Court Literally Rules that Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She's a liar and full of bullshit, just like Tucker Carlson

MSNBC's top-rated host Rachel Maddow devoted a segment in 2019 to accusing the right-wing cable outlet One America News (OAN) of being a paid propaganda outlet for the Kremlin. Discussing a Daily Beast article which noted that one OAN reporter was a "Russian national” who was simultaneously writing copy for the Russian-owned outlet Sputnik on a freelance contract, Maddow escalated the allegation greatly into a broad claim about OAN's real identity and purpose: “in this case,” she announced, “the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda."

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 lawsuit on 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.

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.

McDougal's lawsuit was dismissed in September, 2020, by Trump-appointed judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, based on arguments made by Fox's lawyers that were virtually identical to those made by MSNBC's lawyers when defending Maddow. In particular, the court accepted Fox's arguments that when Carlson used the word “extortion,” he meant it in a colloquial and dramatic sense, and that his viewers would have understood that he was not literally accusing her of a crime but rather offering his own subjective characterizations and opinions, particularly since viewers understand that Carlson offers political commentary:

Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect. See Def. Br. at 12-15. Fox News cites to a litany of cases which hold that accusing a person of “extortion” or “blackmail” simply is “rhetorical hyperbole,” incapable of being defamatory. . . .

In particular, accusations of “extortion,” “blackmail,” and related crimes, such as the statements Mr. Carlson made here, are often construed as merely rhetorical hyperbole when they are not accompanied by additional specifics of the actions purportedly constituting the crime. . . . Such accusations of crimes also are unlikely to be defamatory when, as here, they are made in connection with debates on a matter of public or political importance. . . . The context in which the offending statements were made here make it abundantly clear that Mr. Carlson was not accusing Ms. McDougal of actually committing a crime. As a result, his statements are not actionable. (continued)

When discussing Carlson's show generally and how viewers understand it, the court used language extremely similar to that invoked to protect Maddow from defamation lawsuits: namely, that Fox viewers understand that Carlson is, in addition to presenting news, offering his own subjective analysis of it:

In light of this precedent and the context of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” the Court finds that Mr. Carlson’s invocation of “extortion” against Ms. McDougal is nonactionable hyperbole, intended to frame the debate in the guest commentator segment that followed Mr. Carlson’s soliloquy. As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to “challenge[] political correctness and media bias.” Def. Br. at 14. This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.”

Fox News has convincingly argued that Mr. Carlson was motivated to speak about a timely political cause and that, in this context, it is clear that his charge of “extortion” should not be interpreted as an accusation of an actual crime. Plaintiff’s interpretation of Mr. Carlson’s accusations is strained and, the Court finds, not reasonable when the entire segment is viewed in context. It is true that Mr. Carlson added color to his unsubstantiated rhetorical claim of extortion when he narrated that Ms. McDougal “approached” Mr. Trump and threatened his career and family. See Am. Compl. ¶ 10. But this overheated rhetoric is precisely the kind of pitched commentary that one expects when tuning in to talk shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight, with pundits debating the latest political controversies.

This is worth noting because of how often, and how dishonestly, this court case regarding Carlson is cited to claim that even Fox itself admits that its host is a liar who cannot be trusted. This court ruling has become a very common argument used by liberals to claim that even Fox acknowledges that Carlson lies. Indeed, Maddow's own colleague Chris Hayes — whose MSNBC program is broadcast at the same time as Carlson's and routinely attracts less than 1/3 of the Fox host's audience — has repeatedly cited this court case to argue that even Fox admits Carlson is a liar, without bothering to note that his companies’ lawyers made exactly the same claims about his mentor, Rachel Maddow, to defend her from a defamation lawsuit: (continued)

Link, OP?

This claim — even Fox admits that Carlson is a liar who cannot be believed! — has become such a common trope among liberals that it is impossible to count how many times I have heard it. And that is because the liberal sector of the corporate media blared this claim in headlines over and over after the lawsuit against Fox was dismissed.

It is virtually impossible to find similar headlines about Maddow even though the judicial rationale justifying dismissal of the lawsuit against her was virtually identical to the one used in Carlson's case. Indeed, lawyers for MSNBC and Fox cited most of the same legal precedent to defend their stars and to insist that their statements could not be actionable as defamation because viewers understood it as opinion rather than fact.

I personally agree with the rationale cited in both cases: it becomes dangerous when defamation claims are used to punish or otherwise forbid the expression of political opinion. And of course it is the job of lawyers to mount every possible argument when defending a client, which is why both MSNBC and Fox's lawyers essentially insisted that viewers of these programs understand that they are not being presented with objective truth and neutral news but political and subjective commentary. That is what made these widespread attempts to weaponize the ruling in Carlson's case so preposterous.

