Fox and Dominion settle for $788 million

[meiam]

Defamation suit produced trove of Tucker Carlson messages

Dominion Voting Systems' lawsuit against Fox News didn't go to trial, but still revealed plenty of what Fox personalities, including Tucker Carlson, had been saying about false 2020 election claims. The network’s top-rated host was let go Monday. His unexplained departure has turned a spotlight...

apnews.com

Lots of interesting tidbits out of the text message that were exposed due to the lawsuits, nothing shocking to people outside fox influence but it feel like it would shatter some people worldview.

Seems Carlson really believed that there was fraud in 2020, but really hated how the Trump team was undermining the message with their pathetic attempt at proving it which did more damage than help (although Carlson didn't have any credible proof either, he just seem to think he was better at building a narrative). It also seems like he was disappointed by Trump presidency and couldn't wait till he was gone. Ironically he was also shocked that the Trump cult took Trump word literally and actually though he was a "demonic force". But most of all, it seems he just cared about the rating and his own reputation.

 

[SilentPony]

Defamation suit produced trove of Tucker Carlson messages

Dominion Voting Systems' lawsuit against Fox News didn't go to trial, but still revealed plenty of what Fox personalities, including Tucker Carlson, had been saying about false 2020 election claims. The network’s top-rated host was let go Monday. His unexplained departure has turned a spotlight...

apnews.com

Lots of interesting tidbits out of the text message that were exposed due to the lawsuits, nothing shocking to people outside fox influence but it feel like it would shatter some people worldview.

Seems Carlson really believed that there was fraud in 2020, but really hated how the Trump team was undermining the message with their pathetic attempt at proving it which did more damage than help (although Carlson didn't have any credible proof either, he just seem to think he was better at building a narrative). It also seems like he was disappointed by Trump presidency and couldn't wait till he was gone. Ironically he was also shocked that the Trump cult took Trump word literally and actually though he was a "demonic force". But most of all, it seems he just cared about the rating and his own reputation.

He also was apparently an insane misogynists who frequently held "Hot or Not" contests with his female employees, including have a picture of Nancy Pelosi in a swimsuit and having the dudes talk about how fuckable she was.
And he loved himself the C-word, and elevator eyes and showing lewd photos to the secretaries.
So just a good, all around scumbag Good ol' Boy fucking around and finding out.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[Eacaraxe]

But you show another instance where a major media corporation has deliberately and aggressively pushed lies on a matter so important.

I'd say Iraq and Afghanistan, hell the "war on terror" in sum, but that's at least a couple orders of magnitude more important than a bunch of dumb election bullshit.

If we really wanted to talk about just dumb election bullshit, well, how many years did the UK mass media collaborate with Labour to defame and harass Corbyn and his supporters before being caught out by al-Jazeera? about the same time and with the same playbook as what happened in the US with Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, and certain members of the squad, last I checked.

But, if that's not enough, we should talk about media lies about dumb election bullshit that also led to civil unrest. Hell, pick an anti-Macron protest, really. Bonus points if the one you happen to pick involves mass defamation of civil service, emergency response, or health care workers.

Of course, all the above-listed instances weren't of "a" media corporation fucking around. That was the whole damn politico-media complex fucking around.

 

[Ag3ma]

snip

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Lots of interesting tidbits out of the text message that were exposed due to the lawsuits, nothing shocking to people outside fox influence but it feel like it would shatter some people worldview.

I think you're underestimating the resiliency of the average Fox viewer's delusions. They'd sooner believe that the messages were crafted by a lizard-person doppelganger of Tucker, directed by Biden via the use of Jewish space lasers.

 

[SilentPony]

I think you're underestimating the resiliency of the average Fox viewer's delusions. They'd sooner believe that the messages were crafted by a lizard-person doppelganger of Tucker, directed by Biden via the use of Jewish space lasers.

There was that one interview Jordan Klepper did at a Trump rally. He showed people the testimony of Trump Jr. and Ivanka talking about their dad's plans for Jan 6th. And the overwhelming reaction? Lizard clones used by Jews. No joke, that's what they thought. Mind controlled lizard clones of the Trump kids to make him look bad.
That's an easier thing to believe than they were hoodwinked by a con artist for the last 7 years. Because once you admit Trump lied and you fall for dumb shit easily...what's next? Did the Youth Pastor who pinkie pie swore he didn't rape your daughter when you found him naked in her bed lie too? Maybe Jesus didn't say to disown your Gay son. Maybe that black guy you roughed up in '62 for dating a white woman didn't deserve it?
Once Trump supporters come to the realization they have shit judgement and are easily tricked, it'll be like opening a Dam the amount of terrible shit they did throughout their lives, having been easily tricked because of their shit judgement. Never trust people who are constantly going to church and revivals and feel the need to proselytize. What are they doing constantly that makes them feel like their soul is in jeopardy?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I'd say Iraq and Afghanistan, hell the "war on terror" in sum, but that's at least a couple orders of magnitude more important than a bunch of dumb election bullshit.

If we really wanted to talk about just dumb election bullshit, well, how many years did the UK mass media collaborate with Labour to defame and harass Corbyn and his supporters before being caught out by al-Jazeera? about the same time and with the same playbook as what happened in the US with Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, and certain members of the squad, last I checked.

But, if that's not enough, we should talk about media lies about dumb election bullshit that also led to civil unrest. Hell, pick an anti-Macron protest, really. Bonus points if the one you happen to pick involves mass defamation of civil service, emergency response, or health care workers.

Of course, all the above-listed instances weren't of "a" media corporation fucking around. That was the whole damn politico-media complex fucking around.

You say "until they were caught by Al-Jazeera" like they stopped.


To this day they're gaslighting people about Corbyn.

