Robert Reich
The Coffee Klatch with Robert Reich
How to stop rightwing media lies?
0:00
-8:06

How to stop rightwing media lies?

Sue the bastards

Defamation law may turn out to be America’s most important weapon against rightwing media lies.

On Friday, Infowars star Alex Jones’ parent media company, Free Speech Systems, filed for bankruptcy in the midst of a defamation damages trial underway in Austin, Texas.

Jones, you may recall, had portrayed the Sandy Hook school shooting massacre as a hoax involving actors, aimed at increasing gun control. Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose 6-year-old son, Jesse Lewis, was among the 20 children and six educators killed, have sued Jones and his media company for $150 million. Courts in Texas and Connecticut have already found Jones liable for defamation.

To win a defamation lawsuit, a plaintiff must show four things: the defendant made a false statement purporting to be fact; the statement was published or communicated; the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care or, worse, knew the statement was incorrect and hurtful but made it anyway; and the plaintiff suffered harm as a result.

By these criteria, it’s no wonder Jones will soon be paying out a fortune in damages. Declaring bankruptcy won’t save him.

Defamation litigation is slow and expensive and, like all litigation, it enriches lawyers. It can also be abused. Anyone remember what happened to Gawker after its tech blog published a post under the headline, “Peter Thiel is totally gay, people”? Billionaire Thiel quietly bankrolled Hulk Hogan, the professional wrestler, to sue Gawker for defaming Hogan in a totally unrelated story — and Hogan’s nine-figure defamation award bankrupted Gawker Media.

But at a time when social media can’t be trusted to police itself against weaponized lies, and when much of the public doesn’t trust government to regulate social media, defamation lawsuits may be the best we can hope for.

One America News (OAN), a right-wing media organization that pushed conspiracy theories about the election, is facing so many defamation lawsuits from those injured by the network’s lies that its future is now in doubt.

Five years ago, Trump was ecstatic about OAN’s flattering coverage of him. By the summer of 2020 -- dissatisfied with what he considered insufficient gushing by Fox News – Trump was urging his followers to switch to OAN and Newsmax, calling them “much better” than Fox. He did the same after the election, when OAN’s journalists were more willing than many Fox correspondents to continue pushing Trump’s Big Lie.

Last December, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss, Georgia election workers, sued OAN hosts and guests, including Rudy Giuliani, for baselessly accusing them of committing election fraud and engaging in a criminal conspiracy. Freeman and Moss said OAN’s lies subjected them to an onslaught of harassment and racist threats, leading one of them to leave her home for months at the recommendation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

OAN ultimately settled the case for an undisclosed sum. Apparently as part of the settlement agreement, OAN admitted on air that Freeman and Miss “did not engage in ballot fraud or criminal misconduct.”

Meanwhile, Dominion Voting Systems, which provided voting machines to 28 states in the 2020 election, has accused OAN of defaming the company and its products by airing false reports that its machines switched votes from Donald Trump to President Biden, thereby hurting its business and putting its employees in danger. (One of those employees, Eric Coomer, received death threats after OAN named him in a report as an alleged collaborator of the far-left movement, antifa. Coomer is now suing OAN, too.)

The litigation has not gone well for OAN. Judges have rejected its motions to dismiss the case. In one ruling, a judge concluded that OAN acted “maliciously and consciously” in perpetuating falsehoods about Dominion, and that its chief White House correspondent, Chanel Rion, failed to exercise even minimal journalistic standards.

In April, OAN was dropped by AT&T’s DirecTV, which has about 15 million subscribers. Verizon just announced it would stop carrying OAN on its Fios television service. OAN will soon be available to no more than a few hundred thousand people.

Dominion isn’t stopping with OAN. It’s seeking a total of $1.6 billion in damages extending to Newsmax as well as to Fox News and Fox News’s parent, the News Corp. And it’s seeking an additional $1.3 billion in damages from each of Trump’s most whacko conspirators — Sydney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.

As to the News Corp, Dominion alleges that Rupert Murdoch and his son, Lachlan, acted with “actual malice” because they knew that the lie Fox News was touting was false.

Defamation lawsuits aren’t sure things, and they pose potential threats to the free press. But if the press is alert to errors and corrects them quickly, defamation shouldn’t be a problem.

Sarah Palin recently lost her defamation suit against The New York Times, in which she alleged that the Times defamed her when it erroneously linked her campaign rhetoric to a mass shooting. Part of the reason Palin lost was the Times quickly corrected its mistake.

The Times’ behavior stands in sharp contrast to that of Fox News. Although Dominion repeatedly asked Fox News to stop its lies and correct the record, Fox persisted even though it knew they were lies (Dominion cites a report that Rupert Murdoch spoke with Trump a few days after the election “and informed him that he had lost.”)

Even if it loses the lawsuit, Fox News can weather this storm financially (although cable providers are likely to use the lawsuit to drive down what Fox charges them when they renegotiate their contracts at the end of this year).

Notably, though, Trump has not been interviewed on Fox in more than a hundred days and the network has avoided live coverage of his rallies and speeches, while granting more airtime to other Republican presidential hopefuls, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Meanwhile, Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal and New York Post have issued sharp rebukes of Trump.

Is this because the Murdochs have had a change of heart about Trump? Or because they’ve had a change of litigation strategy?

Share

Leave a comment

Discussion about this episode

User's avatar
J-Pat's avatar

Rupert Murdoch is a malevolent force in Democracy, both in the UK & US (& Australia). He only backs whichever horse is beneficial to him and his empire. He, like the rest of the GOP establishment and probably against his own instincts, went along with the Trump bandwagon until the situation was no longer of benefit. For far too long Murdoch has had far too much influence in politics and people’s lives - he is a major reason Thatcher was inflicted on the people of the UK. She wouldn’t have succeeded without his backing. People are still living with the devastation she wrought on communities up and down the UK, similar to the “Rust belt”. I hope he gets sued for all he’s worth. He’s already manoeuvring to hitch his cart to Ron DeSantis.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

Ugh! Ron DeSantis!? In some ways he actually seems Worse than tRump! Book banning! Making it a crime to put a mask on your kid in a pandemic! A frontrunner for Totalitarianism with an anti-science, anti freedom twist. Disney was too far to the left for him! I don't see the majority in this country actually voting for that guy! If he gets into the oval office it will mean trouble. He has absolutely nothing to offer! And he is mean to his constituents to boot! (Causing them to have to pay more taxes because of the Disney thing). Cruelty is his point!

Expand full comment
J-Pat's avatar

Yeah; he encapsulates all the worst excesses of “Trumpism”, only without the insane, paranoid tweeting at 4am & Trump’s embarrassing “unsophisticated” nature. Oh, and all the dumb lying. The GOP establishment never had any problem with the policies of the Trump Whitehouse, it was Trump himself they can’t stand.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

Armyjay ; I have a few 'conservatives' coming into my barber shop who often would say of tRump ; "I wish he would just keep his mouth shut!" : But with the death threats towards those Republicans who stray from the party line, I would suspect that many would not say they dislike some of his ideas. Too risky for their 'careers'.

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

Complaining about Trump’s blithering is like complaining about a clock’s ticking.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

I know ; I think they were just being defensive about having voted him in.

Expand full comment
Ed Shook's avatar

Like looking in the mirror

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

Trump never suggested anything that the GQP had not been either preaching or whispering since 1964.

Expand full comment
Adrienne Jacoby's avatar

He’s as bad as Trump……only smarter which makes him even scarier. Note, I didn’t say he was smart….only smarter than Trump. Also, clever should never be confused with smart.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

Adrienne Jacoby ; Evil and shrewd is not an improvement at any rate! But definitely scarier, if tRump is not scary enough!

Expand full comment
RedElisa Mendoza's avatar

We see right thru him,does all this mean stuff then throws a few good ones in.

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

I haven’t followed DeSatan closely enough to be aware of the good things he has done. Do the trains tun on time?

