Skip to main content

Fox Settled, and We Need to Get Over It

It was a beautiful fantasy. Tucker in tears. Hannity smirkless. Ingraham gagging on her mea culpa, which we all wanted to hear set to music. The mere thought of Rupert Murdoch withering under oath had us all aswoon.

No question, the trial would have been a hoot. But hey, Fox settled. They took the hit.

So now that we're past our reflexive indignation, let's take a moment to savor just how big a hit they took, and to understand that the hits will keep on coming for quite some time.

There is little upside here for Fox. Yes, they live to fight another day — which was always going to happen, no matter what. Yes, they save themselves the humiliation of seeing Murdoch and Bartiromo grilled on a spit in open court — which would have been fun, but not especially helpful. And yes, there's this icky feeling that the settlement money is being shrugged off as petty cash — which it most certainly is not.

But any way you look at it, Fox has a lot of bad road ahead. They're being squeezed financially — which goes to the core of their very being — and we can be quite sure that it hurts. Not as much as we might like it to, but let's take the win.

The settlement is what it is — the outcome of a civil litigation between two corporations, each with its own business agenda.

For Dominion, it's an unqualified victory. They've suddenly added a staggering cash infusion of $750 million to a company with a market valuation of roughly one-tenth that amount. This was much more than they thought they'd win at trial, their $1.6 billion asking price notwithstanding. I doubt they were expecting such a windfall, but it was the sort of deal few among us would think twice about taking.

Saving democracy was never part of Dominion's litigation strategy, and it would be foolish of us to expect otherwise. They weighed that windfall against a trial that, while promising legally, was a major risk financially. Even with the myriad advantages the judge had bestowed on them, First Amendment litigation is no slam dunk.

A jury is a fickle organism. Even if it found for Dominion, it might have short-changed them on the monetary award. It might have even found for Fox, hard as that is to believe.

So Dominion made an understandable business decision. They took the money, and who could blame them? But let's not lose sight of the fact that in the process, they landed significant blows against the empire.

Their discovery was epic. The contemporaneous records Dominion collected were surely among the juiciest ever assembled in a defamation lawsuit. They stripped the bark off Fox and exposed the underlying rot for all the world to see.

And now, all those evidentiary materials they obtained in discovery — all those emails, texts, and depositions — are forever part of the public record. They're producible in any future court of law, and irrefutable in the press.

So while a trial would have made fabulous theater, there's much to be said for it never having happened. The glass is way more than half full:

Because the trial never happened, there won't be an appeal of the outcome. If the jury had ruled for Dominion, as expected, the subsequent appeals process would have been lavish, expensive, and slow. Fox would have launched appeals, not just of the verdict, but also of the jury award, and of each of the adverse pretrial rulings — the ones that eviscerated every argument Fox had tried to make.

Because the trial never happened, Judge Davis's scathing admonishments of Fox from the bench are now enshrined in the public record. They can't be reversed or contradicted on appeal.

Because the trial never happened, Fox has basically pleaded "no contest" to everything Dominion has accused them of. There is now no way for Fox to refute or back away from any part of that. No court of law will ever be able to overlook the documented falsehoods that Fox has legally admitted to.

Because the trial never happened, Fox is stuck with a gob-smacking financial obligation that — fun fact — they've already paid. That settlement will not be subject to appeal, and Dominion has already cashed the check.

Because the trial never happened, no new legal ground had to be broken. No precedents needed to be set, which is probably a good thing. First Amendment law isn't well equipped to handle the issues raised by a propaganda channel masquerading as a news organization. Legal minds on both the left and right will be arguing that the bar is too high for proving defamation — that it should be much easier to sue a media company. It's an idea that has some appeal, until you realize it puts you on the same side as Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Which brings us to one of the very best things about this settlement:

Because the trial never happened, the case will never reach the Supreme Court. Need I say more?

If the glass still isn't full enough for you, you can consider all the delicious litigation still on deck. The Smartmatic suit will be a monster, and Fox will face, more or less, the same set of decisions they faced with Dominion.

