Skip to main content

Dominion is Hitting Fox Where it Hurts

There’s a lot to like about the bombshell revelations coming out about Fox News. So much, to be sure, that it’s easy to lose sight of the actual lawsuit that has set those bombshells off.

But Dominion Voting Systems, with its $1.6 billion defamation suit against Fox, is in the process of blowing a gaping hole in Fox’s entire business model.

Seeing the discovery materials that have come out in court filings, we can now get a good look, not just at the depravity of Fox’s hosts, but also at the strength of Dominion’s case.

This is surely the most serious challenge Fox has ever faced. Dominion, a company with deep pockets and an extraordinary set of grievances, is going for the throat. They’re calling Fox out in court, for the wanton spread of disinformation and propaganda, and they’re spelling out, in their filings, what that means for democracy.

Let’s not be distracted by the salacious revelations themselves. Seeing Fox hosts exposed as snakes, liars, hypocrites, and haters of their own audience is great schadenfreude, but it’s hardly a surprise.

The real news, which has been somewhat obscured, is that there will be a motion for summary judgment in the case. It’s set for March 21.

This is a big deal in any legal matter, but especially in a libel suit. Both Dominion and Fox are separately asking the judge to decide the case without going to trial. Fox wants the matter thrown out entirely. Dominion wants the judge to agree that Fox has no viable defense.

Each side will present its own arguments. But I’m here to tell you that Fox’s arguments are both thin and transparently disingenuous, while Dominion’s are absolutely devastating.

Amazingly, Fox isn’t disputing the facts. They’ve effectively conceded that everything they said on the air about Dominion in the wake of the 2020 election was false. So with all that evidence not being contested, Dominion is asking the judge, in effect, why waste the court’s valuable time on a jury trial? Why not just go right to the damages part? It could happen.

Fox, for its part, will try to convince the judge that false claims — especially false claims by a U.S. president about, say, a stolen election — are “newsworthy allegations,” and that Fox was simply reporting those claims as news.

Beyond being legally questionable, this argument is not at all in keeping with the facts. Fox was not just reporting, it was advocating, and it was using deliberate disinformation to do it. Everyone who worked there knew this, right up to Rupert Murdoch. A lot of them put it in writing. Some of them put it in depositions.

First Amendment experts are unusually excited about this. The long evolution of First Amendment law has mostly been about protecting journalists. Given that freedom of the press is meant to be a cornerstone of democracy, journalists have, over time, been given both great license to report news, and great latitude when they make a mistake.

This has resulted in an intimidatingly high bar for proving libel under the law. It’s not enough to prove that a statement made about a public figure is false. You must prove that the news organization knew it was false, and that they published it anyway, in “reckless disregard of the truth.” Or, in other words, they acted with malice.

Remarkably, the Dominion case puts the whole First Amendment discussion on another plane. It’s no longer just about protecting journalists from aggrieved public figures. Now it’s also about protecting a democratic society from propagandists posing as journalists.

This is not an idle discussion. Many on the right, including Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, both big fans of disinformation, have been grumbling for years that it’s too hard for public figures — like, say, Donald Trump — to win libel cases against media companies that challenge their lies.

But now Dominion is showing that the threshold for libel, while high, is not insurmountable. And that it’s Fox — not the Times, not the Post, not CNN — that has crossed it. It’s Fox whose blatant lies now make them vulnerable under the law.

Thomas and Gorsuch can’t help but notice that any lowering of that threshold will inevitably make it even easier to sue Fox than to sue any so-called “liberal” outlet. Which means if Fox loses here, it won’t be able to count on a rigged SCOTUS to bail it out. The SCOTUS right wing would be shooting itself in the foot.

The Fox business model — propaganda that defames with impunity, in service of an authoritarian agenda — may finally be reaching its limits.

The Dominion case is not the kind that will settle out of court. Dominion needs its reputation back. It needs a public acknowledgement — if not from Fox itself, then from the verdict — that Fox lied with malice aforethought, thereby wreaking catastrophic damage on the Dominion brand. This is, in a way, more important than any money awarded them. It would take an eye-popping public apology from Fox to get Dominion to settle. Which won’t happen.

