Rupert Murdoch took direct role in Fox News 2020 election call, filings reveal | Hacker News Reader

Rupert Murdoch took direct role in Fox News 2020 election call, filings reveal

theguardian.com

28 pointsTruthMedia10 comments

The way the Dominion case is playing out, an interesting settlement might be that Fox News has to drop the "News" for, say, two years. Not to appear on-screen EVER. Not for two full years.

I genuinely wonder if he is a sociopath. What an utterly despicable person.

I am no fan of FoxNews. But the election coverage was top notch that night and called the election in line with the rest of the media.

The problem is how they blur news with opinion. Yes, they reported the election results accurately that one night. It's the weeks and months that followed, where they broadcast false claims of a dirty election, that's got Dominion's dander up.

Canadian Here, but it looks like Murdoch, and especially Tucker/Hannity etc. knew what they were saying was BS, but said it anyways because after gas-lighting their viewers for years about non-existent vote fraud, if they told the truth their viewers would switch to some other station - OAN or whatever.

How can they care so little about their country? Especially for a person they hate?

> How can they care so little about their country? Especially for a person they hate?

Love of money is the only way I can rationalize it. Which I don't even comprehend with somebody like Murdoch -- he's one of the wealthiest and most influential people in the world; how could he stoop to being led by the nose by a loser like trump? But the US really isn't "his" country in any meaningful sense. He's a citizen because he needed to be to satisfy non-foreign ownership requirements; he can buy his way anywhere.

I am always amazed at how election season news can make me hate "news" even more than I normally do. What does this matter? It doesn't matter, at least it shouldn't. Trump played the same stupid game that Clinton played in 2016, pandering to their party to affect "change" and blurring the line between politician and celebrity which I can not see as a good thing. Divide and conquer until the division is absolute and no one wins.

How did Hillary talk about “change”? Clinton was the definition of status quo, business as usual and basically a vote for her was a continuation of the past 8 years.

I am not interested in arguing whether that was good or bad.

Six of those years were with a Republican majority in either the house, senate, or both.

This is a game both parties play. If they're in power with a full sweep, it's not long enough to effect all of the changes they want, so they'll need more time. If they aren't in power with a full sweep, then they can't make all of the changes they want to make.

“Trump played the same game Clinton did in 2016 by appealing for change” is only slightly different to “Trump played the same game Clinton did in 2016 by announcing a candidacy and asking for votes”. All candidates pledge change of some variety.

They were both radically different candidates. And they certainly didn’t blend celebrity and politics in the same way: Clinton was in the senate for two terms before she ran!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com