Yes, I know what you're thinking. It's getting to where you can't beat up a little old lady on national television and get away with it.
But lost in the latest faux Fox controversy is the larger tragedy... Not only is this not the first time the famed "news organization" has been responsible for destroying the reputation and career of someone demonstrably innocent, but the largest such incident -- the doctored videos destroying ACORN -- have placed a giant, ticking time bomb under the whole of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
How so? In bringing down ACORN, Fox not only affected the organization itself, it's regular staff of 350 to 600 and the low to moderate-income families it served. It also had "nearly 500,000 members" in over 1,200 chapters across the U.S. So what were the damages inflicted by the collapse of the organization and the devastation of its reputation and that of everyone connected to it? If the question came up, oh, in court?
Hard to say, but imagine if the loss of its services in dealing with predatory lenders and other financial crises, combined with the impact of having any connection to ACORN on one's resume (as an employee, volunteer, chapter officer) have one one's future employment prospects and, well... let's call it an average of $350 a year or so per family, over the next 30 years. (Yes, where predatory lending is concerned it could be more, given interest accrued, but many of these families have less to lose. So we might as well low ball it.) So how would that affect a class-action lawsuit brought against Fox News/News Corporation by ACORN's former staff, part-time employees and member families?
Let's just say that Fox quite possibly doesn't have that many billions to burn, especially in this economy, especially since the prospect of a vast class-action lawsuit by working Americans is apt to drive its stock value and advertising revenues down considerably. And yes, some top-flight law firms would be quite interested in taking this up in a friendly court system, particularly if they thought News Corporation might settle in exchange for a sufficient price. Say, Fox News.
But if they don't, the loss of ad money and stock value would have a brutal impact on News Corporation, particularly if damages were eventually assessed in the billions. The only effective means of payment might be... stocks. Which would be mean passing controlling interest in News Corporation, and hence control over minor operations such as Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, over to a host of low to middle-income working families.
So weep, my friends. Weep for Fox News. For, whatever they intended with their latest round of tormenting innocent little old ladies, it probably wasn't this...
Note: The above is not intended as legal advice, merely an observation. And a dry one, at that.