How Fox News works

[Dnaguy 11704]

3 hours ago, Gap03 said:

They do know their demo, don't they?

 

Robot Cameraman you say?

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11667]

7 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

It's really not all that unusual to see four boobs on Fox News, though.

ba dum tiss

[PsychMike 1537]

5 hours ago, TexasMan said:

 

I mean, why even bother having a chyron anyway? Nobody is looking down that far...

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

5 hours ago, Gap03 said:

They do know their demo, don't they?

 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11667]

Fox beats Karen McDougal on defamation. Good excerpt from the Opinion raises an interesting question. 

 

In light of this precedent and the context of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” the Court finds that Mr. Carlson’s invocation of “extortion” against Ms. McDougal is nonactionable hyperbole, intended to frame the debate in the guest commentator segment that followed Mr. Carlson’s soliloquy. As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to “challenge[] political correctness and media bias.” Def. Br. at 14. This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in
“exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20-21; Levinsky’s, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122, 128 (1st Cir. 1997)). Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes. 600 W. 115th Corp. v. Von Gutfeld, 80 N.Y.2d 130, 141, 603 N.E.2d 930, 936 (1992). Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as “exaggeration,” “non-literal commentary,” or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable.

 

How do the reasonable viewer standard work when all your viewers are sub-reasonable?

 

Whole order here. 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13388]

3 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Fox beats Karen McDougal on defamation. Good excerpt from the Opinion raises an interesting question. 

 

In light of this precedent and the context of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” the Court finds that Mr. Carlson’s invocation of “extortion” against Ms. McDougal is nonactionable hyperbole, intended to frame the debate in the guest commentator segment that followed Mr. Carlson’s soliloquy. As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to “challenge[] political correctness and media bias.” Def. Br. at 14. This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in
“exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20-21; Levinsky’s, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122, 128 (1st Cir. 1997)). Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes. 600 W. 115th Corp. v. Von Gutfeld, 80 N.Y.2d 130, 141, 603 N.E.2d 930, 936 (1992). Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as “exaggeration,” “non-literal commentary,” or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable.

 

How do the reasonable viewer standard work when all your viewers are sub-reasonable?

 

Whole order here. 

 

So as long as something is part of a political discussion and you phrase something as "people are saying...", then nothing can be considered defamatory for a public figure? Is an US District Judge considered a public figure?

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Speaking of "extortion," hyperbole or not, Lindsey Graham was on Fox and Friends this morning pleading for money or the evil Democratic Party would take away your freedoms. He invoked the old, 'just send in five dollars or whatever you have,' plea.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13388]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Speaking of "extortion," hyperbole or not, Lindsey Graham was on Fox and Friends this morning pleading for money or the evil Democratic Party would take away your freedoms. He invoked the old, 'just send in five dollars or whatever you have,' plea.

This strategy will probably work but good to see some of the senators actually scared they could lose their job.

[Red Five 40574]

Ok Lindsey. A day after the sitting president was ranting about "getting rid of the ballots" it's the damn democrats who are going to take away your freedoms. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

This strategy will probably work but good to see some of the senators actually scared they could lose their job.

He was presumably on to discuss the topic that @Red Five mentioned above. I was channel surfing and stopped in to see who was on and came in on the middle of the interview. It struck me as an ethics violation not that anyone appears to care about that anymore. How someone can be so scrupulous as to question every move a noncandidate (i.e. Hunter Biden) makes but then is blase about everything else is one of the great mysteries of politics. I believe in following 'just' rules, that is rules that are balanced for everyone and believed that the FEC should never need be called in, but damn politicians just cheat at everything. Disgusting.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

This is the last post on the page, which sucks. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

 

[elfenix 34161]

so fox viewers are not, in fact, reasonable.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

 

[NWBuck 8536]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

You mean like the Roman centurions and Jewish Temple guards that were a part of Christ's crucifixion? That law enforcement? 

[Born to Run 6420]

You mean like the Roman centurions and Jewish Temple guards that were a part of Christ's crucifixion? That law enforcement? 

Exactly. These people only like the cruel God of the old testament with cherry picked passages to justify thier own hatred and cruelty. The wholly reject the new covenant and teaching of Christ. You know the whole love each other libtard bullshit Christ fag stuff.

[Brisketexan 104226]

 

The word “punish” in there is really, really important. Because it reveals the truth: not only is the GOP not for the Rule of Law, they openly applaud and celebrate its blatant violation.

 

Because, of course, no state penal code or federal stature provides for LEOs administering “punishment.” That is a function reserved 1) entirely for the state, via judge or jury, 2) after DUE PROCESS OF LAW. I mean, it’s literally a direct statement in the very Constitution that they claim to adore: “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

 

Instead, the GOP wants an authoritarian theocracy where the law is whatever the authoritarian says it is. Jeffress is one of the most evil players in American history. He is a guaranteed figure in my grave-pissing tour.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

 

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-lobotomizes-its-brain-room-cuts-fact-based-journalism?ref=home?ref=home

 

Quote

The recent mass layoffs at Fox News—an estimated body count of around 70, amounting to a little less than 3 percent of the cable channel’s workforce—signal what current and former employees describe as the purposeful devaluing of fact-based journalism in favor of right-wing opinion, race-baiting, and conspiracy-mongering at the top-rated, Donald Trump-friendly cable outlet.

