Fox News

hobie1616

Super Anarchist
7,302
3,483
West Maui
Schreier agreed, noting that Bartiromo was “say[ing] crazy s—t” online.

Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo is front and center in Dominion’s defamation suit

How do you solve a problem like Maria Bartiromo?

Fox News executives may be asking themselves that question as she emerges as a central figure in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6-billion defamation suit against the conservative news network.

In released court documents and deposition testimony connected to the case, Bartiromo is cited throughout for allowing former President Trump’s false claims about 2020 election fraud to air on the network in an effort to stop angry viewers from abandoning the network.

Falsehoods such as the claim that the Denver-based voting machine maker was founded in Venezuela to aid Hugo Chávez and that its software manipulated votes to favor President Biden went unchallenged on the network in the weeks after the election, despite evidence to the contrary.

Court testimony shows that in the days leading up to and following the 2020 election, colleagues and executives raised questions about Bartiromo’s online activity and expressed concerns that she was influenced by right-wing conspiracy theorists.

Bartiromo’s texts, which showed up in court filings released Tuesday, said she was “depressed” over the results of the election won by President Biden and hoped to see fraud uncovered that would reverse the outcome.

“I want to see massive fraud exposed. Will (Trump) be able to turn this around. I told my team we’re not allowed to say pres elect. Not in scripts. Not in banners on air. Until this moves through the courts,” Bartiromo said in a text to disgraced Trump advisor Steve Bannon, who was convicted in July of contempt charges for defying a congressional subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

“U are our fighter. Enough with the sad. We need you,” replied Bannon, who then urged Bartiromo to run for the U.S. Senate seat held by Charles E. Schumer of New York.

On Nov. 5, 2020, two days after the election, Washington anchor Bret Baier warned Jay Wallace, who oversees news-gathering at Fox News, that Bartiromo had been pushing false claims about the election.

Gary Schreier, a producer who has worked with Bartiromo since 2012, told his bosses that Bartiromo was influenced by Trump’s most extreme supporters.

“The problem is she has (GOP) conspiracy theorists in her ear and they use her for their message sometimes,” Schreier said in a text to Lauren Petterson, who oversees Fox Business Network.

That same day, Wallace was told that Bartiromo was sharing conspiracy theories about Dominion on the right-wing social media site Parler, to which he responded, “I don’t know why she invites this.”

When Schreier flagged a Bartiromo tweet espousing conspiracy theories for Petterson, she suggested Bartiromo should “get off social [media] all together.” Schreier agreed, noting that Bartiromo was “say[ing] crazy s—t” online.

In his deposition, Schreier said his comments were made out of a concern that Bartiromo was straying too far from financial news and that coverage of divisive political issues would scare away advertisers from her program.

Dominion is asserting that Fox News acted with malice by recklessly disregarding the truth when it presented the allegations against the company, stoking the emotions that led to Trump supporters storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Fox News maintains that its reporting and commentary was protected by the 1st Amendment because allegations presented by a sitting president are newsworthy, even if false.

Bartiromo is one of four Fox News and Fox Business Network personalities cited in the suit along with Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs, who is no longer part of the company. Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch admitted under oath that they all promoted false claims about the 2020 election, which he believed was fair.

But the difference with Bartiromo is she identifies as a news anchor, as she indicated in her testimony.

Hannity, Dobbs and Pirro are considered opinion hosts, and executives at Fox News testified that they are not held to the same journalistic standards as straight news programs.

Schreier said opinion programs on Fox News have no obligation to correct falsehoods stated on their programs. Another Fox News executive, David Clark, told the court that Hannity — the network’s longest-running prime-time star — is not a credible source of news.

Bartiromo, 55, arrived at Fox News with a stellar background as a tireless financial journalist forged over 20 years at CNBC. She was a respected pioneer, being the first person to report from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. She joined Fox News in 2013 for an annual salary of $5 million.

Bartiromo is on the air for 15 ½ hours a week on Fox Business Network as host of “Mornings with Maria,” and has the highest-rated Sunday morning program on Fox News with “Sunday Morning Futures.”




The anchor mostly talked to chief executive officers on her business programs, but became more political after moving to Fox News. Her conservative views became more apparent, and she is said to be beloved by Murdoch.

Bartiromo did not respond to a request for comment.

Before a court hearing Tuesday, Fox News lawyers presented new emails aimed at demonstrating that Bartiromo did not act with malice because she did not know whether allegations made by lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani on Fox News were true or false and that she had doubts about the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

Court documents presented by Fox News included comments made in an December 2020 email by Nicole Beckman, then an associate at Dominion’s public relations firm, Hamilton Place Strategies. Beckman said Bartiromo “hasn’t made any statements that seem to have a strong case for defamation because she is always careful about either quoting other people (‘a report issued says...’) or not mentioning Dominion specifically. She leaves it up to her guests to make defamatory claims.”

Bartiromo testified that no one in management did anything to stop her or force her to correct the record. While Bartiromo devoted time to the story, top executives, reporters and even Fox News stars such as Tucker Carlson and Dana Perino were saying privately that Trump’s claims were bogus and questioned the sanity of Powell and Giuliani.

Carlson — the most popular and outspoken carrier of the conservative torch at Fox News — was particularly eager to move on from Trump, saying in one text, “I hate him passionately.”

Much of the deposition testimony related to Bartiromo focuses on the appearances by Powell and Giuliani. The duo were given a platform in front of the “Sunday Morning Futures” audience of nearly 2 million viewers a week, where they amplified Trump’s false election claims.

Bartiromo herself made misstatements, such as repeating inaccurate claims that Dominion was owned by voting software company Smartmatic, which is also suing Fox News and other conservative networks for defamation.

In her deposition, Bartiromo maintained that she still does not know whether the many charges made against Dominion on her show were true or false.

She said she repeatedly asked Powell and Giuliani when they would provide evidence to back up their claims and stopped having them on after they came up empty.

But several Fox News executives in their testimony concurred with Dominion’s assertions that Bartiromo did not challenge any of Powell’s false statements when she appeared on “Sunday Morning Futures.” Bartiromo also admitted that she never presented any evidence to counter Powell’s claims, even though she was provided with correct information provided by Dominion and other Fox News journalists.



Abby Grossberg, Bartiromo’s senior booking producer at the time, was asked in court if she believed “Sunday Morning Futures” had an obligation to correct false information presented by its guests. Her answer was “no,” a surprising admission, as Sunday morning political shows are traditionally where viewers expect to see government officials held accountable.

Bartiromo also testified that she did not feel she needed to independently investigate claims by her guests before bringing them on.




While correcting guests in real time can be challenging, Dominion argued that Fox News could have edited out misinformation for repeat broadcasts. But the programs repeated unchanged.

On Tuesday, Fox News attorneys attempted to mitigate the evidence against the network and Bartiromo by submitting to the court emails between the anchor and Tony Fratto, another Hamilton Place Strategies executive and a former spokesperson for the George W. Bush administration.

Fratto, who had a cordial relationship with Bartiromo, sent a message after her interview with Giuliani.

“What Rudy is saying is verifiably false, and the same for Sidney Powell — it’s tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff,” Fratto said. “And I think they need strong pushback with facts. I’m not saying you should ignore the story, but Rudy is literally making things up as he goes.”

An email reply from Bartiromo asked, “Are you saying I should not cover a sitting president contesting a presidential election? Should I just blow it off & go with the rest of the media . . . ?”

“I’m not saying you should ignore the story . . .,” Fratto said.

Bartiromo offered to have the Dominion chief executive on her show and read a lengthy statement from the company on her Nov. 20, 2020, show.

Fratto’s deposition testimony said his attempt to get Bartiromo to stop booking Giuliani and Powell had no impact.