Expand full comment
Daniel H Laemmerhirt's avatar

DeathSantis IS worse because, as dopey and brainwashed as he is, he isn't nearly as outwardly INSANE as Bunkerboy is. I have no doubt he will never be president, but just the same, I'd like donny to waddle for president in 2024 and lose to an American.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

That would be better!

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

Compared with Trump, DeSatan has all of the fascism and other evil, but less of the stupidity. He knows the legislative process.

Expand full comment
RedElisa Mendoza's avatar

Along w/ severe abuse of power and we see right thru him

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

He is still a toxic shithead who wants to end any Democracy we might have had. If he knows the Constitution, he obviously thinks it's not important to his agenda.

Expand full comment
RedElisa Mendoza's avatar

I'm thinking this Reedy Creek issue might be in litigation.I wonder who knows.

Expand full comment
Will Underwood's avatar

Good morning! Are you from Florida?

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

Thank Goodness, no! it's flooding and very humid. there is Much more than insufferable heat there too, that is also insufferable.

Expand full comment
Bill Miller's avatar

Yes, wasn't there a time when foreign ownership of major media companies was disallowed? Once again, the cancer of extreme wealth corrupts society.

Expand full comment
daien | nyc's avatar

Murdoch has been a U.S. citizen for decades.

Expand full comment
Bill Miller's avatar

(Wikipedia) "In 1974, Murdoch moved to New York City, to expand into the US market; however, he retained interests in Australia and Britain. In 1981, Murdoch bought The Times, his first British broadsheet, and, in 1985, became a naturalized US citizen, giving up his Australian citizenship, to satisfy the legal requirement for US television network ownership."

Technically correct, morally suspect (i.e. par for the course under Capitalism)

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

Ronald Reagan fast tracked Rupert Murdoch's citizenship. It only took a year I read. the 'fairness doctrine' that worked with the FCC to keep things somewhat fair and accurate disappeared about then as well.

Expand full comment
m stockwell's avatar

Good, then we have jurisdiction to jail him for life for treason, sedition and being evil !

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

Excellent point.

Expand full comment
Heather Macauley's avatar

Murdoch did the same in the UK via Rebekah Brooks for which he should have been fined, convicted & jailed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal

If this defamation case gets up, this could be the slow unwinding of Murdoch, Fox and News Corp.

Expand full comment
Jaime Ramirez's avatar

Murdoch is 1 of the most dangerous, malevolent & destructive men in the world, & has done so much damage to our social cohesion, national unity & democratic institutions.

Expand full comment
Bill Miller's avatar

And let's not forget the Chinese version of Fox "News" - The Epoch TImes. It's unsettling how many Conservatives I know seem to quote only from those two sources. The objective is the same: train people to distrust, fear, and ultimately hate their government.

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

And his little minions run around taking axes to the foundations of our nation.

Expand full comment
RedElisa Mendoza's avatar

There is a new website,DeSantis Watch,all kinds of juicy tidbits.How interesting to find out he just COULDN"T 'fix' the unemployment system Rick Scott intentionally set up to fail.( and this during the start of the pandemic when MANY people were so Desperate.Honestly,w/ all the brilliant tech experts in our country,did basically nothing for the HOUSING CRISIS,his loyalist legislators stole billions of our SADOWSKI fund(earmarked for housing needs) for their own projects and never paid it back,we have at least 850,000 children that are food insecure,ad nauseam!!!

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

Don’t forget Murdoch’s buddy Putin.

Expand full comment
Avie Hern's avatar

“Trump was ecstatic about OAN’s flattering coverage of him. By the summer of 2020 -- dissatisfied with what he considered insufficient gushing by Fox News – Trump was urging his followers to switch to OAN and Newsmax, calling them “much better” than Fox. He did the same after the election, when OAN’s journalists were more willing than many Fox correspondents to continue pushing Trump’s Big Lie.”

Umm, “journalists”? No, not even pundits, but mere on-air “personalities” who parrot the politics of their employers and pander to the prejudices of their viewers.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

Definitely not journalists!

Expand full comment
Shirley Roberts's avatar

It’s ALWAYS just about money! Gullible viewers listening & believing their lies makes them tons of money!!! Right wing media have gone off the rails & need to be shutdown. They have abused the 1st Amendment & then turn around looking for it’s protection in court! Trumpism is even worse than typical right wing media BS & has corrupted the entire Repub Party! Stopping their lies is an impossible task bec it’s endemic to their nature & belief that they can’t win elections without cheating in any way shape or form!! Shutting their media mouthpieces down would be helpful & prove valuable toward convincing the gullible supporters to use a little bit of the critical thinking skills they must have learned at some point in school. We can only stop the lies from continuing by filing multiple defamation lawsuits & silence them on the airwaves! 1st Amendment abuse deserves to be silenced as punishment!

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

Defamation may be a crime. On the federal level, there are no criminal defamation laws, However, 23 states and 2 territories have criminal defamation/libel/slander laws on the books, along with 1 state (Iowa) establishing defamation/libel as a criminal offense through case law (without statutorily defined crime):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Criminal_defamation

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

Daniel Solomon ; Thanks for the seemingly exhaustive list. Pearls before swine,(in my case, since I do not know the law)! Still somewhat informative though even if I don't really fully understand it.

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

Defamation is a false statement presented as a fact that causes injury or damage to the character of the person it is about. An example is “Tom Smith stole money from his employer.” If this is untrue and if making the statement damages Tom's reputation or ability to work, it is defamation.

In civil court Tom may seek damages.

If it's a crime a DA or prosecuting attorney brings a charge in the name of the state.

E.G. In Florida, it's possible that someone who defames another person can get a year in jail if convicted and pay a fine. In addition the same person can be sued civilly for damages.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0836/0836ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2021&Title=%2D%3E2021%2D%3EChapter%20836

Before any criminal action is brought for publication, in a newspaper periodical, of a libel, the prosecutor shall at least 5 days before instituting such action serve notice in writing on defendant, specifying the article and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory.

Correction, apology, or retraction by newspaper.—

(1) If it appears upon the trial that said article was published in good faith; that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts; that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements in said article were true; and that, within the period of time specified in subsection (2), a full and fair correction, apology, and retraction was published in the same editions or corresponding issues of the newspaper or periodical in which said article appeared, and in as conspicuous place and type as was said original article, then any criminal proceeding charging libel based on an article so retracted shall be discontinued and barred.

(2) Full and fair correction, apology, or retraction shall be made:

(a) In the case of a broadcast or a daily or weekly newspaper or periodical, within 10 days after service of notice;

(b) In the case of a newspaper or periodical published semimonthly, within 20 days after service of notice;

(c) In the case of a newspaper or periodical published monthly, within 45 days after service of notice; and

(d) In the case of a newspaper or periodical published less frequently than monthly, in the next issue, provided that notice is served no later than 45 days prior to such publication.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

Is defamation like slander?

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

Libel is defamation in print. Slander is defamation in speech.

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

Slander is a form of defamation.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

D.S. ; that's what I thought.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

Shirley Roberts ; All true and well said!

Expand full comment
Will Underwood's avatar

I would ask that you list all the crimes Trump is guilty of. I’m an Independent so I listen to both sides on issues and so far every crime I’ve seen him accused of has been debunked. I’m willing to listen but I need proof with receipts, not hearsay.

Expand full comment
Steve O’Cally's avatar

There are citizens, and there are entities. Citizens are flesh-and-blood humans, people, individuals. There are entities - all manner of artificial constructs which act by virtue of their construction. We have drifted from this vital distinction to our detriment.

Also, there are individuals and entities which possess a certain amount of power in our society. There are the powerful, and there are the powerless, making a distinction that really varies in degree.

Not only are natural rights the prerogative of the human and not the entity, natural rights are recognized to protect the individual to the degree that one is powerless. When a powerless individual confronts a powerful entity, protection of the individual should be recognized. The powerful have their power to protect them.

