Why Is Fox News Acting As State Media, Announcing Trump's Lawsuits Before They're Filed And Failing To Point Out How Frivolous They Are?
from the that's-a-rhetorical-question dept
As we've been pointing out, the Trump campaign, with the help of lawyer Charles Harder, has been suing a list of media enemies over the past week. There was the NY Times, followed by the Washington Post and (probably not) finally, CNN. We've detailed why each lawsuit is frivolous, and how they appear to be playing to Trump's base in a performative manner, attacking the credibility of the media which has done critical reporting on his Presidency, and doing so in a manner that potentially serves two purposes: gets his fans riled up about the media while simultaneously creating a chilling effect on fairly typical journalistic analysis of the Trump administration and campaign.
But I wanted to focus in on a separate point: the effective "state media" of Fox News reporting on these lawsuits in absolutely ridiculous ways. Reporter Gregg Re wrote about the NY Times case, and at least included a link to the filing and noted that "lawsuits for libel against media organizations by public figures must clear a high bar." But the reporting on the next two lawsuits, done by reporters Brian Flood and Brooke Singman, were terrible. Both of them claimed that reporting on the filing of a federal lawsuit was a Fox News "exclusive." That's not what exclusive means, guys.
Also, while Fox News eventually added a link to the filing in the story about the CNN lawsuit and the NY Times one, it initially did not link to the CNN one, and as of this writing has still not linked to the Washington Post filing. Indeed, as you can see above, the reporters almost gloat over the fact that Fox News "obtained" access to the lawsuit -- and then failed to provide it to their readers. And with the CNN lawsuit, a search of PACER a couple of hours after the Fox News article went live showed no evidence that the case had actually been filed yet. In other words, it's likely that someone associated with the campaign or the lawsuit handed the complaint over to Fox News to "break" the "exclusive" story.
And perhaps that explains why the reporting by Flood and Singman is so, so bad. Unlike the story by Re regarding the NY Times lawsuit, this one makes no effort to explain why this lawsuit faces a huge barrier (known as the 1st Amendment). Even worse, it repeats a blatantly false statement from the campaign's "legal adviser" Jenna Ellis:
“False statements are not protected under the U.S. Constitution; therefore, these suits will have no chilling effect on freedom of the press. If journalists are more accurate in their statements and reporting, that would be a positive development, but not why these suits were filed," Ellis added.
There is some irony in this statement about false statements being false, but it is. There's plenty of precedent here, including (most clearly) the United States v. Alvarez (a case we've been pointing to a lot lately), which says:
The Court has never endorsed the categorical rule the Government advances: that false statements receive no First Amendment protection.
A good reporter would perhaps point that out in response to Ellis. But it appears that Fox News is less interested in employing good reporters, and more interested in acting as state media, and boosting the President it supports.
This is especially sickening, given that these are attacks on the very 1st Amendment that protects Fox News -- and its long history of misleading, inaccurate, and occasionally false statements, that the network is somewhat infamous for. You would think, if it wasn't subsumed in cultish adherence to the President, that it would recognize the importance of actually continuing to defend the part of the Constitution that allows them to exist. At the very least, you might hope that its reporters would be careful enough to accurately report the law. Apparently that is too much to ask.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, brian flood, brooke singman, charles harder, defamation, donald trump, free speech, gregg re, slapp, state media
Companies: fox news, news corp.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Answering your question
Because the current president is a Republican.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Answering your question
Roger Ailes turned it into the media arm of the Republican party. Don't be so shocked, it's just Fox being Fox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Answer in two words:
"teacher's pet"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah good old fractal wrongness...
“False statements are not protected under the U.S. Constitution; therefore, these suits will have no chilling effect on freedom of the press.
In addition to the irony of that being a false statement and yet still protected, not sure they've thought that one through, because if they really want to get on board with trampling the first amendment and trying to spin a 'it doesn't count if the statement is false' then they are just begging to be sued the next time someone doesn't care for their 'reporting' or they get sloppy/dishonest and post something that isn't true, like they just did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah good old fractal wrongness...
Then there is the concept that if false statements are not protected speech then everything a politician says is not protected? They should be careful or they might find themselves accountable for campaign promises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prognosticating stenographer?
Maybe a better way to relate the relationship between the current administration and Fox News is 'mouthpiece to the admin' (with apologies to lawyers who used to be known as mouthpieces, they don't deserve the denigration).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prognosticating stenographer?
Like the Mainstream news is the mouthpiece for the Democrat party!!!!