He later wrote to Wallace, hoping to shame the network by comparing it to its upstart competitor Newsmax.

A court brief from Fox News said having some people in the organization who dismissed Trump’s claims did not mean those who did believe them acted with malice by presenting them.

“It is hardly unusual that some people in a newsroom (with the diverse political viewpoints one would expect) will disbelieve the allegations and hope that they ultimately prove false, while others will keep an open mind in hopes that they prove true.”
 

hobie1616

Super Anarchist
7,302
3,483
West Maui
Denial is not a river...

Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch dismisses $1.6 billion defamation case revelations as ‘noise’

Fox Corporation CEO Lachlan Murdoch on Thursday dismissed the revelations from Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News as “noise,” throwing his support behind the right-wing talk channel in his first comments since the case enveloped the company in major scandal.

“I think a lot of the noise that you hear about this case, is actually not about the law and it’s not about journalism,” Murdoch told the audience at Morgan Stanley’s annual Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference.

“It’s really about the politics,” Murdoch continued. “Unfortunately, that is more reflective of our polarized society that we live in today.”

Murdoch indicated that the case will go to trial in April. He portrayed Fox News as having reported on the 2020 election “fulsomely” and “without fear or favor.”
 

Peter Andersen

Super Anarchist
1,416
336
Schreier agreed, noting that Bartiromo was “say[ing] crazy s—t” online.

Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo is front and center in Dominion’s defamation suit

How do you solve a problem like Maria Bartiromo?

Fox News executives may be asking themselves that question as she emerges as a central figure in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6-billion defamation suit against the conservative news network.

In released court documents and deposition testimony connected to the case, Bartiromo is cited throughout for allowing former President Trump’s false claims about 2020 election fraud to air on the network in an effort to stop angry viewers from abandoning the network.

Falsehoods such as the claim that the Denver-based voting machine maker was founded in Venezuela to aid Hugo Chávez and that its software manipulated votes to favor President Biden went unchallenged on the network in the weeks after the election, despite evidence to the contrary.

Court testimony shows that in the days leading up to and following the 2020 election, colleagues and executives raised questions about Bartiromo’s online activity and expressed concerns that she was influenced by right-wing conspiracy theorists.

Bartiromo’s texts, which showed up in court filings released Tuesday, said she was “depressed” over the results of the election won by President Biden and hoped to see fraud uncovered that would reverse the outcome.

“I want to see massive fraud exposed. Will (Trump) be able to turn this around. I told my team we’re not allowed to say pres elect. Not in scripts. Not in banners on air. Until this moves through the courts,” Bartiromo said in a text to disgraced Trump advisor Steve Bannon, who was convicted in July of contempt charges for defying a congressional subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

“U are our fighter. Enough with the sad. We need you,” replied Bannon, who then urged Bartiromo to run for the U.S. Senate seat held by Charles E. Schumer of New York.

On Nov. 5, 2020, two days after the election, Washington anchor Bret Baier warned Jay Wallace, who oversees news-gathering at Fox News, that Bartiromo had been pushing false claims about the election.

Gary Schreier, a producer who has worked with Bartiromo since 2012, told his bosses that Bartiromo was influenced by Trump’s most extreme supporters.

“The problem is she has (GOP) conspiracy theorists in her ear and they use her for their message sometimes,” Schreier said in a text to Lauren Petterson, who oversees Fox Business Network.

That same day, Wallace was told that Bartiromo was sharing conspiracy theories about Dominion on the right-wing social media site Parler, to which he responded, “I don’t know why she invites this.”

When Schreier flagged a Bartiromo tweet espousing conspiracy theories for Petterson, she suggested Bartiromo should “get off social [media] all together.” Schreier agreed, noting that Bartiromo was “say[ing] crazy s—t” online.

In his deposition, Schreier said his comments were made out of a concern that Bartiromo was straying too far from financial news and that coverage of divisive political issues would scare away advertisers from her program.