 

Quote

Fox News’ PR department used anodyne corporate-speak to characterize the job losses, namely “restructuring various divisions in order to position all of our businesses for ongoing success.” But the layoffs, outside of the hair and makeup department, cut most deeply into the channel’s straight-news operations at Fox News Digital and elsewhere, according to insiders, while protecting the ratings-heavy, revenue-generating domains of Fox & Friends in the morning, and of Trump cheerleaders Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham in primetime.

 

 

Quote

The outlet’s so-called “Brain Room,” which the late Fox News founder Roger Ailes established as the 24-year-old channel’s fact-checking and research unit, has been especially hard-hit, losing around one-fourth of its 30-person staff along with two supervisors—a virtual frontal lobotomy, according to sources familiar with the cutbacks.

 

Spoiler

In October 1996, when the late Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes launched the channel for Rupert Murdoch, Ailes’s idea was to create a right-leaning outlet that challenged the perceived liberal bias of the mainstream media—CNN was a juicy target—but also presented a robust straight-news operation to counter the opinion shows. “Fair and balanced,” was Ailes’s mantra—and, while Ailes was the supreme leader, he managed news and opinion programming separately under different executives. In recent years, however, especially after Ailes was forced out in July 2016 amid sexual harassment and discrimination allegations, that distinction has steadily eroded.

Along with the painful layoffs, fired employees—worried about getting new jobs amid the COVID-19 pandemic—are being forced to sign severance agreements that include draconian non-disclosure requirements that one current staffer described as shocking, in order to receive their severance packages.

With these layoffs in multiple news departments... it looks like Fox is more like an extension of this administration, instead of a news network.

— A current Fox News employee

The non-disclosure section of the severance agreement requires laid-off employees to “assign to the Company any and all rights to publicity concerning any matter relating to the issues that resulted in your separation from the Company and/or this Agreement. You agree that you will not publish, contribute to or otherwise facilitate the creation of any story, book or other account relating to the Company or any Released Party. In the event you ever receive any compensation for any publicity, story, book or other disclosure relating in whole or part to those issues, all such compensation shall be immediately given over to the Company.”

Manhattan attorney Michael Willemin, a partner at Wigdor, LLP, which has sued Fox News on behalf of alleged victims of workplace discrimination and sexual abuse, told The Daily Beast: “While it is not terribly uncommon for companies to require individuals to sign releases or NDAs in connection with a severance payment, that does not mean that the practice is morally defensible. These are individuals who have just been terminated in the midst of a global pandemic and one of the worst job markets in history. Many of these individuals need these severance payments simply to make ends meet.”

Prominent labor lawyer Martin Hyman, who represented Gretchen Carlson and other Fox News women in lawsuits against the channel (including former Fox News Digital reporter Diana Falzone, a co-author of this story), told The Daily Beast: “The confidentiality clause is onerous, but I can’t say it’s unusual. It’s a largely boilerplate gag order designed to intimidate and compel women to remain silent about what they have experienced behind closed doors in major companies. It protects and enables predators. And it’s totally inconsistent with any claims by company executives and spokespersons that they are committed to cleaning up their act and protecting female employees from abuse, humiliation or worse.”

Multiple sources said Dianne Brandi, Fox News’ former executive vice president of legal and business affairs, who took a leave of absence in October 2017 amid news reports detailing her intimate involvement in company payments to the female victims of Fox News founder Ailes and star anchor Bill O’Reilly, has quietly returned to the channel as an influential consultant to Lily Fu Claffee, who became Fox News’ general counsel in 2018.

A current Fox News employee—who, like others who spoke to The Daily Beast, asked not to be further identified for fear of retaliation—placed blame on Porter Berry, a former longtime Hannity producer who is Fox News Digital’s editor-in-chief, and Berry’s second-in-command Stefanie Wheeler Choi, a former communications director for hard-right Tennessee politician Marsha Blackburn, for much of the carnage that has concentrated on straight-news reporters and photojournalists. Berry and Choi had a large hand in recommending who would be laid off, this current Fox News staffer said.

Meanwhile, Brain Room staffers were let go, this person said, “because they help fuel journalism and fact-based reporting and Porter and Stefanie are not interested in facts. They are obsessed with pitching ‘on-brand’ stories that include Blue Lives Matter, anything antifa-related, anyone who has suffered during BLM protests that can put the protestors in a negative light, anything that threatens Christianity, and anyone who is a Trump supporter who has somehow been wronged.”

The Daily Beast sent Fox News a detailed list of questions raised in this story and the company declined to provide an on-the-record comment.

A second Fox News employee said it’s widely known among staffers at the channel that top executives have “long been unsupportive of real, unbiased reporting. They do not see themselves as a real news operation in the sense that people are doing original work, trying to break stories and get to the bottom of things, wherever the chips fall. They are first and foremost a collector of other outlets’ reports and rewriting, and writing stories about what guests say on their most highly rated shows.”

Fox News, the profitable cash cow of Murdoch’s Fox Corp. empire, reported $12.3 billion in revenue for the year ending June 30 and is widely perceived as allowing Rupert Murdoch to prop up his massively money-losing newspaper holdings in the United States, Great Britain, and Australia.

According to multiple Fox News insiders, the most recent cuts were ordered by Joe Dorrego, a former Fox Corp. executive who is both Fox News’s new chief financial officer and chief operating officer. In what is bound to be a bitter irony for laid-off Fox News employees, Dorrego claimed in a staff meeting this past Thursday, according to an insider, that the channel has so far experienced record revenue and profits in 2020.

