Trump hates MSNBC

The ISSUE, Bullseye, is not how many lawsuits settle, BUT THE REASON THEY SETTLED.

The evidence was compelling. FOR THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS CASE, AND NONE OTHER.

WE SAW THE EVIDENCE.

And your data for lawsuits against major media is not correct.

There aren't that many big buck defamation lawsuits against major media.

 

Noooo, you're not weaseling out of this argument, because

on post #224 you said:

I'm speaking directly to the issue of FOX settling a lawsuit.
The POINT IS that the Fox CEO and Board of Directors are LEGALLY BOUND to run the company to the financial benefit of the share holders. Risking a multibillion dollar judgement vs settling for $400 million is a slam dunk.'
​

You're implying that Fox's guilt for lying has nothing to do with the settlement, because such settlements are 'routine'.

NOoooooo, $787 million settlements are NOT routine, not a 'slam dunk'.

​

Anddddd......There are NO 'multibillion dollar settlements' for DEFAMATION.

Your entire premise therefore falls apart.

​

The POINT is that Fox are not credible given they paid $787 million award for defaming Dominion.

For a defamation suit, that is a historical award.

You are claiming or you are implying that the settlement has NOTHING to do with Fox's guilt.

That claim is disproven by the following facts:

We have seen the evidence, it was displayed all over the news.

It is compelling.

Clearly, Fox saw that they had little chance to beat Dominion, and that is why they settled.

They settled because during discovery Dominion produced a 'preponderance of the evidence'.

DEFAMATION suits of this size are RARE, and the only logical explanation Fox caved was due
to the preponderance of evidence presented during discovery.

 

If you were a small company would you turn down $787 million? Even if there were a chance I could get more at trial, I would take it. That's a lot of money.
At trial, if we won, a jury could award more, OR LESS.

That's why they took it.

Evidence is relevant.

Murdoch knows he was guilty. As for Dominion, that award is far bigger than the company.
they might get more at trial, but then they would be leaving the award in a judge and jury's hands, and not the counter offer.
It could be higher, OR IT COULD BE LOWER.

That is why they took it, 'a bird in hand is better than one in the bush'.

You lose.

 

When it comes to lawsuits, it does not matter if Fox is a publicly traded company or not. What matters is that they are media conglomerate, and well-known media, which goes to the requirements under NYT v Sullivan for plaintiffs to sue. And yes, Fox News knew about the lies, did not believe what was being told on air, and were only interested in viewership while being afraid of the MEGA crowd if they decided to tell the truth as was released by depositions, emails, and other correspondence that Sytematic obtained in their lawsuit. This included Murdoch, Hannity, Tucker at the time, producers of the show, and other current and former employees. This is the main reason why Fox News settled and made said settlement barred from the public, with Systematic also agreed upon, even reluctantly. It is also why they paid Systematic, probably in installments over a period of time, in said lawsuit totally over $750. Fox also knew, based on their meetings with consel this was the "cheaper option" than going to trial where all the dirty laundry would come out to the open. That dirty laundry, only snippets being reported by the media, would have had far more devastating results than the settlement.

It is not as simple as what you described. A simple member LLC filing a Sch. C is different from a single-member C corporation where the officer is also the employee? Or an S Corporation with a single member-owner and is also the employee of said corporation? I am not talking about the tax issues here and neither are you. I am talking about how to run a company when in both circumstances the person is self-employed and in an unincorporated business, with an LLC attachment, versus a single-member traditional Corporation or S Corporation. There is no difference in how that business operates organizationally, is it? Now there is a huge difference between a large business, partnership or corporation, private or public vs a single member or even a corporation with 20 employees or less and assets in said business less than $5 million. Those differences are can be huge. But they are not the most common. The most common are those single consequenceember C and S corporations that dot the landscape where the owner is also the employee just like a self-employed person with or without an LLC attachment filing a Schedule C on their tax return. This is the fact organizationally and operationally. And as I said, and as was the intent, it is not the tax issues we are discussing. If you want to do that, we can start two dozen threads on that which we will go through every permutation of a single member business and the tax consequences of being unincorporated, LLC, C Corp or S corp and how their tax consequences change, risks, and analysis.

So was he, legally speaking and why they settled. Again, it does not have anything to do with whether Fox News is publicly traded or not when it comes to lawsuits. It does have an impact on the requirements to sue under the NYT v Sullivan decision with is the standard to sue someone like Fox News or any other News Organization. There has to be some prima facie evidence for that lawsuit to make it past the first round and then the decision by the news organization to settle or not settle is determined based on that legality.

None were clear, they were too generalized, especially the point about self-employed vs corporations.

 

Were you part of their management or legal team? IF not, you have no idea why the acted as they did. Carry on. It's over - move on.

 

The old BS meme. You've been toting that thing around for years.

Now you know you've lost.

Give it up.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

Uh, the ones that made the decision to settle?

 

Yeah, it's an oldie, as is most of the nonsensical blather you've posted on this topic.

 

. Ironic you complain about clarity will presenting is jumble of nonsense.

 

Whatever, now pester someone else.

 

Nice cop out.

 

If the Fox News Board of Director's notes were ever to get out, then we would know the little details. But the fact also remains that a civil lawsuit is a matter of public viewership, even when one files a petition to sue, one that files a petition to dismiss, and the discovery evidence therein,. One does not need to be a part of the legal team or the management team to see what was provided to that was reported by the media in tidbits. Even that is enough to understand the reasonable choice Fox News Board of Directors had when faced with the choice to settle or not to settle. It is not a one-man show with a board of directors, but they usually and generally vote with whoever the CEO is, don't they? But in the end, we will know more in a year or so when Fox News releases is fiscal report to the shareholders on said settlement. The management notes might be the most interesting.

Furthermore, neither of us is in the management team or the legal team specifically of Fox Corp. So, we are all giving opinions, aren't we? Thus, your question to me is also irrelevant to the debate at hand. It is a tactic you are using much to diminish the debate points on WHY Fox Settled. In general, they did use a cost-benefit analysis, but the details of that cost-benefit analysis will only show up in the Board of Directors meeting to decide whether to settle or not settle. And that was a company decision that the Board of Directors must vote on based on their bylaws. So, any more questions you want to ask me?

 

No irony there. Who's the one that carried this discussion on and on with walls of words posts? Hint: Wasn't me.

 

You can continue on fabricating scenario after scenario and blathering on and on. Doesn't change the basic fact: Dominion and FOX AGREED to a settlement. QED. Beyond that you and PDS can disgorge all the words you want; doesn't change a thing.

 

What applied to Fox will be applied to BSNBC. the democrats took the gloves off and now we are going to beat them with them.
A seriously huge number of precedents gas been cast aside, this party warfare keeps cooperation to a minimum and corruption hidden.

 

Only if the same criteria is met. However, show me where MSNBC outright lied, knew they lied, and settled for a sum. I know one with the initials KR. But that is all from my memory.

The key is not the name of the organization, it is the facts therein. It is not the same with you and me, although I cannot get blood from a tulip from most of you typo warriors however. And I can't sue this site because of Section 230, nor can anyone else sue Truth Social because of gasp, Section 230. Take that away, and guess what will happen, most of those sites will go down, both left and right, especially the far right since they don't have the financial backing that Fox or NBC/MSNBC has.

The whole point is I look at what is being presented factually, not the political hubris gossip you guys love to do on this site.