Dominion is asserting that Fox News acted with malice by recklessly disregarding the truth when it presented the allegations against the company, stoking the emotions that led to Trump supporters storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Fox News maintains that its reporting and commentary was protected by the 1st Amendment because allegations presented by a sitting president are newsworthy, even if false.

Bartiromo is one of four Fox News and Fox Business Network personalities cited in the suit along with Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs, who is no longer part of the company. Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch admitted under oath that they all promoted false claims about the 2020 election, which he believed was fair.

But the difference with Bartiromo is she identifies as a news anchor, as she indicated in her testimony.

Hannity, Dobbs and Pirro are considered opinion hosts, and executives at Fox News testified that they are not held to the same journalistic standards as straight news programs.

Schreier said opinion programs on Fox News have no obligation to correct falsehoods stated on their programs. Another Fox News executive, David Clark, told the court that Hannity — the network’s longest-running prime-time star — is not a credible source of news.

Bartiromo, 55, arrived at Fox News with a stellar background as a tireless financial journalist forged over 20 years at CNBC. She was a respected pioneer, being the first person to report from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. She joined Fox News in 2013 for an annual salary of $5 million.

Bartiromo is on the air for 15 ½ hours a week on Fox Business Network as host of “Mornings with Maria,” and has the highest-rated Sunday morning program on Fox News with “Sunday Morning Futures.”




The anchor mostly talked to chief executive officers on her business programs, but became more political after moving to Fox News. Her conservative views became more apparent, and she is said to be beloved by Murdoch.

Bartiromo did not respond to a request for comment.

Before a court hearing Tuesday, Fox News lawyers presented new emails aimed at demonstrating that Bartiromo did not act with malice because she did not know whether allegations made by lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani on Fox News were true or false and that she had doubts about the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

Court documents presented by Fox News included comments made in an December 2020 email by Nicole Beckman, then an associate at Dominion’s public relations firm, Hamilton Place Strategies. Beckman said Bartiromo “hasn’t made any statements that seem to have a strong case for defamation because she is always careful about either quoting other people (‘a report issued says...’) or not mentioning Dominion specifically. She leaves it up to her guests to make defamatory claims.”

Bartiromo testified that no one in management did anything to stop her or force her to correct the record. While Bartiromo devoted time to the story, top executives, reporters and even Fox News stars such as Tucker Carlson and Dana Perino were saying privately that Trump’s claims were bogus and questioned the sanity of Powell and Giuliani.

Carlson — the most popular and outspoken carrier of the conservative torch at Fox News — was particularly eager to move on from Trump, saying in one text, “I hate him passionately.”

Much of the deposition testimony related to Bartiromo focuses on the appearances by Powell and Giuliani. The duo were given a platform in front of the “Sunday Morning Futures” audience of nearly 2 million viewers a week, where they amplified Trump’s false election claims.

Bartiromo herself made misstatements, such as repeating inaccurate claims that Dominion was owned by voting software company Smartmatic, which is also suing Fox News and other conservative networks for defamation.

In her deposition, Bartiromo maintained that she still does not know whether the many charges made against Dominion on her show were true or false.

She said she repeatedly asked Powell and Giuliani when they would provide evidence to back up their claims and stopped having them on after they came up empty.

But several Fox News executives in their testimony concurred with Dominion’s assertions that Bartiromo did not challenge any of Powell’s false statements when she appeared on “Sunday Morning Futures.” Bartiromo also admitted that she never presented any evidence to counter Powell’s claims, even though she was provided with correct information provided by Dominion and other Fox News journalists.



Abby Grossberg, Bartiromo’s senior booking producer at the time, was asked in court if she believed “Sunday Morning Futures” had an obligation to correct false information presented by its guests. Her answer was “no,” a surprising admission, as Sunday morning political shows are traditionally where viewers expect to see government officials held accountable.

Bartiromo also testified that she did not feel she needed to independently investigate claims by her guests before bringing them on.




