What is it about the Fox News Channel that makes it so disturbing?

Yeah it's them. It's also sort of funny to see them continually trying to re-focus on the "war" in the past few weeks when everyone else was reporting on corporate malfeasance. And that morning show is the best, with those two very unfunny guys - one of them literally is the weatherman - and that Edi (sp?) girl, who's just about the brightest person on the network. It's as if murdoch or ailes pick the female anchors they would most want to sleep with in the perfect worlds

In comparison, CNN looks like they've lit their studios with flourescent lights. Their idea of hi-def is to have Wolf Blitzer walk around a big screen TV. We're talking about a network that had "Talk Back Live!" and that blog show where the two women click on the internet. Cameramen filming cameramen filming ordinary people. I get the idea that some CNN producers probably busted their chops on shows like "Donahue" and "That's Incredible!"

Fox is sharp and contrasted (in light and color only). CNN looks all washed out.

Also WTF is the deal with talking points? Is this an undergrad lecture?

Red Eye - wtf is with this show? it's like mindbogglingly bad but in a way that I really wouldn't expect from Fox. It was like 5 straight minutes of Fox anchors and random creeps making poop jokes.

I mean I assume it lasts longer but I couldn't take any more.

I saw Andrew WK as a guest panelist on Red Eye once, and I could smell his intellectual contempt through the screen.

http://images.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/11/fox_obama/story.jpg

"People have all these ideas about him," Rhodes says. "He's political, he's this, he's that. But really, every inch of that guy is a television producer. I believe that what he wanted to be was the greatest television producer in the history of the universe. It's almost incidental, the politics. It's all about being compelling, because that's the thing with Roger — even when he's not convincing, he's compelling. And that's what he wants you to be when you work for him. It's all about finding an edge, finding an angle, something that makes you different from the other guys."

from:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/fox-news-hiring-4938161

and then this epic, epic character study:
http://www.esquire.com/features/roger-ailes-0211

I couldn't finish that Esquire profile: the incessant use of the second-person pronoun grossed me out. Besides, Ailes told me what I needed to know last week after the Giffords shooting: he admitted that the left represents "the other side."

http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/beware_20140918_123859.jpg

does the american left no longer care abt fox news

http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/beware_20140918_123859.jpg

AND THIS FAT SCHLUB IS THE ONLY THING PROTECTING YOU

Fox News and Limbaugh keep saying stupid things night after night, day after day

Hm, so I don't know if we've had a general 'best' Fox News thread but since the Dominion defamation trial is about to happen barring a last minute switchup, might want to start talking about it in more detail. Key thing to note is that the other week the judge overseeing proceedings in Delaware, Davis, in response to competing summary judgment claims shut out Fox News entirely, granted Dominion almost everything, and basically reduced the realm of what was left to discuss to whether actual malice was afoot (still a high bar re the NYT v Sullivan precedent, but now looking a lot more likely given a ton of defenses Fox could have used won't be applicable). So this week is pre-trial motion stuff and, in a very smart move, the Washington Post sent Erik Wemple over to cover it. His two threads from today are worth noting.

First, slightly threaded wrongly but more or less starting here, involved questions of 'newsworthiness,' which may seem random but is part of Fox News's defense. Clarifying, really:

Judge Davis warned lawyers not to make any argument in opening or closing that contradicts the judge’s ruling in the summary judgment phase of the litigation. “I will stop you,” he said, pledging to instruct the jury that the statement was erroneous. 3/

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) April 11, 2023

As you can see, Davis rather notes that if they want to go that way, that opens up a huge problem for them:

To counter the newsworthiness point, Dominion lawyers, said Judge Davis, could press Fox News witnesses on whether they thought of having guests aside from Sidney Powell or Rudy Giuliani on their show to comment on the stolen-election claims. 8/

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) April 11, 2023

Like then-President-elect Joe Biden. “Did you have him on?” asked Davis, acting in the role of a Dominion lawyer pressing a Fox New witness on the stand. “I could have a lot of fun with this case,” said the judge, to chuckling in the courtroom. 9/

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) April 11, 2023

The second thread, though, introduces an interesting new wrinkle that is wonky but clearly has got Davis kinda pissed, and not at Dominion:

More from the courtroom in Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News from the courtroom of Judge Eric Davis in Wilmington, DE: A lawyer for Dominion this afternoon issued a stern rebuke to how Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corp., have behaved on one key item in this case. 1/

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) April 11, 2023

Drilling deeper:

The issue arose in a hearing last week. The Dominion lawyer said that after further inquiry, Fox News sent another list on Easter Sunday – which included the three officials above, PLUS Rupert Murdoch. Which is to say, the mogul is an officer of both Fox Corp. AND Fox News. 5/

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) April 11, 2023

The upshot: From the beginning of this suit, said the Dominion lawyer, they have been blocked from securing key discovery documents relating to Rupert Murdoch – which is a reason why Dominion ended up filing a second suit against Fox Corp. (The cases have since been combined.) 6/

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) April 11, 2023

Said the Dominion lawyer: “This alone has meant that we are missing a whole bunch of Rupert Murdoch documents alone that we otherwise would have been entitled to.” 7/

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) April 11, 2023

We were pondering on the main Trump thread about why he didn't pardon himself and my own thought was narcissism combined with the idea that they thought they'd never be caught. Gotta say, that's starting to sound like Fox News as a corporate entity right about now in this situation -- almost any other time they'd have long worked out a settlement. Dominion didn't budge and now here we are.

