Time to leave Murdoch TV

If you think yourself a Conservative, the decline in conservative editorial policy on Foxnews and Fox Business should have been clear to you for months.

First we saw the now fired Politics Editor Chris Stirewalt and his team of eggheads call Arizona and other states very early for Joe Biden.  After doing that his academic advisers mocked news anchors who questioned their judgment.

And then we have seen people on Murdoch air who were clearly anti-Trump and pro-left.  Neil Cavuto comes to mind but there are others like Arthel Neville.

Now we have the reflexive, probably lawyer driven decision to fire Lou Dobbs because he is named along with the network in a lawsuit brought by Smartmatic, a firm much accused of fiddling electronically with election results on November 3.

Well, pilgrims, having eliminated Dobbs by threatening Murdoch TV with the possibility of a massive judgment against it, the Leftist coalition forces will undoubtedly move on in eliminating other conservative voices using the same tactic.

NewsmaxTV now has a greater audience than either Fox channel.  Vote with your TeeVee remote.  Tune Fox out.  There are a number of conservative networks rising out of the burning embers of Murdoch TV.  Try them all.  pl

Comments

[Leith]

Murdoch deserves every kick in the butt he gets, no matter whether it is from the left or the right.

Also there nothing wrong with companies or individuals, whether left or right, using the courts to fight against defamation. Trump and the Trump Organization has done it many times.

[Deap]

Done a long time ago, except for clips of Tucker Carlson found elsewhere.

ITA.

[elaine]

One American News Network (oann) has been live streaming Mike Lindell's "Absolute Truth" coverage of the 2020 election(s).He has numerous guests along with graphs & charts.

A schedule for when this investigative work will repeat throughout this weekend are posted on the oann.com webpage. I lack enough knowledge of algorisms & hacking technology to fully understand all the minutia brought forward. I'd be interested in opinions
on the accuracy of this "report." The video lasts 2 hours.

[Chuck Light]

Never a follower or watcher of FOX News, but the firing of Dobbs made the MSM, so I learned of it. MSM is assuming Dobbs was fired due to his support of the Smartmatics slander by Giuliani and Powell, and his being named in the Smartmatics defamation suit, which may be true.

If that is in fact the reason, it begs another question. Both Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo were also named Defendants in the Smartmatic lawsuit, and both of them were vocal on-air supporters of the Giuliani and Powell attacks on Smartmatic. Does anyone have any idea why they have not been terminated along with Dobbs, if in fact it was his vocal support of the Smartmatics falsehoods that led to his termination?

Just wondering?

[John Minnerath]

Yes. Trying to pick out the bits of real news and the truth is not worth the time with Fox anymore.

[JerseyJeffersonian]

Colonel,

Yes, immediate I saw that news, I knew that Fox was unmistakably no longer fit for service. I am beginning to experiment with Newsmax, and will seek out other sources for comparison and/or supplementation of their offerings. They may not be as "polished" as the current market leaders, but who cares. I don't give a hearty about polish, I value accurate reportage, and that is not what one gets from those "market leaders".

Frankly, I already get much of my information from sites on the internet; some of them are interpreters of the current scene, and others are aggregators of materials from various sources, as often as not from "alternative" sources and thinkers.

What we need are ways to get around ideological gatekeepers; the ISPs are not safe (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc.). Perhaps Mr. Musk's Starlink might be different? We shall see.

[Fourth and Long]

Please - Maria Bartiromo next. Please. And Jeanine Pirro? A Gulag would do nicely.

[turcopolier]

Chuck Light

An attempt is being made to negotiate with Smartmatic over how many people Murdoch is willing to fire to get a settlement.

[turcopolier]

Fourth and Long

Ah, Soviet style labor camps for people you disagree with. Typical lefty.

[Mark Logan]

Chuck Light,

It may have been because Pirro and Bartiromo promised not to repeat the Smartmatic stuff ever again, but they found Dobbs to be a true believer and thereby untrustworthy.

It appears Newsmax, on this issue, has lawyers as terrified as FOX's. One of their anchors has been so warned that he actually flees the scene.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1356719881564086272

[Eric Newhill]

Col Lang,
When they put Tucker on the chopping block, that will be it for Fox. It will either go under or become a fully assimilated Borg hub. Chalk up another victory to the forces of darkness. The short sightedness and cowardice of Murdoch is remarkable.

Why do we need the "news" at all at this point? Those of us who have studied history and the humanities know what has happened and what will happen. Why listen to lies on the way down?