Donald Trump would call upon the First Amendment to protect his speech as President, which is utter nonsense. The President acting in office has NO First Amendment privilege. The First Amendment is intended to protect the individual against the Government.

The absurd ruling of the Supreme Court in Citizens United, that money is speech, is predicated upon the premise that powerful corporations have a co-equal right to protection as the individual. This is a proposition in law, not a derivation from the Constitution.

Persons lie, entities entertain. All the free speech nonsense from Alex Jones is that he is putting on an entertainment show, as is Fox News - the Pro Wrestling of our political culture. Upon what premise do we allow this? Certainly, people prefer entertainment, and over the last 30 years in America, will select the entertaining over the truthful. Only Adam Kinzinger and Elizabeth Cheney among the Republican Party are disgusted by kayfabe, and find entertainment to be a dismal counterfeit of the truth.

Leni Riefenstahl documented the Nazi Party's entertainment rally in Nuremburg, and helped seduce the German people into the romance of feeling certain and proud of themselves - but in terms defined by this horrid show. The American people seem to have a taste for romantic Fascism. It is not true, but it feels good.

We need to consider that truth and its promulgation are untouchable, but ersatz truth such as Fox News are not the same as truth. We need to break our sugar-addiction to political entertainment, and understand again what citizens and our rights entail.

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

I’m glad you mentioned Leni Riefenstahl. A great analogy.

Expand full comment
Fay Reid's avatar

You have written a post that needs to be read by everybody, not just us on Substack. Thank you for this insight,

Expand full comment
Derek Wessner's avatar

The fewer sources that can spread lies the better. For many, the lawsuits are about money. For those of us that care it’s about accountability. Newsmax and OAN may not recover but there are always going to be big sources that spread lies and they must be held accountable.

Expand full comment
Nancy Ray's avatar

I wait for the day (not holding my breath) when OAN, Newmax and Fox are no longer able to reach their rabid members. Maybe then, our country will begin (just begin) to heal.

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

Unfortunately, they find fertile soil to grow their hatred. For hundreds of years, we have taught our children the myths that justified slavery and segregation and hatred of immigrants. There is much that needs to change before we can truly be a land of the free.

Expand full comment
Padma Wick's avatar

Dare I say it?

Because of this, the excellent work of the January 6th commission, and other recent news I feel some still tenuous signs of hope.

Professor Reich, and so many others, may you continue to have good health and support in your life to be able to carry on with your important work.

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

I hope so. I had hoped for a transformation after Watergate. We got a Nixon pardon and a well-meaning and foresightful President, but soon went back to Presidents who told comforting lies. If we let that happen this time, we are doomed.

Expand full comment
Nancy Roessel's avatar

Thank heavens for these law suits! It seems like the only way we will get rid of these liars and they will be held accountable. Now someone should sue Trump but he usually gets other people to do his dirty work.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

Didn't he have many lawsuits before even running for president?

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

Yes and he had to pay millions in some of them.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

Nancy Roessel ; New twist on "Go F#6k yourself!"Responding to the fact that "he usually gets other people to do his dirty work." couldn't resist.

Expand full comment
Raymond Bellamy's avatar

Wow! We needed this! Some good news. Now we need a drone strike against InfoWars perhaps. What an evil person. And for him it WAS all about the money and Right Wing audience it seems. Dominion has all the evidence as I understand it. They can prove their hardware was accurate and their bottom line was deeply harmed. Maybe throw in a suit against CyberNinjas, who wasted a lot of taxpayer money in Arizona I think.

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

If it were only InfoWars and the CyberNinjas and just a few of their friends! There is a wide conspiracy to install fascist government in this country.

Following its installation, the billionaires and CEOs may be surprised to learn that they no longer call the shots. Be careful what you wish for.

Expand full comment
Raymond Bellamy's avatar

Well said and no disagreement here. Troubling times for sure.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

It's more likely that the Murdochs found tRump less useful, not that they have had a change of heart. (they have hearts?).

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

Trump brought in advertising dollars.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

It seems that certain media like controversy to the point of stirring up trouble and pushing lies. Kind of like screaming 'fire!' in a crowded theater.

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

No, Murdoch & Co. don’t just want chaos. They want control. They want to install puppets to do their bidding, so they depict them as strongmen who can put an end to the chaos. (Remember Trump’s campaign—“I alone can end this”. But Trump just added chaos.) Now they need someone to enforce control. That’s DeSantis.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

The chaos and anger created when women's right to medical care was ended and the courts were stacked served as a distraction that the Corp owned media exploited to the hilt. There is no doubt that this was not their end game. I doubt that DeSantis will be legitimately elected. Only if there is no Federal response to the voting tricks that are being enacted in some states. There will be hell to pay if the majority of the people are saddled with someone like DeSantis.

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

And now doesn’t bring in enough.

Expand full comment
Alberta  Lee Coulter's avatar

I think Murdoch and others are seeing that trumps influence is on the wane and he can't win another election. Therefore they are looking to start promoting another far right candidate to hitch their star to.

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

They have to determine the risk/reward relationship. On one hand he has a following both in viewers and in sponsors. On the other, he continually spews lies and defamation and they have to determine whether the risk, the contingent liability, outweighs the benefits.

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

Trump created chaos, which is what they wanted. Now, they run DeSantis to end the chaos that Trump created.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

Alberta Lee Coulter ; That plus the very real liability described in today's topic in the form of lawsuits. They are not only embarrassing, but costly. Maybe tRumpism itself will 'lose face', and DeSantis will have trouble gaining traction too. Or any other sycophant elephants!

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

Trump doubles down. E.G. He is suing a group of people that includes HRC and CNN. I don't think DeSantis is as impetuous.

Plaintiff: Donald J. Trump

Defendant: Hillary R. Clinton, Democratic National Committee, HFACC, Inc., DNC Services Corporation, Perkins Coie, LLC, Michael Sussman, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Halliday Dolan Jr., Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robert E. Mook, Phillipe Reines, Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Business Intelligence, Ltd., Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar, Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, Andrew McCabe, John Does 1 through 10, ABC Corporations 1 through 10, United States Of America, Adam Schiff, Rod Rosenstein and Neustar Security Services

The United States was SUBSTITUTED as defendant for James Corney, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Kevin Clinesmith. Defendants James Corney, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Kevin Clinesmith are DISMISSED from this action. Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 7/21/2022.

Motions to dismiss re the others are outstanding.

If his case is dismissed, IMHO claims for malicious abuse of process will be filed by the defendants.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

Daniel Solomon ; I guess it's tRump's M.O. to keep the lawsuits going and going ...Just bleed out financially and/ or substantially stress his targets indefinitely. I know that judges can't just ignore a case brought before it, unless they determine that it is frivolous, which takes time to properly determine. But there must be a time when someone as litigious as he could plainly be seen coming. You know, like they have 'got his number'? Why does he get such latitude?

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

He's playing with fire.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

Justice would be black pudding! For him!

Expand full comment
Padma Wick's avatar

Let's hope TRump will continue to take the advice of Rudy Guliano and Sydney Powell

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

Trump is now irrelevant. He was only the setup man for DeSatan.

Expand full comment
A.  Garrett's avatar

Any defamation law suits against Steve Bannon?

He master minded most of Trump's strategies and on his media radio show, he spreads all of the election & conspiracy lies.

Appreciation to Robert Reich for his dedication to Democracy and his lazer focus on the issues.

His knowledgeable answers of how to address the issues of American politics, is expertly conveyed in his emails. He is my trusted source of the truth.

Expand full comment
Ned's avatar

The rich right-wing-nut-jobs being defeated via defunding! Unfortunately big companies are already using this against eco-activists and, of course, their political wing under McConnell has loaded the SCOTUS and is doing the same with other judicial and administrative infrastructures - and no doubt reinforcing their hold on the police and military too, despite the way they treat veterans.

