Jump to content

US Politics: them's indictin words


Kalbear
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, maarsen said:

Chances are someone in that meeting was as disturbed by the official's attitudes and decided to out them. 

Don't worry, the investigation is in good hands!

I'm a bit bummed about the Fox settlement. They don't even have to admit they lied; in fact, they get to instantly lie more. Their statement babbles on how the settlement reflects their "highest journalistic standards," and they have whole page ads in the NYT, titled "More Trusted Than Ever." Thanks, Dominion...

"Brand damage"? How? Their core viewers have no idea; with a high profile trial, chances are they would have been exposed to the lies somewhere.

Everyone else, including their advertisers, already knew.

 

ETA:

Rupert Wins Again

For the media mogul, the massive Dominion settlement fee is just the cost of doing business.

A stream of ugly would have been on the Fox image, day after day, as Dominion made its case. Even after the case concluded and went to appeals, the Fox brand would have been further stigmatized, and shame and disparagement would have been leveled at Murdoch, Fox executives and Fox hosts Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Maria Bartiromo, Laura Ingraham and Bret Baier, all of whom Dominion planned to put on the witness stand. Getting out from under all of that hurt for $787.5 million is a kind of bargain for a company with a market cap of $17.3 billion. Fox has $4.1 billion in cash and warrants on hand, says the New York Times. (...)

There have already been whisperings that the settlement will tame the Murdoch beast. That Fox News will tread more carefully. That Fox’s shame will bleed into the media diets of their most faithful viewers and they’ll start looking at Fox News with new eyes as the enlightenment burns into their consciousness. Don’t kid yourself. 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/18/rupert-murdoch-dominion-settlement-00092694

Edited by Mindwalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Don't worry, the investigation is in good hands!

I'm a bit bummed about the Fox settlement. They don't even have to admit they lied; in fact, they get to instantly lie more. Their statement babbles on how the settlement reflects their "highest journalistic standards," and they have whole page ads in the NYT, titled "More Trusted Than Ever." Thanks, Dominion...

"Brand damage"? How? Their core viewers have no idea; with a high profile trial, chances are they would have been exposed to the lies somewhere.

Everyone else, including their advertisers, already knew.

 

ETA:

Rupert Wins Again

For the media mogul, the massive Dominion settlement fee is just the cost of doing business.

A stream of ugly would have been on the Fox image, day after day, as Dominion made its case. Even after the case concluded and went to appeals, the Fox brand would have been further stigmatized, and shame and disparagement would have been leveled at Murdoch, Fox executives and Fox hosts Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Maria Bartiromo, Laura Ingraham and Bret Baier, all of whom Dominion planned to put on the witness stand. Getting out from under all of that hurt for $787.5 million is a kind of bargain for a company with a market cap of $17.3 billion. Fox has $4.1 billion in cash and warrants on hand, says the New York Times. (...)

There have already been whisperings that the settlement will tame the Murdoch beast. That Fox News will tread more carefully. That Fox’s shame will bleed into the media diets of their most faithful viewers and they’ll start looking at Fox News with new eyes as the enlightenment burns into their consciousness. Don’t kid yourself. 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/18/rupert-murdoch-dominion-settlement-00092694

Fox claiming a win is like me claiming to have won a fight by proudly showing how I blocked all the punches with my face.  The halfwits who believe Fox will believe anything anyone says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Four Americans and Three Russians charged with sowing chaos in US politics. Seems they chose a black power group as a front. 

 

US charges 4 Americans, 3 Russians in election discord case (msn.com)

 

The four Americans are all part of the African People's Socialist Party and Uhuru Movement, which has locations in St. Petersburg, Florida, and St. Louis. Among those charged is Omali Yeshitela, chairman of the U.S.-based organization — which was raided by the FBI last summer when Ionov was originally charged.

“Russia's foreign intelligence service allegedly weaponized our First Amendment rights — freedoms Russia denies to its own citizens — to divide Americans and interfere in elections in the United States,” said Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen of the Justice Department's National Security Division.

Fools. If they had chosen to work with the Republican party, all would have been well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

A stream of ugly would have been on the Fox image, day after day, as Dominion made its case. Even after the case concluded and went to appeals, the Fox brand would have been further stigmatized, and shame and disparagement would have been leveled at Murdoch, Fox executives and Fox hosts Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Maria Bartiromo, Laura Ingraham and Bret Baier, all of whom Dominion planned to put on the witness stand. Getting out from under all of that hurt for $787.5 million is a kind of bargain for a company with a market cap of $17.3 billion. Fox has $4.1 billion in cash and warrants on hand, says the New York Times.

