As you may have heard, there were a few bombshells in Dominion’s latest filing in the Dominion v. Fox defamation case.
To recap: We are at the stage where both Dominion and Fox are asking for summary judgment. You get a summary judgment if there is literally no evidence or argument the other side can present that will allow them to prevail, so the case can be decided without a trial.
(A trial is for finding the facts. If no facts are in dispute, if it’s just a matter of how the law should be applied, you don’t need a trial. A judge can do that.)
As you can imagine, it’s hard to win on a summary judgment motion. If you move for summary judgment, the court will assume that every fact alleged by your opponent is true. The idea is that even if everything they say is true, they still lose.
Fox moved for summary judgment alleging that all they did was report what was newsworthy, namely that a sitting president alleged voter fraud. Basically Fox argued that their commentators simply put forward the president’s claims, which they had a right to do as a news network.
Well, apparently Rupert Murdoch conceded “half of what Trump was saying was bullshit and damaging.”
Murdoch admitted he knew there was no election fraud, and that Fox hosts endorsed the election lies. Here is a snippet from Murdoch’s deposition:
Q: You are aware now that Fox did more than simply host these guests and give them a platform; correct?
A. I think you’ve shown me some material in support of that.
Q. In fact, you are now aware that Fox endorsed at times this false notion of a stolen election?
A. Not Fox, No. Not Fox. But maybe Lou Dobbs, maybe Maria, as commentators.
Q. We went through Fox hosts Maria Bartiromo.
Q: Fox Business host Lou Dobbs?
Dominion thus argued that executives of Fox News Network and Fox Corporation “knowingly opened the airwaves to false conspiracy theories about Dominion.”
Murdoch kept trying to distinguish Fox News Network and Fox Corporation, which he claims did not endorse the lies, from the commentators, who did:
Q: About Fox endorsing the narrative of a stolen election; correct?
A. No. Some of our commentators were endorsing it.
The problem, as Dominion argued in its brief, is that anyone who “participated” in the lies is responsible, and Dominion asserts that everyone in the chain of command “participated” because they knew it was wrong and they had the authority to stop it, but didn’t. Heck, the highest-ranking lawyer in the Fox Corporate structure even admitted as much. From Dominion’s filing:
The filing shows the top people at Fox were basically in WTF mode as Trump insisted on lying and their commentators insisted on repeating the lies.
Startling moment: To show how chummy Rupert Murdoch was with the Trump team, we get this clip:
Me: “Wait, what?” Debate strategy? Telling Kushner?
(If you’re wondering, yes, Fox likely violated 52 U.S.C. § 30118 (illegal corporate contributions) and 11 C.F.R. § 114.2 (illegal electioneering). Media Matters and End Citizens United PAC thus filed complaints with the FEC.)
Murdoch testified that he likes news and keeps a close eye on what the Fox news network is doing and by November 5, was already worried about the election fraud lies:
When Hannity told the audience that “it will be impossible to know the true, fair, accurate election results” Executive Vice president Viet Din told two other Fox executives: “Let’s continue to buckle up for the ride for the next 24 hours. Hannity is getting awfully close to the line with his commentary and guests tonight.”
Initially, the top people at FOX agreed that if Trump refused to concede, Sean should not go down the same path. Then, when the backlash kept getting worse, the top executives worried about losing viewers to Newsmax, so they change their strategy: They would go forward with the lies and phrase it as reporting the news, even though they knew it wasn’t.
I’d love for someone to show Trump the part where Murdoch told Allan that “with several states now disappointingly favoring Biden, hard to claim foul everywhere” and that “half of what Trump was saying was bullshit and damaging?” Can you imagine how he’d react?
And how would Rudy Guiliani feel about Allan of the Post saying that Rudy was “unhinged” and the “booze” was getting to him.
“Enough with the facts! Let’s get to the law” says law nerds everywhere. Okay, the law: Dominion accuses Fox of wanting the court to carve out a rule that grants immunity for publishing statements that the publisher knows to be false, as long as the allegations are newsworthy. Dominion says nope. The rule was given by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan: press loses protections under the First Amendment when they publish a statement “with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
Murdoch testified that
Funny how a $1.6 billion lawsuit plus punitive can improve a person’s hindsight.
Why Draw the Line There?
One of my readers on Mastodon asked this question:
Given how crazy fox news is, why would Rupert care about what the network reported about Arizona, or if stolen election claims were false? It just seems weird where Fox draws the line.
