• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Fox News knew they were lying about election

If you went around Fox viewers and presented them with this evidence, they would instantly contrive a reason why this doesn't matter and then forget it ever happened.
Because that's what they have been trained to do.
 
I'd like to hear from some of our resident Republicans on this. Strangely absent. Well, maybe no so 'strangely'.
 
Even after the Sandy Hook verdict I have heard Alex Jones viewers say that he is "mostly right".

This, like everything else in the right-wing media space, is not, and never has been, about facts and truths, but about the opposite: sharing lies.
Because then you have to defend those lies against the rest of the world, which creates a sense of unity in the viewers.
 
Even after the Sandy Hook verdict I have heard Alex Jones viewers say that he is "mostly right".

This, like everything else in the right-wing media space, is not, and never has been, about facts and truths, but about the opposite: sharing lies.
Because then you have to defend those lies against the rest of the world, which creates a sense of unity in the viewers.

Yep: they'd rather BE wrong than admit they ARE wrong.
 
His sons are as bad as he is, if not worse.

Thing is, the only child he has who isn't thick as two short planks wants nothing to do with running the company. The only reason Lachlann is still even around is because ole Rupe has nobody else with his genes who'll sit in the big chair.
 
I'm no lawyer, but it looks like the term "reasonable" does a lot of heavy lifting in our legal system. And there doesn't seem to be a "reasonable person" standard when it comes to purchasing a firearm.


See this judicial definition of the "Reasonable Man":

This noble creature stands in singular contrast to his kinsman the Economic Man, whose every action is prompted by the single spur of selfish advantage and directed to the single end of monetary gain. The Reasonable Man is always thinking of others; prudence is his guide, and 'Safety First', if I may borrow a contemporary catchword, is his rule of life. All solid virtues are his, save only that peculiar quality by which the affection of other men is won. For it will not be pretended that socially he is much less objectionable than the Economic Man. Though any given example of his behaviour must command our admiration, when taken in the mass his acts create a very different set of impressions. He is one who invariably looks where he is going, and is careful to examine the immediate foreground before he executes a leap or bound; who neither star-gazes nor is lost in meditation when approaching trap-doors or the margin of a dock; who records in every case upon the counterfoils of cheques such ample details as are desirable, scrupulously substitutes the word 'Order' for the word 'Bearer', crosses the instrument 'a/c Payee only', and registers the package in which it is despatched; who never mounts a moving omnibus, and does not alight from any car while the train is in motion; who investigates exhaustively the bona fides of every mendicant before distributing alms, and will inform himself of the history and habits of a dog before administering a caress; who believes no gossip, nor repeats it, without firm basis for believing it to be true; who never drives his ball till those in front of him have definitely vacated the putting-green which is his own objective; who never from one year's end to another makes an excessive demand upon his wife, his neighbours, his servants, his ox, or his ass; who in the way of business looks only for that narrow margin of profit which twelve men such as himself would reckon to be 'fair', contemplates his fellow-merchants, their agents, and their goods, with that degree of suspicion and distrust which the law deems admirable; who never swears, gambles, or loses his temper; who uses nothing except in moderation, and even while he flogs his child is meditating only on the golden mean. Devoid, in short, of any human weakness, with not one single saving vice, sans prejudice, procrastination, ill-nature, avarice, and absence of mind, as careful for his own safety as he is for that of others, this excellent but odious character stands like a monument in our Courts of Justice, vainly appealing to his fellow-citizens to order their lives after his own example.

Marrow LJ, Fardell v Potts (1927) Herbert's Misleading Cases in the Common Law 8 at 10.
 
Yep: they'd rather BE wrong than admit they ARE wrong.

It's the Weaponizing of Conspiracy theories started by the Industralist in the late 1800s, just using a modern Media Platform with support and Aid from Vladimir Putin.
Keep the People divided and they will never rise up and Brake their chains, that's why we have the Idiot Weaponizing Social Media hearings in the House and why I have no True Right of Freespeech now.
 
And hey, looky here!

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has given Fox News' Tucker Carlson exclusive access to 41,000 hours of Capitol surveillance footage from the Jan. 6 riot, McCarthy sources tell me.

Carlson TV producers were on Capitol Hill last week to begin digging through the trove, which includes multiple camera angles from all over Capitol grounds. Excerpts will begin airing in the coming weeks.