The flat out lies coming from these so-called journalists is a joke. One like after another and no facts to actually back up what they are saying. They're really commentators. So they are throwing out their own personal Opinions. Which is fine, but that's not fact, that's your opinion based on no facts. Trying to report them so to people as they are is a LIE. You are not a Reporter/Journolist, but a Commentator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prognosticating stenographer?
Like the Mainstream news is the mouthpiece for the Democrat party!!!!
Not to the same extent as Fox News is of the GOP. There is empirical evidence on this point. Read "Network Propaganda."
The flat out lies coming from these so-called journalists is a joke.
Can you point to any "flat out lies"? I believe that many journalists may have biases, but "flat out lies" is not an accurate description.
They're really commentators. So they are throwing out their own personal Opinions.
Some in media are opinion commentators, some are more standard journalists. You seem to be conflating the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prognosticating stenographer?
"Some in media are opinion commentators, some are more standard journalists. You seem to be conflating the two."
Well, he is a Fox viewer. That channel doesn't seem to make the distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prognosticating stenographer?
"the Mainstream news is the mouthpiece for the Democrat party"
Are you telling me that Conservative News Network is a mouthpiece of the democratic party? Are you daft?
Most all major corporations side with the republicans, they did before donnny. Mainstream media is owned and operated by large corporations.
And you want me to believe what now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prognosticating stenographer?
"The flat out lies coming from these so-called journalists is a joke."
Ah, yes...Trump makes a statement on record or tweets it out, CNN comments on it and the trump supporters go wild screaming that "Trump said No Such Thing". At some point your denial of reality becomes tedious.
Tell me, if you will, how does Trump's statement on the "Very Fine People" waving swastikas and screaming ethnic slurs in the streets of charlottesville NOT invite the implication that Trump has a racist bias?
Or his pre-president statement that he'd never trust a black man with money?
Or his comments on what part of a woman's anatomy it's fine to grab?
At least have the moral courage to own that you people are pretty darn tootin' fine with the "wimmin and nig...s being shown their proper place".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox News has proven it isn't news
It isn't news. It is entertainment. This is just them pandering to their base like Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. They don't care about 'journalism', they care about keeping ratings and their loyal sycophantic fan base tuning in to sell more ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Why Is Fox News Acting As State Media"
Because they are a state actor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boycott Murdoch
I realize this is a tiny gesture being an anonymous post on a blog that isn't globally read at any appreciable scale but here it is anyway: Boycott Murdoch and all of their holdings. Go through the lists of assets held by the Murdoch family, look for products and services you use then replace those with non-Murdoch assets. Hit these asshats where it hurts most: their bank account.
21th Century Fox assets
NewsCorp assets
...and more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jenna Ellis tends to speak with a substantial degree of precision, and in all reports I have seen where she provided public comments on these suits she has made it clear that what is not protected are false, defamatory statements. It would useful to have a link to the actual document or interview from which the quote is taken to determine if the quote has a previous factual predicate. It likely does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right here: https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-campaign-sues-cnn-false-defamatory-statements-millions-damages
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal cyber activity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're gonna open up these libel laws by trying them on Faux News & convince people we did it & won.
If only he cared about human life as much as he did about his 'reputation'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The complaint said that CNN was well aware the statements were false “because there was an extensive record of statements from the Campaign and the administration expressly disavowing any intention to seek Russian assistance” but promoted the claim anyway."
Wow, that statement right there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So CNN is accused of lying because it didn't play stenographer to an avowed liar.
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why would annoucing Trump's private lawsuits mean that Fox news was acting as 'state media'?
What is 'state media' in the United States?
Is Twitter 'state media' because Trump tweets there?
Could it be that Fox News is, you know, reporting some news? They do that every once in a while.
And why is it their job to point out how frivolous they are? They're not legal analysts and you never had a problem with the media not pointing out the bullshit from the other side of the aisle. Its also not the job of the media to point these things out. Especially when 'frivolous' is being defined by some dude.
Stop with the TDS bullshit. Get some perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One particular perspective is that donald mimics what faux news says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If Fox News does not wish to be referred to as a brown-noser for Trump, they could at least have the decency to wipe the fecal matter off their nose first - instead of wearing it proudly as they have for a while now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, the weird part is that Trump tends to get all his info from Fox. The brown-nosing goes both ways - which gives new life to the expression of "bending over backwards".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Next time could you start with the TDS line, would save me and others time knowing that the rest of it doesn't need to be taken seriously to have that front and center.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're not legal analysts and you never had a problem with the media not pointing out the bullshit from the other side of the aisle.
