4 ms·

Funny because I regard his show as “story time” and not something I would treat as journalism. In contrast Tucker Carlson’s former show on Fox was a part of th

by Isamu 2y ago

Funny because I regard his show as “story time” and not something I would treat as journalism. In contrast Tucker Carlson’s former show on Fox was a part of their “opinion” lineup and I don’t think regular viewers knew not to trust it as journalism. When Carlson and Fox won the defamation lawsuit in 2020 it was because “Mr. Carlson’s statements were not statements of fact and that she failed adequately to allege actual malice.” The “not statements of fact” included the reassurances that Carlson always made, in this case he said “Remember the facts of the case. These are undisputed” followed by clearly disputed and false claims. The lawyers argued successfully that it should be clear to the viewer that what Carlson says “cannot reasonably be interpreted as fact” even when he says that these are the facts. Arguably the bigger factor was proving malice, and Carlson seems very careful not to put anything into an email or text that undermines what he says on air. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yor...

Aunche 2y ago
This was a different case, but Fox News did have to pay almost 800 million to Dominion to settle the lawsuit about rigged voting machines. There Tucker did admit in text that the allegations were ridiculous, but reported them as if they were true anyways.
- roenxi 2y ago
  That was a bit weird for the US system though. There is the obvious element that topical cable news political reporting is nearly wall-to-wall misinformation and it is often hard to tell if it was the politicians or the news operations that were most responsible. They've already hit an equilibrium where everyone appears to be doing their best to be wilfully stupid to obscure whether they are lying or just that dumb. For the legal system to single out the Dominion Voting thing as an issue was ... acceptable but probably a misfire. Of all the craziness, hysterics targeting voting machines was the issue most likely to accidentally be a net good for the US system.
  - andelink 2y ago
    Dominion Voting Systems Corporation sued Fox News for defamation and then Fox News settled for nearly $800M before the case got to trial. Why do you say the legal system singled out Dominion here?
    - roenxi 2y ago
      Presumably they settled because they expected to lose the case and expected to be found liable for around a billion dollars in damages. Fair enough. But stirring up an insane unfounded panic about electronic voting security would be one of the most productive things the US cable news have done in the last 20-40 years. It is one of the best aspects of a democratic system to be paranoid about; something goes wrong there and it probably isn't recoverable. And for US corporate news it is much more in character to be up on stage strategically ignoring how every other war turned out terribly while mumbling sweet nothings about how good the next one will turn out and how justified this new one is unlike all the others.
      - matthewdgreen 2y ago
        The danger (which we've seen play out) is that this gets used as a pretext to ignore unfavorable election results, and then all those objections are forgotten when the election results are favorable. This "panic" had no intention of improving anything, nor did it.
  - Isamu 2y ago
    >For the legal system to single out the Dominion Voting thing as an issue This is a confusion. The Dominion corporation was defamed and brought the suit. The government generally has no standing in these suits and cannot bring them itself. It sounds like you think undermining confidence in voting is a net good. Do you have a reason for this?
- TacticalCoder 2y ago
  [dead]
gotoeleven 2y ago
And here's the same thing for rachel maddow https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/28/rachel-maddows-defense-to-oan-defamation-lawsuit-is-that-on-air-statements-shouldnt-be-considered-fact-869161/ https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/28/rachel-maddows-defen...
- Isamu 2y ago
  I found that case, here’s the actual court decision: https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Herring-OAN-9th.pdf https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Herri... It’s worthwhile to track down the court proceedings, you will learn things not covered in various spin articles.
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    > In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. I find it crazy that a news person can, while reporting the news, qualify their statement with strengtheners like "really literally" and then claim it was an assertion of opinion, not fact.
timewizard 2y ago
> and I don’t think regular viewers knew not to trust it as journalism. Why?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hnbad 2y ago
  I guess it depends on your definition of journalism but there is a reasonable expectation that someone hosting a show - even if it's more editorialized and explicitly opinionated than other reporting - on a channel with the word "News" in its name would at least use a reasonably well-researched factual basis when making factual claims or presenting statements as facts in support of his opinion or argument, rather than outright deliberately lying. After all there are people who think there is factual evidence and undeniable proof for the existence of space aliens on Earth, cryptozoology or supernatural phenomena because "The History Channel" decided to give up on sticking to actual history and started airing whatever nonsense grabbed anyone's attention. You can argue that a discernable viewer could easily figure this out by reflecting on what they're viewing but there are good reasons you don't find rat poison in the condiments aisle.
  - timewizard 2y ago
    What I was getting at is do you have any data you used to come to these conclusions? It doesn't sound like you do. I would suggest that the truth is more subtle than you show yourself as willing to believe.
    - hnbad 2y ago
      Do I have data on whether or not the average viewer is going to assume that a show on a "News" channel they trust sandwiched between actual news coverage is going to deliberately present lies as factual information? Yeah, sure, good point. I guess there really is no good reason not to put rat poison in the condiments aisle.
  - esbranson 2y ago
dylanmulvaney 2y ago
> seems very careful not to put anything into an email or text that undermines what he says Standard business practice when you are past Junior career level. Next.

