MEDIA MELTDOWN SPELLS CHANGE (OR NOT)

Kane Finders

The Advocate

From Fox News to CNN, scandals are plaguing the world of cable news recently.

Dominion settled its $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit with Fox News for $787.5 million, and shortly after, host Tucker Carlson was ousted from Fox. On the very same day, “CNN This Morning” anchor Don Lemon also was let go.

This may represent a pivotal point in the land of cable news and a turn towards more factual reporting – or just another scandalous week dotting the history of cable media.

Here I’ll examine the Dominion case and why I think the company shouldn’t have settled, and explain why I believe Lemon and Carlson deserved it. And I will speculate about the future of cable news and whether it has a place in our current society.

The lawsuit by Dominion Voting System was filed in December 2020, alleging that Fox News defamed it by promoting claims the 2020 U.S. presidential election was rigged and that Dominion voting machines were used to do so. Dominion’s attorneys argued that these statements were made with Fox leaders knowing that they were false.

As the case neared trial in April, Fox News was hoping to seek protection under the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, New York Times v. Sullivan. In 1964, the Court ruled that media companies can only be successfully sued for defamation if they show “actual malice” in the publishing/ broadcasting of false information: reckless disregard for whether the information might be false, or, in fact, actual knowledge the information is false.

Dominion presented strong evidence. Such as when Fox News’ Sean Hannity said in a formal deposition, “I did not believe it for one second” about a show segment he hosted spreading baseless election-stealing claims.

It’s also convincing evidence that Fox settled the case for $787.5 million on April 18. While only half the original amount at stake, it made sense for Dominion; a fullblown trial would have cost a lot of money, along with the chance of losing.

Lost Opportunity

However, the settlement also meant the Sullivan ruling wouldn’t be challenged and Fox News anchors wouldn’t be put on the witness stand. In the battle against misinformation, it would have been better for a trial to proceed.

The Sullivan ruling provides protection to media outlets, allowing them to report on hot-button issues and not fear making (innocent) mistakes and getting sued. However, some critics believe it provides too much protection, letting the media report whatever they want, with no repercussions.

This trial could have set a valuable precedent on whether or not media organizations have to tell the truth. Current standards protect media from lawsuits when they provide negative press that may be inaccurate but also discourage them from blatantly spreading lies.

I believe we need to set new precedent so that we can address growing misinformation. Another part of a trial that would have been good for that fight is if Fox News executives and personalities were called to the witness stand. They would have been required to tell the truth. Once it came out that the organization spread lies, their reputation would have been ruined. While perhaps some Fox viewers wouldn’t have cared and would keep on tuning in, this would have been a starting point in addressing misinformation.

One condition of the settlement I believe should have been required was an on-air retraction by Fox. While money does fix some (Dominion) problems, it doesn’t show the believers of the election-stealing lies the truth. Maybe it’s just as likely that Fox viewers would keep watching or just switch to other channels spewing misinformation, but Dominion should have gone to trial to draw the line in the sand to force accountability onto Fox.

Sudden Changes

Just six days after the settlement, Fox News removed Carlson from its lineup of hosts, on April 24. Fox did not provide a reason, other than to say the parties “mutually agreed to part ways.”

Much speculation has followed. One possible reason was the settlement: Maybe Fox News decided it was not worth the risk of airing more misinformation and other controversial opinions. It could have been allegations of sexism and misogyny against the Carlson production team. Abby Grossberg filed a lawsuit alleging rampant sexual harassment. Or some troubling texts from Carlson that have leaked.

While we probably will never know all the decision details, these factors were definitely the final straw.

In my opinion, Carlson does not belong on the airwaves. From his rampant postelection lies to his hate for “woke” M&Ms, he’s made a name for himself with his blatant misinformation and outlandish opinions. We don’t need extreme opinions based on misinformation in our media. Carlson has presented himself as the truth, and when he does, millions of viewers believe this. This has tangible, real-world impacts. I don’t think it is hard to say Fox’s election lies may have contributed to rioters showing up and breaking into the U.S. Capitol.

His opinions also fuel hate in this world. You can see this in his promotion of the white replacement theory. In one broadcast, he said that Democrats are replacing the current American voter base with “new people, more obedient voters from the Third World.” He presents this as the truth, and at least some of his audience buys it.

This is fueling more fear and hate towards minorities. This kind of rhetoric only divides us as a nation and has no place in today’s society.

Then we have Don Lemon, the former CNN News host. CNN also said it “parted ways,” but Lemon tweeted out that he was fired. This comes after reports of misogyny and sexism against him, along with lower viewer approval and interviewees reportedly not being comfortable with him.

Last December Lemon said that men’s athletic teams should make more money than women’s teams. Two months later, the New York Post reported that he screamed at one of the co-hosts, Kaitlin Colins, for interrupting him. Also in February, he made the comment that Nikki Haley, a GOP presidential hopeful, wasn’t in her “prime.” He went on to say that “a woman is in their prime in (her) 20s and 30s and maybe 40s.”

No matter the context, this is a hurtful comment, insinuating that women lose their worth to society as they age (while our current, male president is in his 80s, following another who was in his 70s). In April, Variety magazine outlined Lemon’s history of similar misogyny, dating back to 2008. However, his spokesperson said these claims are false.

Besides all this, Lemon has continued to voice very strong opinions. While I may agree with some, there’s an argument to be made they don’t belong on a news network. While we all should have opinions and express them, they shouldn’t spill over to places we go to get factual news.

It was fine when Lemon shared opinions on his primetime, opinion-based show, but not in the morning show that is advertised as a news show.

TWO PATHS AHEAD?

What is the future for television news? I see two main options. One is having a news network that focuses on the news, with little-to-no opinion mixed in. I believe opinion shows have their place, when not sold as the news. The other is, we stay on our current trajectory: We stick with the same biased news sources we have.

$787 MILLION

Honestly, I don’t see Fox News changing. Over time, I have seen CNN shift towards the center. We will have to wait and see how the landscape of the media changes. But these shakeups in cable news serve as a much-needed wakeup call that we need to focus on the truth and less on hurtful opinions. I hope we see a shift towards the more-factual reporting we need, to become a less-divided country.