Murdochs Reportedly Blessed Fox News Strategy to Air 2020 Voting Fraud Allegations, Court Hears.
During a key legal proceeding on Tuesday, a lawyer for the voting technology company Smartmatic argued that senior leaders at Fox News, specifically Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, sanctioned a deliberate plan to adopt false claims of election fraud promoted by Donald Trump.
“Their core viewers, their bread and butter, abandoned them,” declared J Erik Connolly, the company's attorney. “What was their response? They return back to what they know best: they go back to disinformation, pro-Trump propaganda and xenophobia. The election story and the fraud allegations were the perfect tool for them to get back onto their central messaging.”
A Multi-Billion Dollar Defamation Case Is at Stake
During courtroom presentations, both parties urged with Judge David B Cohen to decide on essential elements of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion legal action ahead of a possible trial in the coming year. The company argues that Fox leaders hatched a plan to “pivot” to Trump's claims to win back angry viewers.
The Network's Strong Denial
A lawyer for Fox News, speaking for the network, vigorously denied these accusations. “No disinformation campaign was authorized,” he said. “It is completely false. 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, “issued no directives to cover Smartmatic or the election fraud allegations.”
The Central Challenge: Proving “Knowing Falsity”
To win its case, the company will have to demonstrate that important personnel at Fox News knew the fraud claims were false but allowed them to be aired anyway. In its filings, Smartmatic has pointed to internal communications showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo expressing doubt about the claims while also showing an interest to assist Trump.
The network's attorney argued that Smartmatic has “grossly exaggerated” its value and the estimated damages from the broadcasts. Fox contends its personalities were simply reporting on newsworthy allegations from the president's associates, not endorsing them.
“This suit is not truly about Fox's reporting of the 2020 election,” the Fox lawyer stated. “It concerns Smartmatic's effort to capitalize 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 summary judgment decisions were decisive, finding that Fox's statements were untrue and inherently damaging.
That ruling was later cited as a key factor in Fox's choice to resolve with Dominion for $787.5 million. A former Fox legal officer remarked that the court's initial decisions had “severely limited” the company's legal defense at trial.
The Judge's Stance
The presiding judge gave few hints of his thinking but told Smartmatic's lawyer that establishing “actual malice” for a pre-trial ruling would be a “difficult task.” He said he planned to examine all relevant broadcasts before making a decision.
“I think I have sufficient material, evidence, legal briefs, diagrams, charts and everything I need to make my ruling,” he told the parties in the lawsuit.