Indeed, it was Maddow's statement — that OAN is "literally paid Russian propaganda”— that seems far more actionable than Carlson's obviously figurative assertion that McDougal was "extorting” Trump. Falsely accusing people of being paid Kremlin agents has a long and ugly history in the U.S., having destroyed reputations and careers, yet this smear has once again become utterly commonplace in Democratic Party politics (a protracted and ugly feud among liberal commentators was initiated earlier this month when The Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur baselessly and falsely claimed that journalist Aaron Maté was "paid by the Russians”).

But whatever else is true, those who want to claim that this court ruling proves Carlson is a lying propagandist who cannot be trusted have no way out of applying the same claim to Maddow. In both cases, it would be unfair and irrational to use these court rulings to suggest that, given that the arguments made were standard ones lawyers advance to defend a defamation defendant. Ironically, those most guilty of being unreliable liars and propagandists are those in the media and even Maddow's own MSNBC colleagues who repeatedly cite this court ruling to delegitimize Carlson without ever mentioning that Maddow’s lawyers successfully used the same arguments in her defense. --END

Glenn Greenwalk article. DL won't allow me to link.

Here, OP.

I believe that KGB Glennita is a persona non grata here on DL.

And we are sick and tired of your holier-than-thou opinions, Glennita OP. So sod off!

[quote] Glenn Greenwalk article. DL won't allow me to link.

For good and obvious reasons.

Fox News legal defense = they are an entertainment channel, not news. That is what the network said about itself.

Greenwald is a gay liberal, R8 and R9. He was anti-Bush and the Iraq war when you and everyone else were cheering it on.

[quote]“the Court finds that the contested statement is an opinion that cannot serve as the basis for a defamation claim."

How is it that you don't realize Greenwald's column is exactly the same? It's opinion.

He’s been assisting neo-fascism in the US for a decade now.

[quote] Greenwald is a gay liberal, [R8] and [R9]. He was anti-Bush and the Iraq war when you and everyone else were cheering it on.

We can read all of your comments.

Greeenwald? Pass like it's on fire.

Do Fox viewers know that Glenn Greenwald likes big, black, uncut Brazilian linguica?

R10, Glenn Greenwald is no liberal. Unless you think Ron Paul was a liberal because he was against the Iran war too. Glenn was a fan of Ron Paul's - he didn't give a shit about Ron Paul's other, non-liberal, very regressive policy positions.

"Literally"

OAN had to pay Maddow's legal fees after losing this lawsuit.

Maddow made the statement after the Daily Beast reported that one of One America’s on-air reporters, Kristian Brunovich Rouz, also was on the payroll for Sputnik, the Kremlin news outlet. Maddow said “[OANN] has a full-time on-air reporter who covers U.S. politics, who is also simultaneously on the payroll of the Kremlin," then followed it up with saying “the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda.”

OAN said that the statement was false because Rouz was only a freelancer for Sputnik.

The part of the ruling that explains why it was just opinion isn't what Greenwald describes at all, which shouldn't surprise anyone, he's a noted liar. The judge basically said that Maddow was inserting colorful commentary throughout the segment and anyone with half a brain would know the whole thing was opinion.

[quote]...even though Maddow used the word “literally,” she “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.”

I agree with Greenwald. He's saying the decision was correct in both instances. The hypocrisy is Maddow (and most hilariously John Oliver who has a comedy show) weaponizing the ruling when their shows are definitely not news.

OP: You are so totally full of shit……just go home……do something positive with your life.

R21, what planet are you from? Maddow is stating facts or at least putting 2 and 2 together. Carlson is a fraud and stated so in court.

R23 If you read the article, you'll realize she isn't stating facts. She is stating her opinion. What she's doing is worse than Carlson because she's accusing anyone who disagrees with her a Russian agent, which is an authoritarian tactic.

I don’t think these shows open both sides are offering “opinions” exactly. They seek to interpret and explain known facts. And I think their viewers generally do have a hard time distinguishing between facts, and interpretations of those facts which are typically woven together into an attention-grabbing story.

^on both sides

Did we really need a court to tell us this?

Cool thread OP; you totally decimated Rachel Maddow and made Glenn Greenwald look smart and not like a bitter, Russian operative cunt.

It seems the arguments are different. In the Maddow case, the judge ruled from this story any reasonable viewer could tell Maddow was giving an opinion IN THIS STORY. Fox argued no reasonable person should ever take Carlson seriously EVER.