So many better ways to spend our time. Even if we want to be informed as to details of current political machinations, probably more efficient and less annoying to simply read source material, what is Biden saying on his website, what is in the executive summary of bills; that sort of thing.

I stopped watching Fox a week after the election.

[Jose]

Wombats go home!!!

[Chuck Light]

IMHO, Murdoch will pay a lot of money to Smartmatic. Firing the other named Defendants may be part of a settlement, but I feel pretty certain that if what Smartmatic says is true (that in the past US election its software was only used in Los Angeles County, and nowhere else in the US), Smartmatic will hold out for at least a billion. Dollars, not sheckels.

Oh, and one must not forget Dominion. They will be looking for a piece of the Murdoch pie as well.

Give Murdoch's personalities time. They will no doubt find a landing strip at OANN, or Newsmax, or some other up and coming clone of the FOX.

[Deap]

Chuck, when did they adjudicate Smartmatic was slandered or any falsehoods were uttered against them?

I heard the Powell interview - there were no attacks; only a calm recititation of her findings that she has always been long happy to take to court. Guiliani has been around the block for so long dealing with legal matters, it is instinctive for him to know what to say and what not to say.

Hope all of this finally gets is day in court, under cross examination, discovery and rules of due process. Then we all can speak with more certainty. But not right now.

Bartiromo is a fabulous newscaster - i wish her the best and I hope all the "good guys" at Fox find a far more supportive home and they can continue their fine journalism with verve and integrity. We sorely need that quality of media resources, now that the current media "cabaL" has confessed (gloated?) their numerous journalistic sins, all of which have been hiding in plain sight for years, but nice to get their own confirmation.

[Walrus]

I fail to get angry over this. In fact I think abandoning Fox now is counterproductive. All that is required is a change of your perspective to protect your blood pressure.

I have posted before about how Murdoch is utterly agnostic. He has made and unmade many politicians on both sides. All he cares about is Murdoch.

I valued Fox not because it was "Fair and Balanced" (it wasn't) but because it gave an insight into the current thinking of both Murdoch and the people he was currently supporting.

Fox News will still give that insight except it is now going to be educational about the strategies of the Left. It is now a good source of intelligence on the opposition. Watch it.

The only insight that the switch itself gives us is that Murdoch doesn't think the deplorables are going to be as beneficial to Murdoch as the lefties.

[Yeah, Right]

Murdoch is the most predictable creature on the planet. He cherishes above all the fantasy that he has influence and is not (as he really is) an unscrupulous camp follower and carpet-bagger.

This latest backflip from him is pure Rupert: he sniffed the breeze and then abruptly drop everything to jump on the Joe bandwagon, ASAP.

That way he can pretend that he helped to get Joe over the line, even though he was really being led by the nose.

Murdoch isn't a conservative. He is neither of the right nor a leftist. He is just an opportunist

If he sniffs a defeat in four years time for President Harris then he'll turn on her like a rabid dog.

It's what he does.
It is what he has always done.
It is what he will always do.

[TV]

Mark Logan:
"Terrified lawyers" could be one word.
Any mention of a courtroom will usually send them crying for mommy.

[turcopolier]

walrus

I have no interest in the state of Murdoch's soul. What I care about is that he is selling out the ability to communicate of my side in the great debate.

[Chuck Light]

Deap: The answer to your question is "sometime in the future, probably a couple of years, if ever." Litigation takes time, as does determining which facts are true, and which are made up.

That is why I said "if what Smartmatic says is true (that in the past US election its software was only used in Los Angeles County, and nowhere else in the US),...." Please note the "if" in that quote.

What Giuliani, Powell, Dobbs, Bartiromo and Pirro said, among other things, was that Smartmatic software was involved across the country, and primarily in those urban areas where the most African-Americans and Latinos voted. Those urban areas were the places where the Trump campaign sought to flip the results -- Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee.

So if -- and it is a big "if" until it is proven or disproven -- Smartmatic software was in fact only used in Los Angeles County, then the statements of the individual defendants were false. And if Smartmatic can prove -- another big if -- that the individual defendants knew when they made their statements about Smartmatic that the statements were false, then Smartmatic has proven defamation.

What FOX wants to avoid (if I may presume for a moment) is having this case go to trial. Because the risk of a MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR judgment, which would include punitive damages, would be too great.

Remember Gawker?

[Deap]

How does Smartmatic prove its damages? Lost contracts, revoked contracts, some measurement of their "reputation" as a bit player. Why did they lose other contracts before this election.

