The 2020 presidential election’s ripple effects are still felt in politics and media, exemplified by Fox News Network’s $787.5 million settlement with U.S. Dominion Inc. on April 18, 2023. This agreement resolves Dominion’s defamation lawsuit against the network. The lawsuit focused on whether false allegations by Fox hosts and their guests about Dominion’s voting machines, after President Joe Biden’s election, constituted defamation. Initially, Dominion sued Fox for $1.6 billion. During live broadcasts, Fox hosts claimed there were “voting irregularities” with Dominion’s machines, even as they privately dismissed these claims as unfounded. The falsehood of these accusations has already been confirmed, as Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis declared on March 31, 2023, that none of the 2020 election-related statements about Dominion were true.
The central issue was whether the statements harmed Dominion’s reputation enough to be considered defamatory. As an experienced journalist and journalism professor, I understand the complexities of defamation law related to news reporting. Accusations of defamation are daunting for journalists, yet proving fault is far more challenging. Defamation occurs when false information about someone or a company is published or broadcast in a way that harms their reputation. Written falsehoods constitute libel, whereas spoken or live broadcast falsehoods are considered slander. To qualify as defamation, false claims must be presented as fact, identifiable to the person or business, and disseminated with reckless disregard for the truth. Private individuals, as plaintiffs, must demonstrate negligence to win defamation suits, while public figures like celebrities or politicians need to prove actual malice, or an intentional effort to harm a reputation.
Truth is a primary defense against defamation, alongside other defenses such as opinions that cannot be proven as facts and neutral reportage, which protects journalists if they report fairly, albeit inaccurately, about public figures. However, Judge Davis rejected these defenses in the Dominion case, ruling that Fox aired falsehoods when allowing Trump supporters to claim Dominion manipulated voting machines to favor Biden. The jury was set to decide if Fox broadcasters knew their statements were false when aired, which would indicate actual malice, a requirement for defaming public figures. The U.S. Supreme Court established actual malice in 1964 after L.B. Sullivan claimed harm by inaccurate civil rights ad content in The New York Times. Sullivan was initially awarded $500,000 by a jury, a decision which the state Supreme Court upheld, but the ruling was challenged, leading to the 1964 Supreme Court decision that shifted the burden of proof to the accuser. Defamation is often hard to prove, as falsehoods generally stem from poor reporting or negligence. There are cases such as the Rolling Stone article about the University of Virginia gang rape that were found inaccurate due to a lack of thorough fact-checking, resulting in a settlement with Nicole Eramo in 2017. More recent defamation suits, like Sarah Palin’s against The New York Times, failed due to the inability to prove actual malice
Similarly, Donald Trump’s 2011 libel suit was dismissed on the grounds of insufficient proof of actual malice. The difficulty in proving defamation has led most defendants to attempt to establish they aren’t public figures, as private individuals only need to prove negligence. Despite the challenges, some public figures have successfully proven defamation in court. For example, Carol Burnett’s defamation case against the National Inquirer, based on a false claim about her drinking in a gossip column, and Cardi B’s lawsuit against a blogger for publishing false claims about her. Fox News’ settlement with Dominion, though half of the original demand, indicates that Dominion presented a substantial case for actual malice, especially as Fox pundits admitted knowing the claims were false before broadcasting. They argued that despite knowing the falsity of the guest claims about Dominion, the claims were newsworthy. The settlement suggests an acknowledgment of actual malice, potentially impacting the political media world significantly.