OAN Sued Maddow for Defamation - OAN now officially owe her (and MSNBC's) lawyers $250,000

[Jimmy Higgins]

A suit by OAN against Maddow occurred in 2019 when OAN was angry that Maddow reported on the Daily Beast reporting that a person that works for OAN worked for a Kremlin supported media company. They sued for $10 million.

OAN did not sue Daily Beast. In May 2020, the suit was dismissed, paperwork was filed, and OAN owed MSNBC/Maddow lawyers a quarter million. OAN appealed.

OAN lost the appeal.

“The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story,” said Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., adding, “The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation.”

OAN still owes $250,000 to defendants' lawyers.

In for $10 million, and your out $250,000, I can only say that is "SAD!"

 

[untermensche]

"cushioned"?

I have never heard that lamest of lame excuses before.

It means nothing. It mitigates no lies.

 

[Politesse]

Heh! The right wing can't seem to find any competent lawyers these days.

 

[Gun Nut]

"cushioned"?

I have never heard that lamest of lame excuses before.

It means nothing. It mitigates no lies.

I agree that one word ("cushioned"), mined out of the quote provided by the article from the Judges decision, does not provide as much information as the whole statement from which it was lifted. Here is the full quote, with all of the words, not just one of them, for clarity and context:

The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story...The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation.

In this context "cushioned" means webster's 4th definition of the word: "to mitigate the effects of". So the Judge's meaning was that her exaggeration was mitigated by it being included within an undisputed news story about how one of their journalists was literally on the payroll of the Kremlin to produce Russian propaganda.
So her characterization that the news program he works for is a russian arm is not even really false. They pay a guy to be on their program who is also paid by the Kremlin to spread propaganda.
Maddow's exaggeration was basically that one member of a group defines the entire group. To say that rises to defamation would mean that anyone who says that "the Left" does this or "the Right" does that, despite there being evidence of it happening, is guilty of defamation because at least one member of that group didn't do that thing.

 

[J842P]

Heh! The right wing can't seem to find any competent lawyers these days.

Such a contrast with the movement conservatives, which seemed to hire competent lawyers. Moreover, the movement conservatives have stacked the Supreme Court with their nominees.

 

[Gun Nut]

I'm no Maddow fan myself... and I find her very difficult to listen to for very long. I always said she meanders and repeats so much that I have no patience to listen. And then this comes out and cracks me up

[youtube]https://youtu.be/pWm9-DtUeV4[/youtube]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Funny! Yeah, I can't stand Maddow. How she presents information in a style similar to AM Radio... slow... very slow... ... ... fast forwarding to the end of Memento just to see what happened SLOW!!! She's intelligent, seems to be honest (for Cable News), but I can't stand the style.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I can understand why some might not prefer her presentation style but info like her because she usually includes a lot of details and exhibits deep researching of her stories, whereas a lot of reporting is very much skimming along the surface of the news. I are ally appreciate hearing about the details and deeper historical/political context.

 

[TomC]

I pay virtually no attention to people like Maddow or Carlson.

But what I'm gathering from all this is that both were taken to court for things they said.

Maddow's defense was "I said that and it was true. Misinterpreting it isn't my problem."

Carlson's defense was "I said that but everyone knows it isn't true. I'm an entertainer. A stand up comic. Nobody believes what I say on TV."

Is that about right?

Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

I pay virtually no attention to people like Maddow or Carlson.

But what I'm gathering from all this is that both were taken to court for things they said.

Maddow's defense was "I said that and it was true. Misinterpreting it isn't my problem."

Carlson's defense was "I said that but everyone knows it isn't true. I'm an entertainer. A stand up comic. Nobody believes what I say on TV."

Is that about right?

Tom

I think in Carlson’s case it was “what I say on a regular basis is so obviously not real reporting nobody could have possibly thought it was true.”

 

[Swammerdami]

Most network political news/opinion shows are very repetitive, the same talking heads making the same points they made the week before. The best news videos IMO are comedy shows! :— John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah.

And, although I don't watch her often, Rachel Maddow. While most news shows repeat the same dull-witted commentary as the day before, Rachel covers stories others miss. But, although her shows have novel content, the presentation is infuriatingly repetitive. She repeats the same sentences over and over, sometimes slightly rephrased. (I'm afraid that's what I sound like, when I'm ranting in person! And, although in print one has the luxury of editing one's posts to remove redundancies, I fear my posts at TFT also come across as repetitive rants. )

One trick I use occasionally, for some movies and YouTube channels, is to speed up playback. In YouTube one can set Playback Speed to 1.5 and turn a 9 minute segment into 6 minutes. I sometimes watch Ms. Maddow this way, though the effect is slightly comic since she already speaks rather fast.

 

[marc]

Most network political news/opinion shows are very repetitive, the same talking heads making the same points they made the week before. The best news videos IMO are comedy shows! :— John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah.