Uh, have you ever read Techdirt before? We highlight problems with all kinds of media and all kinds of politicians, and generally ignore "which side of the aisle" people are on. Like, literally on Friday I complained about bad NY Times analysis of a bill introduced by a Republican.
If anyone here has derangement syndrome, it's you who might want to look in the mirror.
Its also not the job of the media to point these things out.
Yes, yes it is, actually. That's literally the job of a newspaper.
Especially when 'frivolous' is being defined by some dude.
No, frivolous based on literally decades of court precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Much like Fox News currently is, state media would be both stenographers and flatterers for Dear Leader. That Fox News announced the lawsuits and assumedly jumped on board with them says all you need to know.
(Side note: “Trump’s lawsuits”? So much for plausible deniability.)
Any media that closely works with government officials and flatters them to no end so it can retain that working relationship. Fox News works closely with both the Republican party and Donald Trump (Sean Hannity is basically a Trump aide), and on-air personalities never say anything bad about those entities unless reality leaves no other choice.
Nope. Mind you, Twitter is still a complete shitpit, but it’s not state media because it stil allows speech that opposes the interests of Dear Leader and his flunkies.
This is accurate…but not for the reasons you think it is.
They’re not obligated to say “the suit is frivolous”, sure. But a good news outlet would, I’unno, point out how the law goes against the Trump campaign.
Too many negatives in one sentence. Let’s rewrite that so I can parse it a little better:
…and that’s not true, either. Techdirt routinely criticizes “liberal” media outlets for making boneheaded mistakes. The NY Times’s flawed interpretation(s) of 47 U.S.C. § 230 alone have received numerous critical articles on Techdirt.
Not the job of state media, anyway…
I bet you’re the kind of person who had a (melo)dramatic breakdown when you saw a picture of Barack Obama with his feet on the desk in the Oval Office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I bet you’re the kind of person who had a (melo)dramatic breakdown when you saw a picture of Barack Obama with his feet on the desk in the Oval Office."
He also wore a tan suit once and ordered types of lettuce and mustard that aren't found at the average NASCAR meeting. Clearly the psawn of Satan!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Could it be that Fox News is, you know, reporting some news? They do that every once in a while."
Your defence of Fox is that they occasionally stumble into a position where they report actual news?
So close to self awareness, yet so far....
"They're not legal analysts"
Damn right.
"and you never had a problem with the media not pointing out the bullshit from the other side of the aisle"
Citation needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox news is a very self aware wolf. I can't wait to see them when the Republican party goes down in flames due to the mental cancer and gymnastics their party leaders spew.
Course while I'm waiting I could also wish for that unicorn from last week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shouldn't that be "republican state media"? Because we all know how dedicated they're going to be to the next democrat who gets elected...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nonsense, I'm sure they will be just as supportive of a democrat president and would never sink to petty things like, oh I dunno, act like the color of the suit the president wears is a huge deal, especially after the silk glove treatment they've given Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair, that was less about the party to which Obama belonged and more about the skin color of the 44th president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair fashion coverage
Yes, I also heard that there was extensive coverage on Fox News about Trump wearing white trousers yesterday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah like this one wher they reported on how much ice cream trump gets at dinner
https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/trump-time-magazine-ice-cream/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could this open up some distasteful discovery against the plaintiff if it goes that far?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seems right
reality isnt really important to Fox News, the Trunp Administration or their "fans".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because that's literally the one reason it was created - to act as the GOP's propaganda arm so that the next time a Republican president commits blatant crimes in office, there wouldn't be as much support among the citizens for impeachment as there was for Watergate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid Harder
Am I the only one that's starting to see the name Charles and equate it to Stupid?
So... I'm gonna start telling people to "Charles Harder" when they're being dumb and can't possibly 'Stupid Harder' than they are...
I hope it catches on like 'Nerd Harder' ... (which no one will confuse with Charles)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes it's stupidity, other times it's not
You'd be making a mistake to think that he's being stupid here, as I've little doubt that he knows exactly what he's doing, and even if the lawsuits he's involved in don't win in a conventional sense, well, depending on the goal of the lawsuit 'winning' can be seen as nothing more than a perk, something that would be nice to have but isn't necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid Harder
Charles = stupid, you say?
Keep calm and Carreon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point is to have "reported" the lawsuits. It doesn't matter if they are withdrawn later. The headlines are the important part. It is true of Fox & Republicans in general. Truth doesn't matter, impact does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]