Gonna be a hot summer.

Still not clear to me if this will be televised or not. (If it is, how many of the people testifying will look noticeably different under random courtroom lighting as opposed to their polished TV presentations, I wonder.)

I'm amazed that this case has not settled. I assume that's because Dominion is not willing to settle, since Fox absolutely wants to get out of this.

yeah I'm surprised too, this kind of shit never goes to trial. wonder if Dominion thinks their case is just that strong

Yeah my guess is Dominion figures the calculation is very much in their favor, and certainly after the initial summary judgment they barely have any reason to back down or change up. And who knows, they might even be altruistic about it!

It's astonishing that there is hard evidence that the network acted with actual malice.

Certainly it seemed like it was always possible, but sure is funny (and again, telling) that they put it down in black and white like that.

There's another factor here at play too -- I mentioned Sullivan. This is hardly being ignored, but this is bringing up a major issue on the right about now because for all their playacting moves about making the media 'honest' or whatever (DeSantis's gobbing and relevant legislation on the matter in Florida as an example), it's Sullivan that's let them act this general way in the first place. If Fox is found liable, well, a high high bar was cleared, bad enough. But if Sullivan itself was removed, that opens them up for a LOT more lawsuits, not to mention a slew of other right-leaning outlets, in a classic case of 'be careful what you wish for.' Forgot where I read the piece but there were a number of right-wing Florida media types going all out AGAINST that proposed state legislation precisely because they can actually put two and two together.

I assume that's because most of them think it's only liberals' ox that will be gored.

Right, which is why the ones who figure it otherwise are the ones going "Uh guys, GUYS?!!?"

Yeah, it's the same reason they can overlook their own "groomers," or corrupt judges, or swamp dwellers or whatever, though ultimately that hypocritical avenue is barely worth engaging in, since it assumes the GOP and their ilk are operating in good faith, rather than as full of shit cynics, morons and monsters.

I don't think their motivation was malice toward Dominion, but rather a reckless disregard for the truth, aka the FOX NEWS business plan.

No, I get that, I was referring to the standard under Sullivan, which defines actual malice as knowing the falsehood of the statement, or acting with reckless disregard for the truth or falsehood of the statement. That is what a public figure must show to win a defamation suit against the press.

Right and to expand on jimbeaux’s point, Sullivan was essentially saying “Hey someone in actual power can’t cow the press unless you can really really prove it.” Essentially what has happened is a hilarious reversal — a decision that let the Murdoch model thrive is now keeping Murdoch’s own creation itself — a source of power — from being sued to hell by people NOT in holding of such power. Removing that guardrail screws them completely.

Separate WaPo piece about today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/04/11/fox-dominion-jan6-ruling/

Not everything was for Dominion today, but arguably they don't have to do much anyway:

Judge Eric M. Davis expressed concern Tuesday that the jury deciding whether Fox defamed an election-technology company by airing bogus claims that it rigged the 2020 election could be prejudiced by suggestions that such statements contributed to the riot by Donald Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol.

“To say somehow that Fox influenced that, I’m not deciding that part,” Davis said at a pretrial hearing. “We’re not putting the January 6th attack on (trial). That may be for another court at another time. It’s not for this one.”

But the judge said that witnesses can be asked about Fox’s strategic decisions after the insurrection. In particular, he mentioned network co-founder Rupert Murdoch’s acknowledgment in an email that Fox was “pivoting as far as possible” after Jan. 6. Davis suggested that lawyers for plaintiff Dominion Voting Systems could fairly ask Murdoch about that.

He also said it would be acceptable for Dominion’s lawyers to talk in court about the increased personal security costs the company incurred after the insurrection.

Meantime in a perfect timing scenario, massive new Gabriel Sherman piece:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/rupert-murdoch-cover-story

Def. seems like one of those unstoppable monsters who will die suddenly right before finally getting his comeuppance.

About the only relief I take from that story: Jerry Hall was not as terrible as I thought (she's still terrible for marrying him).

lmao @ "you can't leak this to the writers of Succession" as part of the divorce settlement

Meanwhile in Delaware, going great again for Fox. (This was after the judge continued to ream them about the second point raised yesterday re Murdoch's exact status.)

More really bad news for Fox News: A Dominion lawyer this morning gave a presentation asserting that the company had found out about documents and material that they should have received in discovery but did not get them.

