"Tomorrow Never Dies: James Bond, Rupert Murdoch, and the Dominion Law Suit
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)
Rupert Murdoch - Nuff said.
(Image by DonkeyHotey) Details DMCA
As it happens (in part because I have been on this Earth for such a long time), I have seen every James Bond film, in a movie theater, and for many of them, again on television re-runs. One of my most favorites is the 1997 film, "Tomorrow Never Dies," starring Pierce Brosnan and Michelle Yeoh. (Yes, that Michelle Yeoh, who just won as Oscar for Best Actress.) As for Pierce Brosnan, while my favorite overall Bond was [The Saint's] Roger Moore, who always played the role with a twinkle in his eye, Pierce Brosnan was the only one of the succession of other fine actors who played the role, who one could picture as a Royal Navy Commander [and after all, the character in the series was known as Commander Bond] standing on the bridge of a Royal Navy Frigate, in his Burberry London duffle coat, the frigate on convoy duty in the North Atlantic on a cold February morning in 1943.
"Tomorrow Never Dies" is one of the most directly political films of the series, for it concerns a plot by a major media magnet (mainly newspapers back in the 90s when it was made) to trick China and the United Kingdom in going to war with each other so that he could (somehow) get an exclusive to the coverage of the war, and thus expand his media empire. The villain, one Eliot Carver, is played brilliantly by Johnathan Pryce (one of the great character actors of our era). His totally evil character (getting tons of people killed and much property destroyed so that he could sell more papers) appeared to be roughly based on Rupert Murdoch. Indeed, at the time, there was much mention in various media about that happenstance.
The plot can be briefly summarized, with the help of Wikipedia, as follows.
Bond is sent by his supervisor "M" at MI6 (British Military Intelligence) to investigate an Asian terrorist arms bazaar. Through a convoluted series of events (aren't they always convoluted in Bond films? --- indeed half the fun), he discovers this plot of Carver's. In the course of the back-and-forths (and there are always back-and-forths) Carver manages to sink a Royal Navy frigate (there they are again). Interestingly enough, it turns out that Carver had released news article of the event hours before MI6 became aware of it. There is much too-ing and fro-ing with "encoders," beautiful women (in addition to Wai Lin, Michelle Yeoh's character), communication to the Chinese government of the Carver plot, more too-ing and fro-ing, culminating in Bond and Wai Lin getting onto Carver's ship (a stealth one as the plot would have it), killing Carver and disposing of his ship, and then of course sharing a moment (or two) of romance at the end.
So why did I deal with this piece of cinematic history, back then? Well of course it's the real-life, really horrifying, parallels that are played out right now, before our very eyes (except that Murdoch is very much alive and I surely don't wish him dead --- "Succession" be damned). Murdoch and his media empire has filled a very real and very important (if evil) role in the history-as-it-is-developed of the United States and the role of the Republican Party (or what I call the "Republo-fascist Party") in determining what that history shall be, from their support of Trump leading up the 2016 election to their role in promoting the post 2020-election "Big Lie," even while, as discovery in the Dominion case has shown, they didn't believe a word of it. (If somebody wrote this stuff, nobody would believe it. Murdoch is nothing if not imaginative.) And so, for now anyway, they have met their comeuppance with the "Dominion Law Suit" and its Settlement.
OK. So, what happened (in summary, from The Times).
"Fox News Settles Defamation Suit for $787.5 Million, Dominion Says. Fox News reached a last-minute settlement with Dominion Voting Systems, which accused Fox News of pushing conspiracies that harmed the company. 'The truth matters. Lies have consequences,' a lawyer for Dominion Voting Systems said during a news conference announcing the Settlement. Indeed, Fox News abruptly agreed on Tuesday to pay $787.5 million to resolve the suit over the network's promotion of misinformation about the 2020 election, averting a lengthy and embarrassing trial just as a packed courtroom was seated in anticipation of hearing opening statements."
But what will this really mean for Fox, aside from the money, which, as of now, they seem to be able to manage. (There are other suits coming, e.g., for a firm named "Smartmatic," and there may be other legal actions, e.g., from unhappy Board-members. What will happen then of course remains to be seen.) However (and this is hardly an original thought), from the perspective of the public interest, is Fox really going to stop lying, or at least mis-representing the truth (and there is a difference)? Well, as numerous commentators have noted, judging by the statement released immediately after the Settlement announcement, it appears as if things might not change that much.
Here's the statement Fox released immediately after the Settlement announcement: "We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems. We acknowledge the court's rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects Fox's continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues."
Wow! How carefully crafted is that? Fox didn't say that their claims about Dominion were false. They simply recognized that the Court said that. With all of the reams of evidence released about their commitment to lying about the results of 2020 election, while knowing too that what they were saying was false, they reference their "continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards" (defined how, one might wonder?) Talk about chutzpa. All they said was that "certain claims" it made about Dominion were false. (Ain't the passive just a wonderful tense?)
"[From The Times.] The trial would have been a spectacle. Mr. Murdoch, whose family controls the Fox media empire, was slated to be one of Dominion's first witnesses this week. Star anchors including Sean Hannity, Mr. Carlson and Ms. Bartiromo were likely to be called at other points." (Indeed, just like Bond's Carver, Murdoch would have been even more exposed than he and they already have been.) "The settlement spare[d] Fox a trial that would have gone on for weeks and put many of the company's most prominent figures --- from the media mogul Rupert Murdoch to hosts like Tucker Carlson and Maria Bartiromo --- on the stand. The case and the expected trial were significant because they raised the prospect for an elusive judgment in the post-Trump era: very few allies of the former president's have been held legally accountable for their roles in spreading the falsehoods that undermined confidence in the country's democratic process and cast Mr. Biden's victory as illegitimate. Polls show that large numbers of Republicans still believe the 2020 election was tainted."
OK. So, catch that last sentence. The Fox lies-based-propaganda has been very effective. Fox is already doing the best it can to maintain that fiction with its viewers, at least as of April 18, when the settlement was announced and, on the 19th, as well. Shortly before 5 p.m., the Fox News website had no mention of the settlement. On the news channel, the host Neil Cavuto was discussing a parking garage collapse in Lower Manhattan and how scammers are using artificial intelligence. For that evening, although I didn't listen to every word, I heard nothing spoken about the Settlement on Watter's show (through a substitute), or Carlson's or Hannity's. As far as Murdoch's newspapers were concerned, on the day after, though the matter was covered in The Wall Street Journal, it was not in The New York Post.
Further from the NYT: "Under the terms of the settlement, Fox News will not have to apologize or admit to spreading false claims on network programming, according to a person familiar with the details of the agreement.
"Just before Tuesday's settlement, Martin Garbus, a veteran First Amendment lawyer who has been involved in dozens of libel suits, said that he was taken aback that the case had even gotten so close to trial. 'I am astonished it had not settled,' Mr. Garbus wrote in an email.
After the announcement in the courthouse, Mr. Garbus said he could see how the outcome made sense: 'With the settlement, everybody wins. Fox goes its way. Dominion gets cash.' "
Really, Mr. Garbus, "everybody wins!?!" I don't think so. I have heard a good deal of post hoc analysis from my side of the political spectrum, and none of it is positive. For a fine summary of it, let's turn to the ex-Republican Charlie Sykes, on The Bulwark.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“No Apologies for Fox's Costly Lies: Winning the battle. But still losing the war.”
CHARLIE SYKES: Morning Shots. at The Bulwark (4/19/23)
"[As the Dominion lawyer said:] 'The truth matters. Lies have consequences. Over two years ago, a torrent of lies swept Dominion and election officials across America into an alternative universe of conspiracy theories causing grievous harm to Dominion and the country.'
"Maybe. But I can't shake the feeling that even though Dominion has won the battle, the rest of us continue to lose the war. 'The settlement represents justice for Dominion,' tweeted David French, 'but by no means does it cleanse Fox of its corruption. Liars must be fired. Viewers must be informed. The company must apologize.' But none of that happened. There was no apology, no admission, and no on air-retraction or correction. No has been fired. On the network last night [April 18], the settlement was barely acknowledged.
"There will be no ultimate reckoning, no ruling that they behaved with actual malice, no punitive damages. Fox avoided six weeks of bad headlines and potential new bombshells. There will be no parade of Fox executives and hosts to the witness stand. No testimony from Rupert. No boozy appearances by Judge Janine. Fox just paid more than three-quarters of billion dollars so we wouldn't have to see the sweaty cross examination of Sean Hannity.
"Afterward, Dominion's president and lawyers said that Fox had 'admitted to telling lies about Dominion.' No. They didn't. That's a comforting spin on the settlement, but Fox quite carefully admitted nothing; they simply acknowledged the existence of the judge's rulings that certain claims were false. Fox didn't say it lied . . . . It just said that the judge's rulings were there.
"Let's be clear: As a business matter, the settlement is completely defensible. The lawyers for Dominion are not tribunes of democracy; they were serving the interest of their clients. Which they did spectacularly well. As legal analyst Harry Litman wrote yesterday afternoon:
'The money of course serves no public purpose. An apology would have been meaningful as part of national accounting for the Big Lie. That was a very big opportunity here, which now goes away. Not Dominion's fault--it's the adversary system for you-- but a shame.'
"In other words, this is great for Dominion. But the rest of us will have to wait for the accountability that has proved so elusive. There's no reason to think that this will cost Fox much of its audience; or that it will change have much effect on the network's behavior. Tens of millions of Americans still believe the election lies; and the Liar in Chief is, once again, going to become a fixture in prime time [emphasis added]."
And there is no James Bond who can come flying in, to sort out the whole mess.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two further notes, from myself.
First, from the "dealing with the liars in terms of being able to stop the lying," it did nothing. However, from the perspective of the free press, that it got settled at this juncture is very important. If the case had gone to trial, Fox almost certainly would have lost. And then there would have been appeals that eventually would have made their way to the Supreme Court. Where that paragon of judicial virtue Clarence Thomas would have made a very determined assault on the "actual malice" standard which has played such an important role in protecting the freedom of the press. So at least this time around, we don't have to worry about that one.
Second, for their future propaganda efforts, Murdoch and staff will get some very careful wordsmiths to put just enough qualifiers into their talkers' false statements, to make sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again, like "it has been brought to our attention that . . ." and "while we have not yet been able to independently confirm the following, reliable sources have told us that . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And finally, see the carefully thought-through Advice-for-Fox from The Washington Post's Alexandra Petri: "Opinion After the Dominion suit, things here at Fox will be different!" Washington Post, April 20, 2023 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/20/fox-news-dominion-settlement-memo-satire/?)
In sum, she says: "1. [Fox needs] more Credulous Anchors; 2. No More Emails or Texts!; 3. Nots [that is, use the word frequently and randomly]; and 4. Money [as in 'Critically, we need to make more money']. In sum, by implementing these simple policies, we [says Ms. Petri] can ensure that Fox continues successfully impersonating a news network for decades to come --- or until the end of the republic, whichever comes first!"