Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Do you think the Biden administration should shut down Fox News? (poll) [View all]onenote
(44,805 posts)124. No they didn't. You're repeating a lie that simply won't go away.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/sep/10/facebook-posts/facebook-post-claims-fox-admits-they-lie-have-righ/
see also: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-switch/
If Fox News has been held to the right to lie, why did they settle a libel case brought by Dominion for $737 million?
My guess is that you are referring to the 2020 case out of the southern district of new york in which Fox News was sued by Karen MacDougal alleging Tucker Carlson defamed her by accusing her of extorting now-President Donald J. Trump out of approximately $150,000 in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair between McDougal and Trump. Fox argued that the suit was dismissed on two grounds: first, that the statements at issue were rhetorical hyperbole made in the context of a commentary and opinion program, not factual "news" program assertions and thus could not be defamatory under a long line of precedent and second, that the plaintiff had failed to establish "actual malice", a prerequisite for a defamation case against a public figure. The case was focused solely on Carlson's program, which is not a news program but is an opinion commentary program. The same reasoning would apply to, for example, Rachel Maddow's program, which is an opinion and commentary program.
Every newspaper in the country refers to itself directly or indirectly as a purveyor of news. And every one of them also runs commentary and opinion pieces. Should newspapers be barred from calling themselves "news"papers? Of course not.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/sep/10/facebook-posts/facebook-post-claims-fox-admits-they-lie-have-righ/
see also: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-switch/
If Fox News has been held to the right to lie, why did they settle a libel case brought by Dominion for $737 million?
My guess is that you are referring to the 2020 case out of the southern district of new york in which Fox News was sued by Karen MacDougal alleging Tucker Carlson defamed her by accusing her of extorting now-President Donald J. Trump out of approximately $150,000 in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair between McDougal and Trump. Fox argued that the suit was dismissed on two grounds: first, that the statements at issue were rhetorical hyperbole made in the context of a commentary and opinion program, not factual "news" program assertions and thus could not be defamatory under a long line of precedent and second, that the plaintiff had failed to establish "actual malice", a prerequisite for a defamation case against a public figure. The case was focused solely on Carlson's program, which is not a news program but is an opinion commentary program. The same reasoning would apply to, for example, Rachel Maddow's program, which is an opinion and commentary program.
Every newspaper in the country refers to itself directly or indirectly as a purveyor of news. And every one of them also runs commentary and opinion pieces. Should newspapers be barred from calling themselves "news"papers? Of course not.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
133 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Do you think the Biden administration should shut down Fox News? (poll) [View all]
Wednesdays
Jun 2024
OP
It's a big No for me. I don't watch it except when Colbert shows some funny chit from FOX.
Silent Type
Jun 2024
#1
It's hardly 1A absolutism to oppose a government shutdown of an entire TV network
Ocelot II
Jun 2024
#11
A suggestion: Don't cite debunked claims about Fox News when arguing against Fox News.
onenote
Jun 2024
#19
They argued that, consistent with a long line of precedent, libel law is not applicable toopinion/commentary
onenote
Jun 2024
#98
Not everything on Fox News is "news". Just as not everything in a newspaper is "news."
onenote
Jun 2024
#128
And so far, thank the lucky stars, the SC has ruled in favor of the 1A. nt
MarineCombatEngineer
Jun 2024
#71
It doesn't mean we can pretend the First Amendment allows the government to ban opposition outlets they don't like.
tritsofme
Jun 2024
#72
In my ... I Hate Their Guts Opinion .... I say YES. I am in arotten mood today.
Trueblue1968
Jun 2024
#108
I guess the authoritarian enemies of the First Amendment will name themselves!
tritsofme
Jun 2024
#8
""This has been brought up on other threads today." Well that's a sorry ass excuse for doing it again.
elocs
Jun 2024
#9
The FCC does regulate both cable and broadcast, but there are differences both statutory and constitutional
onenote
Jun 2024
#21
It's not news. Fox News admitted in court that it's not news. It's false advertising.
Doodley
Jun 2024
#121
I never stated they admitted they lie. They stated in court that they are an entertainment channel.
Doodley
Jun 2024
#129
And you get a 'rec' for using 'Tankie'! Now waiting for someone to ask what it means.
GoneOffShore
Jun 2024
#74
I'd try to shut them down. They are liken to disgusting human garbage and that's how I'd treat them.
chouchou
Jun 2024
#27
I stand by what I said. There are things in life that rules can go fuck themselves.
chouchou
Jun 2024
#37
It always amazes me that some folks oppose Trump, but seem to want their own version.
tritsofme
Jun 2024
#38
If the goal is to "make the world a better place", assuming there could be agreement on how to do that,
onenote
Jun 2024
#55
Have you ever listened to Fox News for hours on end? I have. (Forced to as trapped on job)
chouchou
Jun 2024
#60
So, in your mind, this is a reason for the Govt. to shut down an opposition channel
MarineCombatEngineer
Jun 2024
#63
That TV station has done more damage to this country than just about anything else.
chouchou
Jun 2024
#64
And a Republican administration will argue that MSNBC and DU have done more damage to this country
Polybius
Jun 2024
#86
They would be wrong. Political scientists have proven that Fox News has damaged the Democratic party...through lying.
chouchou
Jun 2024
#89
Funny how Nixon and Reagan were elected, twice, before there was Fox News, and while there was a fairness doctrine.
onenote
Jun 2024
#100
No..When it comes to Fox News, I'd kick their ass back to Australia...if I could.
chouchou
Jun 2024
#67
Exactly, the First Amendment exists precisely to protect us all from the authoritarian dreams of folks like this.
tritsofme
Jun 2024
#73
It is un-American to oppose the First Amendment, whether you are Donald Trump, or anyone else.
tritsofme
Jun 2024
#115
Something needs to be done before it's too late, or maybe it is too late already.
Doodley
Jun 2024
#40
If you can justify forcing TikTok to shut down, you can justify forcing Fox to shut down.
Lancero
Jun 2024
#53
If it could be "updated" to include cable news, it could be updated to include internet content. Like DU.
onenote
Jun 2024
#102
I would like to see News used in names when 100% of programming is News and not 10%, 90% Commentary.
TheBlackAdder
Jun 2024
#95
Is Rachel Maddow's show news, commentary, or a combination? How should it be labeled?
onenote
Jun 2024
#99
No. Consumers should drive fox out of business. And companies/individuals who they have lied
emulatorloo
Jun 2024
#105