Listen to the article
In a high-stakes legal battle that could reshape the media landscape, attorneys for voting technology company Smartmatic argued Tuesday that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch deliberately authorized Fox News to promote Donald Trump’s false election fraud claims to recapture disaffected viewers.
“The conservative viewers, their bread and butter, abandoned them,” Smartmatic attorney J. Erik Connolly told New York state supreme court judge David B. Cohen during oral arguments in Manhattan. “So what do they do? They return back to what they know best: they return back to disinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and xenophobia.”
The case centers on Smartmatic’s $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, with both sides urging the judge to decide key aspects of the dispute before a potential trial in 2023.
Smartmatic’s legal team contends that Fox executives deliberately “pivoted” toward embracing Trump’s election fraud narrative after the network’s decision to call Arizona for Joe Biden on election night alienated pro-Trump viewers. This strategy, Connolly argued, was specifically designed to win back their core audience.
Fox News attorney K. Winn Allen vehemently rejected these characterizations. “No disinformation campaign was ordered,” he said. “It is total bunk. It is not supported by the record. It is hogwash. It is made up by lawyers on the other side.”
Allen emphasized that the Murdochs, who held top leadership positions at Fox Corporation during the relevant period, “didn’t give anyone any orders to cover Smartmatic or the election fraud allegations.” Both Rupert, who stepped down as chair two years ago, and Lachlan, who remains executive chair and CEO, have denied encouraging the airing of election fraud claims in their depositions.
To prevail, Smartmatic must prove that key Fox News figures knew the election fraud claims broadcast on the network—by both hosts and guests—were false but aired them anyway. The voting technology company has presented internal communications showing Fox hosts, including Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo, expressed desire to help Trump, while other Fox employees privately doubted the fraud claims.
During his presentation, Allen argued that Smartmatic has greatly exaggerated its value and fabricated implausible estimates of financial losses attributed to Fox’s broadcasts. Fox maintains its hosts were merely discussing newsworthy allegations made by then-associates of President Trump, not endorsing them to harm Smartmatic.
“This suit really isn’t about Fox’s coverage of the 2020 election,” Allen contended. “It’s about Smartmatic’s attempt to seize on comments made by the president’s lawyers to salvage its financial livelihood.”
While seeking several pre-trial rulings, Smartmatic has emphasized that a jury should ultimately determine damage amounts. Judge Cohen gave few indications about his leanings but remarked it would be a “hard sell” to grant summary judgment on the “actual malice” standard, which requires proof that Fox personnel knew the election claims were false or likely false.
The judge plans to review all broadcasts in question before ruling. “I think I have more than enough information, data, briefings, charts, graphs and everything I need to make my ruling,” he told both parties.
Smartmatic’s arguments mirror those made by Dominion Voting Systems in its own defamation lawsuit against Fox. In that case, pre-trial rulings by Delaware judge Eric M. Davis proved decisive, determining that statements made on Fox were false and inherently defamatory to Dominion’s reputation.
Fox’s former chief legal and policy officer, Viet D. Dinh, later acknowledged that Davis’s rulings had “hamstrung” the company, influencing its decision to pay $787.5 million to settle the case in April 2023 rather than proceed to trial.
“We knew we were right in the law, [but] the trial judge put us in a situation increasingly where it was very obvious that we were not able to win the trial, but we were very confident we would prevail on appeal,” Dinh said.
The Smartmatic case represents another major legal challenge for Fox News and the Murdoch media empire, potentially carrying significant financial and reputational implications for one of America’s most influential news organizations.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
The allegations against Fox News are certainly serious, but I’ll withhold judgment until I see the full evidence. Maintaining a healthy, free press is crucial for democracy, but media outlets must also be responsible and accountable for their actions.
This case highlights the ongoing tensions between media outlets, their audience, and the need for factual reporting. Regardless of the outcome, it’s clear that more needs to be done to ensure the integrity of news coverage, especially around sensitive political issues.
This is a complex and high-stakes case that could have far-reaching implications for media accountability and the spread of misinformation. I’m interested to see how the courts navigate this issue and what lessons can be learned for the future.
This is a complex and highly charged legal case. It will be interesting to see how the court rules on the allegations of deliberate misinformation by Fox News to cater to their pro-Trump viewers. Transparency and accountability for media outlets are crucial for a healthy democracy.
This case highlights the delicate balance that media outlets must strike between appealing to their core audience and upholding their duty to provide truthful, unbiased information. It will be interesting to see how the courts navigate this complex issue.
The allegations against Fox News are serious, but I’d like to see the full evidence before forming a strong opinion. Upholding journalistic standards and preventing the dissemination of false narratives is crucial for a healthy democracy.
The allegations against Fox News are certainly concerning, but I’ll reserve judgment until I see the full evidence presented in court. Maintaining a diversity of media voices is important, but not at the expense of journalistic integrity.
The Murdochs’ alleged involvement in approving Fox News’ coverage of election fraud claims is very concerning. Media outlets must uphold journalistic integrity and avoid spreading misinformation, even if it’s to recapture their audience. This case could set an important precedent.
While I’m curious to learn more about the specifics of this case, I’m skeptical of the claims that Fox News deliberately promoted false election fraud narratives. Media outlets should be held accountable, but we must also be cautious about making broad accusations without solid evidence.