geoff: Jury selection started
today in dominion voting systems
$1.6 billion defamation suit
against Fox News.
The voting technology company is
suing the right wing network for
airing debunked conspiracy
theories that its voting
machines were rigged against
Donald Trump in the 2020
election.
NPR's media correspondent, David
folkenflik, is following the
case and joins us now.
Thank you for being with us.
As the case goes to trial, the
judge has rejected several of
the first amendment defenses
that fox hoped to invoke.
And he also took the
extraordinary step of
admonishing and sanctioning the
fox defense team.
Help us understand why and what
it might mean for the case?
David: We have heard in recent
days that the judge is
increasing frustration with the
increase in of incidents in
which he has concluded that fox
has been less than forthcoming
with the court.
What does that mean?
Take an instance where, for
example, there had been numerous
representations per the judges
account that Rupert Murdoch, the
founder of Fox News, the guy at
the top of the pyramid, did not
have a formal official role at
Fox News itself.
He may have been weighing in as
we have learned from these texts
and emails that have emerged.
Early this week, lawyers for fox
acknowledge that he held the
title of executive chairman of
Fox News, which sounds like an
honorific, and that is what fox
is going to argue.
In the judge's assessment, it
suggests that Rupert Murdoch has
agency ended over how this
network operates in following
the election.
Geoff: This case has been
notable for its unprecedented
window into the inter-workings
of Fox News.
Emails, text messages introduced
as evidence show fox
personalities privately
insulting former president
Donald Trump.
There were all sorts of private
skepticism among some of the fox
anchors and executives about the
election fraud claims that were
showing up on air.
Given that and there's an
exposure, why hasn't fox tried
to settle the case?
Amy: Neither side will talk
publicly.
Certainly on the front end of
this trial, they did not intend
to settle this case.
Certainly wanted to take this to
trial.
Why?
The payment threshold increases
at every point along the way as
it turns out.
It is not just embarrassing what
we have learned about fox, it is
damming.
There are two separate stories
that someone like me is
covering.
There is the actual litigation,
the trial itself, on the legal
merits that the jury gets to
weigh in on, Andel timidly
decide on.
Unless it is settled before
then.
But there is also the forensic,
archaeological look that we are
getting at fox in real time, and
a complete 360 nature from the
most junior producers to the
stars, the executives, corporate
chieftains in Boston's above.
All of them weighing in on this
moment of crisis.
Triggered by fox not only
presenting his viewership and
audiences with the unwanted news
that it was projecting that
challenger Joe Biden would win
Arizona and not Donald Trump on
election night.
But actually fox being the first
TV station in the country to do
so.
That was not news the audience
wanted and it was not news they
wanted from fox.
You saw this desperate chase of
anything that might appease the
viewers, and it turned out that
lying about dominion was one of
those things.
Geoff: What are the potential
long-term consequences for fox
News?
In the short term, their ratings
are up, the stock price has
remained stable, advertisers
have stuck around.
.
And this past week, Donald Trump
was on tucker Carlsen's program,
despite tucker Carlsen saying
about him in private, calling
him a demonic force.
David: A purely transactional
relationship.
And one that is consistent with
these strong currents of
cynicism coursing through the
communications we have been able
to examine from inside Fox News.
Fox could win this case.
It could win its case in legal
merits, on an appeal to first
amendment principles, saying
basically, the first amendment
and free speech needs running
room.
Even if we did not do this the
way you would want, even have --
there was something inexact
about what we said as well as
what our guests said.
They can appear -- appeal to the
jury and try to get them on
this.
If you have one or two jurors
are pro-trump, you can create
scenarios in which they win.
The legal ramifications could be
huge to the bottom line if they
lose and media and lawyers and
scholars tell me this is this --
says this is the most amassing
of evidence to suggest a
plaintiff has met this tough bar
of malice they have ever seen.
You could also have all the
ramifications.
Inside the fox bubble, in the
way you have described, it may
not hurt fox.
Inside, the hardest maggot
elements of the Republican party
and his viewership they may
stand by fox.
Outside fox, you have seen an
extraordinary reputational hit.
It is difficult to sit by and
listen to people talk about fox
as a news organization that
happens to have some
conservative opinion hosts, when
we seen the way in which
journalists and news imperatives
and the ideas of presenting
people with the facts as an
imperative be belittled,
diminished, and attacked by
people inside fox, from the very
bottom to the very top of the
pyramid.
Geoff: NPR media correspondent,
David folkenflik.
Thank you for your time.
David: You bet.