The Bulwark Podcast - Dylan Byers: The Media Trial of the Century?

Episode Date: April 14, 2023

Dominion v. Fox is not only about defamation—it's also about the erosion of truth at the network and its impact on our democracy. And with Tucker, Hannity, and Murdoch likely testifying, Fox will also be on trial in the court of public opinion. Puck's Dylan Byers joins Charlie Sykes for the weekend pod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to the Bulwark podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. It is April 14th, 2023. And I'm going to confess, I am really nervous about today's podcast. Our guest is Dylan Byers, who is the founding partner and senior correspondent at Puck News. And he covers the business of media, technology and entertainment. Previously worked at NBC News, CNN and Politico, and is going to be covering the Fox News defamation trial next week. So can I explain why I'm nervous about this, Dylan? Please.

Okay, so part of me cannot get my head around the fact that Rupert Murdoch is going to allow this case, the Dominion case, to go to trial. So the headline on this is either what the Fox News trial will look like next week, or why there won't be a Fox News trial next week, because they settled. Part of me is thinking, we're recording this Thursday afternoon, that by the time we post this, the whole world will have blown up. Rupert Murdoch will have come to his senses. They've written out a check for $1.6 billion, the most groveling apology in the history of defamation

lawsuits, and it will all go away. So is this thing going to settle by the time people listen to this? What do you think? No, I think it will not. I'm pretty confident it will not actually, you know, lo and behold, I might be eating my words. But no, your instincts here and the questions you're asking are the right ones. If you look at how Rupert has handled every scandal across his media empire over the course of his half-century career as a media mogul. Settlements are the name of the game. The Washington Post reported recently that he has paid something to the tune of $750 million in settlements over the course of the last 13 years alone. So whether it is sexual harassment claims at Fox News, whether it is phone tapping

scandals in the UK, these things are settled. And in fact, within just the last few days, there was a Venezuelan businessman who brought a defamation suit that was tangentially related to the Dominion suit, and Fox News settled with him. This Venezuelan businessman, he sued Fox and Lou Dobbs, who's no longer at Fox, who had claimed that this guy and other Venezuelans had rigged the election against Trump, so it feels kind of related. So they paid this guy off? So they paid this guy off. And so the answer to your question to why won't Rupert settle to make this go away, to the best of my knowledge, based off of the reporting I've done and all the available evidence, is that it's actually the ball is not in his court this time

around. It is Dominion who does not want to settle. And I think that's for a number of reasons. One, I think that they see an opportunity here to wield significant, if not financial damage, then at least reputational damage against Fox News. And this has become, and it's the reason we're talking about it, this has become a very historic case at a very fraught time in American politics and American media. And they can go from a company that was worth just $80 million five years ago to becoming sort of the face of the fight against the sort of erosion of truth, the erosion of American democracy, the rightward drift of Fox News. And I think they see real potential in that. I think they also know that this $1.6 billion damages claim is

sort of a hallucination. Again, the company was valued at $80 million five years ago, when its primary owners, a sort of mid-market private equity group called Staple Street Capital, bought three quarters of the company. Since all of this has happened, there's actually no real hard evidence that the claims that were made on Fox News have significantly damaged Dominion's business. I mean, in fact, if anything, Dominion's business seems to be doing just fine. So I think they're playing right now for history and for Dominion's role in history, because I actually don't believe they're entitled to the money that they think they're entitled to. Let's just talk about the money for a moment. So if Rupert Murdoch is sitting up there in the

tower and saying, I just cannot, as you put it, he has the headline risks of how bad this is going to be, with all this trove of documents out there, you know, having to testify live and watching all of your stars on The Witness. And if he says, just screw it, could he write out a check for $1.6 billion? I mean, is Fox capable of writing out the check, theoretically, if he wanted to do it? Theoretically, but it would be a massive hit to the organization i mean this is a company that it's hard to know exactly what fox news makes in the fox core universe but it's making somewhere between one point let's call it one and a half to two billion dollars a year so you're talking about depriving it of somewhere in the ballpark of a full year's worth of profits. So could they do it?

