All Episodes
Previous Next
April 21, 2023 - Lionel Nation
06:08
Dominion v. Fox News and Why It Matters

The reality.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man Underground Safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty Man Safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man Underground Safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today and take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin.
Dirty Man Safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your dirty man safe today.
Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
*thud*
Okay, let me see if I can explain this.
Here's why the Dominion case is interesting to me.
Not that it's Fox.
Not that it's Rupert Murdoch.
That's not what I care about.
The issue is this.
What are you supposed to do?
Let's say you're a podcaster, or you're Joe Rogan, or you're somebody doing not Fox News stuff.
But just something like this.
And you're interviewing somebody who's making a claim that some people think is pretty wild.
Or that some people are suing over.
And you, as a journalist, as a citizen, civilian, alternative, foreign or regular journalist type, podcaster, you have this person on.
And you're talking to this person about the claims that were made.
Claims that were made.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, being crazy, alright?
Let's say somebody is making news claiming that a medicine or a vaccine is causing cancer or is part of some weird Malthusian depopulation, eugenics, whatever.
And that's in the news, what this person is saying.
This person who also is being sued for saying that.
But you want to invite them on your show to talk about the claims.
Not to perpetuate the libel, or the alleged libel, but just to talk about it.
Let's assume, like in the case of Dominion, CNN and other networks that aren't right-wing, whatever that means, let's assume they ask this person on.
But you're different.
Because during the course of your...
Speaking to this person who's making claims that everybody is saying is just insane, whether it's because of the 2020 election being stolen or what have you, let's say during the course of this, you decide to opine or you say, you know what?
I think you're right.
And you express an opinion.
An opinion which is normally and usually and historically given the free range.
And free reign, so to speak, to opine.
Or you're saying, in my opinion.
And don't forget, libel is a statement of fact which is incorrect that causes damages.
But you're saying, wait a minute.
I think this makes sense.
I tend to agree with you.
I think you're right.
Now, are you libeling or continuing the libel?
Are you republishing the libel by having this person on your show to discuss, to make allegations that, by the way, other people have talked about?
You interviewing them not to regurgitate or reestablish the claims, but just to report on a claim that's being made, number one.
And number two, let's assume during the course of this you agree with them.
Let's say you say, you know what, I never really understood this, but you know what, I think you're right.
Yes, I think that Company A is a part of some...
Bentham-esque, depopulation-schemed, whatever.
It's your opinion!
This is not what libel is.
Libel is a statement of fact.
And what's really interesting, but nobody wants to talk about it, going back to Fox and Dominion, is that we're not for these text messages.
Everybody says, oh, they don't matter.
They're being taken out of context.
Really?
Okay.
If it weren't for that, how do you think you could prove malice?
On the part of Fox.
How do you think you could show that they were, because you have the public figure plaintiff here, how would you prove a reckless disregard for the truth or actual knowledge of these allegations being false?
Maybe because of text messages.
And maybe that's another little interesting aspect which might have accelerated or encouraged settlement or whatever.
But here is the bottom line.
And this is what I'm talking about, what I think.
There are folks out there, the new breed, the new iteration, the new stars of opinion, whether it's Joe Rogan or the guy with a hat or whatever it is, with tens of millions of collective audience members.
They are now in this new stratosphere and they've got to consider the implications of New York Times against Sullivan vis-a-vis this brand new and wonderful platform that we enjoy.
▲
Export Selection