Murdochs Allegedly Blessed Fox News Plan to Air 2020 Voting Fraud Claims, Court Hears.
During a pivotal legal proceeding on Tuesday, a attorney for the voting technology company Smartmatic argued that senior executives at Fox News, including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a conscious strategy to embrace false claims of voting fraud championed by Donald Trump.
“The conservative viewers, their bread and butter, abandoned them,” stated J Erik Connolly, Smartmatic's lawyer. “What was their response? They revert to what they know best: they go back to disinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and fear-mongering. The election narrative and the fraud allegations were the perfect tool for them to return to their core messaging.”
A Multi-Billion Dollar Defamation Lawsuit Hangs in the Balance
During oral arguments, both parties urged with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to rule on essential aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit before a possible trial in the coming year. The company argues that Fox leaders devised a plan to “pivot” to Trump's claims to recapture angry viewers.
Fox's Vehement Denial
A lawyer for Fox News, representing the network, strongly contested these accusations. “No disinformation campaign was authorized,” he stated. “It is total bunk. The evidence does not support it. It is nonsense. It was fabricated by lawyers on the other side.”
He added that the Murdochs, who ultimately controlled the network, “didn't give anyone any orders to cover Smartmatic or the election fraud allegations.”
The Core Legal Hurdle: Proving “Knowing Falsity”
For Smartmatic to prevail, the voting firm will have to demonstrate that key figures at Fox News knew the fraud claims were false but allowed them to be broadcast anyway. Through legal motions, Smartmatic has pointed to private messages showing personalities like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo voicing skepticism about the claims while also expressing a desire to help Trump.
The network's attorney argued that Smartmatic has “grossly exaggerated” its worth and the estimated financial losses from the coverage. Fox contends its hosts were simply reporting on newsworthy allegations from the president's allies, not promoting them.
“This suit really isn't about Fox's coverage of the 2020 election,” said Allen. “It concerns Smartmatic's effort to seize on comments made by the president's lawyers to salvage its business viability.”
A Precedent Is Highly Relevant
The arguments strongly resemble the prior legal action brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that case, a judge's pre-trial rulings proved critical, finding that Fox's broadcasts were untrue and defamatory per se.
That ruling was later cited as a key factor in Fox's choice to settle with Dominion for $787.5 million. A previous Fox legal officer noted that the judge's pre-trial rulings had “hamstrung” the company's legal defense at trial.
The Judge's Position
The presiding judge offered no clear indications of his leaning but informed Smartmatic's lawyer that establishing “knowledge of falsity” for a pre-trial ruling would be a “hard sell.” He said he intended to review all relevant broadcasts before making a decision.
“I think I have sufficient material, data, briefings, diagrams, graphs and everything I need to reach a verdict,” he told the parties in the case.