Yes. Would it be a significant hit to the business? Yes. I think there is a sense here too, which shouldn't be ignored, that they don't want to become an easy mark for everyone who brings a defamation case against them. And we should not forget that after this $1.6 billion case, there's a $2.7 billion case by another voting software firm in New York called Smartmatic. So if you agree to settle this case and pay $1.6 billion or even half that, and then Smartmatic comes to the table and expects the same thing or expects $2.7 billion, I don't think that's a scenario that the Murdochs want to entertain. Now, normally something like, you know, calling something the media trial of the century would be over the top hype, but this one doesn't

feel that way because the stakes seem so high because it seems to have the potential of being kind of a landmark in media lawsuits and in libel lawsuits, doesn't it? I mean, there's a lot more here than just whether or not Tucker Carlson's embarrassed. Absolutely. And I would say it's the media trial of the century, or at least the century so far, for a couple of reasons. One, at the sort of macro view, this could set major precedent or change the nature of how we understand libel laws in this country. And so the way we understand libel laws now goes back to 1964 and New York Times v. Sullivan. This case, depending on how high it goes, has the potential to restructure how we think about that. And indeed, one of the arguments that Fox is making here is, if we are found liable for defamation, then it becomes a very

slippery slope that opens other news organizations up to more vulnerability on the question of if they're entitled to get certain things wrong. Now, that's a whole other point we can debate, but the stakes in that regard are extremely high. I would say another reason the stakes are high is because, look, the partisanship in media has been a fact of life for a very long time, but the Trump era has sort of seen that go into overdrive. And what Fox News has become, and indeed what they've become for fear of having to compete with news organizations that are even more tolerant of conspiracy theories or lies, or truly a malicious approach to the news, poses a real threat to, I think, the way that, I don't

want to take it too far, the nature of media right right now and how bifurcated it's become, how unapologetically and brazenly partisan it's become, the willingness to tolerate conspiracy theories or fan the flames of conspiracy theories. We're at a very significant and pivotal moment in history that does have real ramifications for the Democratic project. And so I think where this rolling goes in that regard is going to be extremely interesting as well. This gets way ahead of ourselves, but if Fox loses, does this end up going all the way to the Supreme Court? Yeah, it could. They're basically different stages here. So we go from the Delaware Superior Court to the Delaware Supreme Court to the Third Circuit Court, and then ultimately to the Supreme Court. And if you, I mentioned this in a piece I wrote this week

at Puck, but I am already hearing from Murdoch world, generally speaking, they almost seem ready for an appeal. I don't want to say that the lawyers believe they're going to lose the case in the superior court, but you're already hearing talk of an appeal out of that side. And so I don't think this ends here. And I do think that depending on how things shake out, it is very likely that we could see this go all the way to the Supreme Court. This case has already unearthed tons of embarrassing private emails, text messages between the Murdoch's executives, on-air talent, members of the board, promoting the baseless fraud theories that they admit they don't believe. And obviously, they were worried about losing their viewership. They wanted to stay in the good graces of MAGA. They were afraid of the competition from Newsmax. Over the next couple of weeks, you're going to have all of the top talent who is going to have to testify under oath. Are we going to get live audio of the proceedings? I mean, what is it going to be like? This trial is going to last weeks, right? I mean, are we going

to see it in real time? How are we going to follow this? It's a great question, and it's an open question. This week, a consortium of media organizations, including the broadcast networks, the New York Times, the Wires, etc., basically banded together and put in a request for, at a minimum, a live audio feed, which I think they will be granted by the time this podcast comes out, to a whole nother level. And I do think there will be a request for video. I'm not sure if it will be granted. But you think in recent weeks and months about the way that the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial or the Gwyneth Paltrow ski accident trial sort of became these media events, right? With everyone sort of, you know, watching and commenting and tweeting and whatnot. This one's so much bigger. This is so much bigger. And I do think like, it is sort of interesting. I think right now, this Fox Dominion thing is a very, very big deal among people in politics and among people in the media industry. But you introduce that video component and you turn it into a major national news event where all of a sudden people have the opportunity to watch Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Rupert Murdoch even go under oath and therefore not be entitled to the sort of brazen news as entertainment thing that they do on air every night.

And they would have to say real things, and I think that that has real potential. As I have always said, there are really two trials happening. There's the strictly narrowly defined legal trial of Fox and Dominion, and then there's the broader trial taking place in the court of public opinion about Fox's reputation and how history understands and remembers the Fox News organization. And I think that video component would pose a significant threat to the Fox News brand. This is Charlie Sykes, host of the Bulwark podcast. Thanks so much for listening to this show where every day we try to help you make sense of the political world we live in and remind you that you are not

the crazy one. If you enjoy this podcast, I'm sure you're going to find my free Morning Shots newsletter, a great companion for understanding what is happening to us. And every morning as I prepare for this show, I share with my readers what's trending and what to pay attention to, including my latest writing and essays on the events of the day. To sign up for my free Morning Shots newsletter, go to thebullwork.com slash morning shots. That's thebullwork.com slash morning shots. And I look forward to seeing you in your inbox soon. Obviously, they've already had a lot of damaging information come out. Your reporting suggests that more damaging information may be on the way. Normally, all of the discovery is done by now, right? I mean, everybody knows what the facts are.

You're suggesting that there may be more damaging headlines to look forward to. Two things happened in Delaware this week. The judge basically sanctioned Fox for a couple reasons, is my understanding. One is that he felt like they had not been fully forthcoming in terms of evidence that there are calls perhaps between, I believe, Maria Bartiromo and Trump's lawyers, Giuliani and Sidney Powell, that there are recordings of those phone calls that should have been in the discovery that weren't. I don't know if those have already been added to discovery they might have. The second thing, which I found especially notable, is there was this sense that the judge felt anyway that Fox had not accurately characterized Rupert Murdoch's role at Fox News. I find this mind-blowing, by the way, this part. Everyone sort of generally understands that Rupert Murdoch sits atop the media empire that is Fox

Corp, that owns Fox News. But he actually has a title as a sort of executive chairman of Fox News itself. And that title, potentially, at least in the eyes of what is liable to discovery in terms of Rupert Murdoch's own correspondence. So it's possible we could see more from him as well. And the judge said he would likely appoint a special master to investigate whether Fox had withheld information about Murdoch's role in Fox News. I mean, that's rather dramatic development. I mean, over the last couple of weeks, the judge in this case has destroyed many of the defenses that I think that Fox had been planning to use and now threatening a special master. Isn't this the point, Dylan, where the lawyers go in to the executive suites and say, okay, we've had all the motions. We've had all

of this stuff. It's really shitty. It's really bad. This is the time to cut bait. In normal litigation, if you've gone through all of the motions, you play it out, you play out the string. And then when the judge basically hits you on the head with a hammer time and time and time again, don't the lawyers at this point go, hey, we have to give you our best advice, which is you need to bail on this sucker. Well, I think, again, this is just my best understanding. I don't know exactly what they're thinking, but the impression I get from the conversations I've had is they recognize that the judge this go around is not terribly sympathetic to them.

Their main line of defense up until recently has been, Fox News could make these claims because these were claims being made by the White House, and anything said by the White House is newsworthy. And the judge came and said, you don't get to defend yourself on the grounds of newsworthiness. Newsworthiness does not entitle you to peddle false information. That's a huge loss for Fox News. It's a huge loss for them. So what we're going to see, and this is where the question about

Rupert's title becomes so interesting. So what is Fox's next line of defense going to be? You've put forward mountains of text messages and emails from Rupert and Lachlan and Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingram and Sean Hannity, and all pertaining to the voter fraud narrative. But when it gets down to the specific question of Dominion and the statements made about Dominion, we're really talking about three hosts, Lou Dobbs, no longer at the network, Maria Bartiromo, and Jeanine Pirro. The brain trust. were actually very open-minded about the narrative about Dominion and voter fraud, and might have even believed it. And unless you can provide any evidence that these three hosts and their producers did not believe in this false narrative, then you can't claim that they were being malicious because they actually believed the absolute nonsense that they were being malicious because they actually believed the absolute nonsense that

they were spreading. And that's not totally implausible, is it? I mean, Maria Bartiromo does seem to be a true believer. She was chugging down the Kool-Aid there. Right. And look, again, going back to the sort of reputation of Fox, it's sort of a hilarious narrative to put forward because, you know, I think basically this is a story about how Fox News spread a lot of really crazy, that is the word Rupert Murdoch used, crazy lies about voter fraud in 2020. And the

argument we're now going to see from the lawyers for Fox is these three people actually believed these crazy lies, so therefore they're not liable. This is where the Rupert Murdoch role comes in. Because in order to make that argument, Fox is going to have to convince the jury that Rupert, sitting atop all of this, sending text messages and emails to the CEO of Fox News, talking about what was being said on air, and then saying in testimony, he could have stopped it, he could have done more to stop it, but he didn't, that none of that is relevant because he is not directly responsible for what his hosts say on air. And I'm not sure that the lawyers for Fox are going to be able to impose that distinction. I don't think the judge is going to allow it. I think he is going to remain open to the idea that the executives from Rupert Murdoch on down

bear responsibility for what was being said on air because it's clear from the emails and the text messages that they were aware that some of what was being said was false or at least was baseless. And of course, that's already been litigated. So among the defense, they don't have to relitigate whether or not this information was true or false. The judge has ruled it is false, right, as a matter of law. Now we're just simply on the question of, you know, was it, you know, knowing disregard with actual malice, etc. Exactly. And if a Maria Bartiromo or a Janine Pirro actually thought that these false statements were true, is it relevant that Rupert Murdoch or Suzanne Scott or someone

else at the network was watching these statements being made and knew that they were not true, or at least that they had no evidence for the statements being true, and then they let those statements be aired anyway? And I think that's what this case is going to come down to. So, are we going to see Rupert Murdoch himself walk into that courtroom and sit in the witness box and be sworn in and have to testify under oath? Are we going to watch that scene? For me, from where I'm sitting as a media reporter who covers media at the sort of executive level, there's no bigger media mogul than Rupert Murdoch. To see him testify, to even hear him testify, would be truly an incredible moment in the history of American media, and I think in the history of him, and it's really a really rich and compelling history, his own history.

And I don't know. I know that he can be compelled to testify at 92. Is it conceivable that he might find a way to make the argument that he is not in good health and therefore cannot come into the courtroom? You see that happen with media executives all the time. So I don't know yet. But if we're ever going to see Rupert Murdoch testify, it will be in this case. Okay, I'm trying to think of the theater of all of this, because as you pointed out, there are basically two different trials here that Fox has to keep in mind, you know, the trial in that particular courtroom with that jury, then of course, for public opinion and for the Fox audience there. And so I kind of wonder how the various players

are going to perform, including Rupert Murdoch. So do we have any sense based on his past or his personality, what we know about him? How was Rupert Murdoch? How does he carry himself in the courtroom? How does he interact with the lawyers? I mean, I'm guessing that when you're Rupert Murdoch and you are a billionaire and you have this kind of power, you are not used to being challenged. You're not used to being pressed. You know, in his prickly personality is, shall we say, not a secret. So what would you be watching for in that particular

moment? I mean, it does feel like it's like a scene from Succession or something. What's going to happen? Is he going to crack? Is he going to be a total asshole? How is it going to play out? What are you looking for? You know, and I think this is one reassuring aspect of the American project right now is that when people are compelled to testify under oath, it usually forces them to tell the truth. And I think that if you look at the testimony that Rupert Murdoch has given so far, he has been almost shockingly candid. I mean, one thing about this, the reason the Dominion's case feels so strong right now is because when they got the testimony from a head of trial, got the testimony from Rupert and from Lachlan and from various Fox News executives, they were very forthcoming about this, about the fact that some of the statements were false or crazy. And like I said, Rupert said he was asked, could you have done more to stop this?

