32 thoughts on ““It is not red or blue, it is green.”

  1. “…it seems that they believe keeping up the pretense that they are “news” matters to their viewers, even if no one actually believes it.”

    Evidently, FOX is the Binky of the Republican Party. “We might be wrong, but we are never in doubt.” So suck on this nipple then you’ll feel better. Dr. Murdoch.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. The source article offers a case study in why I don’t read Salon.

    For starters, if Salon wanted to know the answer to the title question — Why doesn’t Rupert Murdoch settle his lawsuit with Dominion? — Salon should just ask him. Since they didn’t, nothing they say in answer can rise above the level of pure speculation.

    I don’t care about the content of Salon’s fantasy life.

    Then there’s Salon’s childlike reasoning. The argument seems to be that Murdoch did X in the past; therefore Murdoch should be doing X now.

    Why would any grown up person waste time on such stupid and fallacious logic?

    Finally, there are the ad hominems. Salon sprinkles its article with unnecessary insults.

    I don’t care to read them.

    So, reading Salon is an unpleasant experience. But it is also without reward. I can imagine a very good reason why Murdoch doesn’t settle his case with Dominion: He thinks he can win on the merits. Salon does nothing to dispel that possibility. And so, there is nothing in the article to learn.


    1. Well, thanks for reading.

      But the key fact in all of this is that the management and hosts of Fox News spread egregious falsehoods about the election being stolen – the Big Lie – that they knew to be bullshit. And a lot people, maybe even you, believed them.

      I predict that Dominion will either score a major settlement or it will win in court. There is no way for Fox to get around Murdoch’s deposition.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “There is no way for Fox to get around Murdoch’s deposition.”

        What’s in his deposition (Salon doesn’t say much about that)?


        1. RE: “Essentially that the management and hosts knew they were spreading lies.”

          That’s your interpretation. But even if true, that’s hardly an actionable offense.


          1. “But even if true, that’s hardly an actionable offense.”

            When the lies do damage to someone else – in this case to Dominion’s business – it IS an actionable offense. Attempts by Fox to have it dismissed based on your claim have been thrown out of court.

            Maybe you could try thinking? Why claim that something is not an actionable offense when it already is one in court?

            Liked by 1 person

    2. It was an opinion. Like yours. I’m sure Salon may have tried to contact Murdoch. But what is he going to say with the trial coming in a month or so?

      I think you and Salon agree that Murdoch is rolling the dice. I am not sure he can win on merits, but the writer suggests he knows that a big settlement is not exoneration. And at this point, the word is out from Murdoch on down that truth was bad for their audience. I think the word from one executive was they had to “respect” the audience or they will lose it.

      That doesn’t say much for respect, of course. You don’t lie to someone you respect. And then laugh about it behind the curtain. That is almost exactly what some conservatives say when they accuse liberals of disparaging them as rural rubes. Worse, really. Because the element of trust is trashed.

      It is not just the opinion folks. FOX News reporters were chastised from more than one executive for reporting truth regarding election results. They were threatened with firing by the “rock stars”.

      Discoveries are under oath for a reason. You can lie to audiences, friends a family but depositions under oath risk perjury. A felony.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “I am not sure he can win on merits…”

        Why not? The 1st Amendment doesn’t require telling the truth.


        1. “The 1st Amendment doesn’t require telling the truth.”

          Of course not, but when you knowingly and maliciously LIE about someone the First Amendment is not a defense for a defamation tort. With the First Amendment you have a right to say almost anything but it offers no protection from the consequences of what you say – in this case major financial penalties.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “the First Amendment is not a defense for a defamation tort.”

          OK. So what was the defamation? That Dominion was suspected of misconduct or malfeasance was a legitimate news story at the time.


          1. “That Dominion was suspected of misconduct or malfeasance was a legitimate news story at the time.”

            Election deniers want to believe that. But seeing as there was NEVER any proof provided, just speculation, that was NEVER recanted, the legitimacy of the news story did not exist. Dominion was ACCUSED, without merit.


