• WhyDoesntThisThingWork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m all for Fox being held accountable to face consequences of their reckless actions…

    However, Fox has always been this way. Any investor who had done due diligence would know of their shady reputation. If you knowingly invest in a shady company, you can’t really get pissed later about their shady actions. If you lost money, that’s on you. If they had made money they wouldn’t complain so it’s kinda hypocritical on top of everything else.

    • baru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fox might always have been terrible. But there’s still some rules on how the board should behave. Your post ignores that and is a bit too heavy on the victim blaming IMO.

      • WhyDoesntThisThingWork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s no victim blaming if there’s not a victim and there’s no victim if adults are responsible for their own decisions and performed due diligence to educate themselves about the company before investing. So Fox having always been terrible is at the core of the issue here. They have always promoted crazy-ass conspiracy theories and it has always been profitable for them up until now, in fact I believe they were the highest rated cable “news” network for many years. If they followed a formula that always worked, they had no reason (arguably) to believe it wouldn’t continue to work. In fact by changing a proven profitable formula you could argue they weren’t performing their duties to continue to produce returns on investment.

        But I’m not sure I can continue to have this conversation because if you’re going to start using short-cut terms like "victim-blaming without making arguments to back yourself up, there’s no discussion to be had.

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The obvious rebuttal is that Fox hasn’t until recently been paying hundreds of millions of dollars for defamation.

      • WhyDoesntThisThingWork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You said it yourself though, “recently” and the title of this is “longstanding practice” so it’s not really a valid rebuttal in this case.