chasfh Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 33 minutes ago, pfife said: One overall number to represent two separate questions? Forty-one percent what, exactly? Is that watch, trust, both, neither, some combination? Without knowing that, those are garbage numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 11 hours ago, oblong said: And the trial start is moved to Tuesday. Maybe Fox offers up 2 billion in exchange for confidentiality. It’s not the money that scares Murdoch. Oh, Jesus, they’re allowing an extra day for settlement, don’t they? Goddamn it if true. The point of this should be to expose Fox to the public record and shame people into fixing the problem, not for Dominion to simply cash out. They’re already going to cash out. We need change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 To be fair to Dominion they are a business with owners and employees to look after. If their business suffered in terms of dollars and cents and they have a chance to recoup that then they have a right to do that, maybe even a duty. A financial payout and liability against Fox is not a guarantee, especially with this supreme court. I want to grill Fox as much as anyone but it's not my dollar at stake. It's theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Sonics Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 29 minutes ago, oblong said: To be fair to Dominion they are a business with owners and employees to look after. If their business suffered in terms of dollars and cents and they have a chance to recoup that then they have a right to do that, maybe even a duty. A financial payout and liability against Fox is not a guarantee, especially with this supreme court. I want to grill Fox as much as anyone but it's not my dollar at stake. It's theirs. It's not just a business thing, however. Employees' lives have been threatened, some have been stalked, and as we have seen with Paul Pelosi, that's not to be taken as a joke or just an angry statement anymore. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 One issue is that of course all media loves Sullivan - so even a liberal bastion like the NYT is running around with their hair on fire at the thought of it being circumscribed - but the truth is the US press operated without it for 150 yrs and in the rest of the free world press operates without it just fine. They need to realize that in the US the crisis today for the presss - all press, is credibility, and lack of accountability is what is driving that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ronz Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 Does that poll say "Of those who watch Fox - 59% do NOT trust it as a news source" or am I misinterpreting the poll? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 1 hour ago, oblong said: To be fair to Dominion they are a business with owners and employees to look after. If their business suffered in terms of dollars and cents and they have a chance to recoup that then they have a right to do that, maybe even a duty. A financial payout and liability against Fox is not a guarantee, especially with this supreme court. I want to grill Fox as much as anyone but it's not my dollar at stake. It's theirs. If it were only their dollars at stake, I wouldn't care, but there's so much more at stake than that, so I do care. I don't think a media company should be allowed to use brazen lies to rile up murderous rage in people as a business model, and I would like this court case to be the linchpin to stopping that if at all possible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said: One issue is that of course all media loves Sullivan - so even a liberal bastion like the NYT is running around with their hair on fire at the thought of it being circumscribed - but the truth is the US press operated without it for 150 yrs and in the rest of the free world press operates without it just fine. They need to realize that in the US the crisis today for the presss - all press, is credibility, and lack of accountability is what is driving that. Media companies may claim that the only effect to weakening Sullivan will be to intimidate them from doing legitimate investigative journalism because of the risk of being sued, but it is much, much more likely that it would be used against companies who use their media vehicles perpetrate lies and threats against enemies of their choosing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 2 minutes ago, chasfh said: If it were only their dollars at stake, I wouldn't care, but there's so much more at stake than that, so I do care. I don't think a media company should be allowed to use brazen lies to rile up murderous rage in people as a business model, and I would like this court case to be the linchpin to stopping that if at all possible. I don't either but this is a civil suit, not a criminal one. Are you willing to fork over some $$ to Dominion to cover any of their damages for doing the honorable thing and risk getting paid in a timely manner, if at all? Even with a conviction nothing really would change. It would be an confirmation of what everybody knows but they will just go about doing what they are now. A civil conviction has no mechanism to make them change their ways other than threats of future lawsuits by somebody. The law can't do anything. What they did isn't technically a crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 On 4/11/2023 at 10:10 AM, oblong said: My mother in law will not be happy if her next car doesn't have AM. I can already hear the complaining. "Patriot Radio" Any AM channel that is still making money is going to be able to find a FM frequency. She might have to go to your kids to have them update the preset in her car, but that's going to be the majority of the pain point for the vast majority of AM listeners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 2 minutes ago, oblong said: I don't either but this is a civil suit, not a criminal one. Are you willing to fork over some $$ to Dominion to cover any of their damages for doing the honorable thing and risk getting paid in a timely manner, if at all? Even with a conviction nothing really would change. It would be an confirmation of what everybody knows but they will just go about doing what they are now. A civil conviction has no mechanism to make them change their ways other than threats of future lawsuits by somebody. The law can't do anything. What they did isn't technically a crime. Are they going to ask me to help pay the Dominion settlement? I didn't know they could do that. If they asked me, I would have to say no. I know that we have evolved into assuming that nothing can ever change when this sort of momentous event comes up, but I am hoping against naive hope that somehow this will be different, in that it might spur tougher regulation or even legislation, stemming from a change in the interpretation of Sullivan. I understand that's a long, long shot, but then, so was winning the 2006 AL pennant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 18 minutes ago, chasfh said: Are they going to ask me to help pay the Dominion settlement? I didn't know they could do that. If they asked me, I would have to say no. I know that we have evolved into assuming that nothing can ever change when this sort of momentous event comes up, but I am hoping against naive hope that somehow this will be different, in that it might spur tougher regulation or even legislation, stemming from a change in the interpretation of Sullivan. I understand that's a long, long shot, but then, so was winning the 2006 AL pennant. What I meant was if after