🔗 Share this article

In a key court hearing on Tuesday, a attorney for the voting technology firm Smartmatic argued that senior leaders at Fox News, specifically Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, sanctioned a conscious plan to adopt false assertions of election fraud promoted by Donald Trump.

“Their core viewers, their bread and butter, deserted them,” stated J Erik Connolly, the company's attorney. “What was their response? They revert to what they know best: they go back to misinformation, political propaganda and xenophobia. The election narrative and the fraud allegations was the ideal vehicle for them to return to their central messaging.”

A Massive Libel Lawsuit Is at Stake

In courtroom presentations, both sides urged with the New York state supreme court judge David B Cohen to rule on critical aspects of Smartmatic's $2.7 billion legal action before a potential trial next year. The plaintiff argues that Fox executives hatched a plan to “pivot” to the former president's allegations to recapture disaffected viewers.

Fox's Vehement Rebuttal

K Winn Allen, representing the network, vigorously denied these claims. “No campaign of misinformation was ordered,” he stated. “It is total bunk. The evidence does not support it. It is hogwash. It is made up 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 “Knowing Falsity”

For Smartmatic to prevail, the voting firm will have to demonstrate that important personnel at Fox News were aware the fraud claims were false but allowed them to be aired anyway. In its filings, Smartmatic has pointed to private messages showing hosts like Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo voicing skepticism about the claims while also expressing a desire to help Trump.

Allen, Fox's lawyer argued that Smartmatic has “wildly inflated” its worth and the projected damages from the coverage. Fox maintains its hosts were merely reporting on newsworthy claims from the president's allies, not endorsing them.

“This lawsuit is not truly about Fox's coverage of the 2020 election,” the Fox lawyer stated. “It's about Smartmatic's effort to capitalize on comments made by the president's lawyers to salvage its financial livelihood.”

A Precedent Looms Large

The arguments strongly resemble the successful legal action brought by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox. In that matter, a judge's summary judgment decisions were decisive, ruling that Fox's broadcasts were untrue and defamatory per se.

That ruling was later cited as a key factor in Fox's decision to settle with Dominion for $787.5 million. A previous Fox executive noted that the court's initial decisions had “severely limited” the company's legal defense at trial.

The Judge's Stance

The presiding judge offered few indications of his leaning but told Smartmatic's lawyer that proving “actual malice” for a pre-trial ruling would be a “hard sell.” He said he intended to review all relevant television segments before making a decision.

“I believe I have more than enough information, evidence, legal briefs, diagrams, charts and everything I need to make my ruling,” he informed the parties in the lawsuit.