It was clear that Trump’s reason for putting forward these lies was that he wanted to hold on to power. Keeping Trump in the White House after he lost the election would make him a dictator.
(People often use the phrase ‘above the law’ incorrectly. A person is not ‘above the law’ if they committed a crime and for some reason wasn’t caught or wasn’t charged. A person is above the law when the law does not apply to that person. When we say ‘nobody is above the law’ we mean that the law applies to everyone.)
Keeping Trump in the White House after he lost the election would put him above the law. After that, he would be untouchable.
Look at it this way: Right now, Rupert Murdoch has a lot of power. If he makes Trump dictator, he loses his power. Murdoch wants a Republican in the White House who has to do what Murdoch tells him to do. He doesn’t want a dictator in the White House telling Fox what to do.
This was the same argument I offered in November of 2020, when left-leaning Twitter was 100% persuaded that the reactionary Supreme Court would agree with Trump’s election fraud claims and keep him in power. I said no. The reactionary Supreme Court wants America to be a Christian nation, but right now, the Supreme Court has a lot of power. If they kept Trump in office even after he lost, there would be nothing to rein Trump in. If, for example, Trump got angry at a Supreme Court justice and incited a mob to attack that justice, nothing would be done because he would control the DOJ. Surely they were smart enough to understand that creating a dictator was not in their best interests.
I suggest that similarly, making Trump a dictator was not in Rupert Murdoch’s best interest.
They Lie Because Their Audience Wants Them To Lie
All of this got me thinking about this 2022 New York Times expose piece on what Fox calls their “minute-by-minutes rating data,” which is the real-time audience ebb and flow. (If you click here you can read the New York Times article free through my subscription.)
Basically, Carlson adjusts what he says to get the most reaction from his audience.
Whatever is most outrageous and gripping, Carlson amplifies. So it isn’t like Carlson shapes the views of his audience. His audience dictates what Carlson says.
This is similar to social media algorithms that tend to amplify the most fear-inducing rage-inducing despair-inducing posts. In other words, social media algorithms function like Fox’s minute-by-minute ratings. (I often quote Facebook whistleblower Francis Haugen who explained that Facebook algorithms incentivize “angry, polarizing, divisive content.”) We’ve all seen it happen on social media.
You can see why Fox executives found themselves in a pickle: Their audience craved the lie that Trump won, but it was not in the best interests of Fox to install Trump as a dictator. They needed to give the audience what the audience demanded but they really didn’t want to fully endorse the election lies, so they did things like ask McConnell to get the top Republican leaders to denounce the lie. That way Fox wouldn’t have to do it. They could simply report what the Republican leaders were saying.
Fox’s Audience Wants Lies Because the Lies Destroy
Q: Why does the Fox audience demand lies?
A: The lies destroy and they want to destroy.
Sociologists Oliver Hahl, Minjae Kim, and Ezra W. Zuckerman Sivan, in “The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue,” explain that those who want to destroy the “political establishment” willingly embrace a liar because they understand that the lies themselves serve a destructive purpose—and they want to destroy the political establishment because they no longer believe the government represents them.
This is why the South wanted to secede from the Union. It’s why the Proud Boy attacked the Capitol on January 6. Same stuff. In other words, what we’re witnessing has deep roots in American history.
Historian Richard Hofstadter, in his classic 1964 work, The Paranoid Style In American Politics, offered an eerily accurate description of this desire to destroy.
Hofstadter conducted a thorough review of American politics from before the founding of the nation through McCarthyism and noticed a pattern among a small impassioned minority on the fringes of the political spectrum.
He called their behavior the “paranoid style” in politics. During the McCarthy era and then the Goldwater campaign, Hofstadter concluded that paranoid elements were no longer contained on the fringes. After Goldwater’s defeat, Hofstadter noted that some of the worst distempers of American democracy had become “a formidable force in our politics” and quite possibly, a permanent one.
Those embracing the paranoid style of politics believe that unseen satanic forces are trying to destroy something larger to which they belong. According to Hofstadter, the “something larger” to which they belong is generally phrased as “the American way of life.”
They “feel dispossessed” and that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind.” They are “determined to repossess it and prevent the final act of subversion.”
