How Fox Decided to Fire Tucker Carlson

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - WRONG!

See: https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/crime-and-courts/social-media-figure-from-nebraska-sues-msnbc-for-defamation-over-capitol-riot-case/article_ef82b3b9-6b92-578b-aaf1-eddc1fe2f11d.html

and: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/rachel-maddow-msnbc-sued-50-216090

and: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/566250-nunes-sues-msnbc-alleging-rachel-maddow-defamed-him/

MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. My wording may not have been the best, but there is a huge difference between defmation and out and out knowingly lying.

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Is there? Defamation, by definition is a lie. As a matter of fact, the bar to prove defamation is notably higher than the bar to prove lying. As noted in the story I posted about CNN beating the rap on the Dershowitz suit (and also in the OAN vs. Maddow suit, which I did not post, but is easily googled), the court acknowledged that CNN (Maddow for the OAN suit) lied. But that the lies did not rise to the level of defamation.

It is the exact same thing that happened with Rittenhouse. Every main stream media outlet lied about him. But because their lies made him famous, they have the "public figure" defense where not only does a plaintiff have to prove the lie, they ALSO have to prove malice.

Essentially, they can beat the rap with a "we meant well" defense, no matter how egregious their lies.

What caught Fox wasn't the lies. It was the e-mails saying they wanted to (essentially) scapegoat Dominion. They killed their own "we meant well" defense.

I will also note that Fox is STILL, to this day, innocent of defamation. They have not been PROVEN. Yes, they settled. But that is not proof. Otherwise, we could just as easily say that Dominion settling for less than half is proof they knew their own claim was bogus.

Pretty much all of the media - from ABC to ZNet, and everything in between - has been proven to publish and/or broadcast lies. Any claim otherwise is naive, at best.

Defamation is simply a specific type of lie. And, IMHO, the least harmful of them. Defamation targets a specific person or business. This can be remedied in the courts by showing specific damages, and can usually be proven. I.e. they said I am only 5'5". But, your honor, here I stand at 5'8", and there is no contradicting that fact.
But the lies that target all of us - social distancing, COVID vaccine stops the spread, Steele dossier, COVID vaccine is inherently risk-free, Hunter laptop is a Russian hoax, 2020 election was stolen, 2016 election was stolen, 2008 election was stolen, 2004 election was stolen, flu miraculously disappeared and accounted for less than 1% of its normal death toll at the exact same time COVID was running wild but that is just a coincidence, 9/11 was an inside job, WMD, single bullet theory, and on and on. Those are the dangerous ones. Because they are much harder to prove as lies without a specific target. And they are almost impossible to hold those responsible to account, aside from simply dropping that news source.

But then, pretty soon, we are left with no news sources. Because those on the left lie about the right pretty regularly and unabashedly. And those on the right lie about the left pretty regularly and unabashedly.

And there are VERY few truly centrist news sources these days. And even those tend to parrot the governmental line without looking too deeply or verifying.

In short, the 4th estate has utterly failed us, the American people. IMHO, anyone who takes any news story at face value without checking up on it is probably not very informed.

SFC Casey O'Mally - Couldn't have said it better myself!

Nope.

BTFOOM . . .