Newsmax Offers Tucker EVERYTHING — Complete Control Over ALL Programming

Just when they are wrong. I probably agree with 90% of policy and hate the crazy. Problem is right now it is all crazy, like this post. The right on this forum, at least, mindlessly repeat mindless talking points thinking the are some great tidbits of knowledge the world is fortunate for you to spread, It just makes the RWers look silly.
bull ... do you criticize the dems for the fake Russian dossier they used to try an remove a sitting POTUS ?
 
How do you know they didn't settle because they knew Dominion had a very good case?

The money paid was a lot more than the money it would take to drag out the case. 3/4 of a billion buys a LOT of lawyer time.
All I know is what I read in the newspapers and see on television. I am reporting to you what I have read in the newspapers and have seen on television. Okay?
 
Poor Mac, always confronted with the Hoi Polloi

800px-marie_antoinette_young2.jpg
Marie Antoinette was black, like Cleopatra, Anne Boelyn and Queen Charlotte.
Marie Antoinette fuh really
 

Attachments

  • curatorschoice_feb.jpg
    curatorschoice_feb.jpg
    128.9 KB · Views: 5
No matter how you spin it, going from a top rated cable network to an obscure niche-channel like Newsmax is a step down.

Yes, of course he’ll be fine financially, but it’s still a step down.
 
All I know is what I read in the newspapers and see on television. I am reporting to you what I have read in the newspapers and have seen on television. Okay?
I try to keep informed by reading both sides of the news. I have yet to see one that had information that Fox paid out that kind of money because it was cheaper than a trial.

That would be new information for me. Which ones printed this?
 
I try to keep informed by reading both sides of the news. I have yet to see one that had information that Fox paid out that kind of money because it was cheaper than a trial.

That would be new information for me. Which ones printed this?

'Cheaper' is relative. Bad publicity can be quite costly. And losing the lawsuit would have been far more costly including a huge settlement plus legal fees. Now I know that because I read and have a least a few critical thinking skills left.

I didn't say that Dominion didn't have a case but only that there was valid reason for people to question them and all voting machines. Fox did not admit intentional wrong doing but only that some of the information they broadcast/printed was false. They have never said they or their hosts/reporters knew it was false when they reported it.

And to get back on topic for this thread, Tucker was not named in the lawsuit.

 
Last edited:
'Cheaper' is relative. Bad publicity can be quite costly. And losing the lawsuit would have been far more costly including a huge settlement plus legal fees. Now I know that because I read and have a least a few critical thinking skills left.

I didn't say that Dominion didn't have a case but only that there was valid reason for people to question them and all voting machines. Fox did not admit intentional wrong doing but only that some of the information they broadcast/printed was false. They have never said they or their hosts/reporters knew it was false when they reported it.

And to get back on topic for this thread, Tucker was not named in the lawsuit.


Your article says nothing about the reason why Fox settled. You seem to be supplying the reason.

They paid the largest defamation settlement in US history.

Tucker gets fired the same week.

Tucker admitted peivat
'Cheaper' is relative. Bad publicity can be quite costly. And losing the lawsuit would have been far more costly including a huge settlement plus legal fees. Now I know that because I read and have a least a few critical thinking skills left.

I didn't say that Dominion didn't have a case but only that there was valid reason for people to question them and all voting machines. Fox did not admit intentional wrong doing but only that some of the information they broadcast/printed was false. They have never said they or their hosts/reporters knew it was false when they reported it.

And to get back on topic for this thread, Tucker was not named in the lawsuit.

Your article doesn't mention the reason Fox settled.

Let's review.

Fox News pays the largest defamation settlement in US history.

The same week Fox fires it's biggest star, who happens to bring in the most money of any performer they employ. Said employee is on record privately saying he believes the opposite of what his employer is being sued over for 1.2 billion dollars.

Your critical thinking skills lead you to believe:

A. Fox News settled not because of the case brought against it was strong, but just because they didn't want to go to court, even though defamation is one of the more difficult civil cases to win.

and

B:Carlson is completely innocent of anything having to do with the aforementioned law suit.

Rather than:

C: Fox settled and fired Carlson because they thought they would lose the suit, which means they know they messed up.

Those are some mad skills indeed.
 
Fox could easily afford the settlement
Where are you getting this utter nonsense?

NewsCorp is a publicly traded company. Stockholders are hurt when a settlement this large is paid out. Stockholders do not take kindly to losing money on their investments. This is a disaster for NewsCorp and FoxNews.

Do you not know anything about how the world works?
 

Forum List

Back
Top