Would be nice if the Fox News crowd would read some of those messages to wake up from all the manipulation.
How would the Fox News crowd even become aware of those messages when their information sources don't report them?
But no one who would have been receptive to the truth is watching Fox in the first place. That is, really, the core truth exposed by this suit. Fox is completely captured by its audience. For years we thought it was the other way around.
A settlement might contain something that wouldn’t be on the table in a court judgement if the value it adds to the side that gets it is disproportional to the cost to the side providing it — so that it is win-win compared to a compromise within the scope of potential court outcomes — but this is the opposite, less valuable to Dominion and more harmful to Fox than money.
Now, not a single mention on the entire front page as of a few minutes ago. But they're sure hammering the hell out of this Bud Light story still.
EDIT: Is Jollo your site? I dig it!
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-media-dominion-voting...
No comment on the content, just weird to see 'some else's algorithm' beyond the obvious political stuff - I'm vaguely aware of both stories, but have not seen extensive coverage in my bubble.
Often times there will be a big news story that every other site is reporting on and then the top few stories on Fox News will be some "Guess what gaffe Biden or Harris did now" type tabloid-style hit pieces.
I don't see any Fox News reporting that quotes those messages that were entered into evidence. Though admittedly I didn't spend much time looking-- just the first 3 pages of results in a search.
For a lot of people facts don't matter, only culture war. Its no different than sport fans loving their team despite them cheating e.g Astros, Patriots, Red Sox, etc. They just want their team to win.
The thing is that that state of affairs has been deliberately cultivated. And this entire case is a penetrating glimpse into how it's done.
There's a range of possible solutions, but they all center on what kind of speech we incentivize. Right now, we've pretty much gone all in on incentivizing speech that gets attention. Traditional media businesses produce news or entertainment in order to sell attention to advertisers for money. Social media just puts a twist on it by outsourcing content creation to individual users in exchange for internet points like upvotes or retweets.
Things aren't going to get better until we change that. Facts and reasoned arguments are boring. Culture war is entertaining and engaging. So culture war makes the most money, and that's what we're going to get.
* Think like a scientist
* Think like a sports fan
* Think like an attorney
* Think like a zaelot
According to his model, being a sports fan is not even close as bad as lower rungs of the ladder. Sport fans do root for their teams and do engage in all sort of tribalism but ultimately care about The Game and they would be deeply dissatisfied if the game ethics were breached in favour of any team, including their own; it would just ruin the whole point of the game.
While the "attorney" persona deliberately ignores the truth or pretends to do so if that requires serving their clients.
Only the true "zaelot" fully lives in their delusion and nothing, truly nothing will make them wake up from anything because waking up would mean losing themeselves.
A sports fan will on average kind of vaguely deny it, but if real proof comes out it just becomes something they don't talk about or they'll pass blame around as much as possible.
A lawyer will deny, deny, deny in every permutation of possible ways. A zealot will both deny and say the enemy deserved it and is worse.
It's not like deflategate made anybody in new england like brady less.
The only voting machine that isn't "fraud waiting to happen" is an optical-scan under-voting detector - the thing that says "your mark for Mayor is too light and won't be counted", allowing you to take the paper and pen and correct it.
The court erred in this case, not by treating Fox's words (/unchecked republication of accusations) as a lie but by acting like the reputation of an voting-machine company deserves protection when they make something so obviously ideally suited for crime. The Flipper Zero people get accused of knowing their product will be used in crime and yet we don't apply the same logic to e-voting manufacturers.
Fox deserves the hit, but Dominion doesn't deserve the implication of honesty - their entire business is to remove proof of honesty from our elections. Perhaps the solution should have been to fine Fox but give the money to charities seeking to audit and improve the voting process.
I was a juror on a civil case once. They said many of them go right up until the trial date before settling out of court, as things finally become "real". Both sides want the other to flinch first.
It's not just something they tell the folks who get called. I've seen it from the other side too where someone I knew was prepared to testify in a criminal case. The defendant pleaded out the day the trial was due to start while we were in the courthouse waiting for the proceedings to begin.
The truth is that none of them, Fox personalities included, are journalists or even "news". They should all stop misleading people and call themselves "entertainment". They way they can say whatever they want.
https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/63815342950072320?lang=en
Context:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/arts/television/02hack.ht...
Interestingly, Diebold IP and tech was acquired by Dominion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions
You'd think if they had really led it that Trump’s many failed (because it wasn’t defamatory) lawsuits over the story, the dossier, etc., would have included them, but no, just the DNC, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times, the Pullitzer Prize, the Washington Post...
I agree, the case was pretty much nailed on. Dominion should have held out for the full 1.6bn and stuck The Murdoch's, Tucker and co on the stand to humiliate themselves.
Because it was a win, and a sure $787.5M is better than a gamble that the court would find for them on the elements other than falsity (very likely) and find enough more damages than 787.5M to justify the added time and cost (far less certain). And the court had already found for them as a matter of law on falsity, so there was no real moral vindication to be sought at trial.