Have Glenn Greenwald and "milky loads" Andrew Sullivan fucked? Who would be the top?

Glenn Greenwald believes that Russia did nothing to help Trump get elected. Draw your own conclusions about him.

Remember when Glenn Greenwald represented white supremacists? Well, I do.

Glenn guests on Fox all the time. That's enough for me to totally discount anything he has ever said.

Well, Fox viewers are a different animal than MSNBC viewers. I don't necessarily want to say "slower" but less likely to catch nuanced differences between news and opinion.

NO MORE SPOOK RAGS ON DL!!

ENOUGH!!!!!!!

THESE FORIGN-BACKED TRAITORS NEED TO BE ROUNDED UP AND PUT IN GITMO!!!!

China doll Rachel Mad Cow got owned!

Why hasn't Rachel stood up for LGB and women against the Trans Industry?

R28, you are not fit to lick the cum off of the end of Glenn Greenwald's ample penis.

Why hasn't r37 fallen off a rickety catwalk in an abandoned warehouse and into a vat of sulfuric acid?

Glenn Greenwald, and his publication The Intercept, were chiefly responsible for Reality Winner going to jail. I can't tell if he's far right or far left, he has his own strange and very questionable agenda. And his information is not to be trusted!

[quote] [R23] If you read the article, you'll realize she isn't stating facts. She is stating her opinion

She may not have a smoking gun on some of these things, but we rarely do. We never got one with watergate. So is Nixon innocent? (Don’t answer — you probably think so.)

As opposed to chemtrails and gay frogs, and carlson’s dog whistle racism.

As I said not even in the same ballpark. And why assert left- turned right-wing provocateur Greenwald as your “proof?” That’s just begging the question.

Why is a violent homophobe like r39 on a site for homosexuals?

Go away, Matt.

Why is R42 such a simpering loon?

....

Here is the court's opinion by the Obama judge effectively giving Maddow free license to slander.

Those of you who are defending Rachel Maddow's "integrity" really are clueless and the attacks on Greenwald are superficial and without substance. He's writing the facts of the legal case but you don't like facts. Do you people realize that in "winning" the case that Maddow and MSNBC have acknowledged that she doesn't tell the truth? That she's a clown who stirs up baseless shit for ratings? That she's a media whore who dupes her credulous audience? That's the obvious takeaway. The capacity for denial and deflection some of you show is astounding.

Rachel Maddow and Lori Lightfoot have done more to damage the image of lesbians than anyone else I can think of. Both are despicable.

There's no better illustration of how the Left has been captured by corporate interests than in the underlying assumption of many posters on this board that MNBC (parent company = Comcast) is more likely to be a source of unbiased truth than an independent journalist like Glenn Greenwald, who puts his neck on the line. Think about it.

[quote] independent journalist like Glenn Greenwald

LOL!

[quote]He's writing the facts of the legal case

He's not, and that's the point that was explained in multiple replies earlier in the thread.

For a few months now I've noticed the trolls will wait until a thread is dead and come in and spam it with their right wing crap, hoping they can make it look like there are more of them than there actually are. One of these trolls has at least three really obvious "tells" in their writing, you block him once and you still see him posting from three other accounts, he must have two dozen logins here.

Former producer of gay underage Brazilian porn has opinions on Rachel Maddow's integrity as a journalist?

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.

I eat piles and piles of shit.

Literally.

[R51] You don't know what you're talking about - and you're a perfect example of a brainwashed partisan.

[R51] You're so analytical and open-minded! Your arguments are baseless and childish - it's as if you're sticking out your tongue and plugging your ears like a 5 year old who can't stand the truth. And your righteousness in banning dissenting voices says much about who you are and how you operate. You can't hide from the truth. Your goddess is a fool and you're even worse for knowing the truth yet persisting in defending her. Please don't vote for the sake of the republic.

I knew nothing about Greenwald back when he was the conduit for Snowden's disturbing revelations about NSA covert surveillance of citizens, so I saw him as being a brave journalist standing up to a corrupt system. I've since learned much more about his other causes and tactics (often from comments of more knowledgeable folk on DL), and was greatly disillusioned.

I seriously don’t understand plaintiffs who proceed with a case when there is a judge assigned who they know is going to rule against them. There is no force in this universe that was going to make the Obama judge rule against Rachel Maddow. OAN should have withdrawn as soon as they knew who the judge would be.

There are many people on this thread who don't have the most fundamental understanding of law and who are also illiterate - yet they'd like to monitor your speech and dictate to you as much as they can get away with. I think not.