Pardon the nit-picking, but you don't have to be far-left to be anti-fascist (witness ordinary Europeans, Asians, Americans and Africans ((in reverse alphabetical order)) in WW2) and my understanding is that the antifa groups (are they genuinely a movement, other than to neo-fascists?) are, mostly, merely centrists and ordinary left-wingers.

I say this bearing in mind that what passes as 'Centrist' in the US is really quite right-wing, in my opinion; a result of the political and commercial right controlling the perspective of people to further demonise communism, when that was the enemy left after 1945.

Expand full comment
Fay Reid's avatar

As I understand it Antifa was just a term the white supremacists threw out to mean the entire liberal/progressive movement. If there really was such a group I would be proud to join, I've been anti-fascist since I was 6 years old, in October. 1939 (the beginning of WW2) and my father explained the tenets of fascism to me. Obviously a lot of Americans have no idea what Antifa means, or what fascism mean either, for that matter.

Expand full comment
Adrienne Jacoby's avatar

EXACTLY!! I was only 3 in 1939, but my family, staunch Republicans were also anti fascist, which was considered patriotic during WWII. That a lot of Americans have no idea what Antifa means has been my take also. I loudly and proudly claim to be Antifa. Can I get an Amen?!?!

Expand full comment
Fay Reid's avatar

Maybe we should start our own😁

Expand full comment
Ned's avatar

Wow, glad you're still soldiering on : )

Yep, more manipulation; amazing really that they can indoctrinate, er, I mean convince so many people that anti-fascism is a bad thing and, as you say, the Democratic Party is rife with sympathizers.

It's no wonder this GOP want to crush education: unthinking people serve them best.

Expand full comment
Keith Olson's avatar

The Wheels Of Justice are slower than Molasses In January!

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

My experience is that media companies are lawyered up, are well insured and are well aware of their defamation contingent liabilities.

If they are exposed, they can make a public apology and may be exonerated from further exposure. Doesn't always work. Apparently Fox has an April 2023 jury trial date in the Dominion Voting Systems Inc's $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit. Venue is in Delaware. I don't know whether the Murdochs are insured.

Sometimes cases can be mediated, arbitrated. In some states, the parties can make an "offer of judgment" and if it is accepted, litigation is swift.

Expand full comment
Rob's avatar

Tort lawyers, personal injury lawyers, medical malpractice lawyers. Some call them ambulance chasers. Meanwhile, they perform the valuable function of social engineering, fixing things, in a civilized way.

Expand full comment
Earl Wynn's avatar

This current struggle entails strange bedfellows for someone with left leanings since the Vietnam era. Counting on the FBI , The court systems and the US military to keep election deniers , gun toting white supremacists and assorted lying traitors at bay ,could never have been predicted.

These are the people that were persecuting blacks and hippies. In particular the Chicago eight and black panthers. This is the system that put Muhammad Ali in jail, oh yes, and ended or ruined the lives of thousands of young Americans for a war we shouldn’t have fought. A war where we learned absolutely nothing as evidenced by Iraq. Now it is fashionable to belatedly thank Vietnam veterans for their service. Perhaps one day it will be fashionable to thank the protesters who were instrumental in getting their asses out of there.

Sorry to enter this discussion from an oblique angle. I just needed to express what a long strange trip it’s been.

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

I’m glad you posted this, Earl. It makes a lot of sense. It is like being through the looking glass.

Expand full comment
Lark Leonard's avatar

I think we need to prepare our children better to think for themselves, to learn how to "fact-check", and what it means to live in a democracy .... it's a verb! not a guaranteed state of being. Civics 101. We must do better. We've been had, big-time.

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

I remember being taught to recognize bias in news articles when I was in school. Probably the most useful thing I ever learned. It’s hard to believe that’s still taught, looking at the situation.

Expand full comment
Lark Leonard's avatar

I agree, Paula. It is disheartening and dangerous for our democracy. We have witnessed a huge shift in the quality and presentation of our information from the 1950's to now. Weather reports anthropomorphize the weather ("killer storms"); buzz words sanitize what needs to be recognized and challenged ("conservatives" .... conservatives? really?) We need to start where we are and give feed back when we recognize falsehoods & window dressings. It's not in my nature, but I'm starting to do it.

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

That’s a good point. I never thought about the anthropomorphizing. I do recognize other language manipulation when I see it though, such as assigning value judgments to neutral words like “socialism” and “liberal.” It’s laughable in a way when you realize it all comes out of desperation. Unfortunately it’s also dangerous.

Expand full comment
Lark Leonard's avatar

Sadly, yes.

Expand full comment
Annalee Greenberg's avatar

Perhaps a law needs to be passed that if an organization wishes to identify as a 'news' organization, that it will adhere to accepted journalism ethics. (In my country, Canada, this policy was prepared by the Canadian Association of Journalists and lays out the requirements for fact-checking, corrections, and the like.) Otherwise, you cannot use the word 'news' in the name of your organization. Not sure what, though. Propaganda Central? Just be up front about what you do.

Expand full comment
Ned's avatar

Apparently Fox is registered as "Entertainment", thereby avoiding such rules, but still dissembles - unpunished - as news.

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

The FCC oversees all interstate and international communications. The FCC maintains standards and consistency among types of media and methods of communication while protecting the interests of consumers and businesses.

"Criticism, Ridicule, and Humor Concerning Individuals, Groups, and Institutions. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech similarly protects programming that stereotypes or may otherwise offend people with regard to their religion, race, national background, gender, or other characteristics. It also protects broadcasts that criticize or ridicule established customs and institutions, including the government and its officials. The Commission recognizes that, under our Constitution, people must be free to say things that the majority may abhor, not only what most people may find tolerable or congenial. However, if you are offended by a station’s programming, we urge you to make your concerns known in writing to the station licensee."

Expand full comment
Alberta  Lee Coulter's avatar

It appears money is the only language these so called news outlets understand. If this is what has to be done to stop them then this is what you do. It's unfortunate that it takes so long to give them their comeuppance, and even sadder that those who listen to them are so brainwashed that the truth won't penetrate their trump loving mind set.

Expand full comment
Parker Nolen's avatar

How do we stop the rightwing media lies? Bring back the Fairness Doctrine - a law which required any holder of a broadcast license to present controversial issues in a manner which reflected varying points of view. There are those of us old enough to remember the Editorial Segments on television. (Robert, you did a segment about the Fairness Doctrine didn't you?)

The anti-democratic nature of the GOP is not new - it started simmering 40 years ago with the Reagan Revolution. These days, the difference is that GOP is speaking the quiet parts out loud.

Fox News' semi-repudiation of The Former Guy really isn't because they have found a new sense of integrity - it's risk mitigation, plain and simple. I agree that defamation suits are a powerful tool to get the record corrected, but the lies and vitriol that these media outlets spew cause real harm to people before the suits even get to court.

Expand full comment
Lori Musolino's avatar

DeSantis appears to be more dangerous than Trump

Expand full comment
Deborah Caldwell's avatar

THANK YOU

Thank You

thank you

for Threading it all together

Expand full comment
Theresa Tredwell's avatar

Thank you to all those who had (and have) the courage to file these anti-defamation lawsuits. Finally there’s something to slow down the lies and where the truth really pays off.

Expand full comment
Mark's avatar

The best, and simplest way, to take down FOX and other right-wing media is to boycott them and, more importantly, those companies that advertise their goods and services on the network. It's all about the money.

Expand full comment
Bennett Barouch's avatar

I am reminded of nailing key mafia figures with tax evasion charges. It's hardly the point, but one must creatively do what is doable. Thanks for highlighting this tool.

Expand full comment
Susan's avatar

No chanage in their willingness to divide our country and peddle lies, just a practical decision to not get into so much legal jeopardy. Until they get rid of arch liar provacateur Carlson they are a danger to our democracy

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

Hm, I wonder if he can be sued.

