Fox's Banderas: "I would be a billionaire" if I sued Media Matters and "every person that said a bad thing about me on the Internet"
On Fox News' The Big Story Primetime Edition, host Julie Banderas criticized a recent defamation lawsuit brought against a popular website, by saying: "[I]f I sued every person that said a bad thing about me on the Internet, I would be a billionaire, and so would many of us here at Fox, 'cause people love to talk about us. ... Media Matters -- they love to bash Fox."
On the July 9 edition of Fox News' The Big Story Primetime Edition, host Julie Banderas discussed the merits of a lawsuit filed by Todd Hollis, a criminal defense attorney, who claimed that anonymous postings on a popular website have "hurt him both personally and professionally," according to a report in The Miami Herald. Banderas criticized the defamation lawsuit, saying: "[I]f I sued every person that said a bad thing about me on the Internet, I would be a billionaire, and so would many of us here at Fox, 'cause people love to talk about us. ... Media Matters -- they love to bash Fox." She concluded by saying, "Bring it on. It's good ... publicity."
From the July 9 edition of Fox News' The Big Story Primetime Edition:
BANDERAS: Welcome back to The Big Story. I'm Julie Banderas. Well, you know break-ups are hard to bear, especially if you find out you have been cheated on. Well, one angry woman used a popular website as a platform to out her ex-boyfriend. You just heard him right there. She claims he's a cheater, and now, he's taking it to the courts.
[...]
LIS WIEHL (Fox News legal analyst): If you're flipping through the Yellow Book to try to find a lawyer and you hear this about this guy, I think you might flip to the next page and not hire him. I mean, I could see that he can definitely make that claim. And he's making a claim for $25,000. I know that's a lot of money, but in the scheme of things, when you're talking about a man who is saying, anyway, that his reputation has been completely ruined, his business is ruined by false things, you know, untrue allegations, then $25,000 is not much.
BANDERAS: Yeah, well, you know, I guess, you know, a lot of bad things are going to be said on the web. I mean, my god, if I -- if I sued every person that said a bad thing about me on the Internet, I would be a billionaire, and so would many of us here at Fox, 'cause people love to talk about us. But, we don't go after them. We don't sue the websites. I mean, Media Matters -- they love to bash Fox.
WIEHL: But you know what?
BANDERAS: We take it. We take it. In fact, you know what? Bring it on. It's good -- it's good publicity.
MERCEDES COLWIN (criminal defense attorney and Fox News legal analyst): Bad or good, it's good publicity and, frankly, lawyers are not really well regarded as to -- looking at these cases. I mean, you look at these lawyers -- they have all these lawyer jokes. I mean, frankly, he created this chaos for himself. He should just let it go, let it die, and move on.
Then it must concern her. Also, Banderas says we love to bash Fox. I for one, criticize Fox because Fox and its cast deserve it, but don't love to do it. I'd rather there be nothing to report, but that isn't the case.
Julie, you poor shill.
Let me get this straight. First you bash Media Matters for what you perceive to be bad (and presumably law-suit-worthy) publicity. Then in the next breath you say, "Bring it on. It's good -- it's good publicity."
Hey, Julie. What do you think bashing Media Matters on the leading cable news channel means to Media Matters? Exactly. "Good publicity." I couldn't have said it better myself. Unbelieveble.
Hope you're having a great day! Love the hair! Say hi to Bill O. for us.
We don't love to bash Fox, but it's a patriot's duty (and a Christian's duty) to oppose Fox, for Fox opposes the Constitution, the morality of Jesus, freedom, decency, and apple pie.
Well, they don't really oppose apple pie, but at added that to my train because it's a cute caboose.
Maybe if Faux News and their minions started telling the truth without twisting it to suit their rightwing political agenda, they would not be noticed as much as they are. Thank God Media Matters is here to set the record straight since the MSM won't.
The last time that I checked a public figure like Ms.Banderas or her colleagues at Fox would have to prove that the statement about them was false and that the speaker either knew it was false or uttered it with reckless disregard for the truth. Also, only false facts and not mere opinions are actionable and the truth of the statement provides the speaker/writer with an absolute defense. My advise Julie is not to quit your day job.
This little item contains a point of great importance to us all.
The part of the item that pits the Fox Hack versus the Professional Fact-Checkers (MMFA), and the Hack's self-described strong legal grounds to sue "every person that said a bad thing about me on the Internet" (and then mentions the Fact-Checkers by name), is of course the part of the item that gets it published here, on the Fact-Checker's website.
Of far greater importance to me though, is Fox's report on the lawsuit being brought against "anonymous postings on a popular website", by a lawyer who claims those anonymous postings "hurt him both personally and professionally".
You do know that there is at present a concerted effort to make it illegal to "anonymously" post anything at all on the internet?
I wish I could say just how far along that legislative effort is (and this item serves to remind me to update myself on that effort), but it's no joke; it's a real effort being made, and it may be closer to being law than most of us would care to believe; and Fox's report on the lawsuit is part of the campaign to advance such a law.
I'm sure of that.
Think of it: You would be unable to post your thoughts, fact or opinion or whatever, here or anywhere else on the internet, without attaching your legal name to it.
It's not a joke; as I said, the effort behind such legislation is powerful, and it may even reach the floor of our Congress sooner than you might think; and were it to advance through Congress, it would be presented to the president for his signature.
Consider what the internet means to the administration: It is perhaps the single most powerful forum of discourse against them; they would black-out this discourse completely, in a second, if they were legally able to; the TV and radio "media" is already owned by those who support the administration (need I point this out to the followers of this Fact-Checking website?).
The internet is at present the American People's unrestrained communication tool for political discourse (discourse of any kind really!); without the internet, the administration would find themselves in a far greater position of power over Public Opinion than they already are (need I point this out to you?); this Internet-Wire (the People's Wire!) is the present bane to the administration's many schemes (Iraq, spying, etc.); were it not for this Wire, they'd have the entire "media" (except for some many newspapers) sewed up tight; they'd love to black-out the Wire that so empowers the American People, who so oppose this administration.
The administration (and their supporters) would love to prevent you and I from posting our thoughts here; and as a step toward such a ban, they would first make you and I identify ourselves, by legal name, in order to post anything at all on the internet, critical of the administration or not.
Consider it; it's true.
Think it could never happen? Think it sounds like a joke?
Watch that lawsuit by the lawyer (I won't say "ambulance chaser", for fear of providing grist to his mill) against the "anonymous postings" of his ex-girlfriend.
It's not a joke; it's a serious legislative effort to ban "anonymous postings" on the internet; it's a serious threat to the power of the Internet-Wire (as serious a threat as this Wire is to the administration's many schemes; which again, serves to illustrate to us why such a ban would have such support).
It's a serious threat to the American People's one true and unrestrained and unfiltered communication tool: The Internet-Wire.
(Me, I think I oppose the administration's schemes enough, to attach my legal name to any thoughts I might post about them, on this Internet-Wire; were such a ban against "anonymous postings" to ever be enacted, I think I'd then attach my legal name to such postings as this one here, on the Fact-Checker's website. But I hope no such ban ever happens; I like the People's Internet-Wire the way it is; I like being Dem02020.)
You're right about that. Enjoy it while you can.
I just read the Miami Herald piece, linked to in the MMFA item; the parts of that piece that pertain to my post:
"Libelous statements on the Web are treated the same as those in other media, but anonymous postings pose a difficult problem in determining who is responsible. In the emerging case law of cyberlibel, the courts have sought to determine whether an Internet service provider acts as a distributor or publisher of libelous speech."
"Jason Schultz, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, said he expects lawsuits against the website to be thrown out by the court."
Here's the best part though: The Plaintiff has not one, but two lawyers representing him in this case of "cyberlibel":
"...John Orie and James Cooney, Hollis' lawyers, argue... (the website) is unlike a general chat room because its whole intent is to allow (those who post) to express libelous statements as fact, not opinion."
"John Orie... (said) His client is seeking damages in excess of $25,000, an amount he said should (get the website to) start verifying the information being posted."
And here comes the LEGAL ARGUMENT, here comes the BOMB they're going to drop in Court (you should love this!); in making clear to you (the Jury) just what responsibilities a website has in allowing "anonymous posts" on their website, consider the Plaintiffs attorney's anology he uses to make his LEGAL ARGUMENT:
"If there are three terrorists sitting in a coffee shop plotting to blow something up, don't you think the coffee shop owner has a responsibility to do something?'' Attorney John Orie said.
The Jury finds the Plaintiff's Claim...
FRIGHTENING!
From what I see, the internet is a more powerful tool for conservative interests. Anything that hampers the free flow of information will hurt the conservative cause more than the liberal cause.
False facts?
Be careful there. Opinion is not always a defense. The wording of a statment as an opinion, i.e., "In my opinion..." does not necessarily make it so. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990).
The above is provided as general information, not legal advice.
Banderas is gutless unless she sues MMFA.
I was about to say the same thing.
"Bring' em on."
..about cheerleaders? Kind of fitting, I guess!
Actually if you and everyone at Fox attempted to sue everyone who tried to hold you accountable for your contemptable lies and for the unabated dissemination of outright propaganda you would run out of money paying your lawyers long before you get even a nickle. Make our day.
Streaming video/audio of you and your pals at Fox News at work is considering bashing you.
Good luck on that lawsuit.
If you listen closely you hear the air escaping from her head.
If you look into her eyes you can see the back of her head.
You guys used to have that loud beep between the cuts. I liked that better, it brought out the evil better.
She’d go broke from the lawyers’ fees with nothing to show for it.
Okay, Fox folks come close.
I have a secret.
Closer.
Closer.
BOO!
They read it. They don't understand it.
--"We take it. We take it. In fact, you know what? Bring it on"--
They take it. Fox' Banderas "takes it". But does she take anything from "it" (i.e., facts)? I wonder. Does Banderas take anything useful, constructive or meaningful away from the Media Matters examination today of her absurdly inaccurate statement "...Documents captured in Iraq may link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda after all"? ([link to mediamatters.org] Does she really believe people only want to "bash" her?
And, the answer is... no. My take -- this woman is a manifestation of the beligerent/indignant ill-informed dope who takes pride in the fact that he/she is a moron -- Why? Well, b/c this is America damn it! This is the land of the free. Let's all thumb our noses at reason/logic/intellect/valour... Why? Because we can... and, as a society, we've all just gotten a bit too lazy to even care about the facts or reality...
My parents were immigrants who love(d) this country and had high hopes for themselves and their children...but, only through hard work and diligence ...Why? b/c this IS the land of opportunity... the land of the free.
The message I get from a harpy like Banderas, however, is different. It's a celebration of stupidity, of brash iconoclasm , but without substance... it is a celebration of vacuous infatuation with power and wealth -- agan, at any cost.
The champions of this purported party of values and personal responsibility (yes, the curren GOP) lack both. All we have left are the clamorous statements of this woman and those like her 'discussing' nonsense. This is our 'news'. This is FOX. This is a greater symptom of our culture at large. Are we up to the task? Can this be fixed?
that was beautiful.
Peet for prez.
I was on a tear last night (!) Every once in a while, these strident creeps just get my goat!
you had one dollar for every lie, misinformation, bash of Clinton/Dems/Progressives, or cheerleading of the Bush regime FAUX has done over the years . . .
Your blonde roots are showing. "Bring it on"????Where have I heard that before? C'mon Julie, do you really think the woman should trash this guy without being able to defend himself...OOPS..you are with Fox so that answers my question. Also, if I told the newspapers about our date and how you wanted money for sex, would it be fair to just put it out there?? Julie, no more McDonalds dates for you.
A fund should be started for Fox News personalities to sue MediaMatters.org.
That would scare them to death.
So sue them, sister. Franken V O'Reilly, the sequel.
Fox news, the republican party and the nitwits who still buy this schmuck's act, "Wholly without merit, factually and legally.
I've still got it deep down in me.
A Republican co-worker asked me a few months ago if I was "happy" about Bush's approval ratings being at 32%, or wherever they were.
