Fox News Legal Defense Not News
Carlson has been accused in the past of exaggerated, vicious, and unsubstantiated claims about women, people of color, and immigrants. This year, his audience made his show the highest-rated show in cable news history. He retains the support of Fox Corp.`s Executive Chairman and CEO, Lachlan Murdoch. Fox News is currently facing a defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems, alleging that Fox`s coverage of the 2020 election fueled baseless conspiracy theories about Dominion voting machines. While the argument that some of the reports were opinions was part of Fox`s legal defense, the network`s lawyers argued that sharing the Dominion`s conspiracy theories was part of a “neutral reporting” of public figures` allegations and a “fair report” of the lawsuits. But perhaps the most biting — and perhaps the most legally important — part of the judgment concerns Carlson. I hate Mr. Carlson very much, and I pretty much dug up John Stewart. But in the end, it was also Stewart`s defense, whenever he brought something patently false and defamatory to the public.
Stewart hosted a comedy show and anyone who used it as a source of information simply wasn`t painting with a box full of pencils. What he liked was laughter, quotes and one-liners. Fox`s defense is that its shows are protected by the First Amendment, which has been systematically interpreted by the courts to allow news outlets to publish lies about public figures as long as it is not done knowingly and there is no reckless disregard for the truth. Fox says he did not support conspiracy theories about the election, but only allowed people to tell the lies, including their hosts. However, a Delaware judge who rejected the network`s motion to dismiss the lawsuit last year noted that “the court may conclude that Fox intended to avoid the truth” and ruled that the case should continue. In summary, Fox News lawyers mocked the legal case of McDougal`s legal team. She stated that “a reasonable viewer of ordinary intelligence hears or watches the show. would conclude that [she] is a criminal who blackmailed Trump for money” and that “the statements about her were facts.” Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and his legal team (Reuters/Michael A. McCoy) Vyskocil`s decision last week rejecting a defamation lawsuit against Carlson was a victory for Fox, First Amendment principles and the media in general, as Fox News itself claims. For legal reasons, the judge ruled that Karen McDougal, the woman suing Carlson, could not overcome the challenge. For more Slate news, subscribe to What Next on Apple Podcasts or listen below. As the 2022 midterm elections approach, lies about the 2020 race remain louder than ever, with Trump and his allies continuing to undermine Joe Biden`s decisive victory and conscientious objectors ready to appear on the ballot in dozens of states.
And part of the impact of the last presidential election is still playing out in the courts, in disputes that could decide whether several conservative media outlets (Fox News, One America News, Newsmax) are responsible for bolstering fabricated claims or whether their actions are protected by the First Amendment and other legal privileges. Media lawyers note that this is not the first time this type of defense has been offered. A $10 million defamation lawsuit filed by One America News Network owners against MSNBC star Rachel Maddow was dismissed in May when the judge ruled that she had properly expanded the established facts: “The context of Maddow`s testimony shows that reasonable viewers would consider the controversial statement to be opinion.” I understand what you`re saying, but Jon Stewart is a comedian and his show was on the Comedy Channel. No one turned it on because they were expecting a news show. While Fox News describes itself as a news network and Carlson is a commentator. The Fox team`s legal briefs compared Carlson`s show to radio talk shows hosted by former MSNBC and Fox Business star Don Imus, who won a lawsuit more than two decades ago because an appeals court ruled that “the impugned statements would not have been interpreted by reasonable listeners as statements of fact, but simply as cases in which the defendant radio hosts expressed their opinions in a crude and exaggerated manner. Over the air has become their verbal stock in the trade over the years. The problem is not that these people publish fiery political comments disguised as news. It`s that the audience can`t tell the difference and doesn`t care to try. Then, these newz/entertainment/sh*tshow programs should have a disclaimer at the beginning stating that they are for entertainment purposes only and should not be confused with news based on real facts. MSNBC should have it day and night.
“No one turned it on because they were expecting a news show.” In fact, polls have shown that a high percentage of young viewers get their “news” from Stewart. McCarthy said the key to the Bannon case, however, could be the legal challenge he would consider, in which the former Breitbart executive claimed President Trump had protected him with executive privilege — a defense the Trump-appointed judge refused to present to the jury in the case. In the ruling, the judge specifically removed Fox host Jeanine Pirro and Trump`s former attorney, Sidney Powell, from the trial — Pirro, because their testimony did not directly accuse Smartmatic of illegality, and Powell, because New York has no jurisdiction over them. Carlson is a commentator, not a journalist. No one thinks he is giving an unbiased point of view. And maybe people didn`t think Stewart was a journalist, but probably half of the people I knew at the time used him as their only source of information. Carlson does news analysis, not news. Fox only has a few news shows. Like CNN and MSNBC. Buyers beware. That`s why I`m watching Bluey.
Carlson even attacked the chief news anchor of his own network, with no real consequences. That presenter, Shepard Smith, resigned in the middle of the contract shortly after Carlson sued him. “If it were up to Fox, the more `newsworthy` the lie, the greater its right to spread it. However, the First Amendment does not give broadcasters the right to knowingly spread lies or disregard the truth,” a Dominion spokesman said in a statement. As our complaint claims, Fox decided to sell a fake story about Dominion to support its criticism. Now, by falsely invoking the First Amendment, Fox is trying to change the narrative to conceal its complicity – from the highest levels to the levels – knowingly spreading lies. Instead of acting responsibly and showing remorse, Fox instead doubled down by publicly stating that they are proud of their Dominion-related coverage. We are confident that the truth will eventually prevail and we will hold Fox responsible for the enormous and irreparable damage they have caused dominion.
And ironically, that could be bad news for Fox News. Learn more about FindLaw`s newsletters, including our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. This website is protected by reCAPTCHA and Google`s privacy policy and terms of service apply. This article has a seed of truth: Fox News host Tucker Carlson was sued for defamation in 2020 by Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who sold the rights to the story of her affair with Donald Trump to the National Enquirer. Carlson claimed that McDougal tried to extort money from Trump — even though she never asked Trump for money or even approached him. McDougal filed a lawsuit, and in response, Fox`s legal team argued that his comments “cannot reasonably be construed as fact.” On the one hand, the lawsuit makes sense because Murdoch could win in Australian courts. The cost of the trial is objectively substantial, but derisory for a billionaire like him. Crikey, on the other hand, is a small publication and had to launch a fundraising campaign to support his legal efforts. The result is that Fox tries to get his cake legal and eat it too. There is no sign of a settlement at this point, and based on court records (as well as Fox`s decision to hire attorney Dan Webb), the case appears to be able to go to court. It is scheduled to begin in April 2023 in Delaware state court, and two legal issues are likely to receive a lot of attention: the standard of error and the protection of opinion.
