>

I too had some doubts lmao
This doesn't come as a surprise. Everyone with an even minimally functional frontal lobe had this one figured out. It's a lie, not a misunderstanding.
Then they knowingly spread misinformation they even doubted ? Isn't that the worst case for them? 
Like, legally if they themselves believed it they'd be off the hook for a few charges right off. >

It sounds like they're going for the "this isn't news, it's entertainment" defense again. >

It is not even entertainment. It's just bullshit n lies.
The Fox Bullshit Factory. Pumping it out every night! >

It’s willfully false propaganda >

I’m just asking questions /s >

I’m just subverting democracy >

It’s weird, destroying the country ends the profit stream yet they keep throwing us that way, it’s ironic. >

Capitalists don’t care about the future. They do everything in their power to squeeze every penny out of every pocket possible right now. Sustainability is nothing when they can have their wealth today. >

It's the 'one sweety now, or two tomorrow' test that they do on kids. >

Foxnews should be sued to oblivion for the damage they have done to our democracy. >

I agree. I wonder how difficult of a case that would be to win? Fox "News" is a danger to our country to be sure. >

It was tried already.  Failed.  They argued they are ‘entertainment’ and won. >

I believe they said something to the effect that: "No reasonable person would believe that Mr. Hannity was being completely truthful" or something along those lines.
On a side note, does anyone remember the Tucker Carlson bit where he claimed that we were going to run out of diesel before Thanksgiving? >

it was Tucker Carlson and although the defense was argued it was not actually used in the decision. Actual Malice was the defence, I wish people would stop spreading this >

actual malice requires intention, right? So they argued they didn’t know and didn’t intend to cause harm? >

"Actual malice" is basically a complete disregard for truth. It's knowingly and willingly ignoring facts that refute the claims, or intentionally avoiding fact-checks.
It has nothing to do with wanting to cause harm. >

Isn't it exactly what Tucker Carlson does ? >

So you weren’t just gullible idiots, you knowingly lied and spread the disinformation… >

If FOX isn't news, it shouldn't be allowed in the Whitehouse Press Room. >

Amen.  Somehow a petition needs to be launched among Reddit users. >

But only Reddit Gold users >

I see what you did there >

In a well functioning democracy these people’s careers would be ruined. >

Even in a poorly functioning democracy. >

Now now, they exist inside a poorly functioning democracy so I guess that is the line. >

At this point, can we really be certain that it's not an oligarchy parading as a democracy? The capped and gerrymandered House is far from representative, the Senate represents land over people, the President is decided by a similar archaic process as our capped and gerrymandered House, the SCOTUS is compromised and impossible to correct, and our media is dictated by billionaires and their corporations. Things will probably be even more bleak by this time next month and I'm even more worried about how things look two years after that. I'm gonna still vote like it's a democracy, but the system is rigged to favor those who block and dismantle and oppress, so we need to overwhelm that loud minority that gets special treatment during election season, and that includes primaries. >

On the democracy index United States rank 26 as a "Flawed democracy".  There's no big economic countries which rank bellow the US and are still considered a democracy. 
Which means of the big first World democracies US are the worst based on the index. 
So you ain't an oligarchy but that over capitalistic and 2 party system avoid the country to really parade as a true democracy. >

If only we had a federal mechanism that oversees media and could set guidelines and rules for what is considered news versus what is entertainment. We could call it the federal communications group or board or something. >

Unfortunately the FCC has no jurisdiction over cable channels. >

Being that cable channels are the most dominant TV channels for spreading misinformation, that limitation seems archaic. >

Its a first amendment thing. Govt 'owns' the airwaves and leases out frequencies to radio/tv stations under conditions of regulation.
Cable/Internet are paid services wired directly to your home, that you can stop paying for at anytime if you want, so govt cant limit them without violating the first amendment of both broadcasters and viewers. >

I understand the rationale behind it but like any other product, produced by private companies, even movies, we can regulate if deemed harmful or not age-appropriate. If a product can be proven to cause a public health issue it can be regulated. Not saying it is a no-brainer. It would require some deep legal arguments to implement. >