I mean, the "damage" to FNC was always going to be limited.  Even if they "lost" the case, their viewers wouldn't care.  That's what was confirmed in the discovery during the case -- that they felt obligated to lie even more than they already were for fear of losing their viewers to even bigger liars.  Three quarters of a billion dollars just to prevent Hannity, Carlson, etc. from testifying is nothing to sneeze at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But according to Kari Lake he has BDE...

Personally, I am not sure I would say that about somebody who is losing in a dick waving contest with Mickey Mouse. But then again, I am not American, what do I know....:leaving:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect something like this proposal will be trotted out as a last minute 'fix' to the debt ceiling issue.

 House group releases bipartisan plan to lift the debt ceiling and avert default (msn.com)

 

The plan by the Problem Solvers Caucus — led by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., and Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J. — would suspend the debt ceiling through Dec. 31, 2023, allowing the U.S. to pay its bills and buy time for congressional leaders to negotiate a spending bill with unspecified “deficit stabilization controls.”

In addition, the lawmakers propose to create a fiscal commission “to review and recommend a package to stabilize long-term deficits and debt” by Dec. 31, 2024, which will get an expedited up-or-down vote in Congress by Feb. 28, 2025.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh Marshall has much information on the Dominion case, and how media journalism doesn't understand the laws around media:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-fox-suit-in-the-media-press

Quote

 

... The general point is that media reporters don’t seem terribly well versed on media law. There was some pretty basic lack of knowledge about the key elements of defamation law. The general reason for that is that most glitz media journalism focuses on a mix of personalities and the business of journalism. And in this case by the business of journalism I mean acquisitions and mergers of the big conglomerates, market fluctuations and so forth. There are lots of media reporters who know the legal stuff cold. But they don’t tend to be the category of reporters I’m talking about here. They’re writing in the digital equivalent of what were once called the ‘small magazines’ or in the niche media press.

In those pieces I noted above Byers and Gardner treated reports that Fox was in a dire situation as a sort of liberal fanfic, untethered to the reality of the situation. But what struck me more than the poor legal analysis was the general sense that those who hoped for Fox to gets comeuppance were either naive about or indifferent to press freedom generally.

There is some real complexity to this question because news organizations are generally against punitive verdicts against media organizations even when the behavior was slipshod or difficult to defend. Everyone makes mistakes. If you’re in the news business you don’t want the consequences to be existential. This is really the core logic of the Sullivan decision which controls defamation law in the United States. You can talk about the different boxes that have to be checked under the decision. But if you step back from those key phrases the decision makes an argument and that argument is that good faith mistakes shouldn’t have existential consequences. If news organizations are always one mistake away from destruction or near destruction they’re going to be cautious and risk-averse in ways that aren’t good for democracy and the civic world generally. ....

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

As we thought this settlement is bupkiss for Murdoch and his faux noose.  It's not even as much as Murdoch paid in aggregate to divorce his wives.

However, the firm that brought the case are making out very well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/19/business/dealbook/dominion-murdoch-fox-settlement.html

Quote

 

.... Staple Street may be the biggest winner. The private equity firm, which currently manages some $900 million, bought a majority stake in the company for just $38.3 million in 2018.

It’s unclear how big Staple Street’s cut of the settlement will be, but it will almost certainly lead to a home-run return for the firm and its limited partners. “We are very pleased with the outcome and think that Staple Street has handled the situation very well on behalf of their investors,” one of those investors told Reuters.

Is Fox going to change its ways? Potentially not. The settlement is far from an existential financial threat: Mr. Murdoch’s media empire had $4 billion in cash as of February, while its cable network division alone — which includes Fox News — reported $2.9 billion in pro forma earnings last year. Fox probably also has substantial insurance that would cover at least some of the payout.

(The phone-hacking scandal in Britain arguably cost the Murdochs more, including the closure of the News of the World tabloid and, by some calculations, some $800 million in damages.)

Consider also that Fox News didn’t have to issue any sort of on-air apology, and avoided having its top hosts and Mr. Murdoch testify in court. On Tuesday, the network devoted just six minutes to covering the settlement. ....

 

However the well nourished lady has yet sung:

Quote

 

..... Fox isn’t done with courtrooms yet. Smartmatic, another election technology company, is pressing ahead with a $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit that a judge ruled can go to trial. Meanwhile, a former Fox News producer has sued her former employer, accusing it of pushing her to give misleading testimony in the Dominion case.

A potentially thornier courtroom fight may come from Fox investors. Reuters reports that some shareholders are seeking internal corporate documents that would reveal whether Fox’s board and leadership properly oversaw coverage of Donald Trump’s baseless election-rigging assertions.