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

If he defames someone.

In the Fox defamation case,

The ruling repeatedly says Fox hosts, Giuliani and Powell made claims “without any evidence” and “without any basis.” It also says that claims made by Giuliani, Fox host Maria Bartiromo and now-former Fox Business host Lou Dobbs could meet the legal standard of claims being “so inherently improbable that only a reckless person would have put [them] in circulation.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/09/judge-uses-tucker-carlsons-own-words-against-fox-news/

Bot to be believed.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

Thank you. Then someone will inevitably go after him. I hope it’s soon.

Expand full comment
GrrlScientist 8647 🇺🇦's avatar

i've been reading over the past 24 hours or so that murdoch's fondness for trump has cooled significantly and that murdoch apparently isn't even talking >to< trump anymore, nevermind demanding his "media" puppets yammer on >about< trump. i imagine this is a change both in affections as well as strategy.

although i am still angry at NYTimes (after being a lifelong fan of their work) and canceled my subscription 6 months ago, i am happy to see that sarah palin's stupid little lawsuit failed. no one, not even the NYT, is perfect, and quickly changing an error in a reported piece is the journalistic standard. palin could have saved herself a lot of money if she only knew this, or accepted this when she was originally told. (probably NOT told by her lawyer, who was only too happy to separate her from her money.)

Expand full comment
DZK's avatar

There's a campaign slogan in that, somewhere! I think it rather amusing that while on the road yesterday, while stopped at a traffic light, I saw a big, black SUV at the head of the oncoming traffic stopped across the intersection, having big, bold lettering at the top of his windshield proclaiming: "INFOWARS.COM" Odd something related came up in today's discussion. Just sayin'.

I wonder what that guy will do when he gets busted for having his windshield obstructed. Obstructing your view in the windshield is against the law here!

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

Here too. I was once ticketed for having tinted side windows. I bought the car that way and didn’t realize it was a thing. I got the tinting removed and they canceled the ticket.

Expand full comment
Earl Wynn's avatar

Jail time and fines seem so harsh. We need Chinese style reeducation camps for the bonkers Trumplicans. Let’s look in on session one;

“ Good morning Donald, nice tie!

First off, could you tell us exactly what you don’t understand about

YOu’RE FIRED.”

Expand full comment
SeekingReason's avatar

SeekingReason

4 hr ago

I don’t have time to read, on my way to work. But for the 3 words I read, Sue the Bastards! GO ROBERT! Thank you, thank you thank you for addressing a problem that must go away before we can truly move forward. We should be able to close right wing lies down because they create harm. But I’m all for defunding! Do it!

Expand full comment
Susan from OC's avatar

I sincerely hope that these lawsuits are sufficient to completely ruin Alex Jones, InfoWars, NewsMax, Faux News and all the others who traffic in malicious lies. However, I am a realist who understands that these "news" organizations are like the mythical hydra. If you cut off one head, another 7 will grow in its place. The best we can do is to continue to speak the truth, loudly and often, in the hopes that reasonable people will hear and act on it.

Expand full comment
Adrienne Jacoby's avatar

HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!

Expand full comment
Bill Miller's avatar

I'm waiting for the trillion-dollar class action lawsuit against Fox Media Corp on behalf of all the families who'd lost family members to Covid due to disinformation.

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

Yes!

Expand full comment
Lee LeFaivre's avatar

It seems that lies and conspiracy theories are protected by the first amendment. We see that speech can harm someone or some company and they, as the harmed entity, can sue. What about a law that protects anyone from harm - I think there is a law against yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. Is it ever enforced? In other words, should we not be able to stop Trump's Big Lie by bringing a lawsuit or calling on that law against yelling fire?

It seems that we have lots of laws we are reluctant to enforce. When an election worker is harassed to the extent that they fear for their lives and have to move from their home, is that not terrorism? I would think that everyone who threatens an official could and should be charged. We are getting th the place that all of the people involved to one degree or another in the Jan 6 mess are going to be held accountable. I am concerned that many who are just on the edges are going to walk. Could we not have a law about breaking an oath? I'm not thinking years in jail. If you break an oath as a politician, you are forever banned for being in politics. Simple. I think we could apply the laws to a pretty big bunch of Congressmen and Senators. How about all the politicians who foraged their names to documents that they are the valid electors?

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

Clear and present danger is what you’re talking about, I think. I agree with you but I fear that the corrupt courts would argue that the dangers are neither clear nor present. But our resident legal expert, Daniel Solomon, would know. I hope he sees your post.

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

Defamation is not "speech" under the first Amendment. More like "fighting words" illegal harassment, "hate speech" aren't protected.

Expand full comment
Claire's avatar

Defamation lawsuits are a start but I believe we need regulations/laws to put a stop to some of the most egregious lies that are destroying our form of government, applied to to media and internet. Many countries have laws against hate speech....I'm not holding my breath. We would need a huge change in Congress to change a light bulb in a congressional bathroom!

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

In general if you rely to your detriment on a misstatement, get a lawyer.

Under state law, an implied warranty of merchantability (only given by merchants), an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and an implied warranty of title passes with every sale. If you are damaged, get a lawyer.

If you rely on false advertising to your detriment, get a lawyer.

All federal employees are held to a high ethical standard. The United States Office of Government Ethics (OGE) leads and oversees the executive branch ethics program which is at work every day in more than 130 agencies. The executive branch ethics program works to prevent financial conflicts of interest to help ensure government decisions are made free from personal financial bias.

OGE leads and oversees the executive branch ethics program by:

Making and interpreting ethics laws and regulations

Supporting and training executive branch ethics officials

Administering the executive branch financial disclosure systems

Monitoring senior leaders’ compliance with ethics commitments

Ensuring agencies comply with ethics program requirements

Making ethics information available to the public

Dozens of watchdogs like the Office of Special Counsel, Government Accountability Office, inspector generals etc exist within government. E.G. The HHS OIG handles:

Medical identity theft involving Medicare and/or Medicaid beneficiaries,

Failure of a hospital to evaluate and stabilize an emergency patient,

Abuse or neglect in nursing homes and other long-term-care facilities.

Human Trafficking by HHS employees, contractors or grantees to include procuring a commercial sex act.

Here are some outside organizations,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Government_watchdog_groups_in_the_United_States

Expand full comment
Olivia Koppell's avatar

Is that last sentence really a question?! Please; absolute strategy. You can’t have a change of heart if you haven’t got a heart. Murdoch & Co. have been behind this coup for decades, and sowed division around the world to secure regimes that direct the flow of money to themselves and the other giant profiteers. The health of communities, the Earth itself has no bandwidth with these people. They see themselves as King makers - the power behind the throne; and they’ll put someone else in the seat if, and when it suits them. All about money and power. No heart involved!

Expand full comment
Sidge's avatar

Shame the sponsors publicly. Tie them with the lies.

Until the verdict is carried in the press (which can have its own spin), lawsuits happen in a rarified atmosphere, which most people care nothing about. But no matter how powerful the press is, they need sponsors.

Expand full comment
Steve O’Cally's avatar

A troublesome thought. For every emitter of this nonsense, there are many receivers who do not turn it off. How is it possible that so many people listen to, and even believe, this bullshit?

Is the DEVIL'S WEED a gateway drug to MAGA?

As the corporations have levered their way into the legalization of ganja, and the body public has affirmed their rights to torch up, is this broader use of dope affecting what people are willing to believe?

Humans don't need ganja to be stupid - it is an endogenous capacity without mind-altering substances. But in some of these Trump rallies, his audience looks like a bunch of angry, surly archaeo-hippies. Are they torching up in their yurts between speeches by the My Pillow Guy and his henchmen?

And listening to the stertorous chittering of the Don-Boy immersed in his own flight of consciousness, I wonder - how can someone listen to this for a few minutes without dropping and screaming? Is it the devil's weed?

