6 ms·

> "This settlement reflects FOX's continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards." What a world it is, that high journalistic standards can end in

by Arrath 4y ago

> "This settlement reflects FOX's continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards." What a world it is, that high journalistic standards can end in a $787m payout.

anigbrowl 4y ago
It aggravates me that the wealthy can just buy their way out of legal humiliation literally as the trial is underway. Settlements and plea bargains are a cancer on the judicial process.
- henriquez 4y ago
  I agree 100% when it comes to billionaires “settling” their way out of criminal prosecution, but if two private groups have a dispute they shouldn’t be forced to litigate it all the way through trial if they can come to an agreement outside of court.
  - fknorangesite 4y ago
    In a vacuum I agree with you; but when it's election interference, with rhetoric leading to an actual attempted coup...I am not so sure.
    - forkerenok 4y ago
      > with rhetoric leading to an actual attempted coup In my understanding, if this is a grave concern, then it's the federal prosecutor that should press charges. I assume DVS were simply suing as a business for damages. Edit: wording to clarify the point
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - conductr 4y ago
    The real injustice is that “news” can do what Fox did, and it doesn’t constitute a crime. At a minimum, They should lose their broadcast license if they are going to manufacture truth that threatens democracy.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      Minor nitpick: FNN is a cable channel and thus does not require a license. however they're in the middle of renegotiating their fees with the cable companies, so if you are a cable customer and hate Rupert Murdoch, now is a good time to get on the phone with your cable company and whine about how you don't want to pay for Fox News as part of the basic package.
      - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
        So none of the BS was broadcast over public airwaves by Fox?
        anigbrowl 4y ago
        Correct.
    - runnerup 4y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree. I said exactly this to my friend earlier today. However, I immediately followed it up noting that any law like this will eventually be used maliciously. E.g. Party in power will say “CNN LIES!” and get DOJ to set up a sham trial. But even if it shouldn’t be possible for the ruling political party to infringe on free speech, it should also not be tenable to lie to millions of Americans this blatantly.
      - conductr 4y ago
        It should be a law that’s hard to prove, like libel or something similar (not a legal expert). Or, laws specifically regarding elections (and maybe a few other matters). Even if they were forced to disclose their known misstatements (lies) publicly in someway that might help them collectively keep each other in honest. It might be similar to how public companies are required to have audits and report their results and whatnot. We in the public get information to help us determine what the truth is regarding stocks. Honestly just like the deregulation of finance introducing risks to banks and resulting Great Recession, the deregulation of fairness doctrine and other things are equally at fault for things like this happening IMO. We’re letting history repeat when we forget why such regulations were instituted to begin with.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Disagree, I think that moderately early on in the process parties need to make a decision about settle or litigate. What we have now is a system where people are incentivized to bluff endlessly, treating litigation like high-stakes poker. Even those with no legal education can see it's bullshit, and it brings the entire legal system into disrepute.
    - singleshot_ 4y ago
      What does getting whacked with a $787,500,000.00 settlement payment incentivize newscorp to do? I get the feeling next time they feel like bluffing, someone over there might bring up the three quarters of a billion dollars that they just burned. I mean I get that this incentivizes plaintiffs to sue when they think they’re getting screwed but… isn’t that a good thing? (That is, isn’t that the whole point of the tort system?)
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        What I mean is they keep bluffing up until the literal commencement of the trial. The legal process, once underway, should not be treated as an extension of the political poker table.
- singleshot_ 4y ago
  I’d take the alternate viewpoint: it’s great that our society empowers those who want to come down like a sledgehammer on those who break the law. The incentivization of some of our most aggressively adversarial minds toward the task of justice is motivated the most efficient way that our society knows: the reassignment of mass amounts of capital according to the processes of the law.