They, therefore, adopt extreme measures. They will stop at nothing to prevent what they see as an impending calamity. These apocalyptic warnings arouse passion and militancy: The evil enemy must be destroyed—and the fight must go beyond the ordinary “give and take” of politics. In other words, to beat this enemy, they have to break a few rules.
In 1992, Newt Gingrich captured this frustration—and call to militancy—when he said Republicans must resort to any means necessary. “Any means necessary” can mean firing on Fort Sumter. It can mean lying about the results of an election.
* * *
JJ had his bath this week so once more he is photogenic. He would like to show off his new threads:
- Breed: Rescue Terrier
- Occupation: Guard Dog (that green chair is his lookout perch)
From the brief facts of who knew and said what when, and the simple legal logic presented leading to NY Times vs Sullivan… it sounds to this non-lawyer like Fox is toast.
However, from my extensive experience of being a non-lawyer I’ve learned that none of what I think I understand about these things is what actually matters.
The question is why would Fox let him lie to face them multimillionaire fines? One would think that they would reign him enough to not get slapped with bullions
“Funny how a $1.6 billion lawsuit plus punitive can improve a person’s hindsight.”
This reminds me of Senator Sam Ervin in the Watergate investigation. As I remember, a witness said they were sorry for their misdeeds. Senator Sam said, “Some people are like fireflies. Their illumination is behind them.”
This whole article was insightful and helpful, but I wanted to comment to thank you specifically for your clear explanation of a summary judgement. I read a lot of (too much) political commentary, but I do not have any sort of training on law and often have to make do with a superficial understanding of such things.
It occurs to me that the further Fox goes with supporting and spreading the lies that come out of the extremist Republican cabal, the more Fox becomes the outlying step-child of the British tabloid press. On a slow news day, the British tabloids have no problem simply inventing their own lies, with sensational headlines, to boost their ratings and newspaper sales. At the rate Fox is going, they’re getting more like them every day and that certainly doesn’t do “Truth, Justice and the American Way” any good at all. As usual, your observations are on point, clear, and laid out in a way that makes even the most complex issues easy to understand. Thanks for all that you do.
Hi Teri, thanks for this. But isn’t this lawsuit going to fail? Fox News appears judgment proof in my book. All profits paid out in dividends and no ability to pierce the corporate veil. Fox is the ONLY defendant. Their building is probably leased. What do they own but a few computers, microphones and cameras? Won’t they just settle, declare bankruptcy and then re-form a NEW corporation the next day called, “FoxNews+”? I just don’t see how without suing the individuals PERSONALLY there can ever be a consequence for Fox Corp of any kind. Am I wrong? I hope so.
I think the issue here is what you mean by “consequence.” A judgment is a consequence. If you think a judgment will put an end to right-wing media or fascism, it won’t.
JJ is looking very dapper! I, too, have to place a chair by the window for our adorable but basically useless fur friend to alert us to people walking and cars driving by. The very nerve!
While I’d like to think the Fox/SCOTUS fear of creating a dictator is sensible, I think there might also be an element of “well, he wouldn’t do it to *us* – we gave him the power!” (“when they came for…”). I hope you are right, though.
I do agree, though, that the right/far right is better than the moderate/left will ever be at lying and cheating in order to just get the win/stay in power. Their authoritarian bent attracts their supporters who will fall in line and do what they’re told, whereas mod/lefts are where they are because of independent thinking. Authoritarians feel safe with hierarchy and clear, unambiguous rules – even if those rules suddenly become “it’s okay to break the rules because we need to win to preserve ‘our’ way of life.”
IANAL, but I still bet a beer. that Fox waits until after the 2024 election & then settles. I presume Dominion has the means to continue to pursue the case that long. I anticipate Fox’s interest is to delay trial & that they will be able to do that for 18 months. Wildcard is Rupert Murdoch’s life expectancy. He’s 92 this week. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see Lachlan throw the deceased Rupert under the bus & settle with Dominion & then essentially continue the same disingenuous “business model”
In following this case I’ve gotten the feeling that Dominion doesn’t want to settle. The Fox campaign of lies has hurt their business. If Fox can get out from under this by one of those “settled without admitting to the charges” maneuvers, how does that help Dominion rebuild their reputation?