So I ask - is cannabis a gateway drug to Fox News for the 21th century?

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

Interesting question. Perhaps history will prove you right.

Expand full comment
Beth B's avatar

Maybe the Ms took a "fair"ly long look at their "balance" sheet and reevaluated the costs? Indeed, sue the bastards every one. But it's another sad day if "defamation lawsuits may be the best we can hope for" is the solution to public discourse gone waaaay awry. On the other hand, I still have faith in real live journalists who do the hard work and report the real facts.

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

I suspect the lawsuits are but one tool in the box. For now they might be the most accessible though.

Expand full comment
Martha Ture's avatar

Well, then let's sue the following for defamation:

Donald J. Trump

Mitch McConnell

Kevin McCarthy

Ted Cruz

Jim Jordan

Matt Gaetz

Ron Johnson

etc.

Expand full comment
Barbara Jo Krieger's avatar

Professor, Regarding the rebukes of Trump issued in Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal and New York Post, you asked, “Is this because the Murdochs have had a change of heart about Trump or because they’ve had a change of litigation strategy?” I don’t imagine either explanation applies. Instead, I suspect that the Murdochs, probably rightly, had become concerned, as a consequence of the J6 hearings, about the number of ad pages that likely would be dropped were the editorial stand not changed.

As for the perspective on defamation suits presented in today’s Substack publication, I had understood that a defamation suit was meant to compensate people for damage, not to penalize people who make false statements. Moreover, unless I am mistaken, the damages must be compensable through a civil lawsuit. While the foregoing apply in the examples you provided, the scope of applicable examples seems relatively limited in light of all the ways the radical MAGA right must be held to account.

Expand full comment
Lori Musolino's avatar

I am thankful that the lawsuits were filed and and won. Until all the real fake news channels have a disclaimer on-screen 24/7 or better yet are off the air , they continue to spread their lies

Expand full comment
Philipp Schmidt-Pathmann's avatar

What when a government lies or purposely misrepresents the facts for example about landfilling and you call them out?

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

If you've been damaged, get a lawyer.

Expand full comment
Tom Atha's avatar

Glad you're speaking out.

Expand full comment
George Kleinman's avatar

There's an old saying that "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." What can be done to prevent dissemination of misinformation, disinformation, and agitprop? In some countries it is a criminal violation to spread stories that are known to false or misleading. The FCC's Fairness Doctrine was useful in exposing the audience to both sides in an issue of public importance. Concurrently it would necessarily reduce the airtime for lies. There are conditions in the US that make many more susceptible to the affects of all of this: the dumbing down of the population.

Expand full comment
Phillip Notz's avatar

It's about time we started fighting back from the evil of the Feudal Over Lords. If we don't fight back in a united way we will bequeath a Feudal System to our descendants.

Expand full comment
Charles Winter's avatar

Unfortunately, there seems to be a very large flock of sheep always ready to be sheared by Trump, Jones, and others of this ilk. Thus, the crooks go free while the gullible get left out in the cold without their wool.

Expand full comment
Jeanne Hatfield's avatar

P.S. Did my tell me about yourself ever pass the limit If not, let me do it again & I will count the characters b4 resending. Thanks!

Expand full comment
Jeanne Hatfield's avatar

Ron Desantos is a bad Republican, But he is not dangerous, like Trump. So if he runs, I hope he wins.

Expand full comment
Suzy q's avatar

🖤 I'm far from a bible quoter but

"The truth shall set you free" seems to apply here. Get free GOP, Qanon

Best day ever seeing Alex Jones go down. Stone your next 🤞 and all your ilk

Expand full comment
Nancy Ellen Maitri Peden, D.D.'s avatar

I pray this is the beginning of returning to civility. Money is not enough. This is a malignant form of narcissm and stunted development. They are incurable in my view and few therapists will work w them. Jails are full of them and this needs to be seen as criminal.

As a dear mentor said democracy can be messy and a lot can be learned. We've learned and we set boundaries.

Expand full comment
Christine Lewis's avatar

I’m SOOO delighted to read this information !!! I have been so disgusted with the constant lies of right-wing media but after reading this, I have hope!! Thank you, Robert Reich!!

Expand full comment
Morris Gray's avatar

The last paragraph was two rhetorical questions. I think we know enough about Murdoch.

Expand full comment
Pati's avatar

At a time when justice seems like the horseman riding off into the sunset, there are a few apparent wins for some of those damaged by the scourge of Trumpism.

Expand full comment
Carol Boyle's avatar

Thank you Robert Reich for telling this story so clearly.

Expand full comment
m stockwell's avatar

CANCEL their license to broadcast on public airways....they are a clear and present danger to national security and public health !

Expand full comment
Belleingy's avatar

There should be a law against folks that are served notice of defamation from filing bankruptcy since that in essence get them off the hook. When they hide their assets from those seeking justice, what's the point of a defamation law suit? Alex Jones and the likes of other conspiracists need to pay for their negligence and when they're allowed to file for bankruptcy in anticipation of defamation law suits, they're protected. That should not be an option for these cretans.

Expand full comment
Robert Munson's avatar

Probably the media, more than any other factor, has made us two nations. Passing laws to force the media (including the internet) to require the catching of lies is probably the start of healing our divided nation. Liability for defamation using the courts simply is not sufficient to moderate today's situation in which anyone can lie. Lying must be a criminal offense also

Expand full comment
George Robertson's avatar

Populists lie for a living constantly. Can defamation be used by ordinary citizens to sue them for damages if you believed them and acted on your misplaced beliefs harming yourself or others as a result of their misinformation? Eg the guy who believed antivaccers, did not get vaccinated and died or the guy or believed the stop the steal lie and showed up to ransack the capital and killed a cop. Or how about the guy who believed the lie that wealth would trickle down and tax cuts for the rich would create new jobs, bought a house on a liar loan, and then lost it is bankruptcy in 2008. Or how about the guy who believed that we were after Ossama and enlisted to invade Afghanastan and ended up parked in the desert for days paused and waiting while Ossama was given time to escape into pakistan.

Expand full comment
J. Ramsey's avatar

Thanks. One possible strategy might be to target one in the group. Any noticeable drop in revenue affecting their stock price would cause them to reconsider their support for these outlets. I do remember the Chavez grape boycott. I'd love to see something akin to it again! Again, thanks for the thoughtful response.

Expand full comment
SeekingReason's avatar

Sorry, that should say Robert

Expand full comment
David Dilling's avatar

Was there a legal basis for Obama to sue trump for his birtherism attacks, we all knew to be false?

Expand full comment
WENDELL's avatar

Amen,

Sue the bastards!!!

Expand full comment
Dana's avatar

Thanks for posting this, Robert. These lawsuits sound like good news. The court system has taken some hits lately (particularly the awful Supreme Court), but there are still many good and honest defenders of the truth out there. The more cases the better, as far as I'm concerned.

As for Murdoch and company, it has puzzled me for decades why this Australian has been bent on destroying our democracy with his Neo-fascist propaganda for so long. A deep story there somewhere..

Expand full comment
David Richardson's avatar

I'll guess you will be writing about this tomorrow. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/will-the-carried-interest-loophole-finally-die

CITIZENS UNITED is the law that provides congressman to be bought and laws like this to be passed! Maybe we will get some Bull Sh..t law that chips away without making any real changes. NOTHING CHANGES in America until that law is changed.

Expand full comment
Bob Miller's avatar

One of the few things that really matter to those on the far right is their pocketbook. They certainly don't care about "truth." But they DO care about $. This may be one of the best paths forward. The only real problem is how long these cases take and the expense of bringing them, but a few big wins could have a big impact, like the Dominion suits.