Will heads roll, and when? Given that there are more legal fights ahead, Fox may not drop the ax on anyone yet. (Some media watchers have wondered about the fate of Suzanne Scott, Fox News’s C.E.O.) But if the company faces another enormous settlement, it could feel pressure to have someone take the fall.

Mr. Murdoch himself probably won’t suffer any big blowback, according to no less than Barry Diller. Speaking to Semafor before Tuesday’s news, the media mogul said of any settlement, “What is it going to do? Is it going to worsen Rupert Murdoch’s reputation? I mean, good luck to you.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, doesn't this sound promising ...

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/19/1170631254/abortion-pill-decision-supreme-court#:~:text=The U.S. Supreme Court on,do for another few days.

   

Quote

   

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday extended until Friday at midnight an administrative stay in an ongoing lower-court fight over the FDA-approved use of the abortion pill mifepristone.

The announcement kicks the can down the road on what the high court will do for another few days.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Josh Marshall has much information on the Dominion case, and how media journalism doesn't understand the laws around media:

I'm sorry, but all the links you provided seem to be written under the impression the Dominion case was an "existential threat" to FNC, and expressing disappointment therein based on this expectation.  Maybe I'm missing something, but who expected this?  We've talked about this case for months as it's gone on, and I don't recall anyone thinking it would "destroy" FNC.  Of course it wouldn't.  And part of that is because of the protections the first link you have here mentioned - since Sullivan it's VERY difficult to demonstrate libel and/or slander against a public figure/entity.  This is a good thing!  And, btw, something Ron DeSantis is trying to attack. 

Anyway, the Dominion settlement still - relatively speaking - in an encouraging sign that if you outright lie about an election, it will cost nearly a billion dollars.  Or for Rupert, nearly as much as another divorce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

Or for Rupert, nearly as much as another divorce.

That made me laff!

As for your other remarks, what I took from Marshall was what I've seen so much of, and which, honestly, I myself hoped, that with the case going to trial, and the testimony and questioning of figures such as Murdoch and the others, a lot of truly nefarious, invidious and intentionally malicious and criminal behavior would come out due to the laws of perjury.  This means in all likelihood, that I, as Marshall says, don't understand/know media law, and this is true.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

As for your other remarks, what I took from Marshall was what I've seen so much of, and which, honestly, I myself hoped, that with the case going to trial, and the testimony and questioning of figures such as Murdoch and the others, a lot of truly nefarious, invidious and intentionally malicious and criminal behavior would come out due to the laws of perjury.

Gotcha.  Yeah, that would have been great.  I guess I just had different - namely lowered - expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Idk I think trump’s the type to see poke fun at someone for having a name he sees as possibly Italian.

Maybe, but it's already taken on a life of its own and I don't think many mean it in a bigoted way.

And besides, fascists get no quarter from me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Maybe, but it's already taken on a life of its own and I don't think many mean it in a bigoted way.

And besides, fascists get no quarter from me. 

I wasn’t accusing you of having I’ll intent with it just thought it was interesting.

I like Desantis complaining about it to trump on stage, officially becoming the woke he tried so desperately to destroY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the most important story, but I laughed anyway: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/04/20/mike-lindell-prove-wrong-contest/

Quote

 

MyPillow founder and prominent election denier Mike Lindell made a bold offer ahead of a “cyber symposium” he held in August 2021 in South Dakota: He claimed he had data showing Chinese interference and said he would pay $5 million to anyone who could prove the material was not from the previous year’s U.S. election.

He called the challenge “Prove Mike Wrong.”

On Wednesday, a private arbitration panel ruled that someone did.

The panel said Robert Zeidman, a computer forensics expert and 63-year-old Trump voter from Nevada, was entitled to the $5 million payout.

Zeidman had examined Lindell’s data and concluded that it not only did not prove voter fraud, it had no connection to the 2020 election. He was the only expert who submitted a claim, arbitration records show.

 

A guy who voted for Trump twice is certainly no hero. But good for him for trying to get that money. As for the supposed data:

Quote

 

The files provided to Zeidman and other experts were primarily text or PDF files. Zeidman testified that one was a flow chart purporting to show how elections generally work. Another, when unencrypted, was a list of internet IP addresses, and others were enormous files of what appeared to Zeidman to be random numbers and letters.

The packet captures that Lindell had promised were nowhere to be found, according to Zeidman.

Zeidman laid out his findings in a 15-page report. “I have proven that the data Lindell provides … unequivocally does not contain packet data of any kind and do not contain any information related to the November 2020 election,” he wrote.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...