There has to be some meaningful relationship to damages suffered in order to make them whole. They can sue for one trillion dollars, if they wanted to; but they have to also make their case why it would take that much money to both "punish" the defendant and make themselves whole due to the actionable conduct of the defendant.

I say they get one dollar if they "win"; if that. When you have a legal system that cannot even find Hilary Clinton guilty of patent email abuses -- because no jury would convict her of statutory abuses that require no intent, how far do you think any court or jury will get to "intent" in this defamation case to award billions of dollars of damages?

No one died, no one got maimed by pesticides. "Electronic voting systems" are a dying industry now being rejected by more and more jurisdictions world wide. They are an arcane industry with only a limited in-house reputation at stake. How many clients do they have or failed to procure in the past five years regardless of statements made about them.

One female lawyer in the US did not bring down "billions of dollars" of business for these operations that other jurisdiction have already rejected because they did not serve their needs - which were and still should be transparent election integrity.

Go to court, and make your case plaintiffs. Let's see how you really operate your "voting systems". Put it all on the table for public inspection.

If they are complaining they were not really from Venezuela, how does that cost them several billions of dollars in damages. Will they bring in Hilary Clinton who touted using some of these "voting systems" if you want to have "happy results" as we stated in one of her reclaimed emails. Did she push these systems for Haiti election? Bring her on as a material witness, under oath and let her explain what "happy election" outcomes meant when she recommended these systems.

[Seamus Padraig]

Rupert Murdoch is pushing 90, and heartell that he has now passed on the active management of Newscorp to his sons, James and Lachlan, who are said not to be true-believers. This is probably just a good opportunity for them to mainstream Fox still further.

As for the Smartmatic lawsuit, I understand that Sidney Powell has also been named as a defendant. Now Powell is an experienced lawyer, so I find it hard to imagine that she would have knowingly engaged in defamation, lacking any evidence of their guilt. So for me, if Smartmatic drops it defamation lawsuit(s) after all the 'deplorables' have been fired from Fox, that'll be a big tell. It'll mean that this was all just a scheme to help Fox mainstream itself by plausibly claiming that they had no choice. We'll see ...

[richard barber]

Do you think that maybe Fox and Newsmax have backed off the fraud thing on advice of THEIR OWN counsel? Why would they advise that? Just craven? They too are part of the plot?

[David Habakkuk]

Chuck Light,

‘So if – and it is a big “if” until it is proven or disproven - Smartmatic software was in fact only used in Los Angeles County, then the statements of the individual defendants were false. And if Smartmatic can prove - another big if - that the individual defendants knew when they made their statements about Smartmatic that the statements were false, then Smartmatic has proven defamation.’

Two quite distinct questions are involved here.

As to the notion that Sidney Powell knew when she made her statements about Smartmatic that that they were false, this is doubly absurd.

The point is not simply that it should be clear to any reasonably objective observer that, rightly or wrongly, she believed what she was saying – as in my view she almost always patently does. (No lawyer can do so all the time!)

Rather obviously, wilfully to expose herself to a lawsuit she had every reason to believe she would lose would have been the action of a very stupid person – which, equally obviously, Ms. Powell is not.

Of course, Smartmatic making be banking on a judge being as devoid of objectivity as Emmet G. Sullivan proved to be in the case of Lieutenant-General Flynn – how far the preponderance of the judiciary is incapable of objectivity in cases involving Trump is an interesting question.

However, assuming that because judges have favoured your side in the past they can be relied upon to do so in the future can be a high risk strategy, particularly against an adversary as determined as Ms. Powell.

Of course, one can only guess at the calculations on the basis of which what seems to have been a rash claim has been made by Smartmatic.

It could be that it is anticipated that the case on the actual falsity of the claims, as distinct from their intent, is sufficiently strong that a kind of ‘balance of terror’ can end up producing an ‘order to dismiss’ agreed by both parties, as has been the outcome in almost all the cases in which Butowsky is involved.

One should not simply dismiss the possibility that this is a case of ‘hubris.’

One then comes to the question of whether the claims made were as patently false as is claimed. And here, I think, other questions have to be asked.

What is amply clear was that Ms. Powell and her co-defendants were operating under pressure both of time, and also perhaps of emotion.

It would be eminently possible that, given this state of affairs, even an highly experienced and competent lawyer, as she undoubtedly is, might not have subjected all the evidence presented to her to as sceptical an evaluation as would have been desirable.

