Rupert Murdoch distances himself from Fox News’ election denial

Since 2021, Fox News has been fighting defamation and defamation lawsuits over allegations that the network knowingly spread lies alleging that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

The most high-profile legal battle the conservative news network has is with Dominion Voting Systems, the provider of electronic voting machines and software. That company sued Fox in 2021 for $1.6 billion over false claims made by Fox hosts during the 2020 election that Dominion helped Joe Biden win a fraudulent election against Donald Trump.

The case is currently in the early stages, with the court reviewing evidence to determine whether it can rule in favor of either party without a trial. The arguments are currently scheduled to begin on April 17.

But after weeks of damning public evidence against Fox, including texts and emails involving television personalities and top executives, legal experts say there has seldom been such a clear-cut path to victory for a plaintiff in a high-profile libel case. Even without a trial, the case could have long-lasting repercussions on Fox News’ remaining credibility, and much of the legwork may have been done by Fox itself.

“This case provides more evidence of falsehood knowledge than most experts in this field are used to seeing in a major media case,” said RonNell Andersen Jones, professor of media law at the University of Utah wealth.

Last month, Dominion released a remarkable series of internal conversations involving Fox figures in a Delaware court. Dominion claims the news release reveals that star on-air broadcasters such as Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, as well as Fox co-founder Rupert Murdoch, did not believe the allegations of 2020 voter fraud that they or their network were peddling have the time.

During a testimony asking Murdoch under oath if the Fox anchors supported Trump’s stolen election claims, the executive acknowledged they did New York Times reported this week.

“I would have liked us to denounce it more in hindsight,” he replied.

But Murdoch dismissed accusations that Fox News as a whole supported Donald Trump’s stolen election claims and appeared to distance itself and Fox Corporation from the presenters’ statements. When asked if the company as a whole endorsed the narratives, he replied: “Not Fox. No, not Fox.”

Legal experts say Murdoch may be trying to shift some of the blame for the fraudulent statements away from the company and onto the hosts.

“I would suspect that there are more than a few people who might suspect that Fox News would try to distract and maybe try to find scapegoats,” said Joseph Russomanno, a professor of media law at Arizona State University wealth.

“A lot of what we’ve seen in Rupert Murdoch’s comments appears to be his attempt to protect the Fox News brand, the company and himself while pointing the finger at others,” he added.

Russomanno said the recent evidence, particularly Murdoch’s comments, may even suggest that “Fox News is doing a great deal in helping Dominion prove its case in relation to what has been revealed.” He called it ” unusual if not unprecedented”.

lie or opinion?

The basis of Fox’s defense is that the network reported newsworthy allegations by Trump about voter fraud and that biased reporting is protected by the First Amendment.

Fox’s position is that Dominion’s legal interpretation “would prevent journalists from doing basic reporting,” a Fox spokesman said wealth. “According to the Dominion, the press is liable for reporting newsworthy allegations by the incumbent President of the United States, even if the press makes it clear that the allegations are unproven and many people deny them.”

Dominion has dismissed Fox’s defense, arguing that the First Amendment does not apply in this situation. “Dominion firmly believes in the First Amendment and its protection. As long-standing law makes clear, the First Amendment does not protect broadcasters that knowingly or recklessly spread lies,” a company spokesman said wealth.

The issue for Fox is whether the plaintiffs can prove that the network knew at the time that its statements were false, which would make it much easier for Dominion to argue.

“The really important thing to understand is that Fox has the right to be biased,” said David Korzenik, an attorney specializing in media law and the First Amendment wealth. But he added: “It has no right to publish things it knows are wrong or thinks are wrong.”

The case will likely boil down to whether Dominion can prove that Fox released false statements with “actual malice,” a precedent set in the 1964 case New York Times vs. Sullivan. It requires “public figures” in defamation lawsuits to prove that the defendants made statements “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not.”

In most defamation cases, plaintiffs typically argue with the second part of the precedent — that an accused party acted in disregard of the truth, according to Arizona State’s Russomanno. But the Fox case stands out for the evidence that makes Dominion argue for the former – that Fox’s hosts were fully aware they were publishing lies.

“In this situation, it is clear from Fox’s own testimony that they knew the information was false and then went ahead and released it,” he said.

Contain the fire

Defamation allegations and incriminating testimonies have already increased Dominion’s chances of a successful lawsuit against Fox, but the network’s brand and credibility may already have suffered without a judge’s verdict.

“[Dominion] certainly managed to draw attention to the behind-the-scenes scramble that took place at Fox News after the election. In that sense, Fox has already lost on some important fronts,” said Andersen Jones of the University of Utah. She added that the lawsuit has already raised questions about how far Fox has gone in maintaining vote-refusal claims in comments in front of its own audience.

“This can even have consequences for the brand. It’s also likely to create pressure to settle down to avoid further exposure of that material in a process,” she said.

Damage to Fox News’ brand and credibility may not do much to turn away its core viewership, which has long been considered more loyal than other channels’ viewers, though some viewers may be discouraged from tuning in as often.

“I think there’s a huge segment of the audience that just doesn’t care about lies as long as they’re pro-Trump lies,” Richard Painter, a law professor who served as the senior White House ethics attorney during the George W .Bush administration, told wealth. “But I don’t think they’re going to hold the bigger audience. I think they will lose a good chunk of the conservative but moderate group.”

A ruling against Fox could result in an organizational restructuring and a setback for shareholders, said Jeffrey Sonnenfield, senior associate dean of leadership studies at Yale University, who has spent four decades advising CEOs and US presidents on leadership issues CNN this week.

“The board has a duty to remove such officers for established misconduct,” he said, citing executives like Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott. He added that Fox could face shareholder lawsuits, loss of insurance coverage and even an SEC investigation over “deceptive practices by its board of directors for conspiracy to conceal known wrongdoing.”

Fox News, which accounts for most of Fox Corporation’s revenue, has long been accused of overly focusing on maintaining its viewership to maintain profits and increase shareholder returns, potentially contributing to its election denial and the credibility of the Network in the US has degraded in the long term, Painter said.

“I think they’re going to lose that credibility very quickly unless they categorically reject shareholder primacy,” Painter said. “They could destroy their business model at the expense of shareholders, that’s the great irony.”

What happens next for Fox depends on whether Dominion can prove actual malice, whether executives like Murdoch and the hosts are guilty, and how Fox reacts. But in many ways Fox may already have been harmed.

“This is a defense of containment on how to contain the fire. I don’t think it’s going to stop Dominion overall from landing a punch,” Korzenik said. “They can do some containment, but they won’t stop the fist from landing.”