Octopus Overlords

I understand the difference. The larger point is this is an organization that should have been wiped out by this, and instead they pay a fine which, while significant, is but a bump in the road.

It's inconceivable that they will continue without even admitting fraud on air. Absolutely absurd.

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 1:05 am I understand the difference. The larger point is this is an organization that should have been wiped out by this, and instead they pay a fine which, while significant, is but a bump in the road.

It's inconceivable that they will continue without even admitting fraud on air. Absolutely absurd.

Right. They were part of a broad based attack on our WAY OF LIFE and they pay half a year's profit? Except it's not even that. Some portion is likely covered by insurance. And then *the American taxpayer* may kick in a tax deduction on the settlement on top...on a attack on our nation. I get that people might have gotten their hopes up too much perhaps. Mostly because they were fooled by propaganda that we live in a decent society with standards and rules that protect us. This is yet another in a near endless series of daily reminders that we clearly do not.

Kurth wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 7:37 pm This Atlantic article sums up my disappointment well.

Dominion’s choice to settle comes as a great disappointment to many critics of Fox, and is also probably a smart financial decision. For the critics, this case was about democracy and disinformation and provided an opportunity to hold Fox accountable for years of broadcasting hogwash. For Dominion, it was primarily about business. No matter how lofty the language its spokespeople used, the company didn’t sue to fix the American media landscape.

You're a lawyer - what remedy was going to come out of this trial that could have fixed the American media landscape? The best case was that a court was going to say that what Fox did wrong. Fox was never going to have to say that and could continue to complain that they disagreed with the final court outcome. Fox is too big for one lawsuit to wipe them out like it did Gawker. So what else were people hoping for that was based in reality and not wish-casting?

Grifman wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 11:26 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 5:06 pm

stessier wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 4:59 pm

Kurth wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 4:32 pm Disappointed, but not surprised.

Why disappointed?

Fox News had revenue in 2022 of $14.0B. In Q2 2023 they had $4.6B in revenue. This settlement is ~15 days of revenue. For about as intentionally and cynically misleading the public about the foundation of our democracy as possible, over a prolonged period.

It's a total farce. If you're not disappointed, you're not paying attention.

You shouldn’t compare the settlement amount to revenue, as that is a gross amount before expenses. Instead it should be compared to FOX’s annual profit, which last year was $1.5 billion. So basically Dominion wiped out half of FOX’s annual yearly profit. That is not an insignificant number by any means.

For what it's worth I do think this amount (even before the payouts for other litigations are determined) are large enough to be a deterrent for Fox. That doesn't mean that Fox will immediately go to objective news reporting and 'just the facts' analysis, but I do think it will create a counter-weight for Fox decision making at least as to wealthy parties who can credibly threaten to sue.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:18 am

Grifman wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 11:26 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 5:06 pm

stessier wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 4:59 pm

Kurth wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 4:32 pm Disappointed, but not surprised.

Why disappointed?

Fox News had revenue in 2022 of $14.0B. In Q2 2023 they had $4.6B in revenue. This settlement is ~15 days of revenue. For about as intentionally and cynically misleading the public about the foundation of our democracy as possible, over a prolonged period.

It's a total farce. If you're not disappointed, you're not paying attention.

You shouldn’t compare the settlement amount to revenue, as that is a gross amount before expenses. Instead it should be compared to FOX’s annual profit, which last year was $1.5 billion. So basically Dominion wiped out half of FOX’s annual yearly profit. That is not an insignificant number by any means.

For what it's worth I do think this amount (even before the payouts for other litigations are determined) are large enough to be a deterrent for Fox. That doesn't mean that Fox will immediately go to objective news reporting and 'just the facts' analysis, but I do think it will create a counter-weight for Fox decision making at least as to wealthy parties who can credibly threaten to sue.

This sounds right to my ears. It could very well mean they swing back into "classic demonization" - lean into anti-trans, anti-poor, anti-brown/black tinged reporting. They have also learned how not to share information that hurts them. I expect big changes on that front.

stessier wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 8:44 am

Kurth wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 7:37 pm This Atlantic article sums up my disappointment well.

