Since the trial was not going to be televised, I wonder really if it would have any impact. It is one thing to hear about testimony. It is quite another to see it
787 million seems like a lot of money, to me. But I just read that Facebook has reached a tentative settlement in a class action suit that will pay nearly that much to users for playing fast and loose with their personal data -- this after being fined 5 billion by the gov't. So, by comparison, it looks like Fox got off easy.
Fox may have defamed Dominion to their insular MAGA viewers, but Dominion defamed themselves and lost everyone else's respect by not using their leverage to get Fox to set the record straight and confess to their fraud. IMO, they've done more harm to their own name than Fox did. I'll be interested to see how Smartmatic's settlement plays out, but I'll expect the same pathetic result.
Of course I wanted Dominion to make big bucks from Fox - wanted Fox bankrupted. However, they had Fox by the balls with pending Rupert testifying, and could have ALSO demanded a public apology and Fox hosts admitting on Fox how they helped the big lie. If you sue fir defamation, why wouldn’t you demand this? NOTHING BUT $$$$ has been shown as punishment for Fox.
That a Fox News could do so much damage to America with its promotion of the Big Lie, and the only recourse is a private party suing (and now settling with) them is not a sustainable path for the country.
It is like with pollution - there needs to be accountability for damage to the commons.
I understand why Dominion blinked on the courthouse steps, took the money and ran. I understand why their lawyers spin it as a win (it is, in the sense of why one goes to trial, for damages, is a win).
But FOX is the BIG winner here! (And we still don't have a definition of Actual Malice and there will probably never be another one as clear as this one! That is a loss for legal nerds.)
Sure, 3/4 billion dollars is a lot of money and it can't be appealed, it has to be paid. But FOX has four billion so writing a big check doesn't hurt Fox, or Murdoch, or Tucker or Sean or the rest of the corruption. And they can go on lying -- just not about Dominion. They have suffered no punishment from all this. They have learned no lesson other than "we can lie and write a check for it; cool"! And I know we are all disappointed by that. Put away the popcorn.
Hey Dominion, my price would have been waaay higher for that non-apology, non-retraction settlement. Maybe 1.3 bil, min. And I'm just an annoyed, scared American.
Ahhh, justice in America, for even, or especially ill gotten gains, money makes all problems disappear. Fox not only pushed the Big Lie, they keep the anger raging and they sell guns. Their business model kills people. If a Black guy in Oklahoma gets stopped for speeding he immediately has to pay a fine. If he doesn’t have the money he could go right to jail. That’s if those boys on the tape don’t beat him to death. So far, attempting to overthrow an election — no consequences. Just another fund raiser.
One of the aspects of this settlement, and really other consequences of brutal corporate malfeasance, that is rarely discussed, relates to the tax implications of these penalties.
Since the 1970's dozens of states have put laws into place preventing convicted criminals from profiting from their crimes by selling their stories (they are generally referred to as Son of Sam laws).
Oddly, when corporate malfeasance is involved, corporations are always able to substantially reduce the monetary consequences of their malfeasance through the tax code, insurance, and through the inadequacy of the fines meted out for misconduct.
Let's crunch some numbers here as an example:
$787 million sounds like a large number, but that's all Fox News has to pay out for defaming Dominion over a three year period. You know what Fox News' net income was for 2022? $2.8 billion. So Fox News shareholders come out ahead (and profit was the explicit motive for maliciously defaming Dominion).
Let's then consider the fact that industry insiders are saying that a substantial amount of the settlement will ultimately be covered by their insurance:
This is not surprising, but should be surprising when you take a moment to reflect about analogous insurance schemes, keeping in mind that the standard for defamation against a media company is "actual malice" or gross negligence in the veracity of their reporting.
Let's say you drink and drive, and in the process you destroy multiple cars, and horrendously maim yourself and the victim in your accident. Both insurance companies will ultimately cover the damages to the car you hit, and the victim, but only because we have mandatory 3rd party insurance. Insurance company however, will NOT make the drunk driver whole. The driver is shit out of luck in terms of his/her own injuries and vehicle. Not only that, the insurance companies can and will go after the drunk driver to recover the money they paid to compensate the victim(s) for any injuries and for damage to the car.