- mdasen 4y ago
  For a company that's worth less than $17.5B, a $787.5M settlement means giving away 4.5% of your company's value. Unlike big tech companies or whatnot, Fox Corporation isn't that big. Even after its huge fall, Meta is still 32x larger. Apple is 150x larger, Microsoft 123x larger, Alphabet 77x larger. A $787.5M settlement would only be 0.03% of Apple's value rather than 4.5% so I could see it being a meaningless penalty on Apple, but it's a large enough penalty that Fox is going to think twice before allowing their talent to do similar things in the future. A few more of these and they could be signing away a quarter of their company's value. > just buy their way out of legal humiliation Except they basically didn't buy their way out of the humiliation. Most of the damming stuff has already been made public. Most of the embarrassing laundry has been aired. At this point, the only real question is whether Dominion would get the $1.6B they had asked for. Instead, they settled for a guaranteed half. Plus, Fox is still facing a lawsuit from Smartmatic, another voting system. Smartmatic issued a statement, "Dominion’s litigation exposed some of the misconduct and damage caused by Fox’s disinformation campaign. Smartmatic will expose the rest." It also likely means Fox losing more money. > Settlements and plea bargains are a cancer on the judicial process I definitely understand the sentiment and plea bargains can be really bad pushing low-income people to plead guilty to lesser crimes even if they're innocent and letting rich people off easy when they're definitely guilty. Likewise, a company might reach a settlement with someone they've wronged who doesn't know their rights and who isn't on equal footing with such a giant corporation. In a civil case between two companies with basically unlimited legal funds, it seems quite reasonable. It's important to note that this case isn't about Fox doing you harm. It's about Fox doing Dominion harm. Between Fox and Dominion, this seems like quite a reasonable outcome. Dominion won big against Fox and it will likely encourage other litigants to continue pursuing Fox. What is bad about this settlement other than things like you wanting to know potentially more details that might be exposed? If your answer is that Fox has caused more harm than just the harm to Dominion, that's a different trial. I would agree that Fox has created incredible harm to our society. I don't know how we could pursue that in a legal sense which is a shame. Still, this isn't a plea bargain or settlement that seems bad. It seems like a reasonable outcome where the complainant received half of what they were hoping to get without the uncertainty of the trial outcome. Even if Dominion won the case, they might have been awarded less damages than they asked for (or less than the settlement).
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  > It aggravates me that the wealthy can just buy their way out of legal humiliation literally as the trial is underway. Coughing up nearly a billion dollars to settle a trial because they know they’ll lose is quite humiliating.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Arthur Andersen was dissolved for less (Enron accounting scandal). Edit: good call out andrew! That’s what I get for commenting at the bar.
    - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
      Except that they cost real people real money.
      - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
        Who downvotes this observation? Shilling for a long-dead company is a bit odd.
    - andrewinardeer 4y ago
      Fun fact: If you spelled the company the way you did just then in your job application to them your CV would go straight in the bin and you would not get a call regardless of your credentials. It was a well known vetting criteria.
      - inerte 4y ago
        You mean if you applied to work at Arthur Andersen, because it's misspelled?
        andrewinardeer 4y ago
        Affirmative
  - 4y ago
- cosmodisk 4y ago
  If it'll make you feel better, fox shareholders are prepping lawsuits against the executives to recoup the money the company will need to pay the settlement. So it's not the end yet.
- juancampa 4y ago
  Doesn't the other side need to accept the settlement?
rickspencer3 4y ago
It's complete double speak, is it not? Any commitment to even mediocre journalistic standards would not have led to this whole situation, much less this outcome.
- Arrath 4y ago
  Oh absolutely. Such would be my expectation, at least. My initial comment was firmly tongue in cheek.
andrewinardeer 4y ago
Just like large tech companies a billion in fines here and there throughout the years is the cost of doing business.

