Good points, but let me dare try to create an analogy. I have this employee, Fred, who I can't stand because of some reason I know I can't legally fire him over. No worries, I just fire him anyhow for what I instead call his "negative job performance". This is done all the time. Even if you are pretty darn sure of the true underlying animosity, try proving that in court.
OK, so let's assume, for sake of argument, Fox News called covid-19 a hoax for some nefarious reason. We know the US president called it a hoax. OK, so now their alibi is that they were just quoting him. Again, how do you prove otherwise? And even if you have emails, recordings, etc. as evidence Fox truly felt that way, you still have to prove willful negligence for financial gain.
But two can play this came. For example, we know a US congressman dumped his stock after getting an intelligence briefing of how the virus could incite market panic. OK, so why not "theorize" Fox financially benefited by giving cover to this guy and others like him? The vast majority of US lawsuits get settled well before trial. The appearance of impropriety is often just as devastating to one's reputation as true impropriety. People typically remember headlines but forget buried retractions. In sum, given the money involved here, rightly or wrongly, I can't imagine the suit you are theorizing might happen won't happen. And far be it from me to speculate in what crazy direction it might lead.
- Jeff |