Dominion’s choice to settle comes as a great disappointment to many critics of Fox, and is also probably a smart financial decision. For the critics, this case was about democracy and disinformation and provided an opportunity to hold Fox accountable for years of broadcasting hogwash. For Dominion, it was primarily about business. No matter how lofty the language its spokespeople used, the company didn’t sue to fix the American media landscape.

You're a lawyer - what remedy was going to come out of this trial that could have fixed the American media landscape? The best case was that a court was going to say that what Fox did wrong. Fox was never going to have to say that and could continue to complain that they disagreed with the final court outcome. Fox is too big for one lawsuit to wipe them out like it did Gawker. So what else were people hoping for that was based in reality and not wish-casting?

I think we’re missing each other here. The settlement makes total sense for Dominion and is a good number given what damages would have likely amounted to had they been able to establish liability.

But what I would have liked to see would have been (1) a long, drawn out trial that hung around Fox’s neck for a good while; (2) the pained distortions of Tucker Carlson and his ilk taking the stand to try to explain, under oath and before a jury, why he was telling his viewers one thing and secretly texting Hannity and others at Fox the opposite; and (3) Rupert Murdoch drug down out of Elysium to wallow in the muck in a civil trial with he regular people where he would have had to try to defend the monster he created.

On top of all that, entry of a judgment against Fox that it was liable would have been more impactful than this settlement. That wasn’t a guarantee, by any means, so, again, the settlement makes sense to me.

But a trial would have been far, far more painful and damaging to Fox, and a judgment entered against it would have been huge.

gilraen wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 5:40 pm You pay that much because you are scared of what else might come out, and that you might actually lose.

Exactly that. I couldn't care less about the amount of the settlement, I wanted to watch a terrible (criminal?) organization having their skeletons dragged out of the closet.

Fox has (had) over $4B in cash. This settlement won't criple them, nor will the next one. They're paying to protect executives and to stay out of court.

Dominion and their private equity partners just hit the jackpot.



Fox execs and Dominion PE guys can laugh and trade barbs about it at a ski resort or steak house some day.

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 1:05 am I understand the difference. The larger point is this is an organization that should have been wiped out by this, and instead they pay a fine which, while significant, is but a bump in the road.

It's inconceivable that they will continue without even admitting fraud on air. Absolutely absurd.

No, this is not an “organization that should be wiped out by this”. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. This was a lawsuit to determine if FOX damaged Dominion by their reporting, and what the related amount of damages were done to Dominion that they should be compensated for. What it is not is a lawsuit to punish FOX in some way for harm they have done to American democracy. That’s not anything that the courts can remedy.

I understand your frustration, but the courts were never going to give you and me what we would like them to give us.

Grifman wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:23 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 1:05 am I understand the difference. The larger point is this is an organization that should have been wiped out by this, and instead they pay a fine which, while significant, is but a bump in the road.

It's inconceivable that they will continue without even admitting fraud on air. Absolutely absurd.

No, this is not an “organization that should be wiped out by this”. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. This was a lawsuit to determine if FOX damaged Dominion by their reporting, and what the related amount of damages were done to Dominion that they should be compensated for. What it is not is a lawsuit to punish FOX in some way for harm they have done to American democracy. That’s not anything that the courts can remedy.

I understand your frustration, but the courts were never going to give you and me what we would like them to give us.

Well, while I get your point entirely ... in a world without "settling out of court" and a world where "they were truly going to be found totally guilty for something they TRULY DID" (You know.. the "REAL WORLD" -- and while this isn't "OUR" world, this isn't something we should desire) - it's not ridiculous to find our judicial system absurd when they can't even force FOX "NEWS" to actually publically admit what they actually simply did. This is the world in which they need to be held to this bullshit, not in some other realm of justice. I know we can all just "be frustrated", but if it isn't these courts - what courts will it be???

No, it's not a fundamental misunderstanding. 'By this' means by this clearly exposed pattern of intentionally misleading the public in a matter vital to the country's continued existence, not 'by this lawsuit.' The lawsuit is [should be] but one part.