by Arrath 4y ago

> "This settlement reflects FOX's continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards." What a world it is, that high journalistic standards can end in a $787m payout.

anigbrowl 4y ago

It aggravates me that the wealthy can just buy their way out of legal humiliation literally as the trial is underway. Settlements and plea bargains are a cancer on the judicial process.

henriquez 4y ago
I agree 100% when it comes to billionaires “settling” their way out of criminal prosecution, but if two private groups have a dispute they shouldn’t be forced to litigate it all the way through trial if they can come to an agreement outside of court.
- fknorangesite 4y ago
  In a vacuum I agree with you; but when it's election interference, with rhetoric leading to an actual attempted coup...I am not so sure.
  - forkerenok 4y ago
    > with rhetoric leading to an actual attempted coup In my understanding, if this is a grave concern, then it's the federal prosecutor that should press charges. I assume DVS were simply suing as a business for damages. Edit: wording to clarify the point
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- conductr 4y ago
  The real injustice is that “news” can do what Fox did, and it doesn’t constitute a crime. At a minimum, They should lose their broadcast license if they are going to manufacture truth that threatens democracy.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Minor nitpick: FNN is a cable channel and thus does not require a license. however they're in the middle of renegotiating their fees with the cable companies, so if you are a cable customer and hate Rupert Murdoch, now is a good time to get on the phone with your cable company and whine about how you don't want to pay for Fox News as part of the basic package.
    - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
      So none of the BS was broadcast over public airwaves by Fox?
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        Correct.
  - runnerup 4y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree. I said exactly this to my friend earlier today. However, I immediately followed it up noting that any law like this will eventually be used maliciously. E.g. Party in power will say “CNN LIES!” and get DOJ to set up a sham trial. But even if it shouldn’t be possible for the ruling political party to infringe on free speech, it should also not be tenable to lie to millions of Americans this blatantly.
    - conductr 4y ago
      It should be a law that’s hard to prove, like libel or something similar (not a legal expert). Or, laws specifically regarding elections (and maybe a few other matters). Even if they were forced to disclose their known misstatements (lies) publicly in someway that might help them collectively keep each other in honest. It might be similar to how public companies are required to have audits and report their results and whatnot. We in the public get information to help us determine what the truth is regarding stocks. Honestly just like the deregulation of finance introducing risks to banks and resulting Great Recession, the deregulation of fairness doctrine and other things are equally at fault for things like this happening IMO. We’re letting history repeat when we forget why such regulations were instituted to begin with.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Disagree, I think that moderately early on in the process parties need to make a decision about settle or litigate. What we have now is a system where people are incentivized to bluff endlessly, treating litigation like high-stakes poker. Even those with no legal education can see it's bullshit, and it brings the entire legal system into disrepute.
  - singleshot_ 4y ago
    What does getting whacked with a $787,500,000.00 settlement payment incentivize newscorp to do? I get the feeling next time they feel like bluffing, someone over there might bring up the three quarters of a billion dollars that they just burned. I mean I get that this incentivizes plaintiffs to sue when they think they’re getting screwed but… isn’t that a good thing? (That is, isn’t that the whole point of the tort system?)
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      What I mean is they keep bluffing up until the literal commencement of the trial. The legal process, once underway, should not be treated as an extension of the political poker table.
singleshot_ 4y ago
I’d take the alternate viewpoint: it’s great that our society empowers those who want to come down like a sledgehammer on those who break the law. The incentivization of some of our most aggressively adversarial minds toward the task of justice is motivated the most efficient way that our society knows: the reassignment of mass amounts of capital according to the processes of the law.
mdasen 4y ago
For a company that's worth less than $17.5B, a $787.5M settlement means giving away 4.5% of your company's value. Unlike big tech companies or whatnot, Fox Corporation isn't that big. Even after its huge fall, Meta is still 32x larger. Apple is 150x larger, Microsoft 123x larger, Alphabet 77x larger. A $787.5M settlement would only be 0.03% of Apple's value rather than 4.5% so I could see it being a meaningless penalty on Apple, but it's a large enough penalty that Fox is going to think twice before allowing their talent to do similar things in the future. A few more of these and they could be signing away a quarter of their company's value. > just buy their way out of legal humiliation Except they basically didn't buy their way out of the humiliation. Most of the damming stuff has already been made public. Most of the embarrassing laundry has been aired. At this point, the only real question is whether Dominion would get the $1.6B they had asked for. Instead, they settled for a guaranteed half. Plus, Fox is still facing a lawsuit from Smartmatic, another voting system. Smartmatic issued a statement, "Dominion’s litigation exposed some of the misconduct and damage caused by Fox’s disinformation campaign. Smartmatic will expose the rest." It also likely means Fox losing more money. > Settlements and plea bargains are a cancer on the judicial process I definitely understand the sentiment and plea bargains can be really bad pushing low-income people to plead guilty to lesser crimes even if they're innocent and letting rich people off easy when they're definitely guilty. Likewise, a company might reach a settlement with someone they've wronged who doesn't know their rights and who isn't on equal footing with such a giant corporation. In a civil case between two companies with basically unlimited legal funds, it seems quite reasonable. It's important to note that this case isn't about Fox doing you harm. It's about Fox doing Dominion harm. Between Fox and Dominion, this seems like quite a reasonable outcome. Dominion won big against Fox and it will likely encourage other litigants to continue pursuing Fox. What is bad about this settlement other than things like you wanting to know potentially more details that might be exposed? If your answer is that Fox has caused more harm than just the harm to Dominion, that's a different trial. I would agree that Fox has created incredible harm to our society. I don't know how we could pursue that in a legal sense which is a shame. Still, this isn't a plea bargain or settlement that seems bad. It seems like a reasonable outcome where the complainant received half of what they were hoping to get without the uncertainty of the trial outcome. Even if Dominion won the case, they might have been awarded less damages than they asked for (or less than the settlement).
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> It aggravates me that the wealthy can just buy their way out of legal humiliation literally as the trial is underway. Coughing up nearly a billion dollars to settle a trial because they know they’ll lose is quite humiliating.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Arthur Andersen was dissolved for less (Enron accounting scandal). Edit: good call out andrew! That’s what I get for commenting at the bar.
  - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
    Except that they cost real people real money.
    - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
      Who downvotes this observation? Shilling for a long-dead company is a bit odd.
  - andrewinardeer 4y ago
    Fun fact: If you spelled the company the way you did just then in your job application to them your CV would go straight in the bin and you would not get a call regardless of your credentials. It was a well known vetting criteria.
    - inerte 4y ago
      You mean if you applied to work at Arthur Andersen, because it's misspelled?
      - andrewinardeer 4y ago
        Affirmative
- 4y ago
cosmodisk 4y ago
If it'll make you feel better, fox shareholders are prepping lawsuits against the executives to recoup the money the company will need to pay the settlement. So it's not the end yet.
juancampa 4y ago
Doesn't the other side need to accept the settlement?

rickspencer3 4y ago

It's complete double speak, is it not? Any commitment to even mediocre journalistic standards would not have led to this whole situation, much less this outcome.

Arrath 4y ago
Oh absolutely. Such would be my expectation, at least. My initial comment was firmly tongue in cheek.

andrewinardeer 4y ago

Just like large tech companies a billion in fines here and there throughout the years is the cost of doing business.