Expand full comment
Fay Reid's avatar

Isn't it a pity that in today's environment Government agencies, such as FCC are either unable or unwilling to fulfill their mandate to regulate. These Federal Agencies have failed in the past several years to protect citizens. Look at FAA and the Boeing debacle where lives were lost, it took countries outside the US banning use of those specific planes (sorry I don't recall the actual number right now) before the FAA and/or the National transportation safety agency acted. If the Legislators lack the courage to manage these agencies maybe it is time to replace committee members with those willing to act. Joe Manchin is a prime example, not using his Energy Committee chairmanship for its intended purpose of protecting citizens from the corporations he is supposed to be regulating.

Expand full comment
SUE Speaks's avatar

Bang away at each other. It's the American way. Pounds of flesh flying! We are very justified. Werner Erhard used to talk about being "dead right," for those you who remember est. I dunno. What else could handle all the Trump transgressions which load our courts and keep our bloodthirst satisfied?

Robert, why don't you open that topic? What I'd suggest is is immunity for Trump from all prosecutions if he does a very effective mea culpa, confessing convincingly to what a shit he was and continues to be in all matters related to the big lie. It's more important to unite the country, where this would disaffect all but a hard core of his loyalists, than for Trump to get what he deserves. Because he's facing jail and bankruptcy, plus the narcissist in him could brag on being the hero that unites the country, he might go for it . And wouldn't that be a relief?

Expand full comment
Robyn E's avatar

It's not that the Murdoch family no longer supports MAGA. Greed trumps everything. They will not be bankrupted. As Armyjay shares, too many Americans missed when the UK declawed News of the World. The Murdochs crossed the pond, bought the Wall Street Journal and expanded Fox News. Although there is no guarantee of winning, hopefully the inconvenience and financial expense to the defendant exact a price.

Expand full comment
Maggie mac's avatar

Well that sounds hopeful. Maybe it will work. But will the wheels of Justice roll out quickly enough to affect this midterm? Lawsuits are not known to move quickly.

Expand full comment
Dixie MAhan's avatar

Thank you so much for your thorough reporting!

Expand full comment
Jane M. Twitmyer's avatar

The defammstion strategy would also give some credibility to a decision against the liers

Expand full comment
Pat Vescio's avatar

Robert,

Good, much needed work, thank you.

Expand full comment
Randy Deane's avatar

The same thing needs to happen to The Pillow Guy, Mike Lindell. But for some reason they seem to have dropped the lawsuit because it was too expensive???

Expand full comment
Richard Schoemer's avatar

ALL THESE LAWSUITS SERVE: THE TRUTH.... EXCELLENT. TRUTH, JUSTICE....THE AMERICAN WAY.... AGAIN.

Expand full comment
Cynthia Bethea's avatar

I'm so glad these cases are finally making a difference. Same with fighting white supremacy. Sue them all to damn death by starvation.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Anonymous
Aug 2, 2022

GREAT IAAAA OW DO WE SPREAD IT

Expand full comment
Don McIntyre's avatar

Good news, mostly.

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

My first reaction is “What’s taken so long?” Fox News et al have been spreading lies forever. My second reaction is a question: Can individuals who repeat this stuff on social media be sued for defamation? And three, when is someone going to go after Marjorie Taylor Greene for her outrageous lies?

Expand full comment
Andrew Galpern's avatar

It's difficult to measure the overwhelming damage Fox News has done over its lifetime. Years of "selective outrage", fear mongering, disinformation, violent rhetoric, finger pointing, dog whistling, anti-intellectualism, and encouraging a general incivility have created multiple generations of viewers that are less informed, more rigid, more suspicious, more angry, and intolerant of ideas that don't match there own. I hope the Dominion lawsuit is the beginning of the end for Fox, or at least shrinks them to a minor league status.

Expand full comment
Steve Johns's avatar

"Defamation law may turn out to be America’s most important weapon against rightwing media lies."

Hitting crooked profiteers in the pocket book and holding them accountable could be the most effective catalyst for badly needed reform of yellow journalism.

Expand full comment
Nancy Goldsmith's avatar

Pray this works ..... bottom line: pull the $$$$ rug out from under all these EXTREMELY dangerous right-wing nuts!

Expand full comment
Tumbul Trawally's avatar

It is always about the money

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

Faces may change over time but the hog wash persists.

Rule of law helps .....

Expand full comment
Frankie Stearns's avatar

I am wondering why no one is suing Trump. Or are they? It seems like he is a true culprit in ruining the lives of those two election workers in Georgia. What he did to those two poor ladies is monstrous.

Expand full comment
Stephen W Blackburn's avatar

I think the most powerful recent lesson was the Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard trial! Some may dismiss this as a sensational salacious waste of time but look at the overwhelming positive support for Depp! The result of then trial gave the world a boost in morale! I know it made me feel safer knowing malicious lies can be corrected! I believe that trial gave the world a breath of fresh air against the foul stench of Putin and Trump!

Expand full comment
James Michael Kelly's avatar

Rupert cares about his money, nothing else. Benedict Donald is going to cost Rupert to lose some money, so Rupert is opting for social media distancing from the large, orange washed up, TV guy.

Expand full comment
Maggie mac's avatar

I don’t know about OAN. I think Fox represents the biggest threat. DiSantis is as dangerous as tRrump. This is what concerns me. Even on mainstream media.

what concerns me is the coverage as usual on voting. “What the republicans need to do is pick up just one seat…” Even commentators don’t mention the threat to democracy. the fascist leanings. One Republican even said he didn’t think democracy was for America and it seems not to be a topic for discussion. When I read it, it seemed a bit ho him.

I hope I can be buoyed by the prospect of defamation law coming to our rescue. If the threat of a lawsuit can bring Fox to the truth there may be hope.

Expand full comment
Margaret Koren's avatar

This is great news. I've said all along that we must separate these treasonous miscreants from their ill gotten gains. It seems that the courts are dishing out long sentences to unknown 1/6/22 treasonists while the powerful cheats and liars have just been receiving a slap on their wrists.

Money is at the core of our losing our democracy because of the power it has over our current political system - so let's keeping going after their money and their unethical news outlets.

Yeh👏👏👏👏

Expand full comment
Ed Shook's avatar

This is appreciated Robert. A ray of sunshine. Thank you

Expand full comment
Lynn Ishii's avatar

Trump should be sued, individually, by every officer hurt protecting the US Capital during the Jan. 6th 2021 riot because Trump knowingly spewed the Big Lie that he won the election and it was stolen. He's still insisting this knowingly false claim is true. "Drain the Trump $$$$$Swamp Monster!"

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

And by the families of everyone who died because of his handling of covid. That’s hundreds of thousands of people!

Expand full comment
DK Brooklyn's avatar

Imho the Murdoch’s have stopped supporting Trump because he is a loser and they now have another horse. They are very dangerous. Their tentacles are global and they cannot be removed by elections. Their lies and dangerous actions are not only in national elections. They create and push the culture wars that destroy our ( and other country’s) national unity. A good question to ask is “what do they want for people that people don’t already have?”

Expand full comment
Daniel H Laemmerhirt's avatar

I like how Palin AND Bunkerboy thought they could sue THE NEW YORK TIMES! And WIN! Shows where their a-brains are at: the gutter.

Expand full comment
Dawn Owen Broadbent's avatar

In the Burlesque of the situation you must first find the source of the amusement.

Expand full comment
Gloria Picchetti's avatar

Wow! It's such a rough summer. Thank you for posting some news.The comments are fabulous as well.

Expand full comment
Stephen Alan Leon's avatar

Promote the "Media Bias Chart" from www.adfontesmedia.com.

Best Regards,

~ Steve

Expand full comment
Doug Graham's avatar

Unfortunately, as evidenced by Alex Jones, he thinks he can hide behind the bankruptcy shield, and continue to spread his lies with impunity. How quickly his house of cards will fall, and fall hard.

Expand full comment
Linda Slezak's avatar

Finally! A way to fight back.

