One of the most important challenges to independent journalism was settled when the Fox Corp. agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems more than $750 million for its consistent allegations that the voting machine company tampered with poll results to help Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election.
Key to the legal dispute was not that Fox News merely made a mistake in reporting the allegation that voting results were tampered with. Rather, that Fox commentators repeatedly said the election was rigged, when they knew there was virtually no evidence that it was.
This was the first of a dozen cases challenging Fox for saying the election was rigged. The settlement is as important in journalism law as the case of New York Times vs. Sullivan, wherein a Southern politician sued the newspaper for printing what he claimed was an error.
The defense responded that the error was in an ad, and therefore the news department was not responsible for it. Moreover, the ad was designed and produced by the ad buyer, and not by New York Times staff.
The ruling standard set by the Supreme Court was that the allegation be not only false, but that it be printed with "reckless disregard" for truth.
In the current case, emails sent by Fox executives and talk show hosts showed that they knew the allegations were false, and that reporting that falsity meant that their revenues declined.
Money became more important than truth.
Similar issues are at play in a dozen more legal cases against Fox.
Meanwhile, the network is not reporting on the case or its repercussions, even as other broadcasters continue to explain the issues and the upcoming challenges.
In doing so, they detail not only the problem, but the views of each side. This is their right -- and their obligation -- under the Constitutional guarantee of press freedom.
Key to the legal dispute was not that Fox News merely made a mistake in reporting the allegation that voting results were tampered with. Rather, that Fox commentators repeatedly said the election was rigged, when they knew there was virtually no evidence that it was.
This was the first of a dozen cases challenging Fox for saying the election was rigged. The settlement is as important in journalism law as the case of New York Times vs. Sullivan, wherein a Southern politician sued the newspaper for printing what he claimed was an error.
The defense responded that the error was in an ad, and therefore the news department was not responsible for it. Moreover, the ad was designed and produced by the ad buyer, and not by New York Times staff.
The ruling standard set by the Supreme Court was that the allegation be not only false, but that it be printed with "reckless disregard" for truth.
In the current case, emails sent by Fox executives and talk show hosts showed that they knew the allegations were false, and that reporting that falsity meant that their revenues declined.
Money became more important than truth.
Similar issues are at play in a dozen more legal cases against Fox.
Meanwhile, the network is not reporting on the case or its repercussions, even as other broadcasters continue to explain the issues and the upcoming challenges.
In doing so, they detail not only the problem, but the views of each side. This is their right -- and their obligation -- under the Constitutional guarantee of press freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment