The woman suing Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News for defamation in the wake of the $787m settlement with the voting machine company Dominion has accused the media giant of waging a campaign of “vitriolic lies” against her that amounts to a threat to democracy.
Nina Jankowicz sued Fox News and its parent company Fox Corporation for allegedly damaging her reputation as a specialist in conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns. The lawsuit was lodged in a Delaware state court exactly a year after she resigned as executive director of a new Department of Homeland Security unit combatting online disinformation.
The Disinformation Governance Board was abruptly shut down in the wake of a storm of virulent rightwing criticism, allegedly fueled by Fox News. Jankowicz and the new DHS division she led were attacked as being part of a conspiracy to censor rightwing comment spearheaded by Joe Biden.
Jankowicz resigned from the federal post on 18 May 2022, barely three weeks into the job.
In an interview with the Guardian, she said her motive in suing Fox was to ensure accountability for what she alleged was a campaign of lies against her that undermined American democracy. “There needs to be consequences,” she said.
“It was lies, very personal and very vitriolic lies. And I don’t think that is democratic.”
She added that what she claimed was Fox’s reckless disregard for the truth had implications for the future of the country. “If we can’t agree on statements of fact, how can you live in a democracy?”
Jankowicz was announced as the head of the new disinformation board on 27 April last year and was instantly engulfed in a tempest of rightwing anger. In the lawsuit, Jankowicz’s lawyers allege that the attacks skyrocketed the following day, after Fox News hosts began fuelling the hatred with unfounded claims about her desire to censor rightwing voices.
One of the most vociferous critics, the complaint says, was Tucker Carlson, the news channel’s then primetime star who was fired by Fox last month in the wake of the Dominion settlement. In his opening monologue on 28 April, Carlson called Jankowicz a “moron”, said that what she was doing amounted to a “full-scale attack on free speech” and dubbed the disinformation board “the new Soviet America”.
Other Fox hosts, including Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, followed suit, labelling her a “useful idiot”, “janko-half-witz” and “insane”. Hannity went so far as to depict her as “one of the biggest perpetrators and purveyors of disinformation in the entire country”.
The Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade wondered why President Biden would give a pregnant woman such an “important job” – Jankowicz was eight months pregnant at the time.
“I was weeks away from giving birth to my first kid when this was all happening,” Jankowicz told the Guardian. “That’s a time I will never get back.”
The attacks continued long after she had resigned her federal position. As recently as last month, Ingraham returned to the fray; the Fox News host played a clip of Jankowicz describing the harassment she had endured and commented: “She’s just upset that she didn’t get to censor everybody”.
As an authority on disinformation campaigns, Jankowicz said she could predict the cycle of events that unfolded. Whenever Fox hosts attacked her on air, a swarm of online hate would be directed at her culminating in multiple death threats.
“Every time they talked about me on Fox, a new wave of harassment would start. I would get a spike especially when Carlson and Hannity mentioned me.”
Many of the Fox attacks made a point of her gender, she said. “They were focused on belittling me, cutting me down to size – disregarding my serious work and the fact that I had been called as a Republican witness in Senate hearings – just to make me look like a silly little girl.”
The new lawsuit adds to several legal actions piling up on Fox’s plate.
In addition to Dominion’s $1.6bn suit, which alleged Fox had spread the lie that its voting machines helped steal the 2020 presidential election from Donald Trump, the media company is facing a separate action brought by another voting machine firm, Smartmatic.
Carlson’s former booker, Abby Grossberg, is also suing Fox alleging its one-time star fostered an abusive workplace culture.
Jankowicz faces a daunting mountain to climb in taking on the Murdoch empire. As a public figure holding an important federal role at the time of the alleged defamation, she must clear a very high legal standard.
She must show that the broadcaster acted with “actual malice” in disseminating false statements about her that it knew were untrue, or that it showed “reckless disregard” in airing those statements without checking their veracity.
The complaint claims that the channel mentioned more than 150 times that Jankowicz intended to monitor and censor free speech. In fact, the disinformation board had no powers to censor or surveil anyone, it was merely designed to co-ordinate the efforts of other government entities.
“They depicted me as a fascist who didn’t stand up for free speech, when precisely standing up for free speech had been the purpose of my entire career,” she said.
The lawsuit also points to Fox hosts saying she was fired from the board when she in fact resigned.
The Guardian invited Fox to respond to the claim that it knowingly or recklessly broadcast untruths about Jankowicz. A Fox spokesperson said the company has moved to have the case relocated from the Delaware state court to a federal court, but did not respond to any of the specific allegations.
Jankowicz is bringing the action with the help of a gofundme page which has so far raised almost $60,000 towards her legal fees. She said she was heartened by that support, but stressed that money was not her motive.
“I’ve been cautioned time and time again that this might not be ‘worth it’ financially,” she said. “That’s not why I’m pursuing this.”
Her aim she said was partly to show that individuals could also confront the powerful, not just businesses like Dominion and Smartmatic. “These companies have venture capital firms behind them, they can afford fancy lawyers and years-long trials to hold Fox to account. For individuals like me, it’s much harder – and I don’t believe that is something that our system can sustain.”
By bringing the lawsuit, she runs the risk of potentially opening herself up to a renewed wave of criticism that she is attempting to limit free speech protected under the first amendment. The Guardian asked her whether suing for defamation was the best way to counter Fox’s alleged disinformation.
Jankowicz stressed that she didn’t pursue the lawsuit lightly. “I don’t think anybody should pursue a lawsuit just because someone said something mean about them – I have a thick skin. But I believe Fox’s continued lies about individuals are a greater threat to free speech and democracy than a carefully considered, narrow lawsuit like mine.”
She said her main aim was to force Fox to answer for what she called its false statements of facts. “That sort of coverage is not protected speech,” she said. “If Fox isn’t brought to account, they will not stop.”
