FOX's Dobbs, Pirro, Bartiromo debunk their own election fraud claims

[Rawley]

You mean he was not a utter scumbag. He was a conservative.

True. About as far removed from a modern day Democrat as you can be.

 

[prometeus]

True. About as far removed from a modern day Democrat as you can be.

Yea, that is also true, but it changes nothing about what I said.

 

[bubbabgone]

Or maybe there are plenty who understand the distinction between what Twitter and Facebook post versus their users. Is Fox legally responsible for what some yahoo they interview says?

FOX showed both sides and they're not indemnified by Congress.
Whereas Twitter & Facebook don't but are.

 

[bubbabgone]

"I think you mistook"
"I didn't see"
"But I suspect"
"CNN could have"
lol

“Didn’t see......but I suspect........”
C’mon, man!

So fill me in.
Got a link to the FOX broadcasts in question?
You must've seen them yourselves.
Have you?
Can't conclude anything about them until you've seen them in context.
Can you?

 

[Bullseye]

Ooops.

After legal threat, Fox airs news package debunking election fraud claims made by its own hosts

If President Trump tunes into Fox News this weekend, he may see something unexpected: a point-by-point fact-check to wild election fraud claims made by some of his favorite hosts on the network.

www.cnn.com

After voting technology company Smartmatic sent Fox News a blistering legal threat that accused the network of participating in a "disinformation campaign" against it, the network has started airing a remarkable news package debunking claims its hosts and guests have propagated.
The package aired for the first time Friday night on Lou Dobbs' show. Fox News said the same package would air Saturday night on Jeanine Pirro's program as well as Sunday morning on Maria Bartiromo's show. All three hosts, who use their platforms to air pro-Trump propaganda, are close with the President.

Sounds like more evidence Fox News has turned into a limp-dick left wing echo site. Sad.

 

[Cardinal]

Sounds like more evidence Fox News has turned into a limp-dick left wing echo site. Sad.

Defamation is a tough case to win in court, and Fox's lawyers told them that Smartmatic's defamation threats would likely hold up in court.
If you slandered somebody and your lawyer told you to back off or pay millions, I think you'd opt for the former over the latter.

 

[BlueTex]

FOX showed both sides and they're not indemnified by Congress.
Whereas Twitter & Facebook don't but are.

It's not surprising that you miss that Fox is liable for the content THEY create but not others...

 

[JMB802]

So fill me in.
Got a link to the FOX broadcasts in question?
You must've seen them yourselves.
Have you?
Can't conclude anything about them until you've seen them in context.
Can you?

If you aren't satisfied with the info and multiple links provided in the original post, feel free to use your favorite search engine to find evidence to debunk them.

 

[exoplanet]

Sounds like more evidence Fox News has turned into a limp-dick left wing echo site. Sad.

Sounds like the legal threat forced their hand. I'm sure they'd be happy as clams to cater to Trump fantasies so long as their were no repercussions.

 

[bubbabgone]

It's not surprising that you miss that Fox is liable for the content THEY create but not others...

It's not surprising that you missed, or maybe just avoided, the larger point.

 

[Sand Castle]

GOP kicked your ass in the House. That must burn to no end

so you accept the results of the 2020 election.

 

[MaryP]

Ooops.

After legal threat, Fox airs news package debunking election fraud claims made by its own hosts

If President Trump tunes into Fox News this weekend, he may see something unexpected: a point-by-point fact-check to wild election fraud claims made by some of his favorite hosts on the network.

www.cnn.com

After voting technology company Smartmatic sent Fox News a blistering legal threat that accused the network of participating in a "disinformation campaign" against it, the network has started airing a remarkable news package debunking claims its hosts and guests have propagated.
The package aired for the first time Friday night on Lou Dobbs' show. Fox News said the same package would air Saturday night on Jeanine Pirro's program as well as Sunday morning on Maria Bartiromo's show. All three hosts, who use their platforms to air pro-Trump propaganda, are close with the President.