You’re sharp conclusion about the powerful subduing power-takers to protect their own is high calorie food for thought. I would be interested in how you assess the actions of the myriad of other right-wing causes and actors vis a vis their future under an autocratic victor. To me some are clearly supporting an outcome that will inevitably disempower their cause and limit the rights they fight for. Authentic sport gun owners stand out for me as being crazy for standing with the pro-autocrat forces. I can imagine a long list of winners and losers. Murdoch crowns the loser list by being first to the party….winning by successfully orchestrating the autocratic take over of the American conservative world. Nice work Rupert!
Thanks for all your great reporting and analysis. It’s invaluable to my understanding of our times.

Everyone is always sure that if they make it clear that they support the new regime, they will be given favored and privileged status. They don’t expect to lose any rights or privileges… (In fact, they expect to gain them.)
Your sharp conclusion about the powerful subduing other power-takers to protect their own is high-calorie food for thought. I would be interested in how you assess the actions of the myriad of other right-wing causes and actors vis a vis their future under an autocratic victor. To me, some are clearly supporting an outcome that will inevitably disempower their cause and limit the rights they fight for. Authentic sport gun owners stand out for me as being crazy for standing with the pro-autocrat forces. I can imagine a long list of winners and losers. Murdoch crowns the loser list by being first to the party….winning at losing by successfully orchestrating the autocratic take over of the American conservative world. Nice work Rupert!
Thanks for all your great reporting and analysis. It’s invaluable to my understanding of our times.

There were quite a few “aha” moments for me as I read your post. Why TPTB don’t want a dictator, for example. And the dynamic at Faux News, where the on air “talent” is the equivalent of a social media algorithm, spewing whatever it takes to keep the viewer engaged – I will be reading that NYT article you cited. Especially appreciate you cutting through Murdoch’s argument that it’s not his company’s fault, it’s the fault of the on air “talent”. Yeah right. Lovely photo of JJ. Thanks so much for educating us non-law types.
Thanks for the post, Teri. I disagree that Democrat voters want to break the rules to get justice. I understand your point about cynicism, ie treating it like a zero sum game. But I think we, the majority, want enforcement of the rule of law, by the book. For example, indicting Republicans who have confessed to crimes on national television like John Eastman, Guiliani, and DJT would be a great next step. The Proud Boys were convicted of seditious conspiracy, by the book. That’s a good start. We don’t want revenge, we want accountability where the law applies. Republicans idolize DJT for his track record of flaunting criminal impunity. Indictment will send a strong message that the US will perserve as a democracy and will not pivot to an autocracy.
I didn’t mean to say “Democratic voters” and I will fix that. I meant that there are some who say it.
As far as “accountability” see the two posts that I have pinned: One about the DOJ investigation and another general FAQ.
I just went to look and I said “left-leaning people” not “Democratic voters.” If you’re new to my blog, start with the two posts that I have pinned and you’ll see where I’m coming from with that.
This one:
https://terikanefield.com/frequently-asserted-rage-inducing-simplifications/
And this one:
https://terikanefield.com/all-new-doj-investigation-faqs/
Thanks
> As you may have heard, there were a few bombshells in Dominion’s latest filing …
I was considering asking you Friday if you thought there was enough news for a blog post. I’d have called it a thermonuclear blast, but I also often understate.
> Funny how a $1.6 billion lawsuit plus punitive can improve a person’s hindsight.
Sometimes, I read understatement in your writings. Bravo!
> Hofstadter called their behavior the “paranoid style” in politics. During the McCarthy era and then the Goldwater campaign, Hofstadter concluded that paranoid elements were no longer contained on the far right-wing fringes.
You’ve now persuaded me to go read him!
> Will Fox News Network Stop Lying? Of course not
Non-natural persons should not be considered persons at all. Were entities created by laws and regulations entirely regulable by laws and regulations, one regulation might be that they are not allowed to knowingly mislead the public. (My other name is “Don Quixote.”)
> If the Democrats start lying and cheating, the cynics will be right:
Thank you so much!
Hey, Teri. Would you expect the FCC to get involved? Or am I misinterpreting their mission? It seems that Fox has gone beyond a legitimate level of “news broadcast”ing. Maybe I’m wrong but I can’t picture the other big media calling Nancy or Hakim to tell them what they should say or do.
Thanks for another great post.
R
I don’t know enough about it. You’d have to look to see if Fox violated any regulations. News media under the First Amendment have a lot of leeway, and defamation suits are difficult. Dominion happens to have an extremely strong one.