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) April 12, 2023

Subsequent thread

Those documents and materials include communications relating to an NPR report by David Folkenflik regarding host Bret Baier’s proposal for a special on election lies during the time relevant to the trial.

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) April 12, 2023

Hahah this is NOT what Fox will want

Judge Davis called the issue “serious” and discussed directing a special master to investigate Fox’s handling of discovery.

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) April 12, 2023

I mean I'm just a rando outsider looking at all this but either these Fox lawyers are ridiculously incompetent, being directed by their clients to do things they'd rather not, or just simply complicit. (The Smartmatic lawyers in their own separate lawsuit -- which is working towards happening in turn! -- are absolutely taking notes.)

This sanctions order is rather unusual and a significant problem for Fox.

It’s hard to make sense of Fox’s approach to the Dominion case. It would have made a lot of sense to negotiate a settlement early. https://t.co/hhr1MkR7i9

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) April 12, 2023

xp When you have a client with unlimited funds and no scruples, you withdraw or you find yourself doing things you'll regret.

The embedded tweet in Mariotti's is worth it for the photo:

The judge overseeing the Dominion case says he is imposing a sanction on Fox and would likely order an investigation into whether its legal team withheld evidence. ⁦@katie_robertson⁩ ⁦@jwpetersNYT⁩ https://t.co/618AlxSrcR

— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) April 12, 2023

https://i.etsystatic.com/34948493/c/1772/1408/0/248/il/7d68f5/4561307654/il_680x540.4561307654_6l7r.jpg

they should just show us the texts where he says slurs and whatnot theyre gonna get out eventually whats the point of this charade

That text is going to make Tucker even more popular at CPAC or NatCon or whatever. Fantasizing about Antifas getting beaten to death is playing to the base.

And being super racist too!

good reminder that those who we think "say the quiet part out loud" sometimes actually don't!!

I am sure Fox management was shocked, shocked that Tucker would say such things.

White people fight like this

Maybe they were upset about the part where he expresses remorse.

you know that crazy high pitched laugh he did turn his show sometimes? the one that made his whole body convulse? the one that everyone said made him look like a psychopath? well, what if....

now i’m just thinking of the simpsons episode where the stand-up comic is doing the “white people drive like this” bit

White people fight like this

― INDEPENDENTS DAY BY STEVEN SPILBERG (President Keyes), Tuesday, May 2, 2023 11:01 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

sorry, used to being at work where we've got some people in their early 20s who have never watched the simpsons

So sad (gift link, read away)

ah ok now its starting to make sense, tucker is a dummy

EXCLUSIVE: Tucker Carlson tried to push out Fox News' mega-powerful PR chief. It backfired spectacularly -- and helped set the stage for his own ouster.https://t.co/Mmjm4x9Z1P

— Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) May 8, 2023

Hahah he tried to get rid of BRIGANTI? That's like someone trying to oust Coco Schwab as Bowie's key assistant from 1976 on -- never gonna happen.

"I am bigger than this network."

"You thought."

is it good when the people youre trying to persuade laugh at you

In some cases, executives laughed off Carlson’s attempt to get Briganti fired, assuring him and others that Briganti was not going anywhere anytime soon.

Briganti “hates all the talent,” the former Fox News commentator says. “She was so disgusted by the level of fucked up idiots who work there, in her opinion, and had to clean up their messes and their overblown egos.”

tough but fair

What makes this all the more entertaining is that there's that third factor of the producer who felt pressured by Fox's lawyers in the Dominion discovery process and has since filed a separate suit, releasing snippets trashing Tucker further.

Given the way she speaks to the press on behalf of people she hates, I'm genuinely curious if there's anyone on earth Briganti likes, or if she's one of those uniquely NYC rich corporate types who genuinely loathes all of humanity, a character straight out of a Ballard novel.

Didn't Ailes hire her directly? Game recognize game.

For fun!

https://www.axios.com/2023/05/09/tucker-carlson-fox-news-letter-fraud

Jesse Waters takes the throne

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fox-news-names-jesse-watters-to-replace-tucker-carlson-as-anchor-of-8-p-m-hour-75a72fce

Watters that is

"Watt-ahs, that is!"

https://i.imgur.com/YKDH4dP.jpg

that dude creeps me out so much. he has this weird frozen half smile even as his guess rant about the craziest things.

and Watters?

well, they're both big cocks, I'll give him that.

Fox News announces new prime time lineup post Tucker Carlson firing:
• 7 pm, Laura Ingraham
• 8 pm, Jesse Watters
• 9 pm, Sean Hannity
• 10 pm, Greg Gutfeld
Bring on the lies and conspiracy theories! pic.twitter.com/nXpxmlcnMR

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) June 26, 2023

I think Gutfeld may be my least favorite of these 4 shitbags, just perpetually smarmy and smirky