Why was it all about Smartmatic when Dominion has been the company being slammed? This video makes it clear they're not related, so how does this satisfy Dominion?

 

[BlueTex]

It's not surprising that you missed, or maybe just avoided, the larger point.

Didn't miss a thing, I actually understand the legal principles involved... Is Fox News liable for what a guest says on the show?

 

[bubbabgone]

If you aren't satisfied with the info and multiple links provided in the original post, feel free to use your favorite search engine to find evidence to debunk them.

Oh I saw that but I thought there must be more to the point of your thread, which I can only assume was meant to be an attack on FOX.

FOX covered the news. They do that. They covered the charges about claims of election fraud and they covered what was intended to be a denial of those claims - or at least that "I'm not aware" segment with Mr. Perez that you apparently think is some kind of blockbuster denial.
I should mention that I saw that segment when it originally aired and thought even then that Mr. Perez came off as incredibly non-committal.

After seeing how FOX treated the subject by including both sides, it should have raised a question for yourself - why doesn't CNN do that?
Do they? No?
It's because they've adopted that Twitter style of righteous censorship Zucker instills in his people when he tells them what to cover.

 

[Rawley]

so you accept the results of the 2020 election.

I accept that Biden is going to be sworn in.

 

[bubbabgone]

Didn't miss a thing, I actually understand the legal principles involved... Is Fox News liable for what a guest says on the show?

The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.

Is Twitter allowed to censor a member's tweets because they don't agree with them and still retain Section 230 indemnity?

 

[BlueTex]

Is Twitter allowed to censor a member's tweets because they don't agree with them and still retain Section 230 indemnity?

Yep, just like Fox News doesn’t invite guests they don’t agree with.. That’s a first amendment right that has NOTHING to do with section 230. Would you like more lessons or is this sufficient for today?

 

[Bullseye]

Sounds like the legal threat forced their hand. I'm sure they'd be happy as clams to cater to Trump fantasies so long as their were no repercussions.

They haven’t been “catering to Trump’s fantasies” for quite a while - you need to undate your “mindless idiocy” checklists to spew up-to-date LW inanities.

 

[Bullseye]

Defamation is a tough case to win in court, and Fox's lawyers told them that Smartmatic's defamation threats would likely hold up in court.
If you slandered somebody and your lawyer told you to back off or pay millions, I think you'd opt for the former over the latter.

Sure, I’m sure you’re absolutely correct.

 

[CaughtInThe]

"and bringing sanity back to the Executive Branch"

You funny. Bringing Dementia to the WHite House is more like it. I don't even give him a year.

no, bringing sanity back.

sorry if that bugs you.

 

[Rawley]

no, bringing sanity back.

sorry if that bugs you.

Nah I find it hilarious that you deny his dementia. He was particularly impressive at his press conference this week, wasn't he?

 

[Sand Castle]

I accept that Biden is going to be sworn in.

And the new members U.S. Congress?

 

[yankintx]

I'm firmly convinced that with "their" right-wing appointed judges, they believed they wouldn't be required to provide a proper argument or justification for overturning the election. It was "Alright, we now have a right-leaning judiciary. We no longer have to suffer the indignity of losing elections."

That is how politically naive some of Trumps folks are, scary eh?

 

[Rawley]

And the new members U.S. Congress?

Guess that's in doubt. Your party has threatened that anyone that has supported the President should not be sworn in. How ****ed up is that?

 

[Cardinal]

Sure, I’m sure you’re absolutely correct.

If the Fox News pundits had reason to believe their claims were reasonable and true that would cause Smartmatic's lawsuit to almost certainly fail. The fact that the pundits never had evidence for their claims turned out not to be a coincidence, as Fox's lawyers determined which is why they told Fox to rein in their pundits.

You should research how often defamation suits succeed. The answer is "almost none of them." That the lawyers were so afraid in this case means Smartmatic's case was very, very good.