Since it has been proven in a court of law under oath and with uncovered text messages that Fox News knowingly spreads lies, will you here and now state that Fox is a piece of trash that no one should watch?
"Yeah but what about this liberal news source—"
Don't deflect. Will you condemn Fox News now that there is unequivocal proof they are liars?
@vivify saidAs if!
Since it has been proven in a court of law under oath and with uncovered text messages that Fox News knowingly spreads lies, will you here and now state that Fox is a piece of trash that no one should watch?
"Yeah but what about this liberal news source—"
Don't deflect. Will you condemn Fox News now that there is unequivocal proof they are liars?
@vivify saidCondemn? They like the lies. Humans want the familiar, not the truth.
Since it has been proven in a court of law under oath and with uncovered text messages that Fox News knowingly spreads lies, will you here and now state that Fox is a piece of trash that no one should watch?
"Yeah but what about this liberal news source—"
Don't deflect. Will you condemn Fox News now that there is unequivocal proof they are liars?
@wildgrass
I will work with you fellers, can you not get antsy and Sonhouse-like, and maybe lay your issue out clearly and factually?
To start, I just typed your phrase in Google, 'Has FOX news been proven to knowingly spread lies." I did not get a definitive link. We all agree links are wild and wooly all over the place, but send me an unequivocal answer, and what court you are speaking of.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidWell, in legalese, lies are referred to as "non-literal commentary" lol. Maybe that's why google's not drudging it up. Here you go, in the words of a judge in one of their many defamation suits:
@wildgrass
I will work with you fellers, can you not get antsy and Sonhouse-like, and maybe lay your issue out clearly and factually?
To start, I just typed your phrase in Google, 'Has FOX news been proven to knowingly spread lies." I did not get a definitive link. We all agree links are wild and wooly all over the place, but send me an unequivocal answer, and what court you are speaking of.
This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes. Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as “exaggeration,” “non-literal commentary,” or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same.. Mr. Carlson's statements are not factual representations.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/
@averagejoe1 said
@wildgrass
I will work with you fellers, can you not get antsy and Sonhouse-like, and maybe lay your issue out clearly and factually?
To start, I just typed your phrase in Google, 'Has FOX news been proven to knowingly spread lies." I did not get a definitive link. We all agree links are wild and wooly all over the place, but send me an unequivocal answer, and what court you are speaking of.
.... even though defamation lawsuits are notoriously difficult to win... law professor Laurence H Tribe told the Guardian: “I have never seen a defamation case with such overwhelming proof that the defendant admitted in writing that it was making up fake information in order to increase its viewership and its revenues. Fox and its producers and performers were lying as part of their business model."... senior figures at Fox News from Rupert Murdoch down knew immediately after the election that claims of voter fraud, in particular those aimed at Dominion, were false... A senior network vice-president called one of the stories “MIND BLOWINGLY NUTS”. But none of this knowledge prevented hosts from repeating lies about everything from imaginary algorithms shaving votes from Dominion machines to non-existent ties between the company and Venezuela.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/feb/20/fox-news-dominion-voting-systems-defamation-case-analysis
@AverageJoe1
Keep in mind that Janet Yellen (regarding the Silicon Valley Bailout) said that it is not a bailout. That is a lie. The Exchange Stabilization Fund is prob going to pay it, the money is out of the pockets of the American taxpayer. You must stipulate that the government has no money. So, a lie... a lot more important, considering who said it.
Secondly Biden said that the taxpayers will not be paying for this bailout. As you know, they will. So, that is a lie.
Lies all around. Yellen and Biden are more important in the lying dept.
@vivify saidI condemn Fox News for knowingly spreading lies about the 2020 election.
Since it has been proven in a court of law under oath and with uncovered text messages that Fox News knowingly spreads lies, will you here and now state that Fox is a piece of trash that no one should watch?
"Yeah but what about this liberal news source—"
Don't deflect. Will you condemn Fox News now that there is unequivocal proof they are liars?
I condemn CNN's knowing covid fearmongering more - it caused a lot more damage and was a lot more widespread.
@wildgrass saidPlease, y'all give us some definitive answer as to the factual finding that fox knew they were lying? So far the stuff above is a bit scattered about, bouncing around.....we only need one sentence, after all.
[quote].... even though defamation lawsuits are notoriously difficult to win... law professor Laurence H Tribe told the Guardian: “I have never seen a defamation case with such overwhelming proof that the defendant admitted in writing that it was making up fake information in order to increase its viewership and its revenues. Fox and its producers and performers were lying ...[text shortened]... ps://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/feb/20/fox-news-dominion-voting-systems-defamation-case-analysis
@vivify saidWhat court, what Lie? I will be first to admit it.
Since it has been proven in a court of law under oath and with uncovered text messages that Fox News knowingly spreads lies, will you here and now state that Fox is a piece of trash that no one should watch?
"Yeah but what about this liberal news source—"
Don't deflect. Will you condemn Fox News now that there is unequivocal proof they are liars?
@sh76 saidTrump admitted to lying about the severity of Covid, saying he knew it would be "five times" more deadly than the flu.
I condemn CNN's knowing covid fearmongering more - it caused a lot more damage and was a lot more widespread.
That "fearmongering" from CNN was apparently just telling the truth. Much more "damage" was spread from conserve lies about it.
"Yeah but what about this liberal news source—"
Don't deflect.
Right on cue.
Already I detect confusion!!! One of you said.....
"Well, in legalese, lies are referred to as "non-literal commentary" lol. Maybe that's why google's not drudging it ......
This assumes to expand or change or modify or confuse what a lie is. A lie has an element of intent to deceive, and we are not close to that. I wont bore y'all with the def, but the "non literal commentary' is a little much. You could always change the OP issue.
@averagejoe1 saidMy God. Did your dad skull-fukk you so hard that your brains oozed out your nose holes or something?
Please, y'all give us some definitive answer as to the factual finding that fox knew they were lying? So far the stuff above is a bit scattered about, bouncing around.....we only need one sentence, after all.
There messages sent from the top presenters that they knew it was a lie.
The owner, Murdoch, has attested to this. In writing.
There is no case of one opinion versus another. It’s plain for all to see.
@shavixmir saidWhat did he say? I play golf, et al, and do not absorb the stuff you boys do. So, tell me what he said, in the form of 'proven they knew lies.....etc". What sentence did he utter? Was it a text? In court? An interview?
My God. Did your dad skull-fukk you so hard that your brains oozed out your nose holes or something?
There messages sent from the top presenters that they knew it was a lie.
The owner, Murdoch, has attested to this. In writing.
There is no case of one opinion versus another. It’s plain for all to see.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidLol. You asked for the words from a judge. Read the legal documents. It's only confusion from your end.
Already I detect confusion!!! One of you said.....
"Well, in legalese, lies are referred to as "non-literal commentary" lol. Maybe that's why google's not drudging it ......
This assumes to expand or change or modify or confuse what a lie is. A lie has an element of intent to deceive, and we are not close to that. I wont bore y'all with the def, but the "non literal commentary' is a little much. You could always change the OP issue.