TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE: TRANSPARENCY IS KEY

 

“Fox News Settles Defamation Suit for $787.5 Million” – The New York Times

Heralded as one of the largest defamation settlements in U.S. history, Fox News, accused of pushing conspiracies about the 2020 U.S. presidential election, will pay Dominion Voting Systems $787.5 million to settle the defamation suit.

Defamation cases involving news media organizations can have significant implications for both the media and the public. When a news organization publishes false and damaging information about an individual or organization, that can have serious consequences, including damage to reputation, loss of income, and even harm to personal safety. A couple of high-profile defamation cases have shed light on the potential pitfalls of out-of-court settlements, which can obscure the truth and limit accountability.

NEW YORK TIMES CO V. SULLIVAN

            A landmark Supreme Court (SC) case in 1964, the New York Times (NYT) v. Sullivan, established the “actual malice” standard for defamation cases involving public officials. In this case, NYT published an advertisement that contained several factual errors about the arrest of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The police commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, L.B. Sullivan, sued NYT for defamation. The case eventually made its way to the SC which ruled that public officials must prove “actual malice” to win a defamation case. Actual malice means the defendant knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The significance of this case lies in its recognition of the importance of protecting free speech and the media. The “actual malice” standard creates a high bar for public officials to prove defamation, which ensures that the media can report on matters of public concern without fear of frivolous lawsuits. However, this high bar also means that public officials have a limited ability to seek redress for false and damaging information.

SANDMANN V. CNN

This case highlights the potential pitfalls of out-of-court settlements in defamation cases. Nicholas Sandmann, a high school student, sued CNN and several other media outlets for defamation after he was portrayed in a misleading and negative light in coverage of a confrontation between him and a Native American activist at the Lincoln Memorial. Sandmann alleged that CNN and the other media outlets acted with actual malice by publishing false and defamatory information about him.

This 2020 case was ultimately settled out of court with CNN and Sandmann reaching an undisclosed settlement. Not made public, the settlement could include a confidentiality agreement prohibiting either party from discussing the case publicly. Thus, CNN’s full extent of reporting errors would remain untold; Sandmann’s reputation was tarnished.

DOMINION V. FOX NEWS

            Dominion Voting Systems, a company that provides voting machines and software to election officials, filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News in 2021 alleging its anchors and guests spread false and damaging information about Dominion to undermine the election credibility, leading to harassment and death threats against its employees.

Grabbing the headlines recently, Fox News settled the defamation suit under this striking term, among others – it’s having “not to apologize or admit to spreading false claims on network programming” according to NYT.

HIDE AND SEEK THE TRUTH

While out-of-court settlements can be a practical way to resolve disputes and avoid the cost and uncertainty of a trial, they can also be used to hide the truth and avoid accountability. In the case of New York Times Co v. Sullivan, the court’s decision to require proof of “actual malice” was meant to protect freedom of speech and the media. However, critics argue that this standard has been used to shield news media organizations from accountability for disinformation .

In the case of Sandmann v. CNN, the out-of-court settlement left many unanswered questions about the truth of the events that took place at the rally. Some critics argued that the settlement allowed CNN in staying away from admitting any wrongdoing, while others argued that the settlement was a pragmatic way to resolve a complex and costly legal dispute.

Raising similar questions, the Dominion v. Fox News out-of-court settlement would never reveal the truth about the allegations against Dominion, in like manner, allow Fox News to dodge accountability for its reporting, thereby, shutting out the public from knowing the full story.

THE TRUTH MATTERS

“The truth matters...” a Dominion lawyer said after announcing that his company accepted a settlement from Fox.

Really?

First, for Fox News: “Ratings trump truth.” This is the crux of the matter of why Dominion filed, in the first place, a defamation suit against Fox News. Rupert Murdoch, founder of Fox News parent company, pronounced such dictum clearly: “The RATINGS are the lifeblood of the business.” (Underscoring mine. You may read my past ATABAY article “When Ratings Trump Truth: The Dark Side of News Media.”)

Second, for Dominion: “Money trumps truth.” Vox’s Peter Kafka’s words hit the nail on the head: “While Dominion’s lawyers argued that they brought the case in part because they wanted to expose Fox’s lies, dropping the suit makes the primary motivation much clearer.” His article’s title speaks volumes: “Fox News won. Dominion won. The rest of us lost.” He rounded out: “No apologies, no (dubious) promises [by Fox News] to do better. Nada.”

LESSONS

            Just as the out-of-court settlements can be a practical way to resolve high-stakes legal disputes and get around the cost and uncertainty of a trial, so too can they be deployed to obscure the truth and evade accountability. The news media must pull out all the stops in their reporting and the public must understand the potential downsides of out-of-court settlements. As Former Associate Justice Brandeis wrote, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light, the most efficient policeman.”

            The solution to this problem is not to do away with out-of-court settlements altogether. Rather, any settlement must be carried out for the right reason, and never should it hold back the public from learning the truth. Involved parties must disclose the terms of such settlement and the public should scrutinize the defamation cases.

Only then can Lady Justice strike the right balance between protecting the media’s right to free speech and holding them accountable for false or misleading reporting.

Speaking of misleading reporting, back here at home, how do you figure this out: The media that adjudged FPRRD as the best leader based merely on a survey, is the same media that is now snubbing him and his wisdom. That's another article.

Have a blessed Sunday!

Content put together in collaboration with ChatGPT

Head collage photos courtesy of freepikdotcom, Getty Images/iStockphoto, & Dreamstimedotcom

Video clips courtesy of YouTube