Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564
Contrary to what you hear on Judge Judy, the reality is that it is sometimes more prudent to settle a lawsuit than to defend yourself against one. Sandman had my sympathy right up to the point he decided to profit off his 15 minutes.
The difference I see between Sandman and Fox News is there was no accusation that CNN, WaPo, or others knew and discussed the inaccuracy in their reporting then chose to air it anyway. You can (Sandman did) accuse them of not fully researching the story. You can accuse them of jumping to conclusions and airing the story as quickly as possible to get as much attention as possible. But I've not heard anyone accuse them of knowingly disregarding facts to pander to a demographic. On the other hand, it turns out that is what Fox News was doing.
I can understand a company making a mistake; too many mistakes and they will lose credibility. When a company is caught spreading information they know is not true, when their internal discussions show they knew it was not true but broadcast it anyway, they have lost credibility as a "News" source.
|
Another reason to settle quickly is to avoid discovery where under oath you have to disclose what you actually knew and what your objectives were. And that's why you've " not heard anyone accuse them of knowingly disregarding facts to pander to a demographic."
And he more than profited with the suit, he showed what biased, nasty liars they were and hopefully taught them a lesson.