I agree that the numbers do the talking here. The fact that this was a record settlement amount (for multiples of the entire value of Dominion) is what speaks so loudly. If they (Murdoch and his legal advisors) didn't believe they would have even more to lose by going to court, they never would have agreed to this settlement. And civil cases aren't about apologies.
**What's most disturbing about this is the confirmation that large quantities of disinformation are being spewed by a major media source to a significant sector of our population - and the resulting impact on our society.**
As for it being a sealed case, most disclosure has already happened. This appears to be one of the reasons, at least, that Dominion delayed accepting a settlement. Apparently, most civil cases end in settlements and most information is disclosed in the 'discovery' process, prior to the actual trial, in the low percentage of cases that actually continue to a trial.
But while a good chunk of that disclosure was made public (but unsurprisingly not covered on Fox), much of it was redacted and may never see the light of day, now that the case is sealed. It's noteworthy that Murdoch would still consider it in Fox's best interest to settle (even though it was going to cost him such an enormous amount) to prevent himself and several of his key talent from having to have appear on the stand in court. (And this amount is to be paid immediately, unlike a jury verdict, where the plaintiff has to fight, sometimes for years, to collect, due to appeals, etc.) I guess they didn't think they'd win. None of the trial would have been broadcast publicly, so it makes us wonder what other information he was trying to prevent being disclosed.
For those who get their information from Fox (where they lied about the settlement amount being disclosed), here are a couple of links with some of the info that was disclosed publicly during discovery:
http://www.businessinsider.com/read-fox-news-dominion-defamation-lawsuit-2020-biden-2023-3?op=1
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fox-news-hosts-allegedly-privately-versus-air-false/story?id=97662551
Both links show transcripts of some written correspondence (texts?) between some of Fox's top hosts and various others, which show huge contradictions between what they said privately vs. what they said on air, as well as their reasons for broadcasting what they knew to be lies. Naturally, there are many other sources online, so you can do your own searches. I just tried to find some neutral ones.
Oh, one other highly significant key take-away: they (including Rudy Giuliani and at least one Trump campaign official) knew that it was not true that the election was stolen, and they had no evidence to the contrary. It was all about keeping their market share and giving their audience what they want to hear. In Rupert Murdoch's own words: "It wasn't about red or blue; it was about 'green'."
The downside of this whole episode is that they'll probably continue to say whatever they want on the air, regardless of its veracity - or lack thereof - unless the FCC or some other authority investigates their broadcast licensing. I'm not holding my breath. 
|
