A recent survey by media analytics firm Maru Group revealed that 42 percent of respondents who said that they watch Fox confessed that they trusted the network less as a result of the Dominion lawsuit.
The data revealed 45 percent of Fox viewers said that they still trust the network, whereas 21 percent of viewers said they trust the network less, and 11 percent no longer trust the network.
Yes, but do they not trust the network because it has been lying to them, causing them to seek out more trustworthy news sources, or do they not trust them because it hasn’t been telling them what they want to hear, causing them to seek out even less trustworthy news sources?
I’m sure it’s the latter. They’re resorting to podcasts to get the “news” they want to hear.
How does 21% + 11% add up to 42% ?
It’s The Answer to The Question Of Life, The Universe and Everything.
Duh.
Yeah that article is a nearly incomprehensible mishmash of the statistics.
The original variety piece that its based on has data presented much more cleanly.
I did not read it. RawStory tends too much toward abrasive and divisive, but more than that, all the shit in their page coding just pisses me off.
If any Faux viewers are angry at the network, it’s only because key personnel there didn’t believe the election fraud bullshit. They don’t really care that Fox people swallowed what they believed was the truth and told them what the viewers wanted to hear.
Fox outdid itself yesterday with a story about California’s governor being “roasted” for a housing proposal focusing on the homeless.
The basis of the story was that a Fox News host attacked Gov. Newsom’s proposal.
Next up: “President Biden roasted over the economy” - by a Fox employee whose job it is to fetch coffee.
This is an interesting twist:
The Fox employee claims that the company’s lawyers helped shape her testimony in the Dominion matter under false pretenses, with the conscious intent of throwing her under the bus later.
So she was willing to go along with the “misleading testimony” without complaint, until Fox double crossed her?
It’s Fox. There are no heroes, only monsters who should be encouraged to tear each other apart.
Thumbs up on the post/avatar resonance.
War Of The Monsters? But they’re all Oxygen Destroyers! It would be so dull.
My wife and I were watching reruns of MASH today, and I released that Tucker Carlson laughs just like Frank Burns. Good ol’ ferret face.
Fox: DENIED!
Dominion: PARTIALLY GRANTED!
Hah! I privately called this one. 
Excellent!!!
So, as understand it, it’s no longer a question about whether Fox lied – the jury will be told that Fox knowing lied (that may be redundant). The question is whether there was malice.
Do I have that right?
You have that right.
The easiest way to think about motions for summary judgment is this:
By the Defendant (commonly done): “Your honor, the Plaintiff’s case is so weak, we don’t need to take up the court’s or a jury’s valuable time with a trial! You can decide right here, based on the evidence presented in our motion.” These are almost always denied.
By the Plaintiff (rarely done): “Your honor, our evidence is so strong, we don’t need to take up the court’s or a jury’s valuable time with a trial! You can decide right here, based on the evidence presented in our motion.” These are almost non-existent.
In the Dominion case, the judge denied Fox’s motion in full (predictable). He granted Dominion’s motion that the facts demonstrating they were harmed are not in dispute (huge win and rare!).
But whether Fox imposed that harm while they willfully knew and ignored the actual truth is at issue, so that part will go to trial.
I’ll stress again how rare it is for a summary judgment motion to be brought by a Plaintiff, let alone granted. Their evidence must be bulletproof. The malicious aspect of the case is what will determine punitive damages, if any. So this issue is of great importance to both sides.
The trial starts on April 18th. I’m looking forward to it. We’ll see definitively what lying fucks Fox “News” really are.
That’s grounds for Fox to appeal, yes? What are their chances of success, and how would that affect the trial for the “actual malice” part?