And don't forget the shareholder actions, which are just getting started. These will involve Fox stockholders suing the board of directors over corporate governance issues. They'll be claiming that the board breached its fiduciary duties, leaving the company financially vulnerable. Any shareholder group could theoretically demand damages in almost any amount. And a judge could theoretically remove the Murdochs, Paul Ryan, and anyone else from the board.

And that's just what we're hearing in the first week since the settlement. You can bet there are dozens of hot-shit litigation firms staying up late, thinking through all the legal angles as we speak.

Which is not to say this is a great victory for democracy. The Murdochs will not be chastened. They'll have to tweak a few business practices, but the basic model still works. There are plenty of ways to lie without defaming someone, and Fox is proficient in all of them.

Still, Dominion has done us a service, and they've marked out a path for others to follow. This settlement may not change Fox's business model, but it will make it a lot more expensive to sustain.

Almost on cue, I am now hearing that Fox has fired Tucker Carlson. The pundits are abuzz with speculation about why, and there's a whole constellation of possible reasons. But for me, just free associating, the first thing that comes to mind is money. Not that it's a cost-cutting measure alone — I'm sure there's more to it — but when it comes to the Murdochs, never doubt that money is, indeed, an object.

After all, they can buy ten bigoted, misogynist, homophobic blowhards for the price of one Tucker. As long as they're cutting their losses, why not cut that one?




  1. Nicely stated. Fox doesn't understand the rope-a-dope; the are clearly on the ropes.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warning: Red States may be Hazardous to your Health

In late September, a Nebraska woman was sentenced to two years in prison for helping her daughter obtain abortion pills. The case was less about abortion than about some bizarre behavior regarding the burial of the fetal remains, but this is still appalling on any number of levels. Even so, that’s not what piqued my interest. Rather, I was drawn to one curious footnote to the story, and I’ve heard nothing about it since. Apparently, the judge in the case had ordered the woman to undergo a psychological evaluation prior to sentencing. Presumably, the results might have helped to mitigate her sentence. Which sounds reasonable, perhaps even routine. But that evaluation never happened. It was, strangely, “cancelled due to lack of funding.” Huh? A person whose future may have hinged on that evaluation was denied it because the state couldn’t afford it? How underfunded are we talking? How many other people moving through the Nebraska judicial system haven’t rece

The Media Wakes Up and Smells the Fascism

  A funny thing happened on the way to the 2024 horserace. The mainstream media brought Hitler into the conversation. Trump gave them no choice. He kept amping up his rants in terms that were so explicitly Nazi, so lifted — practically verbatim — from Hitler’s speeches, that it was hard for them to keep ignoring what they’ve willfully ignored for so long. When Trump used the word ‘vermin’ in his Veteran’s Day speech , he was taking a whole chapter from the fascism playbook. Whether he knew it or not. Dehumanization — the art of equating human beings with insects — is a classic stochastic terrorism technique, beloved of dictators the world over. In Rwanda in the nineties, the Hutu tribe openly called its rival Tutsis “cockroaches” on the radio, inciting its members to exterminate them with machetes, which they did. We’ll probably never know who actually wrote the Vermin speech — Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon are likely suspects — but we can be sure it wasn’t T

Things Have Been Too Cheap for Too Long

  Once upon a time, gasoline cost roughly 35 cents a gallon. That halcyon era came to an abrupt halt during the Carter administration, when oil-rich Arab states severely constricted our petroleum supply, causing hours-long lines at the gas pump that are still fresh in the memory of anyone who was there. When the dust cleared, gas was four times more expensive, and now we count ourselves lucky if it’s only ten times that long-ago price. But we did get over it, more or less. We learned to live with it. Around that time, some pundit I can’t remember said something that has stuck with me ever since. To paraphrase, “This country was built on cheap energy and cheap labor, and we’re running out of both.” It stuck with me because it’s even truer now than it was then. This despite the best efforts of corporate interests — and their Republican flunkies in government — to do all they can to keep both energy and labor as cheap as possible. For several decades, they made