 

[BrawlMan]

Once Trump supporters come to the realization they have shit judgement and are easily tricked, it'll be like opening a Dam the amount of terrible shit they did throughout their lives, having been easily tricked because of their shit judgement. Never trust people who are constantly going to church and revivals and feel the need to proselytize. What are they doing constantly that makes them feel like their soul is in jeopardy?

Deal with it Trump supporters. Fucking deal with it and try to actually at least resemble a little bit of human decency. Otherwise, you are all just scared cowards willing to betray and scapegoat anyone just make yourselves feels better. Even among yourself. You are all the true evil within.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Why yes Eacaraxe, I should very much like more examples proving me wrong!

Well, if you like...

 

[Silvanus]

Well yes, but there's also an argument to be made that if you have to go back to the 19th century for an example, then it's not a very strong case.

OT, the press do engage in fabrication and spurious/yellow reporting quite frequently. Media distrust may be easily misdirected (or used to justify relying on even worse sources), but it didn't just come from nowhere.

That said, there's a difference between pushing a specious narrative, and publishing a factual falsehood that the author knows to be false. A lot of the examples given thus far are examples of the former, not really the latter, like that Chomsky/Chorley bit. I tend to agree with Chomsky that Corbyn's performance in 2017 was actually very strong-- he'd have won almost any other modern election with those returns, and it's true that there's a self-serving media narrative to paint it as abject failure instead.

But also, Chorley is right in one respect; it wasn't victory. It was inarguably defeat.

It's not demonstrable, known falsehood on the part of the media company to focus on the failure rather than the relatively strong showing. Its a self serving narrative, but that ain't the same, and isn't comparable to the US election lies.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Well yes, but there's also an argument to be made that if you have to go back to the 19th century for an example, then it's not a very strong case.

OT, the press do engage in fabrication and spurious/yellow reporting quite frequently. Media distrust may be easily misdirected (or used to justify relying on even worse sources), but it didn't just come from nowhere.

That said, there's a difference between pushing a specious narrative, and publishing a factual falsehood that the author knows to be false. A lot of the examples given thus far are examples of the former, not really the latter, like that Chomsky/Chorley bit. I tend to agree with Chomsky that Corbyn's performance in 2017 was actually very strong-- he'd have won almost any other modern election with those returns, and it's true that there's a self-serving media narrative to paint it as abject failure instead.

But also, Chorley is right in one respect; it wasn't victory. It was inarguably defeat.

It's not demonstrable, known falsehood on the part of the media company to focus on the failure rather than the relatively strong showing. Its a self serving narrative, but that ain't the same, and isn't comparable to the US election lies.

And Chorley relying on the EHRC report despite it being completely non-credible?

 

[Silvanus]

And Chorley relying on the EHRC report despite it being completely non-credible?

That'd be an example of someone pushing a flimsy subjective narrative that isn't a case of being factually false.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

That'd be an example of someone pushing a flimsy subjective narrative that isn't a case of being factually false.

At this point referencing the EHRC paper as anything but toilet paper is factually false, as is Chorley yelling over Chomsky saying Labour had a massive swing in their favor in the election with "nuh uh". He's outright denying Labour gained seats, which is definitely false and if the UK's wacky slander/libel system had any value, someone would take him to court to make him basically recant himself.

 

[Silvanus]

At this point referencing the EHRC paper as anything but toilet paper is factually false, as is Chorley yelling over Chomsky saying Labour had a massive swing in their favor in the election with "nuh uh". He's outright denying Labour gained seats, which is definitely false and if the UK's wacky slander/libel system had any value, someone would take him to court to make him basically recant himself.

No, finding the paper persuasive is not "factually false". It's a bad paper, it's specious and flimsy and doesn't make a good case for its position. But that ain't objective.

And yeah, denying labour gained seats etc is factually wrong. But keep in mind we were originally comparing the scope and significance of a lie. Denying labour gained seats in an election they undeniably lost anyway =/= the same league as denying an entire election went the way it did and that there's a national criminal conspiracy that secretly reversed it. These are not in the same ballpark.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

No, finding the paper persuasive is not "factually false". It's a bad paper, it's specious and flimsy and doesn't make a good case for its position. But that ain't objective.

And yeah, denying labour gained seats etc is factually wrong. But keep in mind we were originally comparing the scope and significance of a lie. Denying labour gained seats in an election they undeniably lost anyway =/= the same league as denying an entire election went the way it did and that there's a national criminal conspiracy that secretly reversed it. These are not in the same ballpark.

Those lies have been used to try and eliminate one of the top politicians out of office, discredit an entire movement, and expel more jews from the party than were even accused from the people being smeared. I'd call it in the same ballpark.

 

[Silvanus]

Those lies have been used to try and eliminate one of the top politicians out of office, discredit an entire movement, and expel more jews from the party than were even accused from the people being smeared. I'd call it in the same ballpark.

Denying Labour made gains in 2017 did not do any of that. What did all of that was a selective, specious narrative.

Which politician/office are we talking about, btw? Corbyn remains an MP.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Denying Labour made gains in 2017 did not do any of that. What did all of that was a selective, specious narrative.

Which politician/office are we talking about, btw? Corbyn remains an MP.

Denying Labour made gains absolutely did all that, or rather was part of it.

MP of what party?

 

[Silvanus]

Denying Labour made gains absolutely did all that, or rather was part of it.

MP of what party?

Independent MP, but party affiliation isn't an office.

I don't have much skin in this game considering I despise the British press and how they dealt with Labour under Corbyn, so I don't have much interest in arguing this any more.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Independent MP, but party affiliation isn't an office.

I don't have much skin in this game considering I despise the British press and how they dealt with Labour under Corbyn, so I don't have much interest in arguing this any more.

It is however an attempt to remove him from office come next election, which is exactly what I said.