On the settlement between a media company and a tech company in the USA

The Dominion vs. Fox case in the USA has been (ABC) settled (TG) after a jury was empanelled, but before any court proceedings commenced - thereby keeping Murdoch off (TG) the witness stand. Quite a few commentators have pointed out that this is common in such cases, and that it likely resulted in a better financial outcome for Dominion, and that - amongst the legal community, and as perceived by many people globally - it is considered a win for Dominion (TND). 

It also reflected realistic expectations, and not (TC) what many had hoped for.

However, there was no compulsory on-air apology. In other cases, that probably wouldn't have mattered, but this case is NOT like the others - just as many of the other legal actions against former POTUS45 are not typical or common. 

By the standards that must apply to the exceptional circumstances that led to this case, this was only a partial (TG) victory. 

Democracy is still (Raw Story) at risk (RR). 

And  - the possibility of Fox using this to reduce tax is particularly odious, damning and contemptible (The Lever). 

 

Subsequently Murdoch discontinued (TND) their legal action (TG) against an Australian news outlet - to the surprise of their lawyers, and considerable speculation about what this could mean, an opinion was published that the settlement is a bargaining chip for other litigants (TND), and an excellent deep, legally focused analysis by Teri Kanefield of the case which also raised the importance of voters in a democracy being informed (“educated”, in the wording of the article) and emphasised the limits of what legal cases can do, but also missed, IMO, the need for further, extra-ordinary (i.e., above and beyond what is normally done, because of the unprecedented [not normal] circumstances of the levels of influence being shown) action against media conglomerates - such as a Royal Commission here in Australia and whatever the equivalent is in the USA. 

To further emphasise my views in the preceding paragraph, the following is from an email I recently my MPs:

I do, however, have a few points I wish to place before you for your consideration, which I have listed below:

• democracies rely on voters being well-informed, which is the basis for freedom of speech (Article 19 of the ICCPR);
  
• voters also need to be capable of assessing that information, which is why I support teaching rhetoric, critical thinking, and civic education, and consider we could probably do better on all three - especially for adults who may have not had the opportunity for education on such matters when they were at school (I quite like Brendan  Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”).
  (I have long suspected the best way to successfully introduce such measures is by arguing it will enable children to be resistant to advertising);
  
• I consider the case quite compelling that sections of the media - notably those that are part of the media of concern - are presenting UNREASONABLY biased and/or misleading/deceptive information;
  
• the response to that problematic and unprofessional  behaviour can be short, medium or long term. In reverse order:
  
• long term - by educating voters - at school, and as adults - so that they can see through the wrong, inaccurate, or misleading material being presented to them; 
• medium term - review the performance of our electoral commissions and ensure they can (in the sense of being capable - in terms of resources, training, and safety) and will respond more quickly to , for instance, misleading corflutes etc on the day of elections (their online media has been quite effective - largely because of the humour - IMO), and to intimidation of voters (which will be part of my submission to the enquiry into the last state election - the aggression of some people, including bigots, was of considerable concern);
  
• short term - some sort of action against media who are of concern;
  
• because of the importance of freedom of speech, I consider there is a need to be wary about taking punitive legislative/political action against media, other than actions such as enabling anti-vilification protection for vulnerable people, such as women, Indigenous people, TGD people and other minorities (which action is founded in human rights and law, and thus is nonpartisan);
  
• I still am of the view that a Royal Commission into the influence of media of concern, will have the greatest result by revealing both the wrongdoing of those sections of media, and the need for multiple forms of action - and I consider a Royal Commission would be most likely to come up with sound recommendations as to appropriate actions.
  

In support of  that last point in particular, I crave your indulgence to end with the following quotations:

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

Voltaire

The worst illiterate is the political illiterate. He hears nothing, sees nothing, takes no part in political life.

Bertolt Brecht

I expose slavery in this country, because to expose it is to kill it. Slavery is one of those monsters of darkness to whom the light of truth is death.

Frederick Douglass

Our pen is our spear
Let us have the courage to use it
For resistance is the refusal to yield to silence.

William  Cooper

These points are for your consideration only - I do not expect any reply in response to them, nor anything in reply to this email.

Please feel free to forward this email as you consider appropriate.

 

 

Abbreviations:   Australian Broadcasting Corporation - ABC;   Robert Reich - RR;   The Conversation - TC ;   The Guardian - TG;   The New Daily - TND.

 

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below.

Finally, remember: we need to be more human being rather than human doing.