• breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Again, only in your imagination am I defending Fox. it speaks volumes that you need a straw man.

    First, I didn’t say they only used that argument to defend Carlson. I said they use it to defend their on-air opinion personalities. Plural. Like they did multiple times in the examples you cite.

    I’m not debating whether they lied or not. They did. They already paid out nearly a billion dollars because of it. They’re going to get their asses handed to them even harder by Smartmatic. They deserve it. It’s hard to argue they even have a strategy in the Dominion and Smartmatic (still in discovery, ftr) cases since they’ve thrown all kinds of shit at the wall because they’re just so dead-to-rights guilty of defamation. I’m not even debating whether they use that on-air personality defense in good faith. They don’t! They want their on-air ghouls to lie and mislead with impunity. Once again, Fox News sucks and it shouldn’t exist.

    That’s all pretty immaterial to whether some beat reporter out of Buffalo could possibly have a source with valuable information in a sudden crisis though.

    You said this:

    Fox “News” has testified multiple times in sworn court testimony that their content is not fact-based and that “no reasonable person could confuse” their content as factual reporting.

    That statement is false. They have not said in sworn testimony that their “content,” in this context meaning the entirety of their news reporting, is non-factual or that no reasonable person would take their news reporting as factual. It’d be nice if they did!