Teri, your work here to me, granted a political and strategic novice, is absolutely brilliant! Your clear understanding and in real-time (2020 as noted) of why the USSC and Fox ENTERTAINMENT do not want TFG or anyone I imagine, as an authoritarian dictator, shows just how clear your understanding of our political environment is today.
Thank you for it. Please, persist in it.
Sincerely,
A very concerned citizen of the USA
Good read. I wonder where it will all go from here.
Well, this was a really good summary of the defamation case’s defense shooting itself in the crotch.
I’d add one extra point to the To Do list #15:
Dialog with your elected officials. Write letters, make phone calls letting then know what you are thinking about issues facing the community. You may get only a canned auto response, rather than a personal one. But they will take some notice.
I will add that right now . . . done. I added it under #2.
I’ve worked in/for electeds. Physical letters used to be the #1 method, but that was before anthrax. Now, they hate the bother of being careful with physical paper. Currently, it’s phone calls. True, they categorize the call into a small box and then tally it as “for” or “against”, but they pay attention. Filling in a constituent form on their web site is also good. You’ll get a canned response and it will get tallied, as with a phone call. Social media (e.g. Twitter)? Forget about it. You might reach their followers and constituents, but their staff hardly pays attention. The staff takes note of constituents and they don’t know if you are. (Though it does amuse me to troll Andy BIggs occasionally.)
My dog Marais reported envy about JJ’s bow tie. I think the lookout perch is next. We are cutting her off from FOX news. It’s seems to be having a negative affect on her thinking. This competition with JJ is disturbing to us. We find she has traveled away from reality. Thank you for grounding the rest of this household.
Hi Teri,
I hadn’t actually considered this idea that neither SCOTUS or Fox could let trump remain in power & cementing his place as a de facto dictator…and it certainly makes sense. I’m wondering if this point would need to be made in court (perhaps not so much w/ re: to SCOTUS but w/ Fox) in pointing to motive, thus supporting Dominion’s case? If not, is this *only* to provide us w/ another POV or is there anotger legal angle I’m not aware of?
Thanks again for your insights.
Right, that was just offered as an answer to the question: Why did this cross the line for Rupert Murdoch?
Thank you, Teri, for your concise summary and explanation of the lawsuit. It was getting messy out there with all the noise.
I also appreciated why you believe the Supreme Court did not side with Trump. It makes a lot of sense.
It’s frightening that so many Americans want to believe the lies because they fear “other” Americans might actually achieve a better life …a life almost as good as their own. All it takes is EQUALITY and God forbid, the rabid minority certainly doesn’t want that.
Great post, Teri. I like it when you show how things make sense.
“with respect to the lies around the 2020 Presidential Election, I would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it, in hindsight.”
Could be a line of dialogue straight out of Joan Didion’s novel, Democracy !
Thank you for all you share. Your elegant photograph of the fetching JJ made me forget about fascism for a moment.
I have a question about the standard to be applied. You wrote: “As you can imagine, it’s hard to win on a summary judgment motion. If you move for summary judgment, the court will assume that every fact alleged by your opponent is true. The idea is that even if everything they say is true, they still lose.”
Isn’t that the standard for a motion to dismiss? Wouldn’t the standard here be that there is no genuine dispute on a material fact? Meaning Fox can throw up some nonsense to contradict Dominion’s assertions, but they need a real, legitimate dispute on facts that go to the claim to defeat Dominion’s motion?
I offered a link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/summary_judgment
From the page: “When considering a motion for summary judgment, a judge will view all evidence in the light most favorable to the movant’s opponent.”
If the party still loses even if everything they say is true, there are no material facts in dispute. If there are no material facts in dispute, the issues a matter of law only and a court can decide that.
A motion to dismiss throws out the case. Nobody wins or loses. The case is gone. Summary judgement resolves the case: There is a winner and a loser.
We’ll all be watching for the verdict in the Dominion v. Fox News case. Should be interesting.
JJ looks rather dashing with his new haircut and tie. Seems a little early to clip him so close though still being winter and all. Does he get a sweater for his walks when graupel is in the forecast (as unusual as that is for the central coast)?
JJ looks like one of the old news people in his bow tie but the name of precisely who escapes me. Mark Russell comes to mind but no. I’ll bet you know who I’m thinking of.
If you are talking about Fox news people none can possibly be as cute as JJ.
Another goodie my dear ❤