Meanwhile, multiple sources said the channel’s nominal CEO, Suzanne Scott—promoted by Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch as the first woman to hold the job, two years after they forced Ailes out amid anchor Gretchen Carlson’s July 2016 sexual discrimination and harassment lawsuit, along with other sexual abuse allegations—is little more than a figurehead. (In Scott’s defense, the company recently issued a press release in which she announced that Fox News Media had received the “honor” of being designated a “a 2020 Great Place to Work-Certified™ Company,” based on the opinions, according to the release, of “nearly eight out of 10 employees.”)

Likewise, Fox News President Jay Wallace also has suffered a reduction in power since his 2018 promotion, sources said, because, among other reasons, Fox News has increasingly become an operation in which Carlson, Hannity, and Ingraham—the star anchors— run their own fiefdoms, unaccountable to anyone except the Murdochs.

It’s a situation the obsessively hands-on Ailes, who died of a brain hemorrhage in May 2017 after a fall in his Palm Beach mansion, would never have permitted.

“For all the complications surrounding Roger, he truly did want the channel to project a legitimate news side as well as a robust opinion lineup,” said a well-placed Fox News veteran. “As time passed and the strong hand of Ailes has faded, the opinion team appears to have won the internal battle.”

Indeed, the virtual lobotomy of the Brain Room, a current employee said, came about largely because “the Brain Room, in their research, came up with facts that were not used in Fox reports or were in contradiction to what Fox aired. I have to imagine that kind of tension has always existed there, between the fact-checkers and what is often reported.”

A third Fox News employee said the Brain Room layoffs send the message “that Fox doesn’t care for a unit who truly holds truth to power. The Brain Room is an essential part of the company. They help employees with some of the most important elements of our jobs and are always there for last minute, difficult requests. They hold a lot of knowledge. Fox has acted like state media for a long time. This is just one small element to it.”

Another network staffer expressed a similar sentiment: “As an employee, I have had concerns about how close Fox has become with the White House and the administration. I don’t think I’m the only person there who has these concerns. With these layoffs in multiple news departments coming just a few weeks before the election, it looks like Fox is more like an extension of this administration, instead of a news network.”

During the Trump presidency, the Brain Room has been frequently at odds with Fox News’ on-air content. As The Daily Beast reported this past February, senior Fox News political affairs specialist Bryan S. Murphy produced a 162-page document entitled “Ukraine, Disinformation, & the Trump Administration” that warned colleagues against the falsehoods being dispensed by Fox News contributor John Solomon—a favorite Hannity guest—and other Fox News purveyors of Ukraine-focused disinformation such as Rudy Giuliani, Victoria Toensing, and her husband Joe diGenova.

Murphy, however, was not among those laid off.

Among other straight-news victims of the cuts were the former head of the Fox News assignment desk, John Stack, a 21-year veteran, and Martin Hinton, the executive producer of the Fox News investigative unit, who happens to be the son of longtime Murdoch confidant Les Hinton, Rupert’s top newspaper division exec who was forced to resign in 2011 during the British phone-hacking scandal.

The Fox News severance agreement, parts of which were obtained by The Daily Beast, is breathtakingly comprehensive, releasing the cable channel from “any and all claims (e.g., for discrimination, harassment, or retaliation) related to actual or perceived race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, age, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, family status, caregiver status, sex (including pregnancy status, childbirth, breastfeeding, and related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, sexual and reproductive health choices, hair texture or hairstyles, military or veteran status, political affiliation, arrest or conviction record, union membership, unemployment status, credit history, status as a victim of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual offenses, or any other legally protected characteristic, or for having engaged in any protected activity under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Equal Pay Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Fair Pay Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York City Administrative Code, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and any applicable state mini-WARN Act, or any other law, regulation or ordinance that may have arisen before the effective date of this Agreement, including but not limited to those arising from your employment and separation from the Company.”

A current staffer told The Daily Beast: “The items that the employees will not be able to sue for sound like a tip o’ the hat of who has called Fox out in the past. For example it lists ‘hair or hair texture’ as a reason that you cannot sue the company. I believe a Black makeup artist sued Fox in the past on this.”

The staffer added that laid-off employees who take severance are prohibited from suing for “reproductive-related reasons,” and then pretty much any other reason listed in the New York human rights law.

“Then,” the staffer continued, “if you sign this form you are required to speak to a lawyer or be a witness without a subpoena. So let’s say an employee is suing the company for being discriminatory against gay people and one of those employees who signed this agreement heard firsthand that employee who was suing being discriminated against by a boss at Fox. The employee who signed this NDA would be able to speak to Fox’s lawyers without a subpoena, meaning Fox’s lawyers would not have to alert the person’s lawyers who is suing for discrimination about the questioning. Then, let’s say the person who signed the NDA was questioned and corroborated the discrimination. Fox’s lawyers could bury the evidence."

A longtime Fox News staffer who was let go earlier this month said terminated employees feel forced to sign the agreement “to get their severance, and for me, I have to take care of my family. I just want my money and leave... We all served a purpose but it seems they don’t want to do any original content anymore, just TV straight to the web. Like state TV in North Korea.”

Two decades after Ailes launched Fox News in 1996, he coined the slogan “We Report, You Decide.” A dozen years later, several current and former employees suggested, the cable channel’s new mantra might as well be “We’ve Decided, You Agree.”