Fox News is, unequivocally and indisputably, an organization that should be gone after this (or at the least, should be barred from using the term 'news' to describe itself in any manner). Via whatever method the nation decides is appropriate. This lawsuit is a part of that, but should not be nearly as important a part as it is. That's the inconceivable part.

This outcome is yet another in a long line of demonstrations of how deeply unserious our nation has become. We are a farce, and deserve the international fall from grace we're experiencing.

The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:42 am The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

They would say that, but it'd be hogwash.

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:44 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:42 am The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

They would say that, but it'd be hogwash.

Yeah, from a certain point of view. We don't want the government picking winning view points.

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:42 am The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

There is unfortunately far too much evidence that this approach likely doesn't work at scale. At the very least there is a decent case that the 1st Amendment as we practice it is incompatible with the information age. Democracies might need to establish hard guardrails for misinformation to survive. Maybe someone will solve for it in our framework but the hopes are looking pretty dim. Unfortunately I think we have a high risk of becoming the example why guardrails need to exist.

malchior wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:47 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:42 am The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

There is unfortunately far too much evidence that this approach likely doesn't work at scale. At the very least there is a decent case that the 1st Amendment as we practice it is incompatible with the information age. Democracies might need to establish hard guardrails for misinformation to survive. Maybe someone will solve for it in our framework but the hopes are looking pretty dim. Unfortunately I think we have a high risk of becoming the example why guardrails need to exist.

I'm unaware of anyone who has come up with guardrails that don't land the country in the exact same place.

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:46 am

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:44 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:42 am The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

They would say that, but it'd be hogwash.

Yeah, from a certain point of view. We don't want the government picking winning view points.

It's not a certain point of view. One side is knowingly lying about basic tenets that keep our civic society orderly and the other isn't. This isn't about picking view points. This is about concerted efforts to unmake a democracy. In ways that we've seen used to unmake other democracies. We should be able to protect our society against these risks but we're holding onto values when newspapers had to be physically carried on horses. We're simply drowning in an onslaught of endless propaganda.

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:52 am

malchior wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:47 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:42 am The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

There is unfortunately far too much evidence that this approach likely doesn't work at scale. At the very least there is a decent case that the 1st Amendment as we practice it is incompatible with the information age. Democracies might need to establish hard guardrails for misinformation to survive. Maybe someone will solve for it in our framework but the hopes are looking pretty dim. Unfortunately I think we have a high risk of becoming the example why guardrails need to exist.

I'm unaware of anyone who has come up with guardrails that don't land the country in the exact same place.

Are you unaware about most of Europe's rules on media participation? What Fox did is illegal in nearly every nation there.

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:46 am

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:44 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:42 am The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

They would say that, but it'd be hogwash.

Yeah, from a certain point of view. We don't want the government picking winning view points.

If you're going to both-sides this particular scenario, you're not likely to come out ahead. CNN and especially MSNBC have their propagandistic faults, but they are not--remotely--the same as Fox News.

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:57 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:46 am

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:44 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:42 am The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

They would say that, but it'd be hogwash.

Yeah, from a certain point of view. We don't want the government picking winning view points.

If you're going to both-sides this particular scenario, you're not likely to come out ahead. CNN and especially MSNBC have their propagandistic faults, but they are not--remotely--the same as Fox News.

Right. Everyone has a bias. But there is a HUGE difference between lying about the elections *knowingly* and reporting out the facts - that dozens of courts and jurisdictions have found the arguments to be meritless. And worse we know from internal communications that Fox knew that too. This was so far over the line it highlights that our system has a glaring vulnerability.

The lesson here? A straight news, online only model might not work in the United States.

malchior wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:56 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:46 am

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:44 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:42 am The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

They would say that, but it'd be hogwash.

Yeah, from a certain point of view. We don't want the government picking winning view points.

It's not a certain point of view. One side is knowingly lying about basic tenets that keep our civic society orderly and the other isn't.

And let's not forget that they "other side" feels that way about CNN or MSNBC because Fox TELLS THEM to feel that way. Fox is clearly being misleading on nearly every subject. CNN and MSNBC show occasional bias, but not to the level of propaganda.

Fox is propaganda, not news.