All great shows. Might want to check out Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, another Daily Show veteran.

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly, the news comedy shows, maybe the occasional article, those are where I get most of it, too. Maybe some conversations.

When I hear about something I usually look it up to get some details, especially if the situation is useful for understanding the context of events in my own life, and steering that as best any one person can.

Talking heads interest me very little. When my parents wanted to watch news at dinner, my druthers were to watch nothing at all, to shut it off.

It's not shutting it out so much as acknowledging anyone with the power to run a broadcast station probably has their own interests in mind when reporting news

 

[Gun Nut]

I can understand why some might not prefer her presentation style but info like her because she usually includes a lot of details and exhibits deep researching of her stories, whereas a lot of reporting is very much skimming along the surface of the news. I are ally appreciate hearing about the details and deeper historical/political context.

Me too. I want the underlying details.. I just don't want them explained in 6 different ways, 3 times each, like I'm a child with ADD and a learning disability.

 

[TomC]

I can understand why some might not prefer her presentation style but info like her because she usually includes a lot of details and exhibits deep researching of her stories, whereas a lot of reporting is very much skimming along the surface of the news. I are ally appreciate hearing about the details and deeper historical/political context.

Me too. I want the underlying details.. I just don't want them explained in 6 different ways, 3 times each, like I'm a child with ADD and a learning disability.

I understand what you're saying.
But Maddow is addressing more people than you.

We're talking "Americans" here. Notoriously short attention spans and a tendency to not hear things that they prefer not to know.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I can understand why some might not prefer her presentation style but info like her because she usually includes a lot of details and exhibits deep researching of her stories, whereas a lot of reporting is very much skimming along the surface of the news. I are ally appreciate hearing about the details and deeper historical/political context.

Me too. I want the underlying details.. I just don't want them explained in 6 different ways, 3 times each, like I'm a child with ADD and a learning disability.

I understand what you're saying.
But Maddow is addressing more people than you.

We're talking "Americans" here. Notoriously short attention spans and a tendency to not hear things that they prefer not to know.
Tom

There's no fix for that. Maddow does present more detail which is why I've listened and watched a few times. Quite frankly I thought she was deranged when she reported years ago that Trump's candidacy announcement crowd were paid cheerleaders, actors. I thought the girl had really lost it. But years later, recently, she documented it. The cheering fans were mostly actors making fifty bucks for the gig.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I can understand why some might not prefer her presentation style but info like her because she usually includes a lot of details and exhibits deep researching of her stories, whereas a lot of reporting is very much skimming along the surface of the news. I are ally appreciate hearing about the details and deeper historical/political context.

Me too. I want the underlying details.. I just don't want them explained in 6 different ways, 3 times each, like I'm a child with ADD and a learning disability.

Fair enough. Is there a talking head you prefer? I’m always up for suggestions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I can understand why some might not prefer her presentation style but info like her because she usually includes a lot of details and exhibits deep researching of her stories, whereas a lot of reporting is very much skimming along the surface of the news. I are ally appreciate hearing about the details and deeper historical/political context.

Me too. I want the underlying details.. I just don't want them explained in 6 different ways, 3 times each, like I'm a child with ADD and a learning disability.

Fair enough. Is there a talking head you prefer? I’m always up for suggestions.

Is there a talking head? The trouble with great news coverage is that it takes time, so there are fewer stories. Jon Oliver, NPR exhibit this quality. Find a couple stories, report and discuss on them in depth. Cable News ratings won't react positively to an in-depth with nuance, lets not pile ideologically on to the subject approach.

 

[Gun Nut]

I can understand why some might not prefer her presentation style but info like her because she usually includes a lot of details and exhibits deep researching of her stories, whereas a lot of reporting is very much skimming along the surface of the news. I are ally appreciate hearing about the details and deeper historical/political context.

Me too. I want the underlying details.. I just don't want them explained in 6 different ways, 3 times each, like I'm a child with ADD and a learning disability.

I understand what you're saying.
But Maddow is addressing more people than you.

No! Rachel and I have something special.. she is talking directly to me and only I truly understand her coded love messages. Some day we will be together... forever, and ever. and ever...

We're talking "Americans" here. Notoriously short attention spans and a tendency to not hear things that they prefer not to know.
Tom

Yes! I just got it today. Thank you!

 

[TomC]

I understand what you're saying.
But Maddow is addressing more people than you.

No! Rachel and I have something special.. she is talking directly to me and only I truly understand her coded love messages. Some day we will be together... forever, and ever. and ever...

We're talking "Americans" here. Notoriously short attention spans and a tendency to not hear things that they prefer not to know.
Tom

Yes! I just got it today. Thank you!

You're Welcome.
Let me know if you need more help understanding American culture and media.
Tom