Expand full comment
Tom Walker's avatar

FOX is changing their tune because 1.Trump is less of a draw the the newer/emerging whackos

2. To try to minimize their legal vulnerability

$$$$$$$$,Pure and simple

Expand full comment
Betty Toh's avatar

GOOD, I hope that all these LIARS and conspiracy theorists will be sued left and right to stop their evil intentions and greed for placing this country in such a precarious position with all their monumental lies. These types of specimens are the worst enemies of this country and may they reap all that they have sown for their self-serving interests.

Expand full comment
Rosie Rees's avatar

Might want to keep this strategy under the radar, lest Republican judges, including the mendacious five on the Supreme Court, change the rules to make defamation suits even harder to win.

Expand full comment
Ruth Ann Peitz's avatar

Actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth? (We are now talking punitive damages.) This is a question of fact for the jury. Just get it past the motion for summary judgment and a jury will decide.

Expand full comment
liz k's avatar

I've heard of a movement to have Fox 'news' removed from basic cable. It should at least be required to label itself as entertainment, opinion, or alternative facts.

Expand full comment
Cecelia Jernegan's avatar

Welcome to the new USA. The "technology revolution" in full view as we sue each other. The goal is to find the truth. The problem: No one really knows what is or is not the REAL truth. What everything comes down to is money and power. The end.

Expand full comment
George M's avatar

As an alternative, or supplement, to lawsuits, how about petitions to sponsors of offensive programs? Does anyone know whether the complaints result in loss of sponsors?

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

I’ve seen those and they can work.

Expand full comment
Pam for democracy's avatar

I still don't understand what happened to the fairness doctrine which was supposed to be an arbiter of keeping truth and facts in reporting above board.I think it was removed as part of FCC , etc. As for Fox. Don't trust Murdoch at all. He's in his nineties and his legacy will go down as one of the most treacherous men who helped the Sedition President take down democracy

Expand full comment
TJ Taub's avatar

Of course another strategy is for Dems to continuously consistently and calmly challenge cult distortions in part of every day conversation. “Oh there they go again… “ Cult members have, for years, consistently delivered its distortions to the point where to too many many people it’s reality. The Dems act like a herd of cats each with its individual agenda instead of sticking with a core platform. Manchin and Sinema are perfect examples. If Democrats can’t stick to the core platform then they shouldn’t be running -OR ELECTED - as Democrats. Simply speaking up would be a significant step in the right direction.

Expand full comment
J. Ramsey's avatar

Advertiser revenue is a major source of the money these purveyors of lies and supporters of despots reley on. Without it they wither and become impotent. If someone were to publish a list of the companies that pay these right wing media millions (Prof. Reich??), some of us folks may decide that we no longer need their products or services. Do you see where this is going?

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

There are such lists. You can Google them. Unfortunately some of them are difficult to boycott: oil companies, insurance companies, drug companies, etc. Sometimes all the players in a given field are equally bad. But we still need to try. Remember Cesar Chavez’s grape boycott? It worked.

Expand full comment
Marcine Balk's avatar

At what point does being controversial become subversive?

Expand full comment
Kara's avatar

The January 6th hearings disclosures about Trump’s knowledge of lost election may have something to do with Fox not platforming Trump and his compulsive lying about the 2020 election. Hearings that millions of Americans tuned into (even if the millions didn’t include Fox viewers.) If Fox were to continue to give air time to Trump and these lies, Dominion could conceivably use the hearings disclosures as evidence that Fox despite knowing that the election was lost has continued to promote these falsehoods that Trump won simply by interviewing him and covering his speeches and rallies.

Expand full comment
John Harris's avatar

Just Sentenced

The girl has a point re her Dad . .The Free World's Leader said How Sad

He was losing his country . . For some purpose he was hungry

For inside news with The Message was glad

He just got seven years . . .for slipping his gears . .

While the enablers still out there . .RINO hunting #Alas, BabbleOn

Expand full comment
Scott Selmanoff's avatar

Great information & strategy Robert!

Expand full comment
David Reno's avatar

While I applaud the victims of the Sandy Hooks massacre I must. make two comments: if you are married and have two children's consider the following: If you husband died, you would be a widow. if your wife died, you would be a widower. if your parents die before you are an adult you would be an orphan, if your children die you would be an...............................................

There is no word in the English language for. parent who loser their child by miscarriage, stillbirth, accident or illness., Interesting,

Perhaps Kerry could have sued the Swift Boaters.

I should mention the Columbia Journsliml Review reported the. Mass Media and television gave then Candidate Trump an estimated $2,000,000. in free publicity because his speeches were considered "hot copy"l. There is lots of blame to go around, Let's be liberal in sharing it,

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

I wonder if the reason there’s no word for it is that often parents who lose a child don’t want anyone to know. It’s that painful.

Expand full comment
George Bond's avatar

What ever works! They have persisted in lies and for Fox, their recent change dies not erase what went before. The tucker carlsons should be prime targets.

Expand full comment
Jaime Roman's avatar

Robert, your perceptive in observing the distancing taking place re Trump.

Expand full comment
Eugene Abravanel's avatar

Not one of these unprincipled opportunists have changed their strategy, which is: adapt to the moment and do whatever you have to do to survive any attempts to extract truth and justice from them.

Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

I really like the the subtext on the title of this post ; It has teeth!

Expand full comment
Carol F. Yost's avatar

This is encouraging news. Makes me wonder what some people gain from outlandish lies. Do they get financial contributions? What did Alex Jones get?

Expand full comment
Rishi Chopra's avatar

Seems unfair: even if some of the worst offenders are punished and/or driven into bankruptcy, why should everyone suffer in the process? Thanks to the offenders identified, public discourse has been held hostage, debased, and likely damaged as a result; little - if anything - was learned, and all of it was easily avoidable (e.g. in the case of basic norms being observed).

What did we gain? Where is the "teaching moment" (or even moral, if there is one) of this "free speech" story...?

Expand full comment
Living among scumbags's avatar

Such "lawsuits" are just to distract and dumb down the population.

Corrupt courts unlawfully and criminally suppress lawsuits with actual and solid constitutional claims, pervert the procedure, pervert the law, shamefully lie, etc. And then put on a show like in the example in the article - to promote and boost certain operators and their narratives and to create perception of a "working legal system."

Here, a fraud "sued" for a purported defamation and, with the help of the corporate media, "migrated" to substack for the purpose of further enrichment and defrauding of his unwitting subscribers: https://1dissident.substack.com/p/the-censorship-wars-engineered-by

And here, about the lawless courts and how they operate:

https://1dissident.substack.com/p/corrupt-michael-mcshane-of-federal

https://1dissident.substack.com/p/criminals-of-the-federal-court-for

https://1dissident.substack.com/p/corrupt-ann-aiken-of-the-federal

https://1dissident.substack.com/p/wilson-fields-fetid-scumbag-and-judge

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

Hope you have insurance.

Expand full comment
Greg Movsesyan's avatar

Suing the conservative media is not without risks. Yes, the Alex Joneses might be reigned in, but the tactic can also be used against progressive media, and could easily damage First Amendment protections. One can imagine the outcome of such cases if they reach the Supreme Court.

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

The truth is a defense.

Expand full comment
Greg Movsesyan's avatar

While the truth should be a defense in a rational society, it's clear that Congress and the Supreme Court don't agree.

Expand full comment
Ken's avatar

You have to ask?

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Aug 2, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Heather Macauley's avatar

As if Trump and his Family could not go any lower..........this fellow called Texas Paul exposes how Trump is exploiting Ex-Wife Ivana’s Death for Profit, if true it's bloody awful but what else would you expect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSWu1tCEvpA

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Aug 2, 2022Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

Media companies are "governed" by their sponsors. No sponsors no media.

Expand full comment
daien | nyc's avatar

And sponsors are "governed" by their customers. No sales, no sponsors.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Aug 2, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Laurie Blair's avatar

David Smiley ; The Supreme Court's ending the ability to sue to hold media accountable would be a true 'third rail'!

Expand full comment