 

[Biff Tannen 45439]

37 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Explain this to me

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

22 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-lobotomizes-its-brain-room-cuts-fact-based-journalism?ref=home?ref=home

 

 

 

  Hide contents

In October 1996, when the late Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes launched the channel for Rupert Murdoch, Ailes’s idea was to create a right-leaning outlet that challenged the perceived liberal bias of the mainstream media—CNN was a juicy target—but also presented a robust straight-news operation to counter the opinion shows. “Fair and balanced,” was Ailes’s mantra—and, while Ailes was the supreme leader, he managed news and opinion programming separately under different executives. In recent years, however, especially after Ailes was forced out in July 2016 amid sexual harassment and discrimination allegations, that distinction has steadily eroded.

Along with the painful layoffs, fired employees—worried about getting new jobs amid the COVID-19 pandemic—are being forced to sign severance agreements that include draconian non-disclosure requirements that one current staffer described as shocking, in order to receive their severance packages.

With these layoffs in multiple news departments... it looks like Fox is more like an extension of this administration, instead of a news network.

— A current Fox News employee

The non-disclosure section of the severance agreement requires laid-off employees to “assign to the Company any and all rights to publicity concerning any matter relating to the issues that resulted in your separation from the Company and/or this Agreement. You agree that you will not publish, contribute to or otherwise facilitate the creation of any story, book or other account relating to the Company or any Released Party. In the event you ever receive any compensation for any publicity, story, book or other disclosure relating in whole or part to those issues, all such compensation shall be immediately given over to the Company.”

Manhattan attorney Michael Willemin, a partner at Wigdor, LLP, which has sued Fox News on behalf of alleged victims of workplace discrimination and sexual abuse, told The Daily Beast: “While it is not terribly uncommon for companies to require individuals to sign releases or NDAs in connection with a severance payment, that does not mean that the practice is morally defensible. These are individuals who have just been terminated in the midst of a global pandemic and one of the worst job markets in history. Many of these individuals need these severance payments simply to make ends meet.”

Prominent labor lawyer Martin Hyman, who represented Gretchen Carlson and other Fox News women in lawsuits against the channel (including former Fox News Digital reporter Diana Falzone, a co-author of this story), told The Daily Beast: “The confidentiality clause is onerous, but I can’t say it’s unusual. It’s a largely boilerplate gag order designed to intimidate and compel women to remain silent about what they have experienced behind closed doors in major companies. It protects and enables predators. And it’s totally inconsistent with any claims by company executives and spokespersons that they are committed to cleaning up their act and protecting female employees from abuse, humiliation or worse.”

Multiple sources said Dianne Brandi, Fox News’ former executive vice president of legal and business affairs, who took a leave of absence in October 2017 amid news reports detailing her intimate involvement in company payments to the female victims of Fox News founder Ailes and star anchor Bill O’Reilly, has quietly returned to the channel as an influential consultant to Lily Fu Claffee, who became Fox News’ general counsel in 2018.

A current Fox News employee—who, like others who spoke to The Daily Beast, asked not to be further identified for fear of retaliation—placed blame on Porter Berry, a former longtime Hannity producer who is Fox News Digital’s editor-in-chief, and Berry’s second-in-command Stefanie Wheeler Choi, a former communications director for hard-right Tennessee politician Marsha Blackburn, for much of the carnage that has concentrated on straight-news reporters and photojournalists. Berry and Choi had a large hand in recommending who would be laid off, this current Fox News staffer said.

Meanwhile, Brain Room staffers were let go, this person said, “because they help fuel journalism and fact-based reporting and Porter and Stefanie are not interested in facts. They are obsessed with pitching ‘on-brand’ stories that include Blue Lives Matter, anything antifa-related, anyone who has suffered during BLM protests that can put the protestors in a negative light, anything that threatens Christianity, and anyone who is a Trump supporter who has somehow been wronged.”

The Daily Beast sent Fox News a detailed list of questions raised in this story and the company declined to provide an on-the-record comment.

A second Fox News employee said it’s widely known among staffers at the channel that top executives have “long been unsupportive of real, unbiased reporting. They do not see themselves as a real news operation in the sense that people are doing original work, trying to break stories and get to the bottom of things, wherever the chips fall. They are first and foremost a collector of other outlets’ reports and rewriting, and writing stories about what guests say on their most highly rated shows.”

Fox News, the profitable cash cow of Murdoch’s Fox Corp. empire, reported $12.3 billion in revenue for the year ending June 30 and is widely perceived as allowing Rupert Murdoch to prop up his massively money-losing newspaper holdings in the United States, Great Britain, and Australia.

According to multiple Fox News insiders, the most recent cuts were ordered by Joe Dorrego, a former Fox Corp. executive who is both Fox News’s new chief financial officer and chief operating officer. In what is bound to be a bitter irony for laid-off Fox News employees, Dorrego claimed in a staff meeting this past Thursday, according to an insider, that the channel has so far experienced record revenue and profits in 2020.

Meanwhile, multiple sources said the channel’s nominal CEO, Suzanne Scott—promoted by Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch as the first woman to hold the job, two years after they forced Ailes out amid anchor Gretchen Carlson’s July 2016 sexual discrimination and harassment lawsuit, along with other sexual abuse allegations—is little more than a figurehead. (In Scott’s defense, the company recently issued a press release in which she announced that Fox News Media had received the “honor” of being designated a “a 2020 Great Place to Work-Certified™ Company,” based on the opinions, according to the release, of “nearly eight out of 10 employees.”)

Likewise, Fox News President Jay Wallace also has suffered a reduction in power since his 2018 promotion, sources said, because, among other reasons, Fox News has increasingly become an operation in which Carlson, Hannity, and Ingraham—the star anchors— run their own fiefdoms, unaccountable to anyone except the Murdochs.

