8 ms·
It's pretty sad that is these sort of ticky-tacky lawsuits are really the only mechanism we seem have of holding these "news" networks responsible for brazen re
by siliconc0w 1y ago
It's pretty sad that is these sort of ticky-tacky lawsuits are really the only mechanism we seem have of holding these "news" networks responsible for brazen repeated lies that are hugely damaging to our society (like saying a election was stolen). And that wasn't even the problem, it's that their lies created damages for another corporation.
- tyre 1y agoRelated: “I find all of this so weird because of how it _elevates_ finance. [Various cases] imply that we are not entitled to be protected from pollution as _citizens_, or as _humans_. [Another] implies that we are not entitled to be told the truth _as citizens_. (Which: is true!) Rather, in each case, we are only entitled to be protected from lies _as shareholders_. The great harm of pollution, or of political dishonesty, is that it might lower the share prices of the companies we own.” — Matt Levine Here he is talking about shareholder lawsuits (securities fraud) being the primary mechanism of holding social responsibility.
- LurkerAtTheGate 1y agoI was thinking this opens them up to a shareholder suit for mismanagement, breach of duty, or possibly even fraud?
- nickff 1y agoMatt Levine often repeats the phrase ‘everything is securities fraud’. Any statement which turns out (with hindsight) to be false is grounds for a shareholder class-action lawsuit. Even many correct statements are grounds for shareholder class actions. The problem is that the only people who actually profit from shareholder class actions are the lawyers.
- throw0101a 1y ago> Matt Levine I was curios for the exact source, and the link is: * https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-31/senator-doesn-t-like-companies-lying-to-government https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-31/senato... * https://archive.is/9WcxD https://archive.is/9WcxD He referenced / quoted it recently: * https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-04-01/is-doge-securities-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-04-01/is-... * https://archive.is/B7yvw https://archive.is/B7yvw
- ilovecurl 1y agoDuring Dominion's case against Fox News around this same issue Fox News' own lawyers stated that they were not stating actual facts about the topics under discussion and instead were engaged in exaggeration and non-literal commentary. It's not news, it's infotainment.
- lesuorac 1y agoLawyers would tell you that water isn't wet it's just slick if it'd help them win their case. I don't see any fix for the news cycle besides slowing it down. Even if enough happens to fill 24h in a day there isn't enough time to actually analyze it at all.
- cj 1y ago> Lawyers would tell you that water isn't wet Sure, but do you really think the Fox News anchors honestly believed what they were saying? I’d venture a guess: no. They said what they said because that’s what they had to do to get their paycheck at the end of the day. Yes, lawyers will say whatever to win a case. But I highly doubt those news anchors really thought the election was stolen. It’s all for ratings. Let’s be honest.
- mapt 1y agoTo willingly lie about something you need to be able to differentiate truth from fiction. Defamation hinges on either this willing lie ("malice") or on negligence (and the expected due diligence for a self-professed news organization is high). There is a little performative middle ground here, but WHATEVER is argued in court does not moot the things argued at every commercial break about trusting their news institution to report the facts. Fox news is not, and never has been, intended as satire.
- cj 1y ago> Fox news is not, and never has been, intended as satire Their homepage right now is featuring a pull up and push up contest between Hegseth and RFK jr. It hardly appears as though they’re trying to be a legitimate news network. (Same goes for CNN - both are incredibly and undeniably outrageous in their reporting) But I agree, their audiences take their reporting seriously, even if they themselves are just saying what they say for the ratings.
- mapt 1y agoHogan (Thiel) vs Gawker and Sandy Hook vs Alex Jones provided a blueprint to weaponize defamation law for political change in an environment where right-wing journalism has turned into a defamation pipeline and then a defamation -> moral-panic -> stochastic-terror cannon that would impress Gerald Bull. These are supposed journalistic institutions, and that used to mean something, legally and culturally speaking. Making them terrified of losing the public trust once again, using some type of fast-moving wrecking ball, is a necessary component of a future where we make it out of this. So all we need now is an angry left-wing billionaire who can launch a thousand defamation lawsuits, or the most sympathetic group of parents of dead children in history. The last great nightly news anchor was Dan Rather, who was fired symbolically because their organization merely neutrally reported the existence of a sketchy story about possible documents that turned out to be fabricated about George W Bush's military service.
- pstuart 1y agoI remain convinced that Rather was set up by Karl Rove -- it fits in with his other dirty tricks.
- jibal 1y agoThe story wasn't sketchy. Rather's claims about GWB's service were correct and well documented ... it was only the Killian memo that was apparently inauthentic ... but it may well have been transcribed using later technology.
- pstuart 1y agoThat was the beauty of it -- it changed the story from the known facts about Bush into Rather using forged documents. It was a very clever trick, I'll give him that.
- jibal 1y agoYes, very Rovian. Of course Rather and CBS can be faulted for not doing due diligence, but this is how the right uses incidental mistakes to obscure the facts.