Imagine Fox advocating for staying out of WWII. Or pick your favourite moment of pride in your country. Then have Fox take a giant crap on it.

That's the problem here. Not "viewpoints".

At the same time, I'm not countering stessier. He's exactly right. But what happens to the marketplace of ideas when an 800 lb lying gorilla is pouring ear poison into half the population?

Worse, one man is pulling the strings. You have half the country poisoned because of 1 man.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 11:37 am Worse, one man is pulling the strings. You have half the country poisoned because of 1 man.

Don't forget Australia and the UK. Murdoch is an international menace.

Absolutely.

malchior wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:56 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:46 am

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:44 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:42 am The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

They would say that, but it'd be hogwash.

Yeah, from a certain point of view. We don't want the government picking winning view points.

It's not a certain point of view. One side is knowingly lying about basic tenets that keep our civic society orderly and the other isn't. This isn't about picking view points. This is about concerted efforts to unmake a democracy. In ways that we've seen used to unmake other democracies. We should be able to protect our society against these risks but we're holding onto values when newspapers had to be physically carried on horses. We're simply drowning in an onslaught of endless propaganda.

Then sell the truth better. Both sides have access to the same bullhorn. The answer can not be to take the other guy's bullhorn away. It has to be that the Good Guys have to get better at using theirs.

malchior wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:57 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:52 am

malchior wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:47 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:42 am The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

There is unfortunately far too much evidence that this approach likely doesn't work at scale. At the very least there is a decent case that the 1st Amendment as we practice it is incompatible with the information age. Democracies might need to establish hard guardrails for misinformation to survive. Maybe someone will solve for it in our framework but the hopes are looking pretty dim. Unfortunately I think we have a high risk of becoming the example why guardrails need to exist.

I'm unaware of anyone who has come up with guardrails that don't land the country in the exact same place.

Are you unaware about most of Europe's rules on media participation? What Fox did is illegal in nearly every nation there.

And yet Brexit happened because of lies. And there is a ground swell of fascism in Germany and France. All while they have substantially less freedom to express viewpoints because of those media participation rules.

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:57 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:46 am

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:44 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:42 am The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

They would say that, but it'd be hogwash.

Yeah, from a certain point of view. We don't want the government picking winning view points.

If you're going to both-sides this particular scenario, you're not likely to come out ahead. CNN and especially MSNBC have their propagandistic faults, but they are not--remotely--the same as Fox News.

I'm not both-sides'ing this. I'm saying that any rule put in place to let one act against Fox will ABSOLUTELY be used against MSNBC as soon as the other guys are in office. If you believe otherwise, you haven't been paying attention.

I agree that combating one side living in a fantasy world is annoying and frustrating and not the way it should be in a perfect world, but it's the way it has to be.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 11:37 am But what happens to the marketplace of ideas when an 800 lb lying gorilla is pouring ear poison into half the population?

There has always been propaganda. Why aren't people spending more time figuring out why this has been so effective and focusing the majority of the effort on combating that? I also think more effort needs to focus locally - propaganda can work well scaring people on a national level, but I feel the fix will be winning people back in small groups.

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 5:27 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:57 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:52 am

malchior wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:47 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:42 am The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

There is unfortunately far too much evidence that this approach likely doesn't work at scale. At the very least there is a decent case that the 1st Amendment as we practice it is incompatible with the information age. Democracies might need to establish hard guardrails for misinformation to survive. Maybe someone will solve for it in our framework but the hopes are looking pretty dim. Unfortunately I think we have a high risk of becoming the example why guardrails need to exist.

I'm unaware of anyone who has come up with guardrails that don't land the country in the exact same place.

Are you unaware about most of Europe's rules on media participation? What Fox did is illegal in nearly every nation there.

And yet Brexit happened because of lies.

This feels like a non sequitur. For this to be relevant there'd have to be some link or allegation about how news organization lied intentionally about facts related to Brexit. Bad ideas and lies were thrown about generously but that was more in the realm of "normal politics".

And there is a ground swell of fascism in Germany and France.

You're going to need to talk this one through because...I think there is decent evidence this isn't accurate. At least the way I weigh it.