It’s a situation the obsessively hands-on Ailes, who died of a brain hemorrhage in May 2017 after a fall in his Palm Beach mansion, would never have permitted.

“For all the complications surrounding Roger, he truly did want the channel to project a legitimate news side as well as a robust opinion lineup,” said a well-placed Fox News veteran. “As time passed and the strong hand of Ailes has faded, the opinion team appears to have won the internal battle.”

Indeed, the virtual lobotomy of the Brain Room, a current employee said, came about largely because “the Brain Room, in their research, came up with facts that were not used in Fox reports or were in contradiction to what Fox aired. I have to imagine that kind of tension has always existed there, between the fact-checkers and what is often reported.”

A third Fox News employee said the Brain Room layoffs send the message “that Fox doesn’t care for a unit who truly holds truth to power. The Brain Room is an essential part of the company. They help employees with some of the most important elements of our jobs and are always there for last minute, difficult requests. They hold a lot of knowledge. Fox has acted like state media for a long time. This is just one small element to it.”

Another network staffer expressed a similar sentiment: “As an employee, I have had concerns about how close Fox has become with the White House and the administration. I don’t think I’m the only person there who has these concerns. With these layoffs in multiple news departments coming just a few weeks before the election, it looks like Fox is more like an extension of this administration, instead of a news network.”

During the Trump presidency, the Brain Room has been frequently at odds with Fox News’ on-air content. As The Daily Beast reported this past February, senior Fox News political affairs specialist Bryan S. Murphy produced a 162-page document entitled “Ukraine, Disinformation, & the Trump Administration” that warned colleagues against the falsehoods being dispensed by Fox News contributor John Solomon—a favorite Hannity guest—and other Fox News purveyors of Ukraine-focused disinformation such as Rudy Giuliani, Victoria Toensing, and her husband Joe diGenova.

Murphy, however, was not among those laid off.

Among other straight-news victims of the cuts were the former head of the Fox News assignment desk, John Stack, a 21-year veteran, and Martin Hinton, the executive producer of the Fox News investigative unit, who happens to be the son of longtime Murdoch confidant Les Hinton, Rupert’s top newspaper division exec who was forced to resign in 2011 during the British phone-hacking scandal.

The Fox News severance agreement, parts of which were obtained by The Daily Beast, is breathtakingly comprehensive, releasing the cable channel from “any and all claims (e.g., for discrimination, harassment, or retaliation) related to actual or perceived race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, age, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, family status, caregiver status, sex (including pregnancy status, childbirth, breastfeeding, and related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, sexual and reproductive health choices, hair texture or hairstyles, military or veteran status, political affiliation, arrest or conviction record, union membership, unemployment status, credit history, status as a victim of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual offenses, or any other legally protected characteristic, or for having engaged in any protected activity under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Equal Pay Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Fair Pay Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York City Administrative Code, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and any applicable state mini-WARN Act, or any other law, regulation or ordinance that may have arisen before the effective date of this Agreement, including but not limited to those arising from your employment and separation from the Company.”

A current staffer told The Daily Beast: “The items that the employees will not be able to sue for sound like a tip o’ the hat of who has called Fox out in the past. For example it lists ‘hair or hair texture’ as a reason that you cannot sue the company. I believe a Black makeup artist sued Fox in the past on this.”

The staffer added that laid-off employees who take severance are prohibited from suing for “reproductive-related reasons,” and then pretty much any other reason listed in the New York human rights law.

“Then,” the staffer continued, “if you sign this form you are required to speak to a lawyer or be a witness without a subpoena. So let’s say an employee is suing the company for being discriminatory against gay people and one of those employees who signed this agreement heard firsthand that employee who was suing being discriminated against by a boss at Fox. The employee who signed this NDA would be able to speak to Fox’s lawyers without a subpoena, meaning Fox’s lawyers would not have to alert the person’s lawyers who is suing for discrimination about the questioning. Then, let’s say the person who signed the NDA was questioned and corroborated the discrimination. Fox’s lawyers could bury the evidence."

A longtime Fox News staffer who was let go earlier this month said terminated employees feel forced to sign the agreement “to get their severance, and for me, I have to take care of my family. I just want my money and leave... We all served a purpose but it seems they don’t want to do any original content anymore, just TV straight to the web. Like state TV in North Korea.”

Two decades after Ailes launched Fox News in 1996, he coined the slogan “We Report, You Decide.” A dozen years later, several current and former employees suggested, the cable channel’s new mantra might as well be “We’ve Decided, You Agree.”

 

That is very disheartening to read.

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

That is very disheartening to read.

They are trying to out-crazy OAN and vie for Trump's attention in a post-Trump presidency is the best guess I have.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

It was just the saddest thing. I like facts even when I don't like them, if that makes sense. A generation or more of journalists trained in investigative mostly objective reporting is disappearing to be replaced by the embedded propaganda media types and with it goes one of the best things about America. Even the large corporate news agencies try and get it mostly right even if they betray who controls their strings sometimes.

[Bookman 4603]

How is Fox News spinning this Trump tax return thing? They only have a few options:

1. The returns are fake news and Trump actually paid a lot in taxes.

2. Trump isn't paying a lot in taxes because he's a failed businessman.

3. Trump is lying on his tax returns.

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

On September 26, 2020 at 10:53 AM, NWBuck said:

You mean like the Roman centurions and Jewish Temple guards that were a part of Christ's crucifixion? That law enforcement? 