While correcting guests in real time can be challenging, Dominion argued that Fox News could have edited out misinformation for repeat broadcasts. But the programs repeated unchanged.

On Tuesday, Fox News attorneys attempted to mitigate the evidence against the network and Bartiromo by submitting to the court emails between the anchor and Tony Fratto, another Hamilton Place Strategies executive and a former spokesperson for the George W. Bush administration.

Fratto, who had a cordial relationship with Bartiromo, sent a message after her interview with Giuliani.

“What Rudy is saying is verifiably false, and the same for Sidney Powell — it’s tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff,” Fratto said. “And I think they need strong pushback with facts. I’m not saying you should ignore the story, but Rudy is literally making things up as he goes.”

An email reply from Bartiromo asked, “Are you saying I should not cover a sitting president contesting a presidential election? Should I just blow it off & go with the rest of the media . . . ?”

“I’m not saying you should ignore the story . . .,” Fratto said.

Bartiromo offered to have the Dominion chief executive on her show and read a lengthy statement from the company on her Nov. 20, 2020, show.

Fratto’s deposition testimony said his attempt to get Bartiromo to stop booking Giuliani and Powell had no impact.

He later wrote to Wallace, hoping to shame the network by comparing it to its upstart competitor Newsmax.

A court brief from Fox News said having some people in the organization who dismissed Trump’s claims did not mean those who did believe them acted with malice by presenting them.

“It is hardly unusual that some people in a newsroom (with the diverse political viewpoints one would expect) will disbelieve the allegations and hope that they ultimately prove false, while others will keep an open mind in hopes that they prove true.”
This woman was a respected financial journalist for years as the article says. Then she went batshit crazy somehow. I think she was hoping for an appointment by Trump. Had a great set of tits at one time, but they went flappy too.
 

Blue Crab

benthivore
18,269
3,608
Outer Banks
https://www.washingtonpost.com/accessibility
Opinion

Fox News may be in a class by itself. That’s not a good thing.

imrs.php

By Jennifer Rubin
Columnist|Follow
March 9, 2023 at 1:06 p.m. ES


The $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News, over allegations that the company’s voting machines were central to the 2020 “stolen” election conspiracy, carries with it the potential for a crippling injury to the right-wing propaganda machine and a blow to its pretense to be a legitimate news organization. But in some respects, the case could also be a legal watershed, with immense consequences for news coverage and First Amendment protection, although not in the way Fox lawyers would have one believe.


Summary judgment​

Before trial, the parties in a civil suit can bring a partial or complete motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that, as a matter of law, there is nothing for the jury to decide. The facts can be so one-sided that there is, in essence, no dispute. In nearly all cases, the motion is typically brought by the defendant, asserting that the plaintiff has not presented sufficient facts to establish liability. In a defamation case, the defendant seeking summary judgment could point out that the supposedly defamatory allegations have the virtue of being true, negating the plaintiff’s case. But in the case involving Fox News, it is the plaintiff, Dominion, bringing the motion — a rare instance in which a litigant argues that there is simply no defense for the alleged defamer’s conduct.


The reason this seldom happens is that in most defamation cases, both sides can present evidence addressing such matters as whether the defendant intended to smear the plaintiff, whether the statements at issue were facts or opinions — and whether the statements were true. Here, however, Dominion’s case appears to be so overwhelming that there is a good chance the judge will rule for the plaintiff before the case even goes to trial.
In particular, Fox News has not disputed that the accusations it made against Dominion were false. (“Because Fox has zero evidence to dispute the falsity of this claim, Fox cannot raise any issue of material fact,” Dominion’s lawyers argue in their motion. “Fox already admitted that it is ‘not planning to assert the truth or falsity’ of the assertion that Dominion rigged the election at trial and does not ‘have evidence to prove’ its truth.”)

If Dominion wins its motion on this point, the judge would tell the jury that allegations aired by Fox News about rigged voting machines were false. The only issues would be whether Fox News acted maliciously. But even that might not go to the jury.


