quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Irrelevant.

He is responsible for his employees while employees engage in the course of and scope of his employment.

It is called Vicarious liability. Similar to it s hospital hires a doctor. Doctor cut off a foot instead of performing a lumbar fusion.

You hire them. You buy them.

He testified he knew and did not ask them to stop.

Asked whether he could have told Fox News' chief executive and its stars to stop giving airtime to Rudy Giuliani — a key Trump campaign attorney peddling election lies — Murdoch assented. "I could have," Murdoch said. "But I didn't."

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/28...-2020-election-fraud

So, 1) irrelevant if you want to read up on Vicarious Liability and the Law Review Article I provided (Case Law is clear media is responsible), and B) shows Fox News Knowledge of falsity.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Ironic isn’t it. Those here that are the most vociferous about the lying media and the stolen election disappear like roaches when a light comes on when their media oracle admits that it fed them bullshit burgers for months about election fraud. The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

I would question did Fox News tell Hannity et al to lie, or did they turn a blind eye to it? Big difference in my mind.

No difference in my mind. Fox News puts people on the air, they pay them to perform on air, they are responsible for the actions of those employees on the air. Just another example of you trying to sound balanced and reasonable but instead sounding like the apologist that I believe you are.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

I would question did Fox News tell Hannity et al to lie, or did they turn a blind eye to it? Big difference in my mind.

No difference in my mind. Fox News puts people on the air, they pay them to perform on air, they are responsible for the actions of those employees on the air. Just another example of you trying to sound balanced and reasonable but instead sounding like the apologist that I believe you are.

Oh, I have no doubt that legally it makes no difference, as from a trial/plaintiff’s lawyer’s position you get a lot more money that way. 40 plus percent of more than 3/4 billion dollars.

You are kind of proving to me that you are nowhere near as reasonable as you try to claim.

I don’t deny that Murdoch has some responsibility. Yes, he has made some (lots) of money on using Hannity et al as profit generating sources.

Murdoch put these clowns out and gave them a pulpit. I would rather that Sean Hannity et al had been put on trial, made to say why they did what they did, lose all the incredible wealth they made doing it, and he publicly humiliated. I’m not saying I have an issue with Rupert Murdoch being held responsible to some extent, but the folks being enriched in the name of this punishment are getting more than they deserve, and the folks actually responsible (the ones who used their position of trust with the audience) are not getting any direct punishment.

If it’s punishment, then the people who are most responsible should pay the heaviest price.

In the case of the doctor who cuts off the wrong foot, he is held personally liable and his malpractice insurance pays, he pays something in increased bills, and if he was radically negligent, he is legally charged. The hospital pays a large chunk of money because they have it, and should have “known better” than to hire the guy.

I think your beloved leftist media has done a lot of the same as well, just they don’t have as deep of pockets, and thus the good trial lawyers haven’t gone after them as well.

Personally, while I have heard Hannity and Ingram (and Giuliani) the only one who went massively downhill in this whole debacle to me was Giuliani. I did have some trust in the man, and now have none. The others? Not so much so. I have never understood Hannity’s popularity. He’s a dumb, unentertaining, poor copy of Rush Limbaugh with less fat and better hair.

quote:

Oh, I have no doubt that legally it makes no difference, as from a trial/plaintiff’s lawyer’s position you get a lot more money that way. 40 plus percent of more than 3/4 billion dollars.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Yeah, everybody that keeps assuming that Dominion's lawyers have the case on a contingency fee are probably correct but I haven't seen anything about that one way or the other. I'm guessing that it is a contingency since it was Susman Godfrey but I doubt it was 40%. Commercial cases usually have lesser contingent fees because of the enormity of the potential damages. Or, it may have been some sort of hybrid arrangement. I've seen cases where the lawyers work at a reduced hourly fee and take a smaller percentage.

It's going to be a lot either way. And, it should be.

quote:

Do you think Dominion will be selling many voting machines in Red States moving forward? My bet is due to this false narrative, Dominion has lost a large market share that they once had a chance of selling to. That looks like damage to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

I would question did Fox News tell Hannity et al to lie, or did they turn a blind eye to it? Big difference in my mind.

No difference in my mind. Fox News puts people on the air, they pay them to perform on air, they are responsible for the actions of those employees on the air. Just another example of you trying to sound balanced and reasonable but instead sounding like the apologist that I believe you are.

Oh, I have no doubt that legally it makes no difference, as from a trial/plaintiff’s lawyer’s position you get a lot more money that way. 40 plus percent of more than 3/4 billion dollars.

You are kind of proving to me that you are nowhere near as reasonable as you try to claim.

I don’t deny that Murdoch has some responsibility. Yes, he has made some (lots) of money on using Hannity et al as profit generating sources.

Murdoch put these clowns out and gave them a pulpit. I would rather that Sean Hannity et al had been put on trial, made to say why they did what they did, lose all the incredible wealth they made doing it, and he publicly humiliated. I’m not saying I have an issue with Rupert Murdoch being held responsible to some extent, but the folks being enriched in the name of this punishment are getting more than they deserve, and the folks actually responsible (the ones who used their position of trust with the audience) are not getting any direct punishment.

If it’s punishment, then the people who are most responsible should pay the heaviest price.

In the case of the doctor who cuts off the wrong foot, he is held personally liable and his malpractice insurance pays, he pays something in increased bills, and if he was radically negligent, he is legally charged. The hospital pays a large chunk of money because they have it, and should have “known better” than to hire the guy.

I think your beloved leftist media has done a lot of the same as well, just they don’t have as deep of pockets, and thus the good trial lawyers haven’t gone after them as well.

Personally, while I have heard Hannity and Ingram (and Giuliani) the only one who went massively downhill in this whole debacle to me was Giuliani. I did have some trust in the man, and now have none. The others? Not so much so. I have never understood Hannity’s popularity. He’s a dumb, unentertaining, poor copy of Rush Limbaugh with less fat and better hair.

You say all kinds of shit with zero factual basis or knowledge.

You keep saying that Dominion is getting more than they deserve? What do you know about Dominion's damage model that was going to be presented to the jury?

Nothing? Right?

It's entirely possible that a jury might have given Dominion far more than the settlement and perhaps even more than Dominion was asking for in light of the egregious nature of FOX's misconduct.

As for your continual efforts to equate FOX with what you call the "leftist media", let the lawsuits begin. But, I will tell you right now that they won't because you are, once again, drawing a false equivalency between the media you disagree with and the media that you rely on to enforce the right-wing views you already hold: that would be FOX.