Viet Dinh, the Chief Legal and Policy Officer of Fox Corp., revealed that the media giant’s $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems Inc. was compelled by a string of errors made by a Delaware judge. Dinh made these comments during a discussion at Harvard Law School, where he outlined the circumstances leading to the settlement, as well as the challenges facing the media landscape.

Dinh highlighted the backdrop of an impending U.S. election cycle, with Fox entangled in legal battles, making it a wise business decision to resolve Dominion’s defamation claims. He pointed out that despite President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Fox, as a conservative-oriented network, had an obligation to cover the accusations made by former President Donald Trump, which contested the election results.

As Dinh explained, “We are in the news business…You have the sitting president contesting the results of an election that he lost, hiring lawyers to go to court in order to challenge the election results, and asserting that at the end of the day he will have enough electors to overturn the election.”

Dinh, a close associate of Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, is set to retire at the end of the year. His departure follows the controversial Dominion case, which reportedly contributed to his retirement. He will receive a $23 million lump sum payment and a two-year contract as an adviser to Fox. The controversy with Dominion revolved around unfounded allegations that the voting machine manufacturer tampered with the election results to favor Trump.

While discussing the legal proceedings, Dinh refrained from mentioning Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis by name but expressed his dissatisfaction with the ruling that prevented Fox from invoking a “neutral reporting privilege,” which could assess the “newsworthiness” of a defamatory claim.

Dinh noted the division within Fox’s legal team, with the lead trial lawyer, Dan Webb of Winston & Strawn, being initially opposed to settling with Dominion. In contrast, the lead appellate lawyer, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, was confident about Fox’s chances of prevailing on appeal.

Dinh also addressed the evolving media landscape, recognizing the difficulties lawyers encounter as a result of evolving consumer media consumption patterns, he stressed that a significant portion of the content on Fox and similar networks consists of personal opinions and guest contributors freely expressing their viewpoints.

Dinh clarified that Fox refrains from having lawyers influence editorial and business decisions, preferring to let business professionals and reporters make judgments in consultation with legal counsel. He explained that Fox deliberately selects stories based on a “central right” point of view, filling what it perceives as an underserved market.

Regarding the departure of Tucker Carlson, Dinh clarified that it was unrelated to the Dominion settlement and was an independent decision made by the editorial executives of Fox. He noted that Carlson is well-compensated through his contract with the company.

Dinh concluded by underscoring that his personal views may not align with every aspect of Fox’s 24/7 news cycle, which features a diversity of voices. He expressed his commitment to enhancing civil discourse in the country and acknowledged that there is always room for improvement in making difficult decisions to that end.