Dominion had sued for 1,6 billion, it got 787,5 million, about half. From a game theoretical POV, if they judged their chances to win to be 50% or less, settling is a sensible strategy. And they get the money now, not after years of appeals.
Am I disappointed that they did not fight to the end, to sink Fox NewZZ for good? Yes, of course, as a matter of principle. Making Rupert Morlock a poor man and a pariah is a wet dream of mine (won’t happen, as most of my wet dreams, but hey…!). But that is not Dominion’s job, it is the American system (legal, political and social) that has to do that. I won’t go into the technicalities of the first amendment, IANAL, I am not even an American: that was a chance to sink Fox NewZZ for good - maybe - but Dominion had other legitimate priorities. Fair enough. Now others must sink Fox NewZZ, or not. And if Fox NewZZ is sunk, then the Americans must see to it that no one else takes the torch from where they fall. That will be hard, even assuming the felling happens, because the market for lies and chauvinism is there and it is a lucrative one.
So, do I celebrate the outcome? Nnnnnn…no, not really. Disappointed? A bit. But Fox NewZZ is not in the clear yet, so there is still hope. Other cases are pending, more may come. But I accept that Dominion has no moral duty to solve the problem the USA has put itself into with the spurious interpretation now in force of the first amendment.
I can just imagine the reactions by various Fox hosts to a management request that they fall on their swords for the good of the company.
Legally, they sort of have to maintain a position of innocence because they have further cases coming down the pipeline that they’re going to need to defend. If they concede too much, publicly, that will be used against them in the following suits.
Not quite so simple - it’s not a binary outcome of win $1.7B or lose. A likely outcome would have been winning significantly less than the original $1.7B. So the game theory would suggest settling was the best option even with significantly higher odds of winning.
Dominion is a business. It has other lawsuits, if that is part of their current business. They were wise to take a settlement, guaranteeing oodles of money now. Lawsuits are unpredictable, damages on appeal more so.
The release of transcripts has already damaged the credibility of its lead journalists. If Dominion was seeking to damage Fox, already done. Given that, Fox did not want its executives nor lead journalists to undergo further embarrassing testimony.
Game theory is a fascinating and complex subject, but I think you are reinforcing my point.
Similarly, MTG does not understand the difference between “criticize” and “defame”.
So, hypothetically, suppose that the terms of the settlement contract say “Fox must pay $X and publicly apologize and admit that their claims were lies, and in return Dominion will drop their suit”. I imagine that the contract had to explicitly require some sort of public admission, or Fox wouldn’t even have said what little they did.
If the contract did require a statement, what happens if the statement didn’t actually meet the terms of the contract? Notably, Fox never admitted that they lied. They never even admitted that the statements were untrue. All they admitted was that the court found that the statements were untrue. Could Dominion pocket the settlement money and then continue their lawsuit anyway?
I’m sure that statement was vetted and agreed upon and that exact statement had to be released.
I would have expected so, but why would Dominion’s lawyers accept such a weak statement?
Because they are more interested in the money than the wording. They have already damaged credibility, who cares if the wording is soft?
Because Dominion’s lawyer’s have Dominion’s interests at heart, not the USA’s interests. And what matters most to Dominion’s interests, is that Dominion gets the money and a piece of paper from Fox saying “We lied” that they can show to any future Dominion customers or would-be customers.
To date has there been any concrete evidence presented that Dominion machines are rigged or even inaccurate?
My old bean counter’s brain says that this is something that a few random audits would clarify. And another reason for believing that fraud claims are based on ignorance of how things work.
If there is genuine fraud occurring, it’s not happening at the vote counting level imho.
I believe the judge had told the jurors that the stories of the voting machines failing were absolutely not true.
Was the case to decide if Fox News lied and therefore defamed Dominion or was the jury working on the assumption that Fox News did lie and the case was to determine if those lies constituted defamation?
It was accepted that statements about voting machine problems were lies. The case was to determine if Fox told those lies (versus reporting on the lies), and if they did so with malice, meaning they knew the statements were lies when they made them.
I shouldn’t be surprised, but her statement seems unusually stupid, even for her. It’s one thing for a food critic to say “the mashed potatoes were cold and tasteless,” and quite another to say “they actually put poison in the cocktails.”
Primarily for the reasons others mentioned. But on top of that, what would have changed if Fox made a different statement? Whose mind would have been changed? All the information is already out there for people who are open to it.
I would hope that seeing them admit to lying on their own network would change the minds of some people who are not open to it.
I don’t think “Jewish space laser” lady understands much of anything. Criticizing a restaurant is saying “I didn’t like their food”. Defaming a restaurant is saying “they make their steaks out of compressed cockroaches” (bonus points if you say it on national television). Fox understands the difference, but has to pretend that defamation is just “journalism in a free country”. They have to do this not only because of the defamation suits, but because lying is their business model.