I asked him if he'd be happy if 1/3 of his fellow tax-payers and voters couldn't tie their shoes, or believed in leprechauns, or thought the earth was flat, and I forget what other options I gave him.
I 'm generally a pretty happy guy, but to live in one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world, where education and info. is pretty available, and have to walk around knowing that we, as a group, elected these guys TWICE, it's a bit embarrassing.
It's like being on a sports team,everybody has basically the same athletic ability and equipment, and half of the team is getting drunk the entire time between games while you're practicing and training.
Then some of them catch on, so it's only 1/3 of them not pitching in.
would that make me happy?Only in a really optimistic, relative way.
I really love to hear responses here from those who think Fox is "news". It's like those National Geo specials about the really isolated primitive aboriginal societies, except those people have an excuse.
However, I do have to take issue with one statement you made.
"... have to walk around kinowing that we, as a group, elected these guys TWICE..."
When did we, as a group, ever elect these guys even ONCE? True, they did garner enough votes to make it CLOSE, allowing them to STEAL the last two presidential elections, but why make it worse than it really is?
Huntingtonbeachlefty, since when are approval ratings a way to judge politicians? Congress has about a 25% rating, supposedly we voted them into congress. What is Al Gore's current rating? Single digits? How about John Kerry? What would his ratings be if he were President? If his rating dropped below 50%, would you cut him loose?
PG-13, I believe.
Ratings are a way of telling how happy or unhappy they are with the current batch of pols.
How ELSE can you gauge the feeling of most people? Magic?
And I guess we'll never know about Kerry, will we, and there's simply no point in asking the question. I'll tell you this though- if Kerry had a 32% approval rating, the impeachment would have ALREADY happened.
My points about electing them twice are that my fellow Americans actually made it close enough, and that's disappointing.
And I wasn't judging Bush by poll numbers , I was commenting on the voters of this country, and the amazing fact that 1/3 are still in the dark.
I mention Bush's approval ratings not to gloat at how low they are, but to wonder how they are that high.
--
Oh, Julie, Julie, Julie, Julie .... Lawsuits are just so messy and vile.
Look, why cheapen yourself for only a billion? You play along here, say what you're told when you're told to and not be paying any attention to what some deeper meaning is in it -- nobody knows what's real and what's just hard hitting news anyway, and don't be listening about any somebody got killed by your lying -- nobody knows in reality anyway, if you don't do it somebody else, a dozen somebody elsesses, are lined up waiting ... keep the chin down, shine those flashing black eyes up, remember to look up so it's got that sexy white at the bottom showing -- it says 'oh please be gentle ...,' maybe get your hair fixed, back in a knot and swept tight so it holds your ears in close, and give what you got a little 'up-lift' in front, there, if you know what I mean, so your neck stays long and swan-slender and tight and regal, you're probably related to royalty somewhere back in your genes ... with a little coaching and your natural talent with that lip gloss, TWO billion, at least, jelly cups I mean Julie, you get up there and read your lines -- you are gonna knock. them. dead. I'm telling you.
All this bad talk you read about all the lies and the lying liars who tell them, hey, somebody's gotta do it; they're just jealous because their kid got killed in the war you started and you're still there holding down your job, that's all it is, jealousy, don't listen to any of them. You stand up and put it out there and the rest is going to take care of itself. I got a good feeling about this. You are going right to the top. Right up on top. You are good, damn good, you go, grrrilla, they ain't never had nothing like what you put in the package.
One billion? Heck, that'd just be the ticket take to get in to put a bid in, when YOU go on auction, toots. Show that pout gloss again, apple blossom silver with just a touch of carmine at the corners. Mygawd. Mygawd. Forget the lawsuits, think birthday suit, you gotta go over the top in this market today. People kill to be in your seat.
It's kill or be killed, and the times are ready for a brunette, it'll be your break out identity and it'll be fabulous. You kill, complexion queen, you kill. The guys on the ground are going to be breathing so hard looking at you ain't none of them going to make it back alive. Hey, they were just born to lose, what can you do. Forget it, what's a few dead soldiers, that's what they signed up for anyway, just look at THESE ratings.