The most right-wing party National Rally got ~40% of the vote in the last election. However, National Rally has been significantly *moderating* itself over the last few years. To the point that National rally is far more centrist than the Republican party. It is even considered by some to be to the left of the Conservative party in Canada. Tough to call that fascist lean. There are some hard-liner elements but it's fairly light.

And in Germany the hard-right parties get something like ~12% of the vote there in 2021 which is admittedly not great. They also had that incident where they arrested some extremists. But that was ~30 people - hardly a large movement. In any case, even if you lump in CDU which is center-right and again far to the left of the GOP you'd still be 5% short of a majority. Not a great case for rising fascism there either.

All while they have substantially less freedom to express viewpoints because of those media participation rules.

These experts think otherwise. The US may nominally allow lots of viewpoints to be expressed, but we've fallen pretty far down the press freedom rankings for years.

malchior wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:57 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:52 am

malchior wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:47 am

stessier wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 8:42 am The other side would say the exact same thing about CNN or MSNBC. In a country with Free Speech, this is the price we pay. We just have to get better at the "more speech to combat the misinformation" part.

There is unfortunately far too much evidence that this approach likely doesn't work at scale. At the very least there is a decent case that the 1st Amendment as we practice it is incompatible with the information age. Democracies might need to establish hard guardrails for misinformation to survive. Maybe someone will solve for it in our framework but the hopes are looking pretty dim. Unfortunately I think we have a high risk of becoming the example why guardrails need to exist.

I'm unaware of anyone who has come up with guardrails that don't land the country in the exact same place.

Are you unaware about most of Europe's rules on media participation? What Fox did is illegal in nearly every nation there.

I am. I tried googling but nothing turned up. Do you have any links? I would like to learn more.

Unagi wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:55 pm Well, while I get your point entirely ... in a world without "settling out of court" and a world where "they were truly going to be found totally guilty for something they TRULY DID" (You know.. the "REAL WORLD" -- and while this isn't "OUR" world, this isn't something we should desire) - it's not ridiculous to find our judicial system absurd when they can't even force FOX "NEWS" to actually publically admit what they actually simply did. This is the world in which they need to be held to this bullshit, not in some other realm of justice. I know we can all just "be frustrated", but if it isn't these courts - what courts will it be???

This doesn't make much sense. The case was a civil case, not a criminal case, so no, these courts were not going to give you what you want. Of course the court can't force FOX to admit anything, because the terms are set by the plaintiff, not the court. In a civil case the court is there to adjudicate between the plaintiff/defendant, not impose it's own sense of justice on the defendant. Heck, a criminal court can't even force a convicted criminal to admit guilt, so you're never going to get anything close to that in a civil case. This was a case about the damages done by FOX to Dominion, not a trial about the damage done by FOX to the nation.

I would also add, it's not the court system's fault. The court can only work with the laws it's given. If you want to blame anyone/thing, then blame our system that has no way of holding an organization like FOX accountable for lying to the public. But do you really want to go there? Are we going to convict politicians, government officials, businesses, private individuals for lying? Because they all lie at one time or another. IN a country that has always seemed to maximize freedom of speech, I'm not sure how you would prevent a FOX News from being, well FOX News.

Malchoir says that Europe has solutions to this but I don't know/understand what those are.

Grifman wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 3:11 pmMalchoir says that Europe has solutions to this but I don't know/understand what those are.

Sorry just getting back to things here but that's not what I said. I said what Fox did in this case would be illegal in most European countries. I wouldn't say those other countries have solutions - they just do much better than us in a role of oversight - yet they are struggling with the Internet and misinformation as well.

In any case, the United States is the only country that has de facto or by laws deregulated most media from any government oversight. Where there is oversight -- almost entirely over the airwaves -- it has been watered down but still provides some protection. What Fox did likely would have been a problem is it spilled down to the local Fox affiliates...which is likely why it didn't.

There is also a lot of armor around the media to protect them from all manner of lawsuits. They have a lot of freedom to exaggerate or mislead that is unique to the United States. It is largely premised on protecting them from honest mistakes and supposedly allowing for a free marketplace of ideas. My argument is our approach doesn't survive in the 21st century with endless noise being jammed into the media sphere much less coordinated weaponized lying. We have seen immeasurable damage to our civic society that continues to pile up and polarize the population.

