The media world was stunned on Tuesday when Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems reached a settlement just as their highly anticipated defamation trial was about to begin. Fox agreed to pay Dominion a staggering $787.5 million, a move designed to avert a trial that promised to expose the inner workings of the network and its amplification of false claims about the 2020 presidential election. But Why Did Fox Settle With Dominion for such a hefty sum? This article delves into the reasons behind this landmark settlement and its implications for Fox News and the media landscape.
The settlement abruptly concluded a case that had already cast a harsh light on Fox News. Months of pre-trial revelations had been embarrassing for the network, raising the specter of top figures like Rupert Murdoch, Tucker Carlson, and Sean Hannity being compelled to testify publicly under oath. Dominion’s lawsuit argued that Fox News had knowingly promoted false conspiracy theories that Dominion’s voting machines were used to switch votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden, thus damaging the company’s reputation.
“The truth matters. Lies have consequences,” stated Dominion lawyer Justin Nelson outside the Delaware courthouse, emphasizing the core principle at stake in the case.
While the massive financial payout is the most visible consequence for Fox, the full extent of the repercussions remains somewhat opaque. In a public statement, Fox News acknowledged “the court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false.” However, conspicuously absent was a direct apology. Fox’s statement expressed hope that settling “amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.” Beyond this, Fox representatives offered no further details or comments on the settlement terms.
Dominion CEO John Poulos remained tight-lipped when questioned if there were motivations beyond financial compensation, simply not answering when asked by a reporter if there was “anything to this other than money.”
The Financial Weight of the Settlement
The $787.5 million settlement represents a significant financial blow even for a media giant like Fox Corporation. This sum equates to roughly a quarter of the $2.96 billion in earnings the company reported last year before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization – a key metric for assessing a company’s cash flow. To put it into perspective, this settlement amount is in the same ballpark as the $965 million judgment against Alex Jones for spreading falsehoods about the Sandy Hook school shooting.
This agreement, coupled with ongoing and potential future lawsuits, underscores the substantial financial risks associated with disseminating conspiracy theories within conservative media. Despite the looming Dominion lawsuit, figures like Tucker Carlson continued to propagate alternative narratives, such as those surrounding the January 6th insurrection, suggesting the immediate deterrent effect might be limited.
Why Settle? Avoiding Further Damage and Exposure
Dominion initially sought $1.6 billion in damages, arguing the network’s amplification of false claims severely damaged their reputation and business. Judge Eric Davis, presiding over the case, had already ruled that claims aired on Fox concerning Dominion were demonstrably false, stating it was “CRYSTAL clear.”
Dominion’s legal strategy aimed to prove that Fox acted with “actual malice” – knowingly airing false information or demonstrating a “reckless disregard” for the truth. They presented a trove of internal communications, including emails and text messages, revealing that Fox executives and prominent personalities were aware the allegations were untrue even as they were broadcast on programs hosted by Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, and Jeannine Pirro.
Evidence presented in court documents revealed a key motivation behind Fox’s decision to air these false claims: retaining viewership. Fox News executives were acutely aware of viewers migrating away from the network after it correctly called Arizona for Joe Biden on election night. Internal communications described the conspiracy theories as “MIND BLOWINGLY NUTS,” yet the network continued to broadcast them.
Rupert Murdoch himself acknowledged in a deposition that he believed the 2020 election was legitimate and not stolen from Trump. Dominion’s legal team effectively argued, “Fox knew the truth. It knew the allegations against Dominion were ‘outlandish’ and ‘crazy’ and ‘ludicrous’ and ‘nuts.’ Yet it used the power and influence of its platform to promote that false story.”
Legal experts widely considered Dominion’s case to be exceptionally strong. While proving “actual malice” is a high legal bar, the evidence presented by Dominion appeared compelling. Settling preempted the risk of further damaging revelations emerging during a public trial and a potentially larger judgment from a jury.
Dominion lawyer Justin Nelson declared the settlement “a tremendous victory,” emphasizing that “We settled because it was about accountability… Our goals were to make sure that there was accountability for the lies, and to try to make our client right. And we accomplished both goals.”
Limited Defenses and Narrowed Legal Ground
In the lead-up to the trial, Judge Davis significantly curtailed Fox’s potential defenses. Crucially, he rejected Fox’s argument that simply reporting on newsworthy allegations constituted a defense against defamation. “Newsworthiness is not a defense against defamation,” he asserted.
In a March 31st ruling, Judge Davis directly criticized Fox for broadcasting falsehoods, noting the continued prevalence of false election claims more than two years after the election. “The statements at issue were dramatically different than the truth,” Davis stated. “In fact, although it cannot be attributed directly to Fox’s statements, it is noteworthy that some Americans still believe the election was rigged.”
Fox’s defense rested on the argument that they were merely reporting on the then-President’s claims of election fraud. Fox lawyer Erin Murphy argued, “We never reported those to be true. All we ever did was provide viewers the true fact that these were allegations that were being made.” However, this argument was weakened by the evidence demonstrating internal awareness at Fox that these allegations were indeed false.
Dominion sued both Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corp, claiming significant damage to their business. While Fox contended Dominion overstated their losses, the settlement amount suggests a recognition of substantial harm.
The Broader Implications: First Amendment and Media Accountability
The 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan established a high bar for public figures to win defamation lawsuits, requiring proof of “actual malice.” This landmark ruling has provided significant protection for news organizations. However, this standard has faced increasing criticism from some conservatives, including Trump and figures like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who advocate for easing libel laws.
Doreen Weisenhaus, a media law instructor at Northwestern University, noted that “The larger importance of the settlement … is that the high level of protection for news media in a defamation case remains intact for now.” The Fox settlement reinforces the principle that while the First Amendment protects robust reporting, it does not shield media outlets from knowingly disseminating falsehoods, especially when it causes demonstrable harm.
Internal Fox communications revealed a preoccupation with audience retention and appeasing viewers who believed Trump’s false claims. Tucker Carlson even suggested firing a reporter for fact-checking election fraud claims. Exhibits included disparaging behind-the-scenes remarks about Trump, highlighting a disconnect between internal opinions and on-air messaging. Text exchanges showed Carlson stating, “I hate him passionately,” and expressing a desire to minimize Trump coverage.
Fox News announced the settlement during Neil Cavuto’s news program. “It’s a done deal,” Cavuto stated. “It’s a settlement and for at least Fox, it appears to be over.”
However, Fox’s legal challenges are not necessarily over. Another voting technology company, Smartmatic, also has a pending defamation lawsuit against Fox. Smartmatic’s lawyer, Erik Connolly, stated that “Dominion’s litigation exposed some of the misconduct and damage caused by Fox’s disinformation campaign. Smartmatic will expose the rest.”
Conclusion: Accountability and the Cost of Disinformation
In conclusion, Fox settled with Dominion primarily to avoid the immense risks and further damage associated with a public trial. The potential exposure of more embarrassing internal communications, the uncertain outcome of a jury verdict, and the desire to mitigate further financial and reputational harm all likely contributed to Fox’s decision to settle. While Fox avoided an explicit apology, the substantial financial penalty underscores the real-world consequences for media organizations that prioritize ratings and political agendas over factual reporting. The settlement serves as a stark reminder of the importance of truth and accountability in media, and the significant cost of disseminating disinformation.