Hey, next time maybe try one of those zipper up the front styles, sort of a subtle signal away from the buttons and stuffiness. Stuffed-in i-ness, that's what counts, yeah, and you're worth a billion several times a week. I've got some friends I'd like you to meet ...
Like a lot of you, I've never heard of this pretty face, but if you watch the clip, note the moment where she says that it's good publicity when posters go at her and Fox. Her facade slips. It cracks just enough to see the hurt.
It really does bother her when people post harsh things about her.
I suspect she's reading this thread, so I urge her to foresake Fox and become a real journalist. People will still say harsh things about her, but at least she'll be serving a noble cause.
Regarding her beauty, yeah, she's a major babe. Lincoln wasn't a major babe. Neither was Cronkite. Since we want all our newscasters and presidents to be purty nowadays, it makes you wonder who can't rise to a position of authority, despite their brilliance and verve, just 'cause they aren't purty enough. Our hunger for beauty means we often settle for a lesser product, president, and Fox shill.
But it seems to be a rule for the women over at Fox. Look at the guys at Fox, they are not babes. In fact some of the men are pretty strange looking (Cavuto, Gibson, O'Rielly, Colmbs). I say this not to denegrate them but to illustrate a point. Now all of the Fox girls are super model like. I doubt if Candy Crawley or Gwen Ifill could get a jobs there.
I am amending my statement about Gwen Ifill. I think Fox would give their left foot to get her over there. Fox's credibility is in the toilet now, they've become an industry joke and I don't care what their ratings are. They are the Jerry Springer TV show of cable news, and like Jerry's TV show Fox exploits people with emotional problems for entertainment.(O'rielly is nuts) Oh yeah, I think they would love to have someone of Ifill's stature on the Fox team.
Let me see, bashing, bashing, oh, here it is, bashing: To engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism. Doesn't sound like MMFA now, does it.
BTW, Julie Who? Never heard of her.
Yeah, it's "bashing" when someone points out your constant propoganda, errors, distortions, and outright LIES.
Yup, that's what it is.
You know Juile, if you had some actual talent behind that pretty face, perhaps you could for for a real organization. But, since you're nothing but a talentless hack, you work for the propoganda network that doesn't value anything but how you look.
The reason people watch you has nothing to do with what you say.
In fact, I'm guessing that news models like yourself are far more interested in your "Q" than your spew.
Daring to expose their lies is, to Fox News, defamation of character. Last I checked, a contrary position on the issues isn't by ANY standard a defamation of character. For example, I don't believe in deities of any size or shape. Am I defaming Christianity? Nope. Just denying its core arguments. Not the same thing as saying the new Pope reminds me of Gollum. See, that could be construed as defamatory, if I weren't engaging in what is considered protected speech, that being satire, which, as Al Franken put, is still protected even if the target of said satire doesn't get it, which perfectly defines the entire staff at Fox News: humorless and clueless.
I’ll be waiting for the subpoena, any day now…
you are so easy to refute, I completely invalidated the whole segment you did on the U.N., Russia, and China like it was nothing! And you know how? Because I do my homework, I know my stuff, and I am able to make cogent counterarguments to your hyperbolic rants.
All media matters does is provide contextualized video clips of things you say that demonstrate conservative bias, AND THAT IS ALL! Whenever they do rebut an argument you make, it is corroborated with properly cited outside sources.
Media Matters has never attacked YOU personally. But you know what, with all the trashing that Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Al Gore, etc. receive from right-wingers on the internet, they would be TRILLIONAIRES if they sought libel suites against the responsible posters.
As for insulting your personal life Julie, you should complain about Wikipedia, for they have this nice line about your past: "She was allegedly fired from WNYW for engaging in simulating sex acts with a married colleague."
You can't sue anyone for telling the truth, at least not yet, in this country that's why you can't sue anyone on Media Matters.
Thanks for the free publicity for the site(MMFA) that reveals the lies, distortions and misinformation you and your fellow Foxite's dole out for the rube's and dupe's.
Again, thanks for the free publicity.
Have a Fox News good day, which in the real world would mean just the opposite, naturally.