←back to thread

Accountability sinks

(aworkinglibrary.com)
493 points l0b0 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.704s | source
Show context
spit2wind ◴[] No.41893449[source]
This is a terrible example because it's simply not true:

> Davies gives the example of the case of Dominion Systems vs Fox News, in which Fox News repeatedly spread false stories about the election. No one at Fox seems to have explicitly made a decision to lie about voting machines; rather, there was an implicit understanding that they had to do whatever it took to keep their audience numbers up.

Rupert Murdoch conceded under oath that "Fox endorsed at times this false notion of a stolen election."[1] He knew the claims were false and decided not to direct the network to speak about it otherwise.

Communications from within Fox, by hosts, show they knew what they were saying was false.[2]

These two examples clearly fit the definition of lying [3].

The "External Links" section of Wikipedia gives references to the actual court documents that go into detail of who said what and knew what when [4]. There are many more instances which demonstrate that, indeed, people made explicit decisions to lie.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/02/28/1159819849/fox-news-dominion-...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/dominion-releases...

[3] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie

[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems_v._F...

replies(2): >>41893467 #>>41893699 #
1. BartjeD ◴[] No.41893467[source]
I think the point of the citation is that there wasn't an original decision to lie about it.

It happened without coordination and later on wasn't stopped by the people in management, either.

It was number-2 all the way up.

replies(1): >>41893631 #
2. bjornsing ◴[] No.41893631[source]
So there were many decisions to lie about it, and the lying was condoned from the top.