A breathtaking 787.5 million dollars (about 8.1 billion Swedish kronor), was the sum that Fox News agreed to pay to Dominion.
— Most defamation lawsuits end with a settlement. So in that way, it’s not surprising. What surprised me is that they let it go so close to the start of the trial, says Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for Media Law and Media Ethics at the University of Minnesota.
Both sides seemed intent on letting the court decide for a long time.
— Dominion thought they had the truth on their side, and Fox thought they had their journalistic standards on their side. Nobody wanted to bow down, says Kirtley.
“Risked to be humiliated”
Fox gave in, she believes, because reality caught up and that media magnate Rupert Murdoch, his son Lachlan Murdoch and anchors Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity could be forced to the witness stand. It was also clear that many within the organization knew that the reporting was incorrect, but that they stuck to it nonetheless.
There was simply too much to lose, Kirtley believes.
— I think the money was secondary to Fox. It was about the exposure of their news work and that their employees were at risk of being humiliated, she says.
For its part, Dominion has argued that it is not about the money. The company got about half of what they asked for.
— It was about vindication, which they basically got because a judge (during the pre-trial process) said that everything Fox reported on was false.
— But I think that many who supported Dominion would have liked to see the case brought up in court, that they wanted to see Fox exposed to cross-examination, which will not happen now. So it depends on what result you want to get if you are happy with this result or not.
No HD case
The settlement also means that the case does not go all the way to the country’s highest court. There, two judges, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have previously opened to review a case from the 1960s in which a police chief sued The New York Times for inaccuracies in an advertisement, which the newspaper won and which became prejudicial.
— It means that when public figures sue the media, they must prove that the news organization acted with intent, that they knew that what they published was untrue. The principle protects all media in the United States, explains Jane Kirtley.
She believes that the settlement will lead to a debate about journalism and how newsrooms work. Perhaps it damages trust in the media in general. However, she does not believe that it will lead to any major changes at Fox News. They are not prepared to risk losing their loyal viewers.
— Maybe I’m hopelessly cynical, but I think Fox has a unique approach to news. I don’t think they necessarily see their role as independent stewards of truth. They have a political agenda, she says and continues:
— I would be shocked if they radically change their course.
However, the settlement does not seem to put an end to the issue. Election technology company Smartmatic is suing Fox for $2.7 billion, promising to expose the company’s “disinformation campaign.” Dominion is also pursuing lawsuits against Fox competitors OAN and Newsmax.