I erred in this blog a month ago.
I had said readers should not be quick to hope Fox loses its lawsuit.
It can be financially dangerous for a publication to write something critical of others, including public figures. I was thinking like a publisher, not like a citizen, when I wrote on March 8 of this year:
The freedom to present a variety of ideas is a good thing for democracy. Readers ought not to be quick to hope Fox loses this. The next case may be the New York Times or the comment section of this blog.
That was wrong.
What was on my mind at the time was the vulnerability of people who write words that make powerful people unhappy. I have written about the poorly-run and self-destructive campaign for State Senate by the Medford mayor. He didn't like it. I have written about the campaign money that pours through the local Chamber of Commerce. They didn't like that. I published the obscene text messages of a local judge as she worked to undermine a colleague on the bench. She and her friends didn't like that.
I had written critically about the dishonest and abusive subscription policy of the Medford Mail Tribune, the century-old local newspaper. I published photographs of the wildly disparate billings they sent unknowing and trusting subscribers. My reports were unwelcome. The then-editor, Cathy Noah, threatened that they would be turning this over to their attorneys. The Mail Tribune publisher, Steven Saslow, had a well-deserved reputation for using million-dollar lawsuits to chill critics.
The editor is long gone, the publisher is gone, and the newspaper folded. The Mail Tribune debacle is a case-study in mismanagement and wealth destruction, but at the time it retained credibility from inertia. I took comfort in one thing. I knew I was reporting the truth about the newspaper's sleight of hand. The truth would be my defense against a million-dollar judgement. America's laws regarding free speech and defamation get some things right for balancing competing interests. One is that the truth is a defense against defamation. The New York Times v. Sullivan Supreme Court decision refines that by ruling that publishers can make errors in reporting on public figures, so long as the publisher was earnestly attempting to tell the truth and isn't acting with malice.
11 comments:
I agree. The free press argument is critical. Promoting the Big Lie is the equivalent of "shouting fire in a crowded theater", and goes a step, a giant step, beyond the space alien babies of the tabloids. The Alex Jones judgement should guide the jury in their deliberations.
Losing this case, with the attendant revelations, will hopefully persuade more to believe that right wing media is merely entertainment with little association with actual journalism. The malice here is the contempt for their audience, many of whom, unfortunately, likely will add the loss to the bottomless pool of grievances and conspiracies they already wallow in.
Another reason to root for Dominion is that it will reinforce trust in our election system which is falsely under attack for political and personal profit.
Fox Noise may have the lowest integrity among news organizations, but it also has the highest ratings – probably for that very reason. We had nothing comparable in 1964, when the Court decided New York Times v. Sullivan. Unfortunately, if Fox loses, the appeals will drag on for years and even if they eventually had to pay the full amount, it’s only a fraction of their quarterly earnings. The only thing that would put them and their ilk out of business is for Americans to get educated and give up their addiction to lies, anger and hatred.
By the way, thanks to their stupid lies, we now have idiots demanding that all Jackson County ballots be hand-counted. I would be agreeable to that if the Jackson County Republicans paid for it out of pocket.
I wouldn't get your hopes up. It will probably be settled out of court for a large amount of money and both sides will claim victory.
It’s absolutely wonderful when people are honest and insightful enough to acknowledge when they realize they were wrong about something.
You demonstrate great intellectual integrity, Peter. We all need a lot more of this. Maybe even a presidential candidate or two capable of it.
The Dominion v. Fox case is that rare one in which the "actual malice" standard of publishing something known to be false may be met. Fox's knowing dishonesty is amazing. I always thought they were lying, with a wink, but trying to skate just under the line of New York Times v. Sullivan. Here, it appears they weren't even trying.
I suspect what will happen is that Fox will take a significant financial hit, and spin that into a narrative of having been persecuted by the establishment. The result will probably be increased ratings for for Fox as long as the story is live, and no particular lasting change in the political media environment.
Well, that was fast. Peter C was right about it being settled out of court for a large amount of money, but so far I've only heard Dominion claim victory. The victory for Fox is that now its executives won't have to testify, sparing them from becoming the sort of tawdry spectacle they prefer to manufacture.
Am I good or what? The case just settled out of court for $757.5 million. (Pats self on back)
It's over. They've settled. Fox will pay Dominion $787M.
We'll see what else dribbles out obout the settlement. Many stories out there already.
I'm saddened.
Settling the case without a trial is basically a statement that there might be some validity to Trump's claims and now the conspiracy cult can claim Dominion didn't want to risk it being exposed.
Not a great day for Truth...
Just checked. Not a word about the settlement on Fox News this morning. I guess they just want it to go away.
Post a Comment