And he said, yes, but I didn't. So I think what we would find is a very candid, straightforward Murdoch who recognizes that he does not want to be found guilty of perjury. Also that however this shakes out, that he ultimately will not have to take the fall for this, right? Like, inevitably, this case, I'm talking not now about the legal matter, but the sort of court of public opinion. If this gets so bad, and it becomes this huge national story that- International. International story of all this, you know, whatever terrible things that happened at Fox News, someone's head may roll, but it won't be his head. And he will continue to have his empire and Fox will go on

and the succession, you know, he will at some point pass this on down to his children and so on and so forth. But I don't expect him to come in trying to evade the truth. I think he will meet the moment head on and tell the truth. And I think that even professional actors like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham will feel the need to do the same because they are under oath. So you're looking for more sober and subdued rather than fiery and defiant. Well, I think witty. I mean, Rupert Murdoch has always been witty. And I don't want to say straight shooter because, of course, so much of what surrounds the Murdoch media empire, there are so many sort of lies and mistruths and half-truths. But he does have a way of speaking very plainly and directly, I think, and I would anticipate the same from him here on The Witness Stand.

So you've also written about some of the Fox News strategy that they obviously, I mean, they want to present a completely different narrative. They've issued statements where they're focusing on Dominion's private equity owners, a company called Staple Street Capital, which bought a 75% majority stake in the company five years ago. And this was founded by two Carlisle Group veterans. So what is the Fox News narrative going to be about Dominion that they think might turn this thing around? Because I'm not sure that I'm getting it. of factual accuracy is standing up to the Goliath, the evil Goliath that is Fox News and the Murdochs and whatever. And that in the court of public opinion, this is sort of a compelling David versus Goliath narrative. And I think what Fox is trying to point out now, because every time they put out a statement, it is no longer about dominion. It is about private equity owned dominion, Staple Street capital owned dominion. It is about private equity-owned Dominion, Staple Street Capital-owned Dominion. They're trying to say, this isn't a David and Goliath story. This is a private equity firm that sees a chance to net out a bigger return on its investment

in this company. And the reason that they are pushing this is because these Carlisle Group guys see this opportunity to go after it. I think that's what they're trying to do officially. I think unofficially, in the sort of fever swamps of partisan media, they are kind of hinting that there's a political agenda here. And in the same way that Republican, going back to Gingrich and beforehand, have sort of suggested that there's this grand liberal conspiracy out there, I think they like sort of nudging people to the fact that, oh, one of the members of the board of Staple Street Capital is Clinton's FCC chair, who then became Obama's ambassador to the EU. Bill Kennard.

Who, by the way, has donated tons of money to Obama and Hillary Clinton and various Democratic candidates and causes, and sort of trying to spin, not themselves, but sort of allowing others to spin this idea that there's a political agenda here, which, by the way, would go to explain why Dominion refuses to settle the case out of court. And unfortunately for them, a private equity firm that owns IT services, dental management group, they own a flower bulb company. These are not like political activists. These are guys who are looking to just make some money. And Bill Kenner sits on the boards of AT&T and MetLife and Ford, and he's got a distinguished career both in the private and public sector.

But for his connections to Obama and Clinton, he is not a very convenient bogeyman. But, you know, you don't need much these days. Like you don't need much these days. That's the key point. You can demonize pretty much anybody, as we found out. So among the other people that we expect to testify, we expect all of the best-known names to have to testify. Do we expect to hear testimony from this former producer, Abby Grossberg, who has

filed a lawsuit against Fox, making lots of allegations about how she was coached to testify, talking about the sexist atmosphere, sort of the horny bro culture of Fox. We're going to hear from her? We might. I mean, I haven't followed that side of the story quite as closely as I've followed the sort of core Dominion case. But it seems to me that the Dominion lawyers are well within their rights to bring any witnesses they want. I think given her claims about, you know, what she felt like she was forced to say, almost against her will, I think they could find her to be a very convenient witness. How long do you think this trial will go? Do you have any sense? Yeah, and you know, that's a great question. And that's, this is where sort of legal minds, my colleague at Puck, Eric Gardner, is a brilliant legal mind. And he sort of understands the ins

and outs and the intricacies of this. And I'm always sort of baffled at what I don't understand about legal proceedings. So he has been very helpful in that regard. I don't know, but I anticipate several weeks. And I don't think that it's, I've gotten every indication from, in terms of how the judge has handled the sort of preliminary pre-trial stuff, that he has no qualms about sort of asking for more or asking the lawyers to go back and sort of provide more. And the fact that there's even a special master who might investigate this, I mean, just suggests that there are ways in which this trial can get sort of extended. And then, of course, we're just talking about the trial in the Superior Court. And so the case itself, to the degree that it gets appealed, is something that could play out, you know,