But that in turn raises further possibilities.

As Larry Johnson has already suggested, there are very strong reasons to believe that disinformation in which ‘QAnon’ is implicated is being deliberately disseminated, in order to discredit those who have been most active in exposing the conspiracies against Trump.

More material on this is presented in the piece posted on ‘Consortium News’ on 4 February by Trevor Scott FitzGibbon, entitled ‘The Q-Word: Weapon of Choice for Smearing Opponents.’

(See https://consortiumnews.com/2021/02/04/the-q-word-weapon-of-choice-for-smearing-opponents/ .)

From this, you can see how people involved with the ‘Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity’ group, including as well as Larry himself Bill Binney and Ray McGovern, are being linked not just to Lieutenant-General Flynn but to some very curious figures, such as General Paul Vallely, in the supposed conspiracy.

Also interesting in this regard are recent posts on Yaacov Apelbaum’s ‘Mechanics of Deception’ site dealing with the Hunter Biden laptop story, most recently the piece entitled ‘Disinformation, Disinformation, and More Disinformation’ he put up on 5 February.

(See https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2021/02/05/disinformation-disinformation-and-more-disinformation/ .)

It opens:

I’ve noticed that recently, some of the content of my posts is being repurposed on various forums and SM platforms to make some false claims that a video showing Hunter engaged in a foot related sexual act was with a young Biden family relative.’

And goes on:

‘The publishers of this content (some of which is high grade and professionally produced) are likely a part of coalition of media outlets that are trying to either kill the Hunter laptop story or manipulate it. These sources regularly create and circulate Hunter related disinformation, knowing that once it gains traction, it would be debunked by their allied fact checkers. The underling objective of all this is to destroy the credibility of the real damaging evidence on Hunter’s hard drive.’

The intended purpose, however, may not simply be to destroy the credibility of genuine evidence by ‘adulterating’ it with ‘fake’: it may also be to undermine that of key figures among the rather small number of people who have displayed energy and determination in the struggle to attempt to get to the truth about the conspiracy against Trump.

What has also become apparent in recent months, however, is that a good few people who were clearly attempting to create the impression that they were trying to expose the truth about ‘Russiagate’ were palpably doing nothing of the kind: particularly flagrant examples being William Barr and John Durham.

So, it ceases to be entirely beyond the bounds of possibility that deliberate disinformation was being fed to Sidney Powell and others, by people whom they trusted, as many trusted Barr and a Durham, with a view to making possible precisely the scenario that has materialised.

What we also may be seeing, I think, is a repeat of the manoeuvre practised very successfully in relation to the lawsuits involving Butowsky.

Decisions taken by the Murdochs about lawsuits, as their sudden enthusiasm for settling the case brought by Aaron Rich illustrated, are not simply the product of assessments of the strengths of the respective cases, but also of political calculations about who is likely to come out on the winning side, and therefore to whom it is appropriate to ‘toady.’

Given this situation, an obvious possible advantage of aggressive legal action would be that a readiness by Fox to make terms, which was only very partly to do with the strengths of the case, could be used to discredit Powell and the other defendants.

This possibility could also have provided very good reasons for using people playing ‘double games’ to feed the people who it was already envisaged might be targeted for legal action a mixture of accurate and inaccurate information.

[Martin Oline]

Pat:

Thank you for the link to OANN news site you provided in the Jackson Lee gun bill story. I have it book marked now.

[Deap]

As best I recall, Powell in her early public statements made very equivocating statements about the origins on the various voting systems - trying them back to a common Venezuelan parentage. And she was quoting someone who claimed to have first person knowledge of this potential linkage.

Hardly a declaratory statement of fact - intended to defame - unless circumstantial thought crimes alleged by the plaintiff is the new legal standard. Powells early public statements were demand for further investigation; not a defamatory campaign against a sole commercial entity.

The actual statements, their scope, intent of the declarant, context, and intended audience as well as range of distribution and confirmed impact on future business advantage are all matters for the court to engage.

I eagerly await the trial. The public does need more information so it too may conclude EU countries made sound decisions when they prohibited "electronic voting" in their future elections. What pig in what poke did we actually purchase with our tax dollars?

And why did we spend tax dollars on a voting systems that refuse to provide full transparency to review post-election auditing when voting anomolies surface. Or voting systems demonstrated to be capable of being linked to the internet, when that was a specifically excluded contract criteria?

Tax payers who funded these contracts want answers.