Just doing God's will. How else was Jesus supposed to die for our sins?

[Tom 2959]

1 hour ago, Bookman said:

How is Fox News spinning this Trump tax return thing? They only have a few options:

1. The returns are fake news and Trump actually paid a lot in taxes.

2. Trump isn't paying a lot in taxes because he's a failed businessman.

3. Trump is lying on his tax returns.

 

In summary, the following is being repeated all day on every opinion show and with every guest:

"IF the New York Times' reporting is correct, and that's a BIG if, who cares?  Why should he pay more in taxes than he legally has to?  Don't forget he lowered your taxes for you!"

 

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

1 hour ago, Bookman said:

How is Fox News spinning this Trump tax return thing? They only have a few options:

1. The returns are fake news and Trump actually paid a lot in taxes.

2. Trump isn't paying a lot in taxes because he's a failed businessman.

3. Trump is lying on his tax returns.

I haven't checked in but I'd be kind of surprised if they were reporting on it much at all. 

[atomheartbevo 89304]

2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

They are trying to out-crazy OAN and vie for Trump's attention in a post-Trump presidency is the best guess I have.

Yeah, this sounds like they are planning on going back to being the network whose side is out-of-power, which will probably be more lucrative than having their guy in power.

[Neonmoon 38127]

Fox News letting Guiliani spread baseless lies 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13388]

17 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Fox News letting Guiliani spread baseless lies 

 

Rudy is doing a great job in demonstrating dementia.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5102]

On 9/24/2020 at 9:28 AM, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Fox beats Karen McDougal on defamation. Good excerpt from the Opinion raises an interesting question. 

 

In light of this precedent and the context of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” the Court finds that Mr. Carlson’s invocation of “extortion” against Ms. McDougal is nonactionable hyperbole, intended to frame the debate in the guest commentator segment that followed Mr. Carlson’s soliloquy. As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to “challenge[] political correctness and media bias.” Def. Br. at 14. This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in
“exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20-21; Levinsky’s, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122, 128 (1st Cir. 1997)). Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes. 600 W. 115th Corp. v. Von Gutfeld, 80 N.Y.2d 130, 141, 603 N.E.2d 930, 936 (1992). Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as “exaggeration,” “non-literal commentary,” or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable.

 

How do the reasonable viewer standard work when all your viewers are sub-reasonable?

 

Whole order here. 

 

Wait,  Fox actually argues that Carlson can't be trusted to tell the truth and that any reasonable person should know that?  Does that mean my entire family is full of unreasonable people since they seem to believe every line of bullshit this guy spews?

[Biff Tannen 45439]

3 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Does that mean my entire family is full of unreasonable people since they seem to believe every line of bullshit this guy spews?

Yes

[burntorangebongos 10681]

 

Haha, Eric is so dumb, he doesn't understand what it means to say he's part of the community. I like George's take on it. 

 

[Red Five 40574]

I would love to see some examples of how the LGBT community comes out in full force every day for Donald Trump.

[DigglerontheHoof 20963]

8 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I would love to see some examples of how the LGBT community comes out in full force every day for Donald Trump.

Mike Pence 

[Queen Bitch 1692]

 

[Jiggy-Z 3427]

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Mike Pence 

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Mike Pence 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5102]

1 hour ago, Queen Bitch said:

 

He's just providing the talking points, and wants to make sure you are covered in your owning the libs regardless of which way the debate goes.  Biden beat the shit out of Trump?  Obviously he memorized the answers.  Trump beat the shit out of Biden? Obviously he doesn't have the mental acuity to be President.  They win either way.  And the people who will repeat these talking points will not see them as contradictory.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6531]

2 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

He's just providing the talking points, and wants to make sure you are covered in your owning the libs regardless of which way the debate goes.  Biden beat the shit out of Trump?  Obviously he memorized the answers.  Trump beat the shit out of Biden? Obviously he doesn't have the mental acuity to be President.  They win either way.  And the people who will repeat these talking points will not see them as contradictory.

The people who repeat these talking points don't understand half the words in that paragraph you just wrote.

[Gil Bang 25843]

What the fucking fuck?

 

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano forced a man he met at a New Jersey restaurant to engage in a “bizarre sex act" involving father-son role play, a shocking new lawsuit claims.

James Kruzelnick says in a suit filed Monday in New Jersey Superior Court that he met Napolitano while working as a waiter at the Mohawk House restaurant in Sparta. The prominent analyst relentlessly pursued Kruzelnick and groped him in the men’s bathroom, the suit states.

 

 

Kruzelnick claims he wanted to keep the friendship with the Fox News celeb 20 years his senior strictly platonic. But he was also “flattered by the fact that Napolitano, a famous television personality, was interested in spending time with him,” the suit reads.

On Sept. 6, 2015, Kruzelnick visited Napolitano’s home and the Fox News host allegedly revealed his fetish.

 

Napolitano entered the living room with his pants down and declared, “I am really into certain things” and “I want you to do something for me,” the suit reads.

[More New York] Manhattan DA Cy Vance will hold off on demand for President Trump’s taxes »

“Napolitano walked up to Plaintiff’s chair, and suddenly threw himself onto Plaintiff’s lap. Napolitano then told Plaintiff that ‘I want you to start slapping me really hard,' " the suit reads. “Before Plaintiff could say anything in response, defendant Andrew Napolitano then demanded that James Kruzelnick spank his exposed buttocks while Napolitano masturbated on his lap.”