throughout the course of the year and into next year. This is related, although it's indirectly related. The Murdochs clearly had wanted to move on from Donald Trump at some point. They kind of had a soft ban of Trump on Fox News, and clearly that's been eroded. So were you at all surprised to see Donald Trump showing up again on Fox News, being back on, being given, you know, lavish tongue baths in prime time? I guess I'm asking this because if Fox News was genuinely concerned about the damage from this lawsuit, the reputational damage, et cetera, they would be keeping as much distance as possible from anyone engaging in election lies. And of course,

you have the chief election liar of American politics, and he's apparently the doors are wide open for him. So were you surprised at all by that? I was not surprised by it. I would say, yes, chief election liar, also Republican front runner. Right. He's the Trump show. And the Trump show is everything, right? Yeah, he's the Trump show. And I think a few things stood out to me when I saw Trump back on Tucker Carlson. One is that all media organizations, Fox News, CNN, the New York Times, everyone, has to reconcile itself to the fact that we are going through another season of the Trump show. And it will look different. And it will involve his own trial. And I think we would all like to think we're a little more

experienced in how we approach this, but he is there. And every newsroom in the country is dealing with the editorial posture toward him to make sure that they don't make mistakes that were made seven, eight years ago. I was also not surprised because one thing that became very clear in the filings for this case and all of those text messages and email correspondence is that Fox News is not monolithic. And there are ways in which Murdoch's control over the network is limited. In the Roger Ailes era, Roger Ailes ran Fox News with an iron fist. And if he had primetime hosts who went out and sort of went rogue and did something on their own, he drew them back in immediately or he kicked them out. There was this moment, I believe, where Sean Hannity was at a Trump

campaign event and Roger Ailes was like, get on a plane and get back here right now. There is no one at the network, not Rupert, not Suzanne Scott, who really wields that power over the primetime hosts anymore. And so Tucker Carlson, in a way, sort of does what he wants. And he can do what he wants because he's a ratings juggernaut. And Trump is the greatest ratings juggernaut. And so I don't know what conversations happened in private rooms or private calls after the text message or the email was exposed in which Tucker Carlson said, I hate him passionately referring to Trump. Clearly, they patched that up. Inevitably. And look, everyone has an angle and everyone has an objective here. And Trump wants to be on Fox,

and Tucker wants to have the ratings that come from Trump. And so that manifests itself in, it's hard to even call what Tucker Carlson did with Trump an interview, because he just sort of teed up a question and then sat there while Trump meandered from his indictment and the courtroom to questions about foreign policy and Russia and China and sort of let Trump go wherever he wanted. Not exactly hard-hitting. No, it's not hard-hitting at all. And it also suggests that Tucker Carlson and probably Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, too, are as much as other aspects of Fox News and the Murdoch media empire might be sort of leaning toward DeSantis. That very powerful and influential trio seems very willing to

welcome Trump back into the fold. For the moment in the conservative media world and the conservative movement, the Trump show is really the only show in town right now. And what is the counter-programming? I mean, if you have to make a programming decision, who do you want to have on? Do you want to have Donald Trump? Do you want to have Nikki Haley? I mean, what is going to move the needle more, Donald Trump or Tim Scott? This is pretty easy, I think, so far. Okay, so we've sort of been dancing around this big question, which you address. What will be the reputational fallout for Fox News? Obviously, they're taking a reputational blow, but does that trickle down to their audience? What is the risk for Rupert Murdoch and company from this trial or the audience itself and the ratings, their people? Well, so I think if you saw the revelations from this case and were sort of

shocked by how much contemporaneous evidence there is to show that Fox News willingly tolerated lies and conspiracies in a desperate pursuit of ratings, I think your natural instincts would say that that is going to be very bad for Fox News. But then, of course, it's important to remember that the reason they fanned the flames of the conspiracy theories was because they saw an audience that preferred that to the actual truth, and that their core audience, given the choice between the Fox News that said Biden won Arizona and he's going to win the election, and the Fox News that said the voting systems were rigged, it appeared that at least they believed that their audience wanted the conspiracy and their audience was ready to go

