It's a couple hundred pages long, but Dominion Voting System's heavily redacted motion for summary judgment in its defamation case against Fox is here. I've spent enough time with it to be reminded of something that has puzzled me—the right-wing outrage over Fox having called Arizona for Biden on the night of the election. In Dominion's telling, which is supported by internal Fox communications, anger over the Arizona call delivered Fox viewers to even more ridiculous "news" sources, such as Newsmax, and Fox's credulous airing of absurd fantasies concerning Dominion's products was an effort to appease their customers, current and former.
It's certainly true that Fox was being abused by former fans for calling Arizona for Biden. I remember, for example, that in the days after the election Scott Johnson, of the Power Line blog, directed his ire at Fox for the Arizona call—I've looked them up again and they're here, and here, and here. But all the spilled words never form a coherent story of treachery or even journalistic malpractice, considering that:
- Fox's call was correct. Biden did win Arizona.
- Suppose Biden hadn't won Arizona. He still would have won the election. To prevail, Trump needed a different outcome in at least two other closely contested states besides Arizona.
- Is the claim that, by calling Arizona, Fox discouraged Trump voters from turning out in places where the polls were still open? But that would make no sense, because only Hawaii and Alaska were still voting when Fox projected Biden the winner in Arizona, and there's no way Trump was going to win Hawaii (or lose Alaska).
- Is the claim that, since Biden won Arizona very narrowly, Fox's call was premature? But how could it be both "premature" and correct?
I feel a little awkward defending Fox and luckily don't feel obliged to keep it up for very long. It's almost humorous how, having called Arizona for Biden, Fox could also have been the first to call the election for Biden when it soon became clear that he was going to win Nevada, too. But they put off calling Nevada, which wasn't nearly as close as Arizona. Why? The New York Times reports:
But on Friday night, Nov. 6, when Mr. Sammon's [Decision Desk] team was ready to call Nevada for Mr. Biden, sealing his victory, [network president Jay] Wallace refused to air it. "I'm not there yet since it's for all the marbles—just a heavier burden than an individual state call," Mr. Wallace wrote in a text message obtained by The Times.
The Times's reporting leaves little to the imagination concerning the source for the sudden onset of discretion:
On Nov. 16, [chief executive Suzanne Scott] and Mr. Wallace convened [a] Zoom meeting to discuss the Arizona decision. Mr. Sammon and Arnon Mishkin, the director of the Decision Desk, were included. Chris Stirewalt, the political editor who had gone on air to defend the call, was not.
Ms. Scott invited Mr. Baier and Ms. MacCallum, "the face" of the network, as she called them, to describe the heat they were taking, according to the recording reviewed by The Times.
"We are still getting bombarded," Mr. Baier said. "It became really hurtful." He said projections were not enough to call a state when it would be so sensitive. "I know the statistics and the numbers, but there has to be, like, this other layer" so they could "think beyond, about the implications."
Ms. MacCallum agreed: "There's just obviously been a tremendous amount of backlash, which is, I think, more than any of us anticipated. And so there's that layer between statistics and news judgment about timing that I think is a factor." For "a loud fraction of our viewership," she said, the call was a blow.
I love how when talking among themselves these hucksters sound like their own version of a liberal. The facts of the case—"the statistics and the numbers"—should probably be hidden beneath some gauzy "layer" since, if reported, it would prove too "hurtful" for the big-mouthed, small-brained snowflakes who don't want their nightly load of bullshit polluted by what people have begun calling, with a silent footnote acknowledging Kellyanne Conway, "true facts." Every accusation is a projection. Think of Jack Nicholson on the stand in A Few Good Men: "You can't handle the truth!" Farther down in the Times story one reads:
What no one said at the meeting was that Ms. Scott would not let Mr. Sammon's team risk the network's brand again. She decided to push out Mr. Sammon and Mr. Stirewalt, but fearing criticism for firing journalists who had gotten the call right, opted to wait until after [the Senate runoff elections in Georgia].
Mr. Murdoch was not keen on waiting. On Nov. 20, four days after the Zoom meeting, according to documents filed by Dominion, he told Ms. Scott, "Maybe best to let Bill go right away, which would "be a big message with Trump people."
LOL, Fox's "brand" being tarnished by two guys who got it right. Fire them immediately! Big message to Trump people! We won't tolerate true facts! Just one of the many amusements contained within the unredacted portions of Dominion's motion linked to above.
Comments