Fox News Defamation of the Capitol Counts: The Case Against Murdoch and the Fox Corp During the 2016 Capitol Reion

Murdoch and his company had little to do with the editorial decisions at the cable network, as Fox News has argued for more than a year.

The statement was uttered by Davis during the Tuesday hearing in which the court set the guidelines for the defamation trial to begin later this month.

That prompted the first instance of pushback from attorneys for Dominion on Tuesday, who argued that a jury would be prejudiced by such testimony from a Fox host. Davis shot back, arguing there is a distinction between what a Fox host believed to be newsworthy, and what Fox lawyers argued could absolve the company from defamation.

Voting machine software company Dominion Voting Systems is suing Fox News, and its parent Fox Corp, on claims the network repeatedly aired baseless statements about voter fraud during the wake of the 2020 presidential election. The false statements about voting softwareswitching votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden were pushed by his inner circle and his supporters. They did it on Fox News.

Nelson argued Fox should be allowed to question their employees about the Capitol riots as they are relevant to evidentiary issues, and why Fox chose to shift its support from Trump after the event.

Murdoch’s position with the network was called “Honorific” by one Fox attorney who said the role had been disclosed during a previous deposition. But Davis was not pacified. He said an officer of a company cannot “escape responsibility” by saying they didn’t have any tasks.

Davis made clear his opinion that the cable network could be held liable for the billion-dollar claim even though its hosts were often not those who uttered the defamatory statements.

It is irrelevant if the false claim was made by a Fox employee or a Fox guest, as the key question is whether Fox, as a company, published the information maliciously.

Davis warned attorneys against using the word “newsworthy” during opening statements because he had previously ruled that it was not a legal defense against defamation. He agreed to allow Fox hosts to testify about whether or not they personally believed the false claims against the company were news.

Later during Tuesday’s hearing, Dominion attorneys also pushed back against a previous decision from the court that barred them from introducing information at trial about the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol, or about details of threats made against Dominion employees.

Megan Meier said that Fox broadcasts motivated individuals to make threats to the voting machine company.

She said Fox effectively yelled fire in a crowded theater — quoting an often-cited limit to free speech — but Fox “doesn’t want to hear about the stampede that followed.”

Davis in response again suggested a question that Dominion could ask in its place. He said Dominion could inquire why Fox executives chose to pull back support from Trump. If their answer brought up Jan. 6, Dominion could pursue the topic, the judge said.

Davis is trying to strike a balance between allowing attorneys to deviate from the case’s stated objectives and ensuring that jurors would decide only on the merits of the case.

The special master is considering sanctions against Fox, including possibly instructing jurors in the case that Fox was blocked from obtaining evidence.

Murdoch’s role in the company’s financial reports were properly disclosed by Fox. Fox attorney Dan Webb said Wednesday that “nobody intentionally withheld information” from Dominion.