to other networks like Newsmax if Fox wasn't going to give them the conspiracy. So if you accept, and I think there's ample reason to believe when you look at various surveys of how many Republicans, for instance, still believe that the election was stolen, and how many Republicans out there believe in various conspiracy theories, I think that there's ample reason to believe that the core Fox News audience really, it's not just that they don't care about this trial or what this trial reveals, it's that in some cases they probably don't even necessarily believe it. Or they don't care about it, even if they do, right? I mean, we normally would think that people would be shocked to find out they've been

lied to, but there is a large constituency out there that may suspect they're being lied to, but they really don't care because they want what they want. Yeah, and this gets to a much larger fundamental question about where the country is at right now in terms He fed the lies, he fed the conspiracies, he fed the partisan vitriol, and now it has gotten to a point in Frankenstein fashion where he is almost at the mercy of what he has created. Because if he doesn't continue to give them what they want, and what they want is becoming crazier and crazier and more and more conspiratorial, then he fears losing his audience. And so Fox's reputation, it's like, I think from where you and I are sitting, you know, we're like, is this damaging to Fox's reputation? And I think from where the

Fox core audience is sitting, what is actually damaging is tacking back towards facts and reality. And I think that Donald Trump understands this better than I think maybe Rupert Murdoch did, because he knows what the vulnerabilities are. He understood eight years ago that he could attack and he could bully and he could insult Fox News and they would come back to heel. And it feels like the same pattern over and over again. For people who remember, I remember when he was lashing out at Megyn Kelly and attacking them, and sure enough, what did they eventually do? They eventually, you know, came back into line and all was forgiven. And Donald Trump understands that transactional nature of the relationship,

but he also understands that vulnerability that Fox News is ultimately afraid of its base, as is much of the Republican Party. That's right. You know, it's sort of interesting as we're heading to trial, and all of this is about to be litigated. There was a survey that came out this week, basically highlighting how much the Republican Party that used to be sort of the country club party has now become the party of country. And that Democrats more and more are the party of the sortissure between these two different parts of America has become so severe that what we perhaps see as reputational damage by virtue of knowingly lying to your audience or something like that, there are blinders on because the core Fox News audience sees the fact that we would even suggest that as

being somewhat, you know, looking down on them, dismissive towards them, or that we ourselves can't be trusted because we're part of some liberal or deep state conspiracy against the American people. And this is what makes this trial so fascinating because it involves, it implicates all of those issues. It feels like an historian of the future who wanted to capture everything that's going on could focus on this trial. This trial will capture our era the way, say, the Scopes Monkey trial captured so many issues

a century ago. I mean, I'm trying to think of major trials that really embodied an era and the splits in society and culture. And it's going to be extraordinary. It really is. And you're absolutely right. And you're hitting upon the key point here, which is going back to why is this the trial of the century? It's actually not just about libel law. It's about American political culture, what it has become, how much the media has played a role, and particularly Fox News has played a role in what it has become. And then I think, not to overstate it, but I think generally, whether or not we as Americans have a shared narrative anymore, or whether we are just living in two completely alternate realities

and never the twain shall meet. We know the answer to that, right? Yeah, I think we do. We don't have a way of being sort of definitive in terms of establishing what's real and what's not, right? When you say that someone is guilty of something by law, the suggestion was that it has a way of shutting up the people who refuse to believe it. I'm not really sure that's true. I think we've sort of crossed the Rubicon here where a guilty verdict in ways can only be more empowering, whether it be for Fox News or for Trump. I mean, obviously that changes, you know, if he goes to jail. I don't even think that people view legal rulings necessarily as the truth anymore. I agree with you. Dylan Myers is a founding partner and senior correspondent at Puck. He covers the business of media, technology, and entertainment, previously worked at NBC News, CNN, and Politico, and has been writing extensively about what is going to be the Murdoch media trial of the century. Thank you so much for coming on the podcast to give us this preview today.

Thank you. Really appreciate it. And thank you all for listening to today's Bulwark Podcast. We'll be back on Monday, and we'll do this all over again. The Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper and engineered and edited by Jason Brown.