Whatever could possibly be going on there? Such a mystery!
 
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has given Fox News' Tucker Carlson exclusive access to 41,000 hours of Capitol surveillance footage from the Jan. 6 riot...

Americans have a right to know what happened? I guess we can all agree on that AND agree- They're not going to learn what happened from the likes of Tucker Carlson.

Remember what FOX lawyers argued in defending Carlson in a slander case?
The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' " NPR link
 

Attachments

  • People have the right to hear what they want to hear.jpg
    People have the right to hear what they want to hear.jpg
    111.5 KB · Views: 6
Fortunately the J6 committee has already seen the footage and can call out Carlson when he cherry picks.

It's still a dick move by McCarthy.
 
McCarthy already tried to cosplay a j6 commission; having failed, he's recruiting Fox to do it for him.
Like all things to do with Trumpworld and the GOP these days, this is very likely to backfire badly on them too.

Already Fox are staring at an almost certain $1.5 billion dollar loss due to the J6 debacle and the Trumpy parade of loons, liars and losers. Also it is well known that Rupert is fed up to the back teeth with Loser Don.

So I would expect Fox to manipulate their reporting to subtly (or maybe not so subtly) dump Trump and all who go with him. They will also pick a different "winner" to promote, maybe DeSantis? EmptyG may be on far thinner ice than she knows.
 
Already Fox are staring at an almost certain $1.5 billion dollar loss due to the J6 debacle and the Trumpy parade of loons, liars and losers.
Side question (if anyone knows US civil law better than I do )

Fox is being sued for around $1.5 billion, but is there any chance they could lose more than that?

I am thinking of the lawsuits against Alex Jones, where the plaintiffs won compensatory damages but then they stuck punitive damages on top. I am just wondering if fox might get hit in the same way... With a large punitive damages award added to the top of their original claim. (Assuming the plaintiffs win and fox loses)

Is that possible here? Or are there rules that prevent that in this case (such as the state the lawsuit was filed in having different laws regarding punitive damages)



Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk
 
Side question (if anyone knows US civil law better than I do )

Fox is being sued for around $1.5 billion, but is there any chance they could lose more than that?

I am thinking of the lawsuits against Alex Jones, where the plaintiffs won compensatory damages but then they stuck punitive damages on top. I am just wondering if fox might get hit in the same way... With a large punitive damages award added to the top of their original claim. (Assuming the plaintiffs win and fox loses)

Is that possible here? Or are there rules that prevent that in this case (such as the state the lawsuit was filed in having different laws regarding punitive damages)



Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

The plaintiffs may have won their case against Alex Jones but IMO their chances of actually seeing a penny of the award is nearly zero. Jones has moved his money to companies controlled by his parents and made himself appear financially (as well as morally) bankrupt. The plaintiffs will likely not see any of their legal fees being paid, much less any damages. :mad:

IMO the same will apply to FOXNews. They will drag out the legal process as long as possible in the hope of a favourable ruling somewhere, anywhere and if that doesn't work they'll battle any damages to the last and if that doesn't work they'll move the liability to a subsidiary which can then be wound up before Dominion see a penny. :mad:

It's the way that the rich and powerful manage to "cheat" justice. :(
 
Side question (if anyone knows US civil law better than I do )

Fox is being sued for around $1.5 billion, but is there any chance they could lose more than that?

I am thinking of the lawsuits against Alex Jones, where the plaintiffs won compensatory damages but then they stuck punitive damages on top. I am just wondering if fox might get hit in the same way... With a large punitive damages award added to the top of their original claim. (Assuming the plaintiffs win and fox loses)

Is that possible here? Or are there rules that prevent that in this case (such as the state the lawsuit was filed in having different laws regarding punitive damages)



Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

I've been wondering if a Class Action suit could be filed against Fox News for misleading their viewers?
 
The reason, was we learned from Discovery, for Fox to lie about the Election and Dominon was because NewsMax was eating its lunch with election conspiracies.

If this lawsuit gets expensive, it will permanently constrain Fox from going full CT for risk of getting sued again.
Which means that there will be a permanent space for an even-more-right-wing Channel and Fox will be seen as s Sellout.

So yeah, the lawsuit is an existential threat to Fox's current business model
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom