The Deplorable Vanishing of Fox’s Trial-Part 2

I posted my short article, The Deplorable Vanishing of Fox’s Trial, on the NYC-DR listserv, which prompted several responses including this one:

Given the magnitude of the settlement I question whether the judge imploring the parties to settle made much difference.  I do think the decisions on the summary judgment motion, which left open only the issue of malice probably did.  I respectfully suggest those decisions do protect and serve the public interest here.

This sequel, The Deplorable Vanishing of Fox’s Trial – Part 2, addresses these and other issues.  It elaborates why I think that the settlement was problematic, which is partly a reflection of the general culture of legal denial that Jonathan Cohen described, where the “haves” usually come out ahead.

Take a look.

3 thoughts on “The Deplorable Vanishing of Fox’s Trial-Part 2”

  1. A Washington Post article, Lachlan Murdoch: Fox News Is Sticking with its Programming Strategy, notes, “Fox is now facing multiple lawsuits from shareholders who argue that the company’s board of directors shirked their duties by failing to stop the network from broadcasting comments that would open the company up to legal action.” So there is more litigation about this case as well as a parallel defamation suit by another voting technology company, Smartmatic.

  2. Here’s an article by Washington Post analyst Aaron Blake analyzing various polls: “A harsh verdict on Fox News post-Dominion — even from GOP. A new poll shows Americans say by a 30-point margin that Fox host knowingly aired false claims. And even Republicans are about evenly split on the question.”

    According to a recent poll, most people, including many Republicans, believe that “Fox hosts said things about the 2020 election that they knew to be untrue” – aka lied.

    While it is somewhat reassuring that a majority of the public recognizes that Fox lied, it is no substitute for Fox Corporation and its executives accepting responsibility for their lies – and their continuing deception about it.

    Politico senior writer Jack Shafer wrote that Fox’s decision to fire Tucker Carlson was an attempt to distract attention from the Dominion settlement: “What’s Really Behind the Release of Tucker Carlson’s Texts. Scrutiny on the former Fox star helps the network avoid attention on the disaster of the Dominion settlement. … Almost nobody is talking about the shoddy journalism Fox produced to help advance the “stolen election” lie and its lack of public contrition for the role it played in helping foment the Jan. 6 insurrection. They’re talking about Carlson’s off-camera trash talk, much of which only echoes in more profane and pungent terms what he’s said on his show or in interviews.”

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.