Judge rules Tucker Carlson not a credible news source

[Angry Floof]

Judge Rules Tucker Carlson Is Not a Credible Source of News

Do Fox News viewers think Tucker Carlson tells them the truth? Are they, in fact, reasonable? The federal judge, Mary Kay Vyskocil, who herself was appointed to the federal bench by Trump nine months ago, dismissed the case, citing Carlson’s First Amendment protections. That is, Vyskocil bought the argument Fox News was pushing that Carlson is, first and foremost, not a provider of “the news” as we know it, or “facts” as we commonly understand them, and his audience knows this. They’re apparently in on the gag. Fox News doesn’t label Carlson’s speech parody because that’s embarrassing for a company with the word news in its name to admit; it’s not factual journalism because that implies some responsibility for the credibility of the information that you spew. Instead, Fox News lawyers claim, Carlson is not “stating actual facts” but simply engaging in “non-literal commentary.” I couldn’t have described Carlson or Fox News better myself.

Too bad Fox and Carlson were not held accountable for misinforming their viewers.. But that day will come eventually.

 

[Trausti]

Didn’t Rachel Maddow get a suit against her dropped with the argument that she is not a news show?

 

[ZiprHead]

Didn’t Rachel Maddow get a suit against her dropped with the argument that she is not a news show?

You know they have this strange new thing called the internet. Maybe you should get some.

A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed against Rachel Maddow, finding she did not defame One America News when she said it was “Russian propaganda.”

Herring Networks, the parent company of OAN, claimed that Maddow had defamed the company in July 2019, when she discussed a Daily Beast article reporting that an OAN contributor was also on the payroll of Sputnik, a Kremlin-backed news site.

Maddow said OAN “really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” Herring Networks alleged that she made a false statement, in that OAN is not paid by the Russian government.

In dismissing the suit on Friday, U.S. Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled that Maddow was giving her opinion based on an accurate summation of the article.

https://variety.com/2020/biz/news/rachel-maddow-oan-defamation-dismissed-1234614682/

 

[Trausti]

Didn’t Rachel Maddow get a suit against her dropped with the argument that she is not a news show?

You know they have this strange new thing called the internet. Maybe you should get some.

Still embarrassed you fell for the LaBron dressed like Ginsburg joke? Got it.

 

[laughing dog]

Didn’t Rachel Maddow get a suit against her dropped with the argument that she is not a news show?

Whataboutism is not an argument or even a relevant observation.

 

[ZiprHead]

Didn’t Rachel Maddow get a suit against her dropped with the argument that she is not a news show?

You know they have this strange new thing called the internet. Maybe you should get some.

Still embarrassed you fell for the LaBron dressed like Ginsburg joke? Got it.

Considering I knew immediately it was satire, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Angry Floof]

Didn’t Rachel Maddow get a suit against her dropped with the argument that she is not a news show?

You know they have this strange new thing called the internet. Maybe you should get some.

A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed against Rachel Maddow, finding she did not defame One America News when she said it was “Russian propaganda.”

Herring Networks, the parent company of OAN, claimed that Maddow had defamed the company in July 2019, when she discussed a Daily Beast article reporting that an OAN contributor was also on the payroll of Sputnik, a Kremlin-backed news site.

Maddow said OAN “really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” Herring Networks alleged that she made a false statement, in that OAN is not paid by the Russian government.

In dismissing the suit on Friday, U.S. Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled that Maddow was giving her opinion based on an accurate summation of the article.

https://variety.com/2020/biz/news/rachel-maddow-oan-defamation-dismissed-1234614682/

"Giving her opinion based on an accurate summation of the article" versus "Not stating actual facts ... but non-literal commentary."

 

[Angry Floof]

Didn’t Rachel Maddow get a suit against her dropped with the argument that she is not a news show?

You know they have this strange new thing called the internet. Maybe you should get some.

Still embarrassed you fell for the LaBron dressed like Ginsburg joke? Got it.

Except he didn't. Very few of us did. We understand that some people did and you think that somehow compares to the astounding depth of right wing gullibility we see everywhere, including in the highest offices in the land and not just a few individuals on social media.