It is also important to recognize the major reason any of this came out is they threw out all risk management competing with more outrageous liars in the right-wing sphere. They knew the government was out of the picture because Fox News is delivered via cable/satellite. Fox was so desperate to preserve market share that they got very far over their skis. They managed to blunder outside the extremely liberal guardrails that protect it from private suit.

In contrast, none of our peers allow anywhere near this level of "freedom" and have varying levels of government oversight. They often have enforcement or rules about telling the truth, providing equal access to media, restricting media concentration (which is a huge part of the problem here), restricting hate speech, and leaving media companies open to broader civil suits when they lie/defame. The irony is that Europe still looks very much like the regulatory framework that existed here in the United States until the mid-80s and as I mentioned previous even their oversight is breaking down in the face of social media. Germany for instance tried to pass some strict rules for social media that have hard a tough time in their courts.

malchior wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 3:41 pm
In contrast, none of our peers allow anywhere near this level of "freedom" and have varying levels of government oversight. They often have enforcement or rules about telling the truth, providing equal access to media, restricting media concentration (which is a huge part of the problem here), restricting hate speech, and leaving media companies open to broader civil suits when they lie/defame. The irony is that Europe still looks very much like the regulatory framework that existed here in the United States until the mid-80s and as I mentioned previous even their oversight is breaking down in the face of social media. Germany for instance tried to pass some strict rules for social media that have hard a tough time in their courts.

Of course, the bolded items are high on the agenda list for Trump if he's able to get a second term, so that he can use such rules and fear of liability to better control media coverage.

I am interested in thinking more about what can be done about Fox News, although I'm skeptical that (aside from media concentration rules) that the above are the right solutions.

El Guapo wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 4:05 pm I am interested in thinking more about what can be done about Fox News, although I'm skeptical that (aside from media concentration rules) that the above are the right solutions.

Considering Fox News isn't under the purview of even the FCC, what can the government do to them that doesn't run afoul of the First Amendment?

pr0ner wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 4:07 pm

El Guapo wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 4:05 pm I am interested in thinking more about what can be done about Fox News, although I'm skeptical that (aside from media concentration rules) that the above are the right solutions.

Considering Fox News isn't under the purview of even the FCC, what can the government do to them that doesn't run afoul of the First Amendment?

Well, this is the heart of the problem. Fox News has crossed a couple pretty bright red lines insofar as they have pretty openly and brazenly lied, and insofar as they actively coordinate with one political party. Leaving them to keep doing that seems less than ideal. At the same time they are a media organization and so any government effort against them is both frought with legal risk as well as risks weakening the position of other media organizations against Republican governments.

Right. The crux is that the 1st amendment like many other rights we have were fairly extreme ideas that worked great up until they didn't. The founders were so shellshocked and worried about tyrannical government (in the time of monarchy) that they never contemplated what tyrannical private forces would look like or how they could co-opt the government. We're day after day now getting hard lessons what happens when we let unrestrained wealth strangle us through their control of the media. Yet we have lots of people who somehow still think we're free. We're anything but.

pr0ner wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 4:07 pm Considering Fox News isn't under the purview of even the FCC, what can the government do to them that doesn't run afoul of the First Amendment?

I don't know, but I feel like a political party colluding with a tv network has got to be a bit of a problem, even for the founders. Particularly when that network is part of an international conglomerate controlled by a single person who's barely a naturalized citizen.

A few hundred more lawsuits might help. Call them out on every lie, and force all of their dirty laundry into public view.

Sometimes society can address what the government cannot.

Blackhawk wrote: Sat Apr 22, 2023 10:30 am A few hundred more lawsuits might help. Call them out on every lie, and force all of their dirty laundry into public view.

Sometimes society can address what the government cannot.

I personally wouldn't expect it to work (beyond some major outcry from cable subscribers when Fox News starts demanding carriage increases from the major cable providers soon), but this is the way. Society has to address it, because government cannot.