- ljsprague 1y ago[flagged]
- tw04 1y agoYou’re talking about the literal Russian collusion by Trump campaign officials that happened? You might want to* read up on the actual case and stop listening to fox entertainment’s summaries if you think that was defamation. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/senate-russia-report-proves-trump-was-wrong-mueller-was-right-ncna1237743 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/senate-russia-report-p...
- ljsprague 1y agoThanks for the NBC news link.
- verteu 1y agoThe Russian collusion was real - that's why Trump's campaign chairman, foreign policy adviser, personal lawyer, and National Security Adviser were all found guilty in court.
- myvoiceismypass 1y agoI would recommend reading the actual Mueller report and not the Bill Barr press release about the Mueller Report (or anything coming from serial liars like Giuliani and Trump).
- FridayoLeary 1y agoWouldn't that damage the right to free speech? Regulating what the media is and isn't allowed to say is a very slippery slope and it is open to abuse. If the government was responsible for this task what would prevent Trump and the republicans from hijacking it? It might be frustrating but free speech is one of the cornerstones of democracy and we are much better off with it then without it. > And that wasn't even the problem, it's that their lies created damages for another corporation That's the first time i've ever seen anyone on HN sympathize with a billion dollar company:) But that is exactly what the article was about! Dominion was libelled by Newsmax, so they was able to claim damages from them in a court of law. The law didn't allow them to get away with it. The First Amendment is working as inteneded. Some damage to society is tolerated to protect a much bigger and longer term benefit.
- ceejayoz 1y ago> Wouldn't that damage the right to free speech? We already ban defamation, fraud, the f-bomb and boobs on publicly available television channels, etc. > Dominion was libelled by Newsmax, so they was able to claim damages from them in a court of law. The law didn't allow them to get away with it. Long, long after the damage was done, and it'll take equally long the next time they do the same thing. As the saying goes, if there's just a fine, the fine is just the cost of doing business.
- platevoltage 1y agoWe've watched media companies settle cases that they would have won on the merits in order to avoid the wrath of a vengeful authoritarian. We've already slipped down that slope.
- thinkingtoilet 1y agoLets say you have a competing business to mine. Am I allowed to go on TV and say "DO NOT USE FridayoLeary's BUSINESS! He is a known pedophile and I have proof!" I'll put up billboards in our home town and contact any vendors and clients you have and let them know this. Is that ok with you? Things like libel and slander are not damaging to free speech. I don't know how it happened but it feels like American's fundamentally don't understand how our right to free speech works and what it is for.
- mandeepj 1y ago> holding these "news" networks responsible for brazen repeated lies that are hugely damaging to our society But that moron in WH is still spreading lies about that election; he has no shame, no remorse, no nothing. On the contrary, he was successful in portraying himself a victim and win people’s sympathy. Even though he’s the one who called insurrection. There’s no accountability for him. Look at South Korea, who indicted their politician who did same act. As well at Brazil, who’s rogue politician is in house arrest. But, fking only here, they are awarded with a 2nd term.
- dimal 1y agoI had been worried about what would happen as the American republic goes down, whether other countries would follow suit. So those two examples are cause for hope. As for the second term, we can’t forget that the Democrats basically threw the election. This election was a layup. An easy win. And they did absolutely everything wrong. I almost blame them as much as Trump for this mess.
- senderista 1y agoWhen it comes to pleasing the base, or the voters, Democrats always choose the former. At least they can feel good about losing.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y agoI see so much hate for James Carville but he was right. Grocery prices affect more people than abortions so why the hell did Dems run on abortions?!
- mandeepj 1y agoThe other candidate went on stage and said - he’d lower the grocery prices on day 1, and then declares off-stage: once prices go up, they never come down . He told Palestinian-Americans in Michigan - he’d bring peace in Palestine. People were so desperate to hear what they wanted to hear - whether lower prices or peace back home. He sold lies to everyone; I don’t see Democrats doing that. Ironically, prices are comparatively high now and going to get even higher. You know the statements coming from Israel. I wish there was a way to challenge - these corrupt and lying politicians - in court. Unfortunately, currently, Supreme Court is compromised as well.
- UmGuys 1y agoThey are entertainment and should be treated that way. And what of the damage our federal government is doing to many corporations, universities, cities, and individuals? Should they have sue the government? It's all so absurd when people stop following the rules.
- Ancapistani 1y agoI don't understand how it became the expectation that media report truth. That has _never_ been the case, since the founding of the country. Media's role is to provide facts, sources, and synthesis. It's a starting point for discourse, not an immutable record. If you expect _any_ media outlet to be 100% reliable and without bias, you're going to be sorely disappointed.
- phendrenad2 1y agoIt's even worse than that: This was likely a one-off. Note that Newsmax is the only organization that's having to pay (at least, that I know of). That's because Newsmax probably wasn't very careful not to state things as fact that they didn't have solid evidence of. The news has been perfectly capable of fooling people but weaseling out at the last moment with a "according to an anonymous source" at the end (that's how CNN does it, anyway). Also note that the judge in this case left it up to the jury to decide if the accusations were done with malice, I.E. to harm Dominion as a company, and the jury apparently decided that yes, it did (or were big enough Newsmax dislikers to swing that way anyway). Different jury, different outcome.