Quoting from Fox News employees’ depositions, Dominion’s lawyers begin their brief: “Fox knew. From the top down, Fox knew ‘the dominion stuff’ was ‘total BS.’ ... Yet despite knowing the truth — or at minimum, recklessly disregarding that truth — Fox spread and endorsed these ‘outlandish voter fraud claims’ about Dominion even as it internally recognized the lies as ‘crazy,’ ‘absurd,’ and ‘shockingly reckless.’”

I have never seen the issue of malice resolved for the plaintiff as a matter of law. But Dominion has mounds of evidence from depositions and documents implicating hosts, their producers and others, all the way up the chain of command to Fox Chairman Rupert Murdoch. As Dominion’s lawyers put it, “This case differs from nearly any defamation case before it. Normally plaintiffs prove defendants’ actual malice — whether they knew it was false or ‘in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement’ — ‘by inference, as it would be rare for a defendant to admit such doubts.’ ... Here, however, overwhelming direct evidence establishes Fox’s knowledge of falsity, not just ‘doubts.’”
In ordinary litigation, you virtually never have proof of news organization employees admitting to each other that they were spreading lies. Except in this case. If the judge goes for Dominion on the question of malice, that would put Fox News, appropriately, in a different category from virtually all other outlets.
...

Dominion Voting Systems sued Fox News for $1.6 billion on March 26, 2021, for repeated false claims about election fraud made by the network’s hosts and guests. (Video: JM Rieger/The Washington Post)

Damages​

If the judge rules in Dominion’s favor on the entirety of the motion, the jury would only decide damages. Imagine a jury getting instructed: “Fox News deliberately spread falsehoods about the defendant. Now just tell us how much they must pay.” One can imagine that in such a case a jury could be inclined to award steep damages, both compensatory and punitive.


Until now, the assumption has been that Fox News’s deep pockets will protect it against any verdict. That might not be the case; the financial ramifications could be immense.
Moreover, with a finding of actual malice as a matter of law, senior Fox executives and board members might be accused in other litigation of failing to protect the company up from devastating damages and failing to disclose the enormous risk in its securities filings. Fox’s problems may only have just begun.

A blow to critics of mainstream media​

The lawsuit takes place at a time when conservative lawyers and judges, including Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., are vowing to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, which set up the malice standard, a high bar to reach for public figures suing to defend their reputations. Conservative critics argue that the test for malice is just too high, thereby giving media outlets too much latitude to damage individuals. (The argument is constitutionally faulty, since deliberately false speech has never been protected by the First Amendment.)


However, the Dominion lawsuit may affect the right-wing critics in two ways. First, they might finally grasp that right-wing outlets with shoddy or nonexistent journalistic standards are at more risk than their foes in the mainstream media. Bluntly put, do they want to make it easier for lots of people to sue Fox News and its ilk?
Second, the underlying argument that the malice standard makes it too hard to protect injured parties would be blown to smithereens if Fox News, a major media giant, is held liable for millions (or billions) of dollars. A robust judgment against Fox would show that it’s entirely possible to prove malice. In that sense, a verdict against Fox News may dissuade conservative courts from changing the New York Times v. Sullivan standard that protects legitimate news organizations operating in good faith.

That would be an ironic end to the right-wing echo chamber’s war on truth.
533Comments
 

Sail4beer

Starboard!
Dad hit the wrong channel tonight and was powerwatching Fox. What a bunch of liars after Brett ??? Finished his actual news show. Introduced Jessie Waters and that guy went into full bullshit mode. When asked if it was time to change the channel, he said yes, CNN please. He wasn’t paying attention as he was reading with background noise. Fuck Fox, they are still spewing bullshit lies 24/7. Too bad Murdoch can handle losing a $1.6 billion lawsuit. BTW, Lindell is still hiding out in people’s medicine cabinet hawking his mypillow2.0. Hope he can’t afford the chunks of foam to keep up the scam after his lawsuit.
2FAE680E-A1F9-4BC3-94C6-823A424EEF76.jpeg
 

