Fox Group President Rupert Murdoch has sworn under oath to admit that some Fox hosts have “endorsed” the notion that the 2020 US presidential election was stolen, according to an undisclosed court filing sealed on Monday.
by Murdoch, The confirmation is included in the filings of Dominion Voting Systems, part of the tech company’s $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News and parent company Fox Corp. about Fox’s coverage of the 2020 presidential election.
Documents filed in the Delaware state court case show that Murdoch and other Fox executives believe Joe Biden fairly defeated Donald Trump and the outcome is beyond doubt.
Murdoch’s testimony is from his testimony in the lawsuit. Reuters did not see all of his testimony because it remains sealed.
When asked by a lawyer for Dominion if some Fox commentators endorsed the idea that the 2020 election was stolen, Murdoch replied, “Yes. They testified,” according to the filing.
When asked, Murdoch said “several commentators (of Fox) approve” of the stolen election report, including “probably Lou Dobbs” and “possibly Maria (Bartiromo). “
Murdoch’s testimony and other documents in the filing shed light on Fox’s internal considerations as it covered up election fraud claims and sought to avoid losing viewers to far-right opponents. get Trump’s false story.
Fox has argued that coverage of statements by Trump’s attorneys is inherently newsworthy and protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Dominion’s reputation is also at stake as it seeks to recover from what it describes as irreparable damage to its business.
A five-week trial is scheduled to begin on April 17.
Dominion has argued that internal communications and testimony from Fox employees demonstrate that the network intentionally spread disinformation about Trump’s defeat in the 2020 U.S. presidential election in an attempt to raise awareness. it’s rating.
EASYominion stated in its filing that Murdoch closely monitors Fox coverage but refuses to use his strong editorial influence despite strong concerns about the coverage of Fox’s coverage.
Murdoch testified that he believed from the start that “things were going well” with the election and that he doubted the claims of election fraud from the start.
When asked by a lawyer for Dominion if he could stop Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani from continuing to spread misinformation about the election on television, Murdoch replied: “I can do it. . But I’m not,” according to Dominion’s records.
Dominion’s profile objected to Fox’s proposal of summary judgment, which Find a Judgment in favor of the media company would prevent the need for a trial on some legal issues.
In its filing released Monday, Fox argued that coverage of statements by Trump and his attorneys is inherently newsworthy and that Dominion’s “extreme” interpretation of the defamation law blasphemy will “prevent the media from following”.
According to Dominion’s approach, if the President falsely accuses the Vice President of plotting to assassinate him, the press will be held accountable for coverage of the notable allegation as long as someone in the newsroom thinks otherwise, Fox said. that it’s ridiculous.
Dominion sued Fox News Networks and parent company Fox Corp. in March 2021 and November 2021 in Delaware Superior Court, accusing the cable network of amplifying false claims that Dominion’s voting machines were used to cheat the 2020 election against Trump, a Republican who lost to Democratic rival Biden.
In a statement Monday, a Fox spokesman said Dominion’s stance on defamation laws “will deter journalists from background reporting and their efforts to publicly smear Fox for reporting Believing and commenting on the accusations of a sitting President of the United States should be recognized for what it is: a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.”
Dominion’s motion for summary judgment, filed this month, flooded with emails and statements in which Rupert Murdoch and other top Fox executives say claims made about Dominion on the air are false – part of the voting machine company’s attempt to prove the network knows the claims they broadcast are false or has recklessly disregarded them. accuracy. That is the standard of “true malice,” which public figures must demonstrate to prevail in a defamation case.