by Isamu 2y ago

Aunche 2y ago

This was a different case, but Fox News did have to pay almost 800 million to Dominion to settle the lawsuit about rigged voting machines. There Tucker did admit in text that the allegations were ridiculous, but reported them as if they were true anyways.

roenxi 2y ago
That was a bit weird for the US system though. There is the obvious element that topical cable news political reporting is nearly wall-to-wall misinformation and it is often hard to tell if it was the politicians or the news operations that were most responsible. They've already hit an equilibrium where everyone appears to be doing their best to be wilfully stupid to obscure whether they are lying or just that dumb. For the legal system to single out the Dominion Voting thing as an issue was ... acceptable but probably a misfire. Of all the craziness, hysterics targeting voting machines was the issue most likely to accidentally be a net good for the US system.
- andelink 2y ago
  Dominion Voting Systems Corporation sued Fox News for defamation and then Fox News settled for nearly $800M before the case got to trial. Why do you say the legal system singled out Dominion here?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Presumably they settled because they expected to lose the case and expected to be found liable for around a billion dollars in damages. Fair enough. But stirring up an insane unfounded panic about electronic voting security would be one of the most productive things the US cable news have done in the last 20-40 years. It is one of the best aspects of a democratic system to be paranoid about; something goes wrong there and it probably isn't recoverable. And for US corporate news it is much more in character to be up on stage strategically ignoring how every other war turned out terribly while mumbling sweet nothings about how good the next one will turn out and how justified this new one is unlike all the others.
    - matthewdgreen 2y ago
      The danger (which we've seen play out) is that this gets used as a pretext to ignore unfavorable election results, and then all those objections are forgotten when the election results are favorable. This "panic" had no intention of improving anything, nor did it.
- Isamu 2y ago
  >For the legal system to single out the Dominion Voting thing as an issue This is a confusion. The Dominion corporation was defamed and brought the suit. The government generally has no standing in these suits and cannot bring them itself. It sounds like you think undermining confidence in voting is a net good. Do you have a reason for this?
TacticalCoder 2y ago
[dead]

gotoeleven 2y ago

And here's the same thing for rachel maddow https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/28/rachel-maddows-defense-to-oan-defamation-lawsuit-is-that-on-air-statements-shouldnt-be-considered-fact-869161/ https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/28/rachel-maddows-defen...

Isamu 2y ago
I found that case, here’s the actual court decision: https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Herring-OAN-9th.pdf https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Herri... It’s worthwhile to track down the court proceedings, you will learn things not covered in various spin articles.
- shkkmo 2y ago
  > In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. I find it crazy that a news person can, while reporting the news, qualify their statement with strengtheners like "really literally" and then claim it was an assertion of opinion, not fact.

timewizard 2y ago

> and I don’t think regular viewers knew not to trust it as journalism. Why?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hnbad 2y ago
I guess it depends on your definition of journalism but there is a reasonable expectation that someone hosting a show - even if it's more editorialized and explicitly opinionated than other reporting - on a channel with the word "News" in its name would at least use a reasonably well-researched factual basis when making factual claims or presenting statements as facts in support of his opinion or argument, rather than outright deliberately lying. After all there are people who think there is factual evidence and undeniable proof for the existence of space aliens on Earth, cryptozoology or supernatural phenomena because "The History Channel" decided to give up on sticking to actual history and started airing whatever nonsense grabbed anyone's attention. You can argue that a discernable viewer could easily figure this out by reflecting on what they're viewing but there are good reasons you don't find rat poison in the condiments aisle.
- timewizard 2y ago
  What I was getting at is do you have any data you used to come to these conclusions? It doesn't sound like you do. I would suggest that the truth is more subtle than you show yourself as willing to believe.
  - hnbad 2y ago
    Do I have data on whether or not the average viewer is going to assume that a show on a "News" channel they trust sandwiched between actual news coverage is going to deliberately present lies as factual information? Yeah, sure, good point. I guess there really is no good reason not to put rat poison in the condiments aisle.
- esbranson 2y ago

dylanmulvaney 2y ago

> seems very careful not to put anything into an email or text that undermines what he says Standard business practice when you are past Junior career level. Next.