        3. “The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with “actual malice” – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

          — Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279–80.

          It is the knowledge of false statements that will probably be the key sticking point. “Reckless disregard” for profit is icing on the cake.

          This case is a benchmark decision for liability regarding free press

          Liked by 2 people

        4. RE: “It is the knowledge of false statements that will probably be the key sticking point.”

          I agree. So if Fox broadcast an interview with Sidney Powell while sincerely believing her to be telling lies, how would that constitute a false statement on Fox’s part?


          1. “. . . how would that constitute a false statement on Fox’s part?”

            How would it not? You do not get to defame someone else by using a cut-out.

            If I have a podcast about “groomers” and I know that Mr. Roberts is not a pedophile but – to increase interest in my show – I knowingly let someone speak on my podcast to say that he is one, I have harmed Mr. Roberts. Don’t you agree? If not, explain why not?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. It wasn’t just the interviews (cough, cough) it was the endorsement and lack of push back by the hosts when they KNEW (as proven by their internal text messages) they were pandering to a lie which defamed a private company. That is why Fox News is not the only one being sued for defamation.


          3. “ Yet Powell and Giuliani made at least 33 appearances on Fox News and Fox Business in the six weeks following the election, repeatedly using that platform to push conspiracy theories about election fraud.”

            They were considered “experts”. In addition, their conspiracies were repeated without them on the same broadcast.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. As expected, Mr. Roberts attacks the source. But is it COMMENTARY and not news. He disagrees with it and attacks it.

    AS far as unpleasant experiences and no reward, I opine that over 95% of what he shares falls into the same category for the open minded. And when his sources are shown to be the fertilizer that they are, he doubles down in defending them. For a brief second.


    1. I both attack the source and explain why. You should learn to do the same. You have never shown any of my sources to be “fertilizer.”


          1. Tell you what. Next time you want to criticize the source I use for a post, try this formula: First, type the word ASSERTION, then make your claim beneath it. Then type the word SUBSTANTIATION, and give your evidence beneath that.


          2. Tell you what. Learn how to comprehend the written word of those you DISAGREE with. I am not going to teach 6th grade English to someone who can’t see past his own biases.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. Has it occurred to any of you that Murdoch settled the harassment suits because he expected to lose and he is not settling here because he expects to win?


    1. “Has it occurred to any of you that Murdoch settled the harassment suits because he expected to lose and he is not settling here because he expects to win?”

      Of course it has. The article makes it clear that this could be the reason. The alternative offered as a real possibility is that even though this extremely wealthy guy could make this go away for a tiny portion of his vast fortune, he hesitates to do so because of the damage to the Fox brand.

      It really does not matter how this defamation suit ends. We already know that Fox News was pushing false narratives about the election that they KNEW were false. You have to be a real sucker to take them seriously when you know how dishonest they are.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. A settlement is not exoneration. It is a tacit admission of guilt, if not legally, then in terms of public perception.

        Murdoch knows exoneration come only through a verdict of not guilty. The odds are not in his favor, but for him the money risk is immaterial. Brand is not.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. “This may have something to do with it”

      Extremely unlikely for two reasons . . .
      1. A mention by third parties in a one-off and relatively obscure documentary is hardly as damaging as many months of the lie being spread on Fox News by supposedly respectable media figures.

      1. Unlike Fox News, there is no evidence and no reason to believe that the filmmakers intended to spread falsehoods they knew to be false.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. “Uh HBO actually hired someone to hack their system to prove it could be done”

          That, whether you understand it or not, is further reason to not sue HBO. They were acting in good faith to discover to get at the truth.

          There is a world of difference between claiming that it is possible to hack a voting machine and claiming that it is not just possible, it was done on a massive scale, it stole a national election and the company involved was in cahoots with malevolent forces to make it happen. The difference is not hard to understand if you want to. Or would you rather blow smoke to protect the Big Lie and the Big Liars.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s