 

Kruzelnick said he wasn’t into the “sex game” but Napolitano insisted, according to the suit.

"Just f-----g do it!” Napolitano allegedly said.

[More New York] Operation Corrupt Collector targets aggressive, crooked debt collection companies, with seniors their biggest target »

“Napolitano then demanded that James Kruzelnick call him ‘son’ while Plaintiff played the role of ‘daddy,’ and spanked Napolitano,” the suit reads.

Kruzelnick seeks $15 million in damages from Napolitano.

Kruzelnick is the second man to recently accuse Napolitano of sexual abuse. A South Carolina man, Charles Corbishley, sued earlier this month, alleging Napolitano sexually abused him while presiding over his arson case in the 1980s. Napolitano stepped down from the Bergen County, N.J., bench in 1995 and became a legal analyst.

[More New York] NYC voters report getting faulty absentee ballots in the mail with wrong names, addresses »

Both men are represented by the law firm Joseph & Norinsberg.

“These allegations are total fiction, and Judge Napolitano unequivocally denies them," Napolitano’s attorney Tom Clare said. “This copycat lawsuit, filed and promoted publicly by the same lawyers representing career criminal Charles Corbishley, is nothing more than a pile-on attempt to smear Judge Napolitano for their own financial gain. We will defeat these false allegations in court and look forward to exposing this continuing attempt to abuse our court system to smear a highly respected former public servant.”

Napolitano sought to keep Kruzelnick in his orbit by promising to use his influence to help the waiter resolve legal problems, according to the lawsuit. Kruzelnick says he faced discrimination at the restaurant because of his sexual orientation. His brother also faced serious criminal charges. Napolitano allegedly said he could help with both.

[More New York] ‘I saw him alive last night. I saw him dead this morning’: Homeless man stabbed to death on Manhattan street corner »

“I have fixed cases, and I have gotten people off. I have sent people away," papers allege Napolitano said.

Between the spring of 2016 through the summer of 2017, Napolitano “continued to exert severe psychological domination and control” over Kruzelnick, the suit reads. One night, Kruzelnick and a Fox News intern went to Napolitano’s house, papers claim.

Kruzelnick “was given a drink and within 10 to 15 minutes of consuming the beverage, Plaintiff felt extremely woozy as if he had been drugged. He woke up hours later in Napolitano’s bed, with blurred memories of engaging in a sexual threesome with Napolitano and the Fox News intern,” the suit reads.

Breaking News Newsletter

As it happens

---

Get updates on the coronavirus pandemic and other news as it happens with our free breaking news email alerts.

 

During their last encounter on Aug. 6, 2017, Napolitano tried to rape Kruzelnick, traumatizing him, according to the lawsuit.

The suit seeks damages for sexual abuse, assault and battery and other claims.

The prominent analyst was once reportedly close to President Trump. Politico reported in 2017 that Napolitano told friends Trump was considering nominating him to the Supreme Court.

More recently, Napolitano has been on the receiving end of Trump’s ire for daring to criticize the president on his favorite network.

[More New York] ‘She used to love giving people hugs’: Family mourns 7-year-old girl fatally struck by armored truck in Brooklyn »

Fox News did not immediately respond to the new allegations.

“Judge Napolitano has assured us in the strongest possible terms that these allegations are false and he will fight them aggressively in court,” Fox News said in a statement earlier this month.

[miguelito 11169]

I scrolled a long way down the Fox News app, and the ONLY mention of Trump's taxes was that some Repub congressman wants an investigation into the illegal leaking of those documents.

[Gil Bang 25843]

sorry for formatting.  Here's the link

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-fox-news-napolitano-bizarre-sex-act-assault-suit-20200928-toelftxj7fbrfl654ujcqngfuy-story.html

[Brisketexan 104226]

What the fucking fuck?
 

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano forced a man he met at a New Jersey restaurant to engage in a “bizarre sex act" involving father-son role play, a shocking new lawsuit claims.

James Kruzelnick says in a suit filed Monday in New Jersey Superior Court that he met Napolitano while working as a waiter at the Mohawk House restaurant in Sparta. The prominent analyst relentlessly pursued Kruzelnick and groped him in the men’s bathroom, the suit states.

 

 

Kruzelnick claims he wanted to keep the friendship with the Fox News celeb 20 years his senior strictly platonic. But he was also “flattered by the fact that Napolitano, a famous television personality, was interested in spending time with him,” the suit reads.

On Sept. 6, 2015, Kruzelnick visited Napolitano’s home and the Fox News host allegedly revealed his fetish.

 

Napolitano entered the living room with his pants down and declared, “I am really into certain things” and “I want you to do something for me,” the suit reads.

[More New York] Manhattan DA Cy Vance will hold off on demand for President Trump’s taxes »

“Napolitano walked up to Plaintiff’s chair, and suddenly threw himself onto Plaintiff’s lap. Napolitano then told Plaintiff that ‘I want you to start slapping me really hard,' " the suit reads. “Before Plaintiff could say anything in response, defendant Andrew Napolitano then demanded that James Kruzelnick spank his exposed buttocks while Napolitano masturbated on his lap.”

 

Kruzelnick said he wasn’t into the “sex game” but Napolitano insisted, according to the suit.

"Just f-----g do it!” Napolitano allegedly said.

[More New York] Operation Corrupt Collector targets aggressive, crooked debt collection companies, with seniors their biggest target »

“Napolitano then demanded that James Kruzelnick call him ‘son’ while Plaintiff played the role of ‘daddy,’ and spanked Napolitano,” the suit reads.

