating testimony have boosted Dominion’s chances of a successful lawsuit against Fox, but the network’s brand and credibility may have suffered without the judge’s decision.

“[Dominion] certainly succeeded in drawing attention to the behind-the-scenes battle that took place on Fox News after the election. In that sense, Fox has lost in some important areas,” said Andersen Jones of the University of Utah. He added that the suit has already raised questions about how far Fox has gone in pursuing election denial claims over comments made to its own audience.

“This can have consequences for the brand. It can also be pressured to resolve, to avoid further exposure to this material in a test,” he said.

The damage to Fox News’ brand and credibility may do little to drive away its prime viewership, which has long been considered more loyal than viewers of other channels, although some viewers may be deterred from tuning in regularly.

“I think there’s a good number of people who look indifferent to lies, as long as they’re pro-Trump lies,” said Richard Painter, a law professor who serves as the chief ethics attorney. in the White House during George. W. Bush administration, said luck. “But I don’t think they will hold a larger audience. I think they will lose a good portion of the conservative but moderate group.

A decision against Fox could lead to an organizational reshuffling and shareholder blowback, said Jeffrey Sonnenfield, the senior associate dean of leadership studies at Yale University who has spent four decades advising CEOs and US presidents on leadership. SPOKE CNN this week.

“The board has a duty to fire such officials for proven misconduct,” he said, referring to executives such as Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott. He added that Fox can expect shareholder lawsuits, loss of insurance protections, and even an investigation by the SEC for “fraudulent acts of the board for conspiring to conceal known misconduct. “

Fox News, that is accounts for most of Fox Corporation’s revenuehas long been accused of over-focusing on keeping its gaze on maintain profitability and to increase shareholder returnssomething that may have contributed to its election denial and may damage the network’s credibility in the long run, according to Painter.

“I think they lose credibility very quickly if they don’t reject shareholder primacy,” Painter said. “They can destroy their business model to the detriment of shareholders, which is the great irony.”

What happens next for Fox depends on whether Dominion can prove actual malice, whether executives like Murdoch are found guilty as well as the hosts, and how Fox reacts. But in many ways, some damage to Fox may have already been done.

“It’s a defense to control how the fire is controlled. I don’t think it’s overall likely to prevent Dominion from landing a punch,” Korzenik said. “They might make some content but not they prevent the fist from landing.”



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *