we have to check the card, but that looks like a bingo.

Perhaps. I thought that he was purporting to comment on posters in this forum.

Bragging about not being jaded when it comes to media is definitely interesting.

No one is bragging, and it's possible to be jaded while not letting media outlets off the hook when they cross a new line.

Can you please cite an example where another cable news network repeatedly reported something to its viewers that someone proved they knew was untrue?

Obviously this. Also, there is a significant difference between bias and outright lying.

The latter potentially exposes a media outlet to liability. The former of course does not.

I'm pretty sure all the lines were crossed a long time ago.

That's where the jadedness comes from.

Successful defamation cases against media outlets are rare but not unheard of.

The issue here isn't just that Fox was lying. The giant plus factor here is that Fox was lying about something fundamental to U.S. democracy.

If a media outlet chooses to lie about whether some celebrity has a drug problem, well, that's not great but at least the impact of the lie is limited.

When a media outlet decides to lie about whether a presidential election was flat out rigged, the impact is enormous.

Not sure what's worse.... Believing the media isn't constantly lying or believing that democracy is real.

let's document the lies for the record:

CNN said Saddam has weapons of mass desrtuction and you believed it.
-----> and we invaded Iraq

CNN said Hunter and Joe Biden didn't do anything, laptop is fake and you believed it. ----> and Joe became president.

CNN said mask don't work and you believed it. then they flip flopped and said the opposite.

that's some heavy lifting done by CNN, I mean lying.

what has fox lied about that was worse? if the answer is nothing then there you go, you're biased.

Do you not think that CNN and MSNBC reporters knew Hunters laptop was real? It's about as close as you get and no where near equal plus they were not defaming a company

If either had reported it as true that may have impacted the election.
Fox settled as it could not have Tucker, Hannity and the rest on the stand bottom line
I was expecting the number to be just below a billion .

That's no sort of response. U.S. democracy of course is flawed, but we still vote, and public confidence that votes are counted accurately remains essential to the functioning of government.

Also, how would an acknowledgement of the shortcomings of U.S. democracy justify what Fox did?

No one is trying to justify anything about what Fox does, but it is important that it be put in its proper context.

And sure, public confidence in elections serves to uphold the status quo and therefore government as well. But that is all it does. If most elected officials were appointed there would be no functional difference in government, certainly at least at the federal level.

As far as I know, no one has ever accused CNN (or any other media outlet for that matter, including Fox) of knowingly lying about whether Saddam had WMDs. All the media outlets, including Fox, reported the same thing -- that the Bush administration claimed to have evidence that Saddam had WMDs.

Also on this point-- it was you tried arguing that what Fox did was extra special because it was "threatening democracy"....and come on.... You say you take interest in the case as a lawyer for legal reasons and that's all well and good...but arguing that "democracy" was being threatened is just lol.

I don't understand the gotcha.

How is my interest in the case from a legal perspective inconsistent with saying that Fox amplified the voice of people who were trying to undermine democracy?

As I said before, I don't view this as some sort of successful left-wing takedown of Fox. Fox will continue to have the influence that it has wielded in recent years.

Maybe the "talent" will be a little more careful with its framing, but that's about it. It wouldn't take much. For example, Dominion wasn't really relying on anything that Hannity or Tucker said as the basis for its defamation claim. It wasn't because those guys were fair and balanced. It's just because those guys were a little more careful with their framing on the election fraud stuff than, say, Lou Dobbs was.

This defamation case was an easy avoidable, self-inflicted wound.

Nice to see Hunter's laptop is on par in terms of importance to lying about a national election being rigged to some people. Hunter needs to be a big issue in 2024!

Best part is that people will still think the election was rigged even after this.

washoe, was the election rigged or not? Thanks in advance!

Yesterday I said that people who cared about this should be looked at with derision, and you said that your motivations were based on legal reasons-- which I'm saying is fine.

Today you are claiming that Fox was helping to attack democracy is which is why what Fox did was extra special bad-- which is both wrong and incongruent with your previous statement that your interest here is based on legal reasons. Because if you actually do think democracy was under attack, that's plenty of justification on its own for taking an interest in this.

Nope as to how Trump portrays it . Trump would have been better complaining about how CNN and MSNBC and big tech effected the election and if Hunters laptop story hadn't been silenced he would have won. As time passes with the Mark Zuckerberg and the Twitter files and the laptop being real he would look better going into 2024

I know you asked Washoe

Do you believe Hunter Biden's laptop is real now ?

I believe Hunter Biden's laptop is a real laptop that got handled by a lot of people in unsupervised ways. I also know Hunter Biden is not running for President so I personally care as much about it as I do whether Don Trump Jr is a coke addict or not as some believe. I also know that I really want Hunter Biden be a very important issue to people like you like it was in 2020, so you and washoe should keep up the good work. Hope that answered your whatabout question properly.

No. What I said yesterday was the same thing that I said today. I am not interested in this case from a partisan standpoint because it isn't likely to have much impact on Fox's stature. It isn't a left wing victory over Fox. It's just a good outcome for Dominion.

I am interested in the legal issues. I never claimed to be oblivious or indifferent to the subject matter on which Fox was reporting.

If the bar for defamation cases were lower, Fox would have more defamation exposure than the Washington Post, NYT, etc., but even so, you shouldn't assume that I am in favor of lowering the bar.

Did anyone here ever claim that the laptop did not exist? I certainly did not. I didn't even claim to be uncertain.

yeah, how come Alex Jones gets fined 1 billion dollars for lying about Sandy hook? I mean c'mon, the guy is nuts sometimes. how is that a threat to DEMOCRACY? a threat to democracy would be if they lied to us right before an election so that their horse wins. that's rigging the game right there and thats what happened. and then they all zoomed in on Jones like a hungry pack of wolves.

2 that's what I'm saying and they should all get sued for lying. just as Alex Jones got punished for lying, and he didn't even lie on purpose. I think he just went nuts. what's the excuse for CNN and MSNBC? nothing is their excuse, they just lied. they just shrugged it off as business as normal.

Hunters laptop is of course real how can you ask such a question? everyone knows it's real and they lied to us. (right before the election which would have swung the election, blah blah blah but it's all true) they are trying to sell you an A for a U and so far nobody noticed the difference.


hot air is what they are selling us: