Forums
Fox news defamation case
Quick find code: 23-24-711-66278655
So you're arguing over semantics? Really?
Show you where what happened? The statement released by Fox after the settlement? I'm sure you've read it, it was essentially that they "acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false" - It's a pretty easy statement to read with a little PR wording thrown in there. Or were you expecting Fox to suddenly be credible and honest and outright admit they blatantly lied?
Even at nearly $800m, Fox still saw that settlement as a more cost effective and/or better outcome than going to trial. If they hadn't done anything wrong, why pay so much and not go to trial? There's a reason two parties reach settlements in advance.
What's left to be said? Dominion sued Fox. Fox payed a historical settlement rather than go to trial.
Need support? Support Centre | Forum Help
Show you where what happened? The statement released by Fox after the settlement? I'm sure you've read it, it was essentially that they "acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false" - It's a pretty easy statement to read with a little PR wording thrown in there. Or were you expecting Fox to suddenly be credible and honest and outright admit they blatantly lied?
Even at nearly $800m, Fox still saw that settlement as a more cost effective and/or better outcome than going to trial. If they hadn't done anything wrong, why pay so much and not go to trial? There's a reason two parties reach settlements in advance.
What's left to be said? Dominion sued Fox. Fox payed a historical settlement rather than go to trial.
Joel
Need support? Support Centre | Forum Help
08-May-2023 21:45:42
Joel
said
:
So you're arguing over semantics? Really?
Yes.
se·man·tics
noun
- the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
Joel said :
Show you where what happened? The statement released by Fox after the settlement? I'm sure you've read it, it was essentially that they "acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false" - It's a pretty easy statement to read with a little PR wording thrown in there. What were the court's findings? Were the court findings that Fox News was making false claims, or were the claims that guests that were interviewed on Fox News were making false claims?
Joel said :
Even at nearly $800m, Fox still saw that settlement as a more cost effective and/or better outcome than going to trial. If they hadn't done anything wrong, why pay so much and not go to trial? There's a reason two parties reach settlements in advance. It's not always about money. Sometimes lawsuits are settled to prevent legal precedent from being set. If a legal precedent were set that allowed Media outlets to be sued for the comments made by people they interviewed, that would have detrimental affects of the entire media system.
Sometimes settlements are made based purely on politics, corruption, or greed. Would you settle to pay out $800m if it meant a guaranteed $2b payout in the future?
So you're arguing over semantics? Really?
Yes.
se·man·tics
noun
- the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
Joel said :
Show you where what happened? The statement released by Fox after the settlement? I'm sure you've read it, it was essentially that they "acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false" - It's a pretty easy statement to read with a little PR wording thrown in there. What were the court's findings? Were the court findings that Fox News was making false claims, or were the claims that guests that were interviewed on Fox News were making false claims?
Joel said :
Even at nearly $800m, Fox still saw that settlement as a more cost effective and/or better outcome than going to trial. If they hadn't done anything wrong, why pay so much and not go to trial? There's a reason two parties reach settlements in advance. It's not always about money. Sometimes lawsuits are settled to prevent legal precedent from being set. If a legal precedent were set that allowed Media outlets to be sued for the comments made by people they interviewed, that would have detrimental affects of the entire media system.
Sometimes settlements are made based purely on politics, corruption, or greed. Would you settle to pay out $800m if it meant a guaranteed $2b payout in the future?
08-May-2023 22:10:19 - Last edited on 08-May-2023 22:11:06 by Origin Nexus
Joel
said
:
Seems like an awful lot of money for a company you're trying so hard to defend and seemingly claim did nothing wrong? Your bias is showing. I never made any such claim. Why are you lying about me?
Seems like an awful lot of money for a company you're trying so hard to defend and seemingly claim did nothing wrong? Your bias is showing. I never made any such claim. Why are you lying about me?
08-May-2023 23:53:21
Oh, so we're on the same page then? Fox did lie, they acknowledged as much and as a result, made a huge payout to the company they defamed? Cool.
So where's this dire need to be able to defend Fox from something they don't need defending from given the circumstances? You sure made an issue out of "people" not being able to defend them without being political on the previous page. It's resulted in 2 pages of seemingly pointless discussions.
Need support? Support Centre | Forum Help
So where's this dire need to be able to defend Fox from something they don't need defending from given the circumstances? You sure made an issue out of "people" not being able to defend them without being political on the previous page. It's resulted in 2 pages of seemingly pointless discussions.
Joel
Need support? Support Centre | Forum Help
09-May-2023 00:24:25
Joel
said
:
Oh, so we're on the same page then? Fox did lie, they acknowledged as much and as a result, made a huge payout to the company they defamed? Cool.
You're being disingenuous. I never claimed that. Why are you lying about me?
Joel said :
So where's this dire need to be able to defend Fox from something they don't need defending from given the circumstances? You sure made an issue out of "people" not being able to defend them without being political on the previous page. It's resulted in 2 pages of seemingly pointless discussions. smh... your bias is showing again.
What's your deal?
No one can question your opinions and claims otherwise you deem it as "pointless"? You're making up lies and stating I claimed things I never claimed and being disingenuous, and then imply that I'm being pointless for pointing out certain facts, and asking questions about the topic? Come on dude, don't be like that. This is literally the issue that I pointed out why these kinds of discussions aren't permitted on the forums, and you're demonstrating it exactly.
Rather than telling me what I think, why don't you try asking me what I think?
Oh, so we're on the same page then? Fox did lie, they acknowledged as much and as a result, made a huge payout to the company they defamed? Cool.
You're being disingenuous. I never claimed that. Why are you lying about me?
Joel said :
So where's this dire need to be able to defend Fox from something they don't need defending from given the circumstances? You sure made an issue out of "people" not being able to defend them without being political on the previous page. It's resulted in 2 pages of seemingly pointless discussions. smh... your bias is showing again.
What's your deal?
No one can question your opinions and claims otherwise you deem it as "pointless"? You're making up lies and stating I claimed things I never claimed and being disingenuous, and then imply that I'm being pointless for pointing out certain facts, and asking questions about the topic? Come on dude, don't be like that. This is literally the issue that I pointed out why these kinds of discussions aren't permitted on the forums, and you're demonstrating it exactly.
Rather than telling me what I think, why don't you try asking me what I think?
09-May-2023 00:57:37
Nex, we had practically no issue on this thread until you posted claiming this was "clearly political" and raised an issue with not being able to defend Fox without being political.
It was a fairly non-divisive thread about a lawsuit Fox News had already settled and this thread was created in response to that settlement, not the on-going lawsuit prior to that settlement.
Nothing I've said (addressing the lawsuit/settlement itself) has been an opinion, yet you decided to try challenge it calling what I've said as opinion(s), suggesting it's open to debate or has more than one side;
- Fox got sued in a defamation lawsuit, that's not an opinion - that happened.
- Through the lawsuit we found about private texts from hosts which paints a clear picture of their "off-air" views on the subject which differed from what they said "on-air" - That also happened. Not an opinion.
- Before the trial was due to start, Fox decided to settle the lawsuit for a historic amount of money. That happened. Not an opinion.
- Fox in a statement as part of the settlement acknowledged that there were claims made on their network (which they're ultimately responsible for) that were false. Also happened, not an opinion.
If you can point out exactly what I've said that goes beyond the reality and outcome of what actually happened (which would be an opinion), I'm all ears
I'm not telling you what you think, I'm commenting on what you've posted and the impression that gives off. You could just contribute to the thread constructively right from the get go with what you think and what your views are on the settlement (as is the topic of this thread) rather than dance around the topic at hand, raise concerns with non-issues and not discuss the topic at hand.
I don't think you or anyone needs to skirt an issue and not post their views until explicitly asked - that just seems like a waste of time and is un-constructive to a thread.
Need support? Support Centre | Forum Help
It was a fairly non-divisive thread about a lawsuit Fox News had already settled and this thread was created in response to that settlement, not the on-going lawsuit prior to that settlement.
Nothing I've said (addressing the lawsuit/settlement itself) has been an opinion, yet you decided to try challenge it calling what I've said as opinion(s), suggesting it's open to debate or has more than one side;
- Fox got sued in a defamation lawsuit, that's not an opinion - that happened.
- Through the lawsuit we found about private texts from hosts which paints a clear picture of their "off-air" views on the subject which differed from what they said "on-air" - That also happened. Not an opinion.
- Before the trial was due to start, Fox decided to settle the lawsuit for a historic amount of money. That happened. Not an opinion.
- Fox in a statement as part of the settlement acknowledged that there were claims made on their network (which they're ultimately responsible for) that were false. Also happened, not an opinion.
If you can point out exactly what I've said that goes beyond the reality and outcome of what actually happened (which would be an opinion), I'm all ears
I'm not telling you what you think, I'm commenting on what you've posted and the impression that gives off. You could just contribute to the thread constructively right from the get go with what you think and what your views are on the settlement (as is the topic of this thread) rather than dance around the topic at hand, raise concerns with non-issues and not discuss the topic at hand.
I don't think you or anyone needs to skirt an issue and not post their views until explicitly asked - that just seems like a waste of time and is un-constructive to a thread.
Joel
Need support? Support Centre | Forum Help
09-May-2023 02:25:04
Quick find code: 23-24-711-66278655 Back to Top