However, in this context, Fox "News" can maliciously report lies, but their insurance company will likely make them mostly whole. At most Fox "News" will suffer by having higher insurance premiums going forward (but really, do they even need insurance when their net profits can easily absorb future similar settlement amounts?).
But let's say that Fox News has to pay a portion of the settlement out-of-pocket. Guess what? That's considered a valid "business loss" for tax purposes, so they can write off that expense.
Again, returning to the example of a drunk driver. If a drunk driver destroys his car and incurs other related medical expenses, driver can't write that off for tax purposes as a "business expense". Driver is shit out of luck, all that money is a straight loss.
Then we get into the way fines against corporations tend to be structured when they engage in criminal or quasi-criminal behaviour or breach regulations. For one, the amount of the fines NEVER exceeds the amount that the company profited from the fine-worthy behaviour.
And guess what? The fine they pay can also be written off under the tax code as a "business expense".
Have you ever heard ANY Democratic politician (much less a Republican politician) try to advocate for closing off any of the above-noted modes of financial fuckery?
I heard a commentator last night—can’t remember where—suggest that Fox shareholders might have a legitimate claim against them. This and forthcoming settlements may reduce their dividends, no?
Dominion and their lawyers might have made a "sound business decision" in accepting Fox's settlement offer, but the monetary damages Fox paid is, at best, only a short term fix. Since Fox did not have to acknowledge that its prime time talking heads continuously promoted the Big Lie, Fox got out of a very sticky wicket. OTOH, Dominion might walk away with about 3/4 of a billion dollars but IMO they still lost, they got zero in terms of reputational repair - which was the supposed reason for the lawsuit in the first place. Fox admits no wrong, doesn't have to apologize on-air nor does it fire the main promoters (and why should they fire *any* of them, they all bring in major advertising dollars, even Jeanine Pirro) and so skates with a minimum amount of corporate pain.
Bottom line, no matter how you spin it, Fox won in the long term.
Here's hoping Smartmatic will also get a huge amount of money out of them. I just want them driven out of business 😑 Fox nooz is a cancer. They should not be allowed to broadcast anything.
People just don't seem to get the reason for the settlement, which was anyone who practiced law knew that was almost certain to happen. Let me offer my two cents as someone who has been an attorney for 35 years, much of it spent in litigation.
To succeed in a defamation case you need 2 things: 1) that the defendant did something wrong (in this case that the defendant defamed the plaintiff) and 2) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of that defamation.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you have on #1 and how outrageous the evidence of the defamation is, if you don't have damages, you don't have a case. The case as to #1 in this case is overwhelming. The problem is Dominion didn't really have much in the way of evidence as to #2, that the company had been damaged. It has actually gained in value since the alleged defamation.
So, you had two countervailing pressures that were pushing toward settlement. Fox News desperately didn't want its stars and Murdoch on the stand having to admit to lying to its viewers. On the other side, Dominion knew that if it went to trial, it would win, but the damage award wouldn't be that large. (Or, if it was, an appellate court would reduce it on appeal.)
Dominion walked away with a settlement of $787.5 million far more than it would have gotten if it went to trial. The settlement spared Fox News embarrassment.
I think it's a bunch of nonsense that people think because Fox News didn't have to publicly admit lying to its viewers, the network somehow scored a victory. Give me a break. Anyone who by now doesn't believe Fox was lying, wouldn't believe such a public apology anyway. The amount of the settlement and that it was made public, leaves no doubt that it's an admission of guilt.
Off topic, but it was just announced that Tuck is leaving Fox. His last show was Friday...
Since the trial was not going to be televised, I wonder really if it would have any impact. It is one thing to hear about testimony. It is quite another to see it
787 million seems like a lot of money, to me. But I just read that Facebook has reached a tentative settlement in a class action suit that will pay nearly that much to users for playing fast and loose with their personal data -- this after being fined 5 billion by the gov't. So, by comparison, it looks like Fox got off easy.
Fox may have defamed Dominion to their insular MAGA viewers, but Dominion defamed themselves and lost everyone else's respect by not using their leverage to get Fox to set the record straight and confess to their fraud. IMO, they've done more harm to their own name than Fox did. I'll be interested to see how Smartmatic's settlement plays out, but I'll expect the same pathetic result.
Of course I wanted Dominion to make big bucks from Fox - wanted Fox bankrupted. However, they had Fox by the balls with pending Rupert testifying, and could have ALSO demanded a public apology and Fox hosts admitting on Fox how they helped the big lie. If you sue fir defamation, why wouldn’t you demand this? NOTHING BUT $$$$ has been shown as punishment for Fox.
That a Fox News could do so much damage to America with its promotion of the Big Lie, and the only recourse is a private party suing (and now settling with) them is not a sustainable path for the country.
It is like with pollution - there needs to be accountability for damage to the commons.
I understand why Dominion blinked on the courthouse steps, took the money and ran. I understand why their lawyers spin it as a win (it is, in the sense of why one goes to trial, for damages, is a win).
But FOX is the BIG winner here! (And we still don't have a definition of Actual Malice and there will probably never be another one as clear as this one! That is a loss for legal nerds.)
Sure, 3/4 billion dollars is a lot of money and it can't be appealed, it has to be paid. But FOX has four billion so writing a big check doesn't hurt Fox, or Murdoch, or Tucker or Sean or the rest of the corruption. And they can go on lying -- just not about Dominion. They have suffered no punishment from all this. They have learned no lesson other than "we can lie and write a check for it; cool"! And I know we are all disappointed by that. Put away the popcorn.
"No one has been fired."
Lou Dobbs was fired... but that's no where near enough. Jeannine Piro continues to be an embarrassment to carbon based life forms, everywhere.
Hey Dominion, my price would have been waaay higher for that non-apology, non-retraction settlement. Maybe 1.3 bil, min. And I'm just an annoyed, scared American.
Ahhh, justice in America, for even, or especially ill gotten gains, money makes all problems disappear. Fox not only pushed the Big Lie, they keep the anger raging and they sell guns. Their business model kills people. If a Black guy in Oklahoma gets stopped for speeding he immediately has to pay a fine. If he doesn’t have the money he could go right to jail. That’s if those boys on the tape don’t beat him to death. So far, attempting to overthrow an election — no consequences. Just another fund raiser.
Re: Fox "News" Dominion Settlement
One of the aspects of this settlement, and really other consequences of brutal corporate malfeasance, that is rarely discussed, relates to the tax implications of these penalties.
Since the 1970's dozens of states have put laws into place preventing convicted criminals from profiting from their crimes by selling their stories (they are generally referred to as Son of Sam laws).
Oddly, when corporate malfeasance is involved, corporations are always able to substantially reduce the monetary consequences of their malfeasance through the tax code, insurance, and through the inadequacy of the fines meted out for misconduct.
Let's crunch some numbers here as an example:
$787 million sounds like a large number, but that's all Fox News has to pay out for defaming Dominion over a three year period. You know what Fox News' net income was for 2022? $2.8 billion. So Fox News shareholders come out ahead (and profit was the explicit motive for maliciously defaming Dominion).
Let's then consider the fact that industry insiders are saying that a substantial amount of the settlement will ultimately be covered by their insurance:
https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-payout-big-for-company-but-insurance-may-help-2023-4
This is not surprising, but should be surprising when you take a moment to reflect about analogous insurance schemes, keeping in mind that the standard for defamation against a media company is "actual malice" or gross negligence in the veracity of their reporting.
Let's say you drink and drive, and in the process you destroy multiple cars, and horrendously maim yourself and the victim in your accident. Both insurance companies will ultimately cover the damages to the car you hit, and the victim, but only because we have mandatory 3rd party insurance. Insurance company however, will NOT make the drunk driver whole. The driver is shit out of luck in terms of his/her own injuries and vehicle. Not only that, the insurance companies can and will go after the drunk driver to recover the money they paid to compensate the victim(s) for any injuries and for damage to the car.
However, in this context, Fox "News" can maliciously report lies, but their insurance company will likely make them mostly whole. At most Fox "News" will suffer by having higher insurance premiums going forward (but really, do they even need insurance when their net profits can easily absorb future similar settlement amounts?).
But let's say that Fox News has to pay a portion of the settlement out-of-pocket. Guess what? That's considered a valid "business loss" for tax purposes, so they can write off that expense.
Again, returning to the example of a drunk driver. If a drunk driver destroys his car and incurs other related medical expenses, driver can't write that off for tax purposes as a "business expense". Driver is shit out of luck, all that money is a straight loss.
Then we get into the way fines against corporations tend to be structured when they engage in criminal or quasi-criminal behaviour or breach regulations. For one, the amount of the fines NEVER exceeds the amount that the company profited from the fine-worthy behaviour.
And guess what? The fine they pay can also be written off under the tax code as a "business expense".
Have you ever heard ANY Democratic politician (much less a Republican politician) try to advocate for closing off any of the above-noted modes of financial fuckery?
I certainly have not.
| We will always have the massive document dumps. The emails. The texts.
As if that mattered to more than 0.1% of Republican voters and/or 0.01% of Fox News viewers.
When one's been guzzling the Kool-Aid for years, one tends not to care what's listed in the ingredients.
I heard a commentator last night—can’t remember where—suggest that Fox shareholders might have a legitimate claim against them. This and forthcoming settlements may reduce their dividends, no?
Dominion and their lawyers might have made a "sound business decision" in accepting Fox's settlement offer, but the monetary damages Fox paid is, at best, only a short term fix. Since Fox did not have to acknowledge that its prime time talking heads continuously promoted the Big Lie, Fox got out of a very sticky wicket. OTOH, Dominion might walk away with about 3/4 of a billion dollars but IMO they still lost, they got zero in terms of reputational repair - which was the supposed reason for the lawsuit in the first place. Fox admits no wrong, doesn't have to apologize on-air nor does it fire the main promoters (and why should they fire *any* of them, they all bring in major advertising dollars, even Jeanine Pirro) and so skates with a minimum amount of corporate pain.
Bottom line, no matter how you spin it, Fox won in the long term.
fnord
Here's hoping Smartmatic will also get a huge amount of money out of them. I just want them driven out of business 😑 Fox nooz is a cancer. They should not be allowed to broadcast anything.
People just don't seem to get the reason for the settlement, which was anyone who practiced law knew that was almost certain to happen. Let me offer my two cents as someone who has been an attorney for 35 years, much of it spent in litigation.
To succeed in a defamation case you need 2 things: 1) that the defendant did something wrong (in this case that the defendant defamed the plaintiff) and 2) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of that defamation.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you have on #1 and how outrageous the evidence of the defamation is, if you don't have damages, you don't have a case. The case as to #1 in this case is overwhelming. The problem is Dominion didn't really have much in the way of evidence as to #2, that the company had been damaged. It has actually gained in value since the alleged defamation.
So, you had two countervailing pressures that were pushing toward settlement. Fox News desperately didn't want its stars and Murdoch on the stand having to admit to lying to its viewers. On the other side, Dominion knew that if it went to trial, it would win, but the damage award wouldn't be that large. (Or, if it was, an appellate court would reduce it on appeal.)
Dominion walked away with a settlement of $787.5 million far more than it would have gotten if it went to trial. The settlement spared Fox News embarrassment.
I think it's a bunch of nonsense that people think because Fox News didn't have to publicly admit lying to its viewers, the network somehow scored a victory. Give me a break. Anyone who by now doesn't believe Fox was lying, wouldn't believe such a public apology anyway. The amount of the settlement and that it was made public, leaves no doubt that it's an admission of guilt.