Fox won’t settle either, because that would be admitting there is substance to the charges, which would leave it open to more lawsuits of the same kind. Which is already happening.

So Fox is cornered. It can’t settle. It can’t make any reasonable case. It has to rely on arguments that are not just specious, but also run counter to the tenets of a free press in a democracy. Rock, meet hard place.

None of this means the court will render a summary judgment for Dominion and get this whole thing over with. The case could drag out for years, over which time it will be interesting to see how Fox behaves under this litigious cloud.

If Dominion wins, whether sooner or later, Fox could face a cascade of legal, financial, and governance problems that would surely outlive Rupert Murdoch. If malice can be demonstrated in court, Fox as it exists now may never be the same.

For starters, the Smartmatic lawsuit will go to trial in 2024 (yes, the process is slow). Their case will be at least as strong as Dominion’s, and they’ll be fine-tuning their legal strategy based on Dominion’s outcome. They’re asking for nearly a billion more in damages than Dominion.

In the meantime, there will likely be a shareholder uprising at Fox, as the damage to its brand shows up in its stock price. There are, from one report, at least eight major law firms currently rounding up Fox stockholders for an assault on corporate management. These law firms will be looking to sue the Fox board for all sorts of things — malfeasance, fraud, abuse of fiduciary powers — which will hit Fox where it hurts most, in Murdoch’s wallet.

Without Fox, there would be no Trump. Without Fox, there would be no legion of reprogrammable fools being led into one corrosive conspiracy theory after another. 

The damage Fox has done to the country is incalculable, but it has always looked like there was no way to stop it. Maybe, just maybe, there is now.

 

Comments

  1. Your brother once characterized Fix as the "twenty-four hour sedition channel." And that was during the Bush administration. I can't imagine how he might characterize it now.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

  “FAFO” (Fuck-Around-And-Find-Out) is a coinage that probably hasn’t yet made it to a dictionary near you, but it has gained considerable traction of late. And among those millions of Trump voters who are currently finding out, in quite painful fashion, the malignant forces with which they fucked around, there’s the special case of Elise Stefanik, about whom I wrote this piece in January 2023. Stefanik’s star was rising then, back when Kevin McCarthy was taking control — if you can call it that — of the House. Having sold her soul completely to Trump, she might understand now what was totally obvious even then: that Trump is where political careers go to die. You’ll notice also in this piece that I failed to anticipate Trump’s second term, and got a number of other minor things wrong. All I can say is I was young and foolish.   It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So w...

Abortion Will Not Be Stopped, Or Even Slowed Down

  Back in 2022, before the Dobbs decision, abortions in the United States occurred at the rate of 79,600 per month. Put a pin in that number. When Dobbs ended Roe , it triggered a cornucopia of draconian laws banning — to one degree or another — abortion in most red states. One of the worst judicial decisions in history, Dobbs led almost immediately to a raft of high-profile atrocities, making simple pregnancy a high-risk proposition for both women and doctors. The Republicans running those states are now defined — politically and morally — by their anti-woman, anti-family policies. On their watch, long-standing, globally-accepted medical standards and practices are being rejected, not on the basis of science, but of ideology and, even worse, religion. The results are stunning. While I couldn’t possibly scan the entire landscape of reproductive issues, there are others doing that full time. Jessica Valenti and her new partner Kylie Cheung do deep dives int...

Coming This Friday: The Consolation Peace Prize

Let me start by saying I will be watching the FIFA World Cup, no matter how politically disgraceful it ends up being. I’m used to it. I watched the one in Qatar in 2022, and the one in Russia back in 2018. So yes, I’m morally compromised. Yes, I’ve been thoroughly sportswashed. Yes, I’m watching anyway. That said, “politically disgraceful” is a more-than-apt description for how the tournament is already shaping up. But first, let’s review for Americans who still don’t get it. The World Cup soccer tournament — a month-long event — is landing in cities in the United States, Canada, and Mexico next June, whether we like it or not. And we might not. There are all sorts of storylines one could follow between now and then, none of them having to do with the actual game of soccer. One of my favorites is the bromance of Trump and Gianni Infantino, the president — some say king — of FIFA, world soccer’s governing body. There’s a reason I bring this up now, because t...