The rot in the Fox-Dominion settlement

When Jeff Zucker ran CNN, he famously had company-wide conferences every weekday morning at 9AM, and he would instruct his TV personalities regarding the appropriate messaging for the day. Some employees lamented the straight jacket that was being imposed. For example, CNN Media Coordinator Nick Neville candidly expressed hope that CNN “could let the news people decide the news and have the executives stay out of it” (Project Veritas).

Fox does not use the CNN approach. For example, the views of Tucker Carlson on the Ukraine war are diametrically opposite the views of Sean Hannity, and it is also clear that people at Fox had differing views about the election.

I read that Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo implied that lawyer Sidney Powell was credible. On the other hand, it is clear that Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham had serious reservations regarding Powell’s information. I did too. So what?

I don’t see the crime. It seems normal and even healthy for different people in a news organization to hold different views. It doesn’t mean that anyone, on either side of the argument, is a liar. It also doesn’t make the entire network a liar. I guess that concept is a tough one for CNN.

Claims of election fraud are vastly larger than just Dominion

This morning I saw a few minutes of MSNBC (my limit) and I heard Joe Scarborough wonder if Tucker Carlson will now have to stop questioning issues related to the January 6^th “insurrection.” That is wishful and rather obtuse thinking. The Dominion-Fox case was very narrowly focused on the claims of Sidney Powell and just one particular voting machine vendor. The issue of election fraud and related issues such as the January 6^th riots are immensely larger.

Unfortunately, people like Scarborough may try to use the Fox settlement as an argument for the increase censorship of anyone who questions the validity of any aspect of the 2020 election or its aftermath. That could affect people like me because, when I appear on a radio show or podcast, I itemize numerous irrefutable facts that call into question the validity of the 2020 election. I plan to continue.

Venue and jury selection, and the touchy issue of race

People wonder why Fox waited so long to settle. I suspect that the last minute settlement may have been triggered by the last minute selection of the jury. This requires a frank conversation.

Just before the settlement was reached, jurors were selected. Some people from the left side of politics, like a journalist for Slate, seemed gleeful. Justin Peters put out a piece titled, “Meet the jury that will decide Fox News’ fate,” in which he pointed out that the jury appeared to be mostly minority. Why did he feel it was important to describe the racial makeup of the jury?

Even the judge seemed to be thinking along those lines. CNN reported that after “the racially diverse jury” was selected, and after a settlement was reached, the judge stated:

Your presence here, short compared to what you thought, and uneventful in a certain sense, was extremely important. Without you, the parties would not have been able to resolve their situation.

Hmm! The judge thought that the very brief “presence” of the jury spurred a settlement. I wonder what he meant!

There is another factor that should be considered as we assess the significance of this settlement. In Wilmington, only 30 percent of the public supported Trump in the 2020 election. If only 30 percent had supported Joe Biden, do you think Dominion would have gotten a settlement of nearly $800 million? We all know the answer.

Legal venue is a huge problem for conservatives in America because almost all the big trials take place in big, very blue cities, where jurors can be expected to have a bias against Republicans. If you doubt this, ask Donald Trump, as he fights a ridiculous case waged by a partisan Manhattan district attorney. Conservatives need to get their businesses out of left-wing jurisdictions. And eventually, we need to move some of our government agencies to America’s heartland.

The absurd amount of damages claimed

Dominion claimed that the company lost value of $1.6 billion. By all accounts, $1.6 billion is vastly more than the company was ever worth, and the claim calls into question the veracity of Dominion.

In 2018, Staple Street Capital purchased a 76 percent share of Dominion Voting Systems for $38.8 million. That implies a total value, in 2018, of $51 million. Adding a 3 percent annual inflation factor brings the value to about $60 million. So why did Fox settle for so much?

Fox probably knew it could prove to a jury — even one comprising mostly Democrats — that Dominion was worth just a small fraction of $1.6 billion. However, the wild card in American civil suits is the punitive award. In the hands of a hateful jury, the system of punitive awards puts a gun to the head of defendants. Vindictive juries can, and often do, assess ludicrous penalties against the organizations or people they despise. Legislation is needed to limit the size of punitive damages.

Finally, I truly worry about the impact on future news coverage

Fox argues that claims by President Trump and his attorneys were extremely newsworthy, and it was doing the right thing by giving Trump’s supporters a chance to make their claims. That is correct, without a doubt.

But, what will the news coverage be like for the 2024 election? Already, “liberals” have dramatically reduced conservative news coverage by driving One America News and NewsMax from their cable news platforms. Fox has been muted, and now it may be even more reluctant to do anything that could lead to a lawsuit.

It may seem discouraging, but this is not a time to retreat. Rather, this is the time to speak louder than ever, and to take stock in the tremendous power conservatives can wield. A great example is the Budweiser debacle, where conservatives brought a giant company to its knees in a matter of weeks.

For years, left-wingers have attacked the sponsors of networks such as OAN, Newsmax, and Fox. They have even attacked the utilities and other service providers of those networks. Meanwhile, conservatives have extended grace and tolerance to the sponsors of CNN and MSNBC.

I wonder how long that can continue.