June 24, 2021

Rachel Maddow is a Liar - Literally!

Timothy Birdnow

Rachel Maddow is so divorced from reality that an Obama-appointed judge actually ruled her show "is understood even by her own viewers to offer exaggeration and opinion, not facts."

From the article:

"In response, OAN sued Maddow, MSNBC, and its parent corporation Comcast, Inc. for defamation, alleging that it was demonstrably false that the network, in Maddow's words, "literally is paid Russian propaganda." In an oddly overlooked ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuiton the ground that even Maddow's own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them ("literally is paid Russian propaganda").

In concluding that Maddow's statement would be understood even by her own viewers as non-factual, the judge emphasized that what Maddow does in general is not present news but rather hyperbole and exploitation of actual news to serve her liberal activism:

On one hand, a viewer who watches news channels tunes in for facts and the goings-on of the world. MSNBC indeed produces news, but this point must be juxtaposed with the fact that Maddow made the allegedly defamatory statement on her own talk show news segment where she is invited and encouraged to share her opinions with her viewers. Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions.

Thus, Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news. Therefore, the Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact.

The judge's observations about the specific segment at issue — in which Maddow accused a competitor of being "literally paid Russian propaganda" — was even more damning. Maddow's own viewers, ruled the court, not only expect but desire that she will not provide the news in factual form but will exaggerate and even distort reality in order to shape her opinion-driven analysis (emphasis added):

Viewers expect her to do so, as it is indeed her show, and viewers watch the segment with the understanding that it will contain Maddow’s "personal and subjective views” about the news. See id. Thus, the Court finds that as a part of the totality of the circumstances, the broad context weighs in favor of a finding that the alleged defamatory statement is Maddow’s opinion and exaggeration of the Daily Beast article, and that reasonable viewers would not take the statement as factual. . . .

Here, Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying "I mean, what?”) and calling the segment a "sparkly story” and one we must "take in stride.” For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context. The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion. A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts.

In sum, ruled the court, Rachel Maddow is among those "speakers whose statements cannot reasonably be interpreted as allegations of fact.” Despite Maddow's use of the word "literally” to accuse OAN of being a "paid Russian propaganda” outlet, the court dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that, given Maddow's conduct and her audience's awareness of who she is and what she does, "the Court finds that the contested statement is an opinion that cannot serve as the basis for a defamation claim."

What makes this particularly notable and ironic is that a similar argument was made a year later by lawyers for Fox News when defending a segment that appeared on the program of its highest-rated program, Tucker Carlson Tonight. That was part of a lawsuit brought by the former model Karen McDougal, who claimed Carlson slandered her by saying she "extorted” former President Trump by demanding payments in exchange for her silence about an extramarital affair she claimed to have with him.

This isn't something we didn't already know, but now it's official.

BTW this article was written by liberal Glenn Greenwald, so it's hardly taking a Republican slant.

Frankly, there probably does need to be more accountability for news outlets in regard to their carelessness with facts. The case cited by Greenwald of Tucker Carlson, where he said Trump was being extorted, is hardly in the same category as saying Russian agents LITERALLY run One America News.

That said, I would rather err on the side of free speech in regards to opinion pieces; the Left would LOVE to win these kinds of suits as they generally control the courts and if they don't they have the resources to bankrupt someone regardless through endless suits.

That said, this actually seems like a reasonable decision.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:41 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 920 words, total size 7 kb.

1 It's not the win we wanted. They said her show wasn't a news show but rather a show where her opinion was the main reason people tuned in to watch it. That makes the rules different. In fact, that puts it in the same classification as Tucker Carlson's show -- though certainly not in the same calibre.

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at June 24, 2021 10:17 PM (usxcn)

2 It actually puts it in the same category as most supposedly "news" stories too Dana. The difference appears to be how one words a slant in this legal opinion.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at June 25, 2021 06:43 AM (uRwTJ)

3

Swiss Kiss is one of our stronger strains with up to 12% CBD.

If you enjoy an earthy aroma, Swiss Kiss will delight. It has an earthy musk smell, with a hint of citrus. When it comes to taste, your palette will dance with the mix of sweet, earthy and woody flavors. There are no added terpenes.

Swiss Kiss CBD hemp flowers are chemical and pesticide-free. They have deep orange pistils and dark trichomes.

Benefits of Swiss Kiss Kush CBD Flowers

You’ll find Swiss Kiss CBD flowers have a number of health benefits, both physical and mental. With very little, or no THC, Swiss Kiss is non-psychoactive. As such, many people who are living with various mental or physical ailments are trying this strain to find relief of their symptoms.

Because this strain is so relaxing, it can help you rest easier at night – which makes it ideal if you’re suffering from insomnia.

If you’re seeking a relaxing strain that can help you fall asleep at night and overcome insomnia, this strain could be worth trying. You might also find relief with this strain, if you experience pain, nausea, and skin conditions.

With Swiss Kiss CBD flowers, you’ll feel relaxed, happy, focused, and calm.

How To Use Swiss Kiss CBD Flowers

One of the best ways to consume Swiss Kiss CBD flowers is with a dry herb vaporizer. This vaping device heats the flower to a low temperature, providing you with a clean and smooth vapor. It allows you to enjoy the flavor of Swiss Kiss, without smoke.

If you prefer traditional methods, smoking is a popular method with Swiss Kiss, or you might try adding the herbs to your favorite cookie dough or cup of tea.

It is important to note that even though Swiss Kiss hemp flowers look like your typical cannabis plants that contain psychoactive elements these particular strains have been grown to make sure that they are legal across Europe and the UK. Order yours today!

Ingredients: 100% pure cannabis https://darknetweedstore.com/

https://darknetweedstore.com/


Posted by: buy weed uk at July 08, 2021 01:12 PM (QjImP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment




What colour is a green orange?




33kb generated in CPU 1.8551, elapsed 1.9645 seconds.
37 queries taking 1.788 seconds, 162 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Always on Watch
The American Thinker
Bird`s Articles
Old Birdblog
Birdblog`s Literary Corner
Behind the Black Borngino Report
Canada Free Press
Common Sense and Wonder < br/ > Christian Daily Reporter
Citizens Free Press
Climatescepticsparty,,a>
_+
Daren Jonescu
Dana and Martha Music On my Mind Conservative Victory
Eco-Imperialism
Gelbspan Files Infidel Bloggers Alliance
Let the Truth be Told
Newsmax
>Numbers Watch
OANN
Real Climate Science
The Reform Club
Revolver
FTP Student Action
Veritas PAC
FunMurphys
The Galileo Movement
Intellectual Conservative
br /> Liberty Unboound
One Jerusalem
Powerline
Publius Forum
Ready Rants
The Gateway Pundit
The Jeffersonian Ideal
Thinking Democrat
Ultima Thule
Young Craig Music
Contact Tim at bgocciaatoutlook.com

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 99159
  • Files: 15781
  • Bytes: 4.9G
  • CPU Time: 464:24
  • Queries: 3564856

Content

  • Posts: 28657
  • Comments: 126737

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0