Looking at Germany and, to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom, Ziblatt appears to see what parties are containing are three main alternate power structures -- media outlets, rich donors, and special interests. If any of these entities usurp the role of political parties, Ziblatt appears to warn, then democracy is in trouble.
But, while Ziblatt warns about dependence on interest groups and wealthy donors, his biggest emphasis appears to be media. While Hitler was the ultimate beneficiary of the breakdown of democracy in Germany, media magnate Alfred Hugenberg laid the groundwork with his media empire by stirring up the radical right. Ziblatt describes two contemporary British media magnates -- Lord Beaverbrook and Viscount Rothermere --who attempted to play a similar role in Britain, but were thwarted by a strong Conservative Party that was fully committed to the democratic rules of the game.
All of this has very disturbing implications for US democracy. We have our own Hugenberg/Beaverbrook/ Rothermere. His name is Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch has given us Fox News, which has been stirring up outrage and paranoia, abetted by talk radio, for nearly a quarter century. Outrage and paranoia are highly addictive drugs and, like other addictive drugs, need stronger and stronger forms to produce the accustomed high. For those who Fox no longer offers enough kick, there are now alternatives in Newsmax and OANN.
The US has a strong tradition of protecting freedom of the press. This means, among other things, that it is not illegal to publish lies and call them news. Only defamatory lies are actionable. A media outlet that is so inclined may say that the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese, Elvis is still alive,* snow is a plastic imitation,** and pigs can fly so you should never go out without our sponsor's patented brand name steel umbrella. All of that would be perfectly legal because it does not defame anyone. You could also accuse HAARP of faking the snow, or the Department of Agriculture of concealing all those flying pigs with legal impunity because government agencies are not allowed to sue for defamation. But as soon as you accuse an individual or a private organization, things become different. Because individuals and private organizations can sue.
There are difficulties with suing. "Public figures," a category that includes all government officials and anyone else who is famous enough to be much in the news, must prove not only that the story is false, but that the news organization published knowing that it was false, or at least with serious doubts. A private person only has to prove knowing falsehood to collect punitive damages. but most private citizens do not have the resources to sustain protracted litigation against a major media company and ultimately end up being bought off by a sum that is a fortune to the individual concerned, but chump change to a major news station. The station drops this particular libel and moves on to the next.
But in the aftermath of the 2020 election, Fox, Newsmax, OANN and others went too far. They published outrageous lies about two election software companies -- Dominion and Smartmatic. These companies do have the resources to sustain protracted litigation against a major media company. The lies hurt their bottom line enough to make for the sort of damages that can make even Fox pay attention. And the lies were so obvious, so blatant, and so defamatory as to make for a clear-cut case.
So, faced with suits that could seriously hurt their bottom lines, Fox and Newsmax hastily retracted their stories and read the retractions on air. They have banned any further discussion of the issue. This led to Mike Lindell of My Pillow fame being shut down on Newsmax and Lou Dobbs being fired from Fox. OANN has not made a public retraction, but it has quietly taken down the accusations. And, we must assume, they have all learned a lesson. Don't defame a powerful corporation with resources to sue.
So what good does that do for ordinary private citizens who still don't have the resources to take on any of these companies? Well Bruce Bartlett is always urging liberals to do what conservatives do -- find a rich sugar daddy to finance a whole ideological infrastructure, including media infrastructure. But liberals don't want to build a left-wing equivalent of Fox News. Liberals prefer mainstream sources that at least attempt to be objective. And in any event, it is not clear this country could survive a left wing noise machine to counter the right wing noise machine.
So here is my suggestion. Instead, have sugar daddy finance lawsuits against the right wing media. The right wing noise machine has made plenty of real, undisputed libels against private citizens, like accusing Seth Rich of stealing the DNC e-mails. And Alex Jones at Infowars had said even more outrageous things, like accusing victims of school shootings of being crisis actors, or Comet Ping Pong Pizza of running a child trafficking ring. Private citizens have sued, but, again, they have had to settle for a payment and retraction of one particular story, which in no way deters the next slander. Private citizens simply don't have claims for the sort of money that makes a large company hurt.
The typical procedure for a lawsuit of that type is that defendant asks the court to dismiss on the grounds that the suit does not meet the legal definition of libel. No matter how obvious the libel, it is worthwhile for a company like Fox to make that argument to wear out its opponent and exhaust its opponent's resources. If the case survives motions to dismiss, the next step is "discovery," in which the parties ask each other written questions, obtain documents, and take depositions. The goal of an ordinary plaintiff is to get to the discovery phase and expose all sorts of embarrassing information about the company. But a large corporate defendant can fight it every step of the way and make it extremely slow, difficult, and expensive. It is at this point that they offer a large settlement and the exhausted plaintiff agrees.
A liberal billionaire financing suits against large media companies can make this process affordable and expose a lot of dirty secrets. And maybe this, if nothing else, can shut down the lies.
**No, seriously, some people believed that too.
No comments:
Post a Comment