Kruzelnick seeks $15 million in damages from Napolitano.

Kruzelnick is the second man to recently accuse Napolitano of sexual abuse. A South Carolina man, Charles Corbishley, sued earlier this month, alleging Napolitano sexually abused him while presiding over his arson case in the 1980s. Napolitano stepped down from the Bergen County, N.J., bench in 1995 and became a legal analyst.

[More New York] NYC voters report getting faulty absentee ballots in the mail with wrong names, addresses »

Both men are represented by the law firm Joseph & Norinsberg.

“These allegations are total fiction, and Judge Napolitano unequivocally denies them," Napolitano’s attorney Tom Clare said. “This copycat lawsuit, filed and promoted publicly by the same lawyers representing career criminal Charles Corbishley, is nothing more than a pile-on attempt to smear Judge Napolitano for their own financial gain. We will defeat these false allegations in court and look forward to exposing this continuing attempt to abuse our court system to smear a highly respected former public servant.”

Napolitano sought to keep Kruzelnick in his orbit by promising to use his influence to help the waiter resolve legal problems, according to the lawsuit. Kruzelnick says he faced discrimination at the restaurant because of his sexual orientation. His brother also faced serious criminal charges. Napolitano allegedly said he could help with both.

[More New York] ‘I saw him alive last night. I saw him dead this morning’: Homeless man stabbed to death on Manhattan street corner »

“I have fixed cases, and I have gotten people off. I have sent people away," papers allege Napolitano said.

Between the spring of 2016 through the summer of 2017, Napolitano “continued to exert severe psychological domination and control” over Kruzelnick, the suit reads. One night, Kruzelnick and a Fox News intern went to Napolitano’s house, papers claim.

Kruzelnick “was given a drink and within 10 to 15 minutes of consuming the beverage, Plaintiff felt extremely woozy as if he had been drugged. He woke up hours later in Napolitano’s bed, with blurred memories of engaging in a sexual threesome with Napolitano and the Fox News intern,” the suit reads.

Breaking News Newsletter

As it happens

---

Get updates on the coronavirus pandemic and other news as it happens with our free breaking news email alerts.  

During their last encounter on Aug. 6, 2017, Napolitano tried to rape Kruzelnick, traumatizing him, according to the lawsuit.

The suit seeks damages for sexual abuse, assault and battery and other claims.

The prominent analyst was once reportedly close to President Trump. Politico reported in 2017 that Napolitano told friends Trump was considering nominating him to the Supreme Court.

More recently, Napolitano has been on the receiving end of Trump’s ire for daring to criticize the president on his favorite network.

[More New York] ‘She used to love giving people hugs’: Family mourns 7-year-old girl fatally struck by armored truck in Brooklyn »

Fox News did not immediately respond to the new allegations.

“Judge Napolitano has assured us in the strongest possible terms that these allegations are false and he will fight them aggressively in court,” Fox News said in a statement earlier this month.

Not that I’m doubting whether he’s a creep....but I’m saying that I look askance at this sort of lawsuit. Looks like an icky consensual relationship, and then he’s arguing that there was some non-consensual shit.

Those cases are always fishy to me.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5102]

Yeah I read that as this guy is into it, then one day he figures out he can make a payday from not being into it anymore.  I believe the things he claims happen happened, I just don't believe his participation was as coerced as he now claims it was.  Also believe if that Fox New intern came forward, he'd corroborate that there wasn't any wooziness at all going on in that threesome.  

[Brisketexan 104226]

18 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Yeah I read that as this guy is into it, then one day he figures out he can make a payday from not being into it anymore.  I believe the things he claims happen happened, I just don't believe his participation was as coerced as he now claims it was.  Also believe if that Fox New intern came forward, he'd corroborate that there wasn't any wooziness at all going on in that threesome.  

This.  I didn't have time to write a more detailed comment before, but this. 

ANY time a claim/suit involves the fact that there was a long-term consensual relationship, but ends in "but towards the end, he forced me to do some stuff I didn't want to do," my bullshit detector goes off, loudly.  I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm not saying that I don't believe victims....I'm saying that when it's entirely one person's word against another, and the purported victim has a long history of doing kinky stuff with the alleged perpetrator, and is now seeking a kajillion dollar payday.....it's really hard for me to buy it.

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

6 hours ago, Red Five said:

I would love to see some examples of how the LGBT community comes out in full force every day for Donald Trump.

He's referring to the Lawless Grifting Backstabbing Trumper community. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13388]

4 hours ago, miguelito said:

I scrolled a long way down the Fox News app, and the ONLY mention of Trump's taxes was that some Repub congressman wants an investigation into the illegal leaking of those documents.

They definitely had it on their page the other day when it was announced but it was spun like it was no big deal and that Trump will clear it all up once his audits are over.  next story.

[Gatorubet 30023]

This.  I didn't have time to write a more detailed comment before, but this. 
ANY time a claim/suit involves the fact that there was a long-term consensual relationship, but ends in "but towards the end, he forced me to do some stuff I didn't want to do," my bullshit detector goes off, loudly.  I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm not saying that I don't believe victims....I'm saying that when it's entirely one person's word against another, and the purported victim has a long history of doing kinky stuff with the alleged perpetrator, and is now seeking a kajillion dollar payday.....it's really hard for me to buy it.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11773]

19 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

He's referring to the Lawless Grifting Backstabbing Trumper Qanon community. 

Let’s go all out.