Posted on Jan 23, 2023
Fox News' defense in defamation suit invokes debunked election-fraud claims
496
35
7
12
12
0
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/23/ [login to see] /fox-news-dominion-voting-system-election-fraud-claims
Fox News' attorneys have set out the starkest defense yet against the accusation the network defamed an election-technology company when it broadcast false claims that the company had cheated then-President Donald Trump of victory in the 2020 election.
The overwhelming majority of Fox's argument was made in sealed motions filed last week asking the presiding judge to dismiss Dominion Voting Systems' $1.6 billion suit before it is to go to trial in April. Yet in supplementary public filings, the contours of the Fox team's reasoning emerge more sharply in focus.
Of the approximately 115 statements on Fox by its hosts and guests that Dominion contends are defamatory, Fox News wrote in its filing, "there is not a single statement for which Dominion can prove every element of its claim for defamation."
Fox and Dominion did not comment for this story.
Fox News' attorneys have set out the starkest defense yet against the accusation the network defamed an election-technology company when it broadcast false claims that the company had cheated then-President Donald Trump of victory in the 2020 election.
The overwhelming majority of Fox's argument was made in sealed motions filed last week asking the presiding judge to dismiss Dominion Voting Systems' $1.6 billion suit before it is to go to trial in April. Yet in supplementary public filings, the contours of the Fox team's reasoning emerge more sharply in focus.
Of the approximately 115 statements on Fox by its hosts and guests that Dominion contends are defamatory, Fox News wrote in its filing, "there is not a single statement for which Dominion can prove every element of its claim for defamation."
Fox and Dominion did not comment for this story.
Fox News' defense in defamation suit invokes debunked election-fraud claims
Posted from npr.org
Fox News Channel
Donald Trump
Election 2020
Fraud
Conspiracy Theories
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
4
4
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel good day Brother William, always informational and of the most interesting. Thanks for sharing, have a blessed day!
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
Article Quote: “Fox and Dominion did not comment for this story.”. This begs the question: How does NPR get its news?
Oh my! The dreaded “debunked claims”!!!
Oh my! The dreaded “debunked claims”!!!
(2)
(0)
SP5 Dennis Loberger
Pleadings filed by both sides with the courts pretrial are public documents and available to all who wish to see them.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I suppose what is good for the goose… Article Quote: “Fox News' legal team does not defend them as correct. Instead, its filings suggest that the Fox stars relaying them on the air reflected an appropriate journalistic response to stark claims about the functioning of American democracy, as they involve "questions to a newsmaker on newsworthy subjects" or they "accurately report on pending allegations."”
I seem to remember all the major news networks saying there is a lot of smoke with Russia colluding with Trump… and it needs to be looked into. As a matter of fact it must be looked into… and it was, and was found completely false and Russia had no bearing of the election. I don’t remember any of those news organizations were sued, because it would be stupid. If you want to hold all media outlets to the same standard, I say Outstanding!!! Bring it on. If not, shove off. Not to you, to them. :)
As I said… what’s good for the goose. :)
I seem to remember all the major news networks saying there is a lot of smoke with Russia colluding with Trump… and it needs to be looked into. As a matter of fact it must be looked into… and it was, and was found completely false and Russia had no bearing of the election. I don’t remember any of those news organizations were sued, because it would be stupid. If you want to hold all media outlets to the same standard, I say Outstanding!!! Bring it on. If not, shove off. Not to you, to them. :)
As I said… what’s good for the goose. :)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
PV2 Larry Sellnow
..."Didn't stand up to the light of day"
Eddie Perez, board member at the OSET Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan outfit advocating for reliable and transparent election technology, calls the claims about Dominion that were amplified by Fox hosts and peddled by its guests "outlandish."
"If anything, because they were so outlandish, they immediately attracted widespread attention and were debunked," Perez says. "They instantly didn't stand up to the light of day."
In countering Dominion, Fox's lawyers offer a chart of offending statements and what it termed the "omitted context" that could explain why the material was newsworthy, why the Fox hosts' treatment of it was responsible, and then why it was not defamatory.
The network's lawyers write, as they have before, that Fox was merely relaying inherently newsworthy claims by Trump and his surrogates. The lawyers contend the supposedly defamatory statements often involved hyperbolic characterizations or mere opinions. (Fox attorneys previously fended off an unrelated defamation lawsuit against star Tucker Carlson filed by a woman who had an affair with Trump by arguing no one believes that what the Fox star says is literally true.)
Further, Fox's attorneys say many of the claims under dispute were true, or largely true. And the network says Dominion cannot prove "actual malice" – a tough legal standard requiring it to show Fox's journalists and executives acted either with knowledge that what it was broadcasting wasn't true or with reckless disregard."...
..."Didn't stand up to the light of day"
Eddie Perez, board member at the OSET Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan outfit advocating for reliable and transparent election technology, calls the claims about Dominion that were amplified by Fox hosts and peddled by its guests "outlandish."
"If anything, because they were so outlandish, they immediately attracted widespread attention and were debunked," Perez says. "They instantly didn't stand up to the light of day."
In countering Dominion, Fox's lawyers offer a chart of offending statements and what it termed the "omitted context" that could explain why the material was newsworthy, why the Fox hosts' treatment of it was responsible, and then why it was not defamatory.
The network's lawyers write, as they have before, that Fox was merely relaying inherently newsworthy claims by Trump and his surrogates. The lawyers contend the supposedly defamatory statements often involved hyperbolic characterizations or mere opinions. (Fox attorneys previously fended off an unrelated defamation lawsuit against star Tucker Carlson filed by a woman who had an affair with Trump by arguing no one believes that what the Fox star says is literally true.)
Further, Fox's attorneys say many of the claims under dispute were true, or largely true. And the network says Dominion cannot prove "actual malice" – a tough legal standard requiring it to show Fox's journalists and executives acted either with knowledge that what it was broadcasting wasn't true or with reckless disregard."...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google