Ishmael

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
61,356
18,596
Fuctifino
Dad hit the wrong channel tonight and was powerwatching Fox. What a bunch of liars after Brett ??? Finished his actual news show. Introduced Jessie Waters and that guy went into full bullshit mode. When asked if it was time to change the channel, he said yes, CNN please. He wasn’t paying attention as he was reading with background noise. Fuck Fox, they are still spewing bullshit lies 24/7. Too bad Murdoch can handle losing a $1.6 billion lawsuit. BTW, Lindell is still hiding out in people’s medicine cabinet hawking his mypillow2.0. Hope he can’t afford the chunks of foam to keep up the scam after his lawsuit. View attachment 579170
There isn't a commercial where the husband goes "Who the fuck are you?" and pops him a good one, is there?
 

hobie1616

Super Anarchist
7,302
3,483
West Maui

Fox Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch apparently doesn't think very highly of former Fox News employee Kimberly Guilfoyle.

In an email shared by Semafor media reporter Max Tani, Murdoch wrote of the conservative media landscape, "Newsmax not good people! Being advised by Don jr's girlfriend Kimberly Strassel who I insisted we fire for inappropriate behavior. Not one of our people will join her. Newsmax desperate for money. Scoured the world, so far without luck."

It's a safe assumption that Murdoch was referring to Kimberly Guilfoyle, not Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel. Strassel is not dating Donald Trump Jr., nor did she leave Fox News after allegedly showing co-workers pictures of male genitalia, among other bad things.

The Murdoch email adds a new wrinkle to the saga of Guilfoyle's departure. The email shows Murdoch "insisted" she be removed, or at the very least, told people that he did. In October 2020, the New Yorker's Jane Meyer reported that Fox News allegedly paid one of Guilfoyle's assistants more than $4 million to avoid having to face a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Guilfoyle, who had been at Fox News since leaving San Francisco in the mid-2000s, left the network in 2018 over allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior. She has vehemently denied any wrongdoing, and in the immediate wake of her departure, her attorneys sent letters to media organizations, including SFGATE, threatening legal action if journalists covered the claims.

Her Fox News tenure was recently discussed by ex-husband California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said she "fell prey" to the culture at the conservative network.

Guilfoyle was long gone from Fox by the time the 2020 election rolled around. She made appearances on Newsmax pushing claims of mass voter fraud, and her role in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 Capitol riots was probed by the House select committee investigating the day's events. That investigation, too, turned up unflattering written communications people sent about Guilfoyle behind her back.
 

spankoka

Super Anarchist
7,886
805
Shediac NB Canada
Rupert Murdoch cannot possibly be in day to day control of News Corp much longer. Interestingly, it seems Wendi Deng and her children's shares in News Corp become voting shares once he dies.
 

kent_island_sailor

Super Anarchist
29,307
7,007
Kent Island!

The former press secretary, after Acosta remarked about a perceived “hand in glove” working relationship between the two parties, said Fox News stars such as Judge Jeanine Pirro, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson would call her at the White House.
“If I didn’t get back to them right away, they would then call the president and then I would get a talking to for not speaking with them,” Grisham said.

She later recalled a town hall event and said she directly talked with Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott who wanted to be “making sure it was full” in the venue.
“We did work hand in hand with them and that came at the president’s direction. If he didn’t like something, we were to immediately call Fox and have them fix it or try to make a new story out of it, etc.”

I think the Soviet era Pravda and Ivestia were the closest thing to this. Fox clearly is not even vaguely connected to reporting and is 100% a propaganda operation for Republicans. Isn't there some campaign finance law violation in here somewhere?
 



Latest posts

SA Podcast

Sailing Anarchy Podcast with Scot Tempesta

Sponsored By:

Top