What litigation and internal documents (e.g., Smartmatic/Dominion) reveal about Fox News’s editorial decision‑making during the Trump era?
Executive summary
Litigation and internal documents produced in the Dominion and Smartmatic lawsuits expose a trove of internal texts, emails, employee surveys and deposition material that illuminate Fox News’s editorial decision‑making after the 2020 election, showing both internal resistance to and managerial toleration of election‑fraud claims on air [1] [2] [3]. Those records support Smartmatic’s assertion that ratings incentives and fear of alienating pro‑Trump viewers shaped choices about what hosts and guests were allowed to say, while Fox’s lawyers counter that hosts genuinely believed the fraud claims and therefore lacked the "actual malice" required for defamation [4] [5] [6].
1. What the documents actually are — texts, emails, surveys and depositions
Court filings in Smartmatic’s $2.7 billion suit and the earlier Dominion litigation include thousands of pages of internal communications — previously unpublished text messages and emails involving senior figures such as Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity and CEO Suzanne Scott — plus an internal employee survey and deposition transcripts that Smartmatic has sought to reproduce from the Dominion case [2] [1] [7]. Smartmatic has expressly sought to compel Fox to hand over the Dominion discovery and related depositions, and filings note that depositions of Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, Raj Shah and lawyer Viet Dinh are among the materials sought [8] [9] [10].
2. What the documents reveal about newsroom tensions and warnings
An anonymous Fox News employee survey conducted in August–September 2020 and cited in the filings contains hundreds of responses expressing alarm that the network was "intentionally helping Donald Trump" and that editorial standards had broken down; Smartmatic argues those comments show executives were on notice of dangerous programming choices but did not act [3] [11]. The filings and media reporting also show on‑air and behind‑the‑scenes staff who pushed back — decision desk staff and reporters who tried to correct or explain calls for Biden — and Smartmatic and critics point out many of those figures later left the network, which they say buttresses the claim of a permissive editorial environment [5] [4].
3. Incentives, programming choices and the ratings question
Smartmatic’s pleadings and independent reporting assert the network’s embrace of election‑fraud narratives fit a commercial pattern: hosts and producers allegedly amplified incendiary claims to retain and grow a pro‑Trump audience, an allegation framed as Fox prioritizing ratings and viewer appeasement over fact‑checking [4] [5]. Opposing that view, Fox’s lawyers and the network maintain that hosts and some executives sincerely believed fraud claims were newsworthy and that coverage reflected reporting on controversial claims rather than a calculated conspiracy to mislead [6].
4. Documentary specifics cited by plaintiffs: who said what, when
Filings released in the Smartmatic matter include particular exchanges — for example, internal emails noting fears that "Trump needs a scapegoat and it’s now Fox," and notes that some hosts mulled how to respond to the decision desk’s call of Arizona for Biden — which plaintiffs use to show contemporaneous awareness of the reputational risk and editorial debates inside Fox [2]. Smartmatic highlights the recurrence of Dominion/Smartmatic allegations on shows and the use of guests like Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani as evidence that false claims were broadcast without adequate challenge [8] [4].
5. Legal posture and limits of disclosure
The legal record is now the primary window into editorial intent because much of the evidence exists only in discovery; judges in related cases have unsealed large swaths of documents but litigation redactions and ongoing proceedings mean the public record remains incomplete, and Fox argues that even the revealed statements must be read in light of constitutional protections for reporting and First Amendment defenses such as absence of actual malice [1] [6]. Smartmatic presses that Dominion’s $787.5 million settlement and the newly produced materials create a compelling basis to move to trial, while Fox seeks summary judgments and contends Smartmatic’s damages calculations and theories are exaggerated [6] [1].
6. How to read these revelations: competing narratives and what they imply
The documents document real editorial friction and instances of management and stars weighing audience reaction against accuracy — evidence Smartmatic argues proves a pattern of deliberate amplification — yet reasonable alternative readings exist in the filings and Fox’s defense that many on‑air actors sincerely believed in the fraud claims and were reporting them; the current docket therefore shows strong indicia of problematic editorial choices while still leaving some legal and factual questions unresolved in public filings [4] [6] [1].