Ah ok, ignorance fought.
Isn’t that because contract enforcement is generally easier to litigate? But there’s nothing preventing restarting the original lawsuit.
It depends on the language of the settlement and how the court is handling it. Usually, the case is dismissed with prejudice after a settlement in finalized. I like to wait until the check clears before the court dismissed the case, just so the judge still has jurisdiction over the defendant. In theory, you could try to void the settlement for non-payment and get back on the trial calendar. Most plaintiffs, once they agree to terms, would rather enforce those terms than go back to court on the underlying case.
Sometimes, in this period between an “agreement” and the final paper work getting drafted and signed, things fall apart. In cases I’ve seen, the parties go back to court and argue about what the agreement was, rather than argue the agreement is void.
So Dominion settled with Fox and got an enormous payout. What impact will this have on Dominion’s other half dozen or so defamation cases pending? These are against much smaller media outlets like OAN or Newsmax, as well as individuals including Rudy Guiliani, Mike Lindell, and Sydney Powell? Their pockets are nowhere near as deep, so what does Dominion hope to get from them?
Bankruptcies.
That sounds like fun - mikes and cameras first might be an idea.
could dominion buy ad time on fox and just put up various things that came out in discovery? i thinking during tucker’s show, just put up his texts, calls, emails, etc as a commercial, so his viewers see what he really thinks about them and their causes.
Fox would be under no obligation to accept Dominion’s ad spend, or place those ads on their shows.
Dominion could, hypothetically, buy ad space on Fox through local cable operators – which insert ads over the place of ads being run on the network feed (but which are only seen by local viewers who are watching that network on their cable service), and over which the network has no direct control.
Getting a settlement and the timing was a near perfect strategic move for Dominion, IMHO. The pre-trial publicity was great for them, showing the blatant dishonesty on the part of Fox. Any trial would also have been excellent anti-Fox/right wing publicity until the final award which would almost certainly be overturned by the banana-republic SCOTUS and give the momentum right back to Fox and their fascist endorsing BS.
Suing someone while you are sitting on almost $800M in cash is a pretty good spot to be in. You can definitly outspend and outlast them. And their Fox friends will not be there to aid in their defense, known and admitted liars that they are. If they do they could open themselves up for civil suits.
Saving my popcorn for the next show.
I don’t think Dominion is done with their efforts to stop this smear against their company. A byproduct of this is that Fox will be outed somewhat as the propaganda network they are. I wish them every success in their battles!
But as was well noted by @Princhester in another thread in the post below, fixing this Fox problem is not the responsibility of Dominion.
We have a hell of a fight on our hands. I’d like to see more Americans wake up to the deleterious effect of propaganda on our population from all sources – and there are a lot. Fox is only one of those. If we can’t recognize and overcome this, I fear we are lost as a nation. But this isn’t the thread for the discussion. I may start another when I have time.
Glad Dominion is getting a metric shit-ton of ol’ Rupert’s money, but very sorry there’s no public, and prominent, admission of guilt by Fox News. I certainly understand why Dominion would agree to the deal, though, for the reasons already noted by others.
Not that they would spend their money in this manner, but does anyone have any idea how many hours of ad time on local feeds three quarters of a billion dollars could buy?
Would it have made any difference, though? The people who would believe their admission of guilt already know it. The people who don’t know it already wouldn’t listen.
While Murdoch testimony may have been better than an episode of Succession, we should abandon the idea that a single trial full of embarrassing details would change beliefs about a stolen 2020 election. Even if Fox agreed to a two-minute on-air crow eating by Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson, it would not have moved the needle. In poll after poll, the base of the Republican Party continues to express belief in a stolen 2020 election, a message that was repeated not just by Fox but by Trump himself, on television, social media, and elsewhere. It is supported by a constellation of grifty people lying about the American election system for profit and political power. Indeed, when Fox was the first out of the box to call the 2020 election for Biden after their decision desk determined he was going to win in Arizona, Fox viewers did not suddenly accept Biden’s victory; they instead switched over to One America News Network or Newsmax to hear happier lies.
PLEASE… Smartmatic… don’t settle!
Now I’m imagining Dominion as Mr. Miyagi, coaching young Smartmatic-san on what to do next.
That GIF is genius.
MeidasTouch breaks down how many lawsuits FOX has lost in the past. Back to 2010. I lost track of the total. But my favorite is the “Coupon Insert War” $500 mill for coupons!
There was a (slightly) weird interview of the CEO of Dominion by CNN’s Jake Tapper. I do not want to say it was combative but Tapper was pressing the CEO and the CEO was being a little evasive (as is very common).
The CEO said he did not believe an apology was useful (paraphrasing). He said defamation law is not built around apologies. It is meant to compensate for damages.
For some reason the board kept stopping me from editing this. To be clear:
I do not mean it is common for the Dominion CEO specifically but just a common way most CEOs talk when being interviewed. Evasiveness seems usual for most of them.