all of this Dominion ends up with nothing after the Roberts court overturns anything are you going to help them recover their costs since they did what you wanted them to do instead of taking the settlement money? Dominion is owned by private equity and well..... they are not in it for the honor. Any settlement short of giving Fox what they deserve would be disappointing to me. But I'd understand their reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 23 minutes ago, oblong said: What I meant was if after all of this Dominion ends up with nothing after the Roberts court overturns anything are you going to help them recover their costs since they did what you wanted them to do instead of taking the settlement money? Dominion is owned by private equity and well..... they are not in it for the honor. Any settlement short of giving Fox what they deserve would be disappointing to me. But I'd understand their reasoning. No, of course I won't, because Dominion are not doing this on my behalf or at my behest, so I have no obligation to help make them whole. Even so, I am still rooting for them to not settle and to instead take Fox all the way through trial, regardless of what it costs them and despite my not having any direct stake in it. I actually think Dominion has already won a lot even so far. They have gotten the judge to make summary judgments on the facts of the case so they do not even have to argue that they are true anymore. They are, and that really limits what Fox can argue going forward. I'm just hoping they don't conclude that's enough winning so let's take the settlement. I want them to earn the billion-six through trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, chasfh said: Media companies may claim that the only effect to weakening Sullivan will be to intimidate them from doing legitimate investigative journalism because of the risk of being sued, but it is much, much more likely that it would be used against companies who use their media vehicles perpetrate lies and threats against enemies of their choosing. The truth is that if not for Sullivan, Trump would never have become President because Obama could have sued him and stopped his lying on the air long before 2016. If that's not an outcome that would have been better for America, I don't know what is. And from that it follows to me that if the Constitution was created as a vehicle to create a government that would make law "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" then I can't think of a law/legal precedent anymore more useful to be revised than Sullivan. Also, on purely techical grounds, the internet has also made the very idea of a 'public figure' meaningless. Any of us can become 'public' - as in known by half the world- in an afternoon via TicTok or Twitter. It's simply not a useful paradigm for a legal distinction anymore. Edited April 17, 2023 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Also, on purely techical grounds, the internet has also made the very idea of a 'public figure' meaningless. Any of us can become 'public' - as in known by half the world- in an afternoon via TicTok or Twitter. It's simply not a useful paradigm for a legal distinction anymore. I would think there'd be some narrow definition of "public figure" that would include the person trading somehow on their fame. You or I, as mopes posting on a political forum, couldn't be considered "public figures" for this purpose, could we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted April 17, 2023 Share Posted April 17, 2023 (edited) 19 minutes ago, chasfh said: I would think there'd be some narrow definition of "public figure" that would include the person trading somehow on their fame. You or I, as mopes posting on a political forum, couldn't be considered "public figures" for this purpose, could we? But what is the purpose of the exemption in the first place? I think it's the idea that the 'public figure' is a person placed with the resouces to get out his own message. But that thinking is based on world view where communication is a constrained resource. Today's technology has turned that completely upside down. Today the larger problem - at least in the US - is not the opportunity to speak, it's the impossbiity of being heard over the malicious generation of opposing noise. Communication regulation once had to be aimed at providing or protecting the basic opportunity to speak, today it's much more important for communication regulation to maintain the health of the information eco-system by controlling the pernicious noise level that makes the right to speak in and of itself trivially useless. I think this kind of thinking is very mind-bending to Americans because it's a shift from long accepted truth, but the world does change. The idea that you could regulate someone's personal use of their private real property was once just as outre' - until the world become so polluted it began to kill us and we realized that your absolute freedom to use your property ends when the air and water on it moves off it. We need to think about *why* we protected free speech in the first place - it was to support and protect the the body politic's ability to reach reality based political decisions. When we find ourselves in a world where 'media' as an industry is actually acting antithetically to ithe increase in the public's understanding of reality and the thus the quality of political decision making, we need to start re-thinking what we think we know as true. Edited April 17, 2023 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted April 18, 2023 Share Posted April 18, 2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted April 18, 2023 Share Posted April 18, 2023 Possibly another trial to keep an eye on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ronz Posted April 18, 2023 Share Posted April 18, 2023 Settlement! Dominion needed to sue Trump. Fox argued that it was merely reporting newsworthy allegations made by a sitting president. The judge ruled those claims to be false and issued a summary judgement for Dominion. Thus, everything Trump said was false. Great but it proves nothing. Obviously, it was not reported by Fox nor was it covered well by MSM. Had Dominion sued Trump and won a summary judgement in the exact same way and Fox still refused to cover it - it would have been more apparent that they were/are lying. https://the2020election.org/trump-voting-machine-quotes/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted April 18, 2023 Share Posted April 18, 2023 ****ing **** on a stick. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted April 18, 2023 Share Posted April 18, 2023 Next thing you know Dominion is going to sell the business to Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatkoVarda Posted April 18, 2023 Share Posted April 18, 2023 the PE firm that owns Dominion is in business to make $. they did just that. now comes Smartmatic suit against Fox. Maybe this time they settle before getting humiliated further during discovery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatkoVarda Posted April 18, 2023 Share Posted April 18, 2023 $787,500,000.00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted April 18, 2023 Share Posted April 18, 2023 Not too surprised except that it came now. Unless Fox panicked and upped their offer. As I said I can’t blame dominion. Their responsibility is to themselves. If you as a business sue for defamation then the resolution is a business resolution. It’s not their job to fix the political media landscape. (I stole that sentence from twitter) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.