Murdochs Allegedly Blessed Fox News Strategy to Air 2020 Election Fraud Allegations, Court Hears.
In a key court hearing on Tuesday, a lawyer for the voting technology company Smartmatic contended that top leaders at Fox News, including Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, authorized a conscious strategy to adopt false claims of election fraud championed by Donald Trump.
“The conservative viewers, their bread and butter, abandoned them,” declared J Erik Connolly, Smartmatic's lawyer. “What was their response? They return back to what they know best: they go back to misinformation, political propaganda and fear-mongering. The election narrative and the election fraud claims was the ideal vehicle for them to return to their central messaging.”
A Multi-Billion Dollar Defamation Lawsuit Hangs in the Balance
During oral arguments, both sides pleaded with Judge David B Cohen to rule on essential elements of Smartmatic's $2.7bn defamation lawsuit before a possible trial next year. The plaintiff maintains that Fox executives devised a plan to “pivot” to Trump's claims to win back disaffected viewers.
The Network's Strong Denial
K Winn Allen, speaking for the network, vigorously denied these accusations. “No campaign of misinformation was authorized,” he said. “It is completely false. It is not supported by the record. It is hogwash. 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 “Actual Malice”
To win its case, the voting firm must prove that important personnel at Fox News knew the allegations were false but permitted them to be aired regardless. Through legal motions, 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 countered that Smartmatic has “grossly exaggerated” its worth and the estimated damages from the coverage. Fox maintains its personalities were merely discussing newsworthy allegations from the president's associates, not endorsing them.
“This suit really isn't about Fox's reporting of the 2020 election,” said Allen. “It's about Smartmatic's attempt to seize on remarks made by the president's lawyers to salvage its financial livelihood.”
A Precedent Looms Large
The arguments closely mirror the successful defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that case, a judge's summary judgment decisions were decisive, finding that Fox's broadcasts were untrue and inherently damaging.
That legal decision was later cited as a key factor in Fox's choice to settle with Dominion for $787.5 million. A former Fox legal officer remarked that the judge's pre-trial rulings had “hamstrung” the company's legal defense at trial.
Judge Cohen's Position
Judge Cohen gave few indications of his leaning but informed Smartmatic's lawyer that establishing “actual malice” for a pre-trial ruling would be a “hard sell.” He stated he planned to examine all pertinent broadcasts before making a decision.
“I think I have more than enough material, data, briefings, diagrams, charts and all I need to make my ruling,” he told the two sides in the lawsuit.