Movie ratings are made by a private organization and are only effective because private theaters demand them on any films they choose to show. >

Correct. Movie ratings are not federal, they are voluntary. But Fox News wouldn’t volunteer to do anything that would reduce profits (like subject themselves to a rating agency) and a private rating or limiting party probably wouldn’t be able to enforce as needed. Trying not to be too side-tracked here from the point but thanks for the detail. >

I really don't care if they claim to have privately doubted.  They publicly supported. >

Only one thing. Dominion has said Fox News acted maliciously trying to ruin their company to raise their own ratings. So the fact that they are saying they knew they were lying actually aligns with dominions claim than if they claimed they really believed it. >

For the lawsuit, this is a firm and valid point. >

I wish Fox News would just shut up. They were caught in endless lies that got people killed. They are looking at a billion dollar law suit that is going to get probably a couple of them fired. Ticker can’t shut up about Putin and at one point had to stop because he almost admitted he was an asset. Murdoch is sacrificing small woodland creatures to keep himself breathing one more day. His heirs are showing they are probably going to tank the organization about two years after daddy does finally kicks it. I mean no matter what I wish Fox would just have the biblical reckoning they keep selling to their viewers. >

And they continued to spread it anyways? >

Of course. That how propaganda works. Factual truth is irrelevant. Winning is what matters. >

They already have their texts messages telling meadows to tell trump to calm the fuck down and then went on later that evening and blamed it on good ol’ antifa >

Speading lies.  These people have no honor. >

Thats not what they echoed to the public! Lying pieces of fucking garbage. >

They knowingly participated in the coup to overthrow the US government... The question should be: who were they working for? >

Probably the same people that benefit from a huge drop in corporate taxes >

I'll give Hannity credit for telling the truth under oath, because this testimony is very bad for Rupert Murdoch.
Of course, I think Hannity is garbage as a human being for shamelessly lying on his show. >

Giving credit for not lying under oath is like thanking me for not robbing a liquor store. >

Thank you! >

And yet that didn't stop them from peddling it, did it? >

Now that they're facing very real legal consequences for it, they sure did a quick 180! >

Then why didn’t you say that on the air like you are supposed to if you are a news reporter. >

And yet propagated those lies. >

Not an ounce of integrity within the whole damn company. >

" . . . but repeating those lies day in and day out was fine because we not a news organization, we're an entertainment organization!" >

Many Americans have shown they’re incapable of differentiating fact vs opinion or news vs entertainment. These “news” organizations should be required to give a disclaimer about what they are. This would cut down on parading as journalists every night and openly lying to their audiences but then claiming they can’t be taken seriously and any reasonable person knows the difference when they’re sued. There’s apparently far too many people that aren’t reasonable tuning into these programs based on that defense. The right can claim it’s “nanny state” stuff all they want, but they do too good a job of purposefully deceiving people and it’s clearly doing severe damage to the country. >

Before Reagan we had the "Fairness Act", which this country would greatly benefit from today.  Unfortunately, that's an aspect of the good ole' days that conservatives don't want to bring back, similar to the tax structure which helped build a prosperous middle class. >

Hear, fucking hear. The 90% top marginal tax rate is always conspicuously absent whenever these people talk about the glory days of the post-WWII mid-century economic boom. >

But they weren't honest enough to tell their viewers. >

There were people who listened to Fox "News" and  didn't get vaccinated and then they died from COVID. >

Fox will have to prove that "no 'reasonable' audience would believe their statements to be factual" while Dominion will easily prove that Fox's actual audience did believe their statements to be factual.
So Fox's argument will be that their actual audience is comprised of people who are not reasonable? >

To be fair that is the one rock solid truth here. >

Fox is banned on Canadian airwaves.   This is why. >

Gosh, I wish that were the case here! Good on Canada for using their brains and recognizing what Murdoch is all about! >

Yup. It's illegal to lie on the news in Canada. The US had the same thing called the fairness doctrine but Reagan ditched it in '87. >

God damned fucking Regan!!! >

Always Reagan >

The Regan-Murdoch relationship is not nothing