- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,514
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
-
Features
Right-wing cable news network files $10 million defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,286
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
This is getting out of control. Fox News is no longer extreme enough. Moore-Coulter dealt with the political false equivalency... and now Fox News is under the saber of the Trump supporter... so now that OANN is just as partisan as MSNBC, when Fox News was always much more partisan than MSNBC and OANN isn't even a news channel as much a far right-wiing circle jerk.
What do these people need, "Dead Liberal News"? Stay tuned to our following piece on how to make bombs to kill liberals who want to erase our borders.
What do these people need, "Dead Liberal News"? Stay tuned to our following piece on how to make bombs to kill liberals who want to erase our borders.
repoman
Contributor
That is almost a completely specific assertion by Maddow. Is there context that would show wich exact reporter she was referring to?
It may be true or totally not. If not true and if no evidence would have suggested it then that is malpractuce by Maddow.
The US has a bunch of crazy ideologues like the OANN owner who wanted to buy the guardianship of Terry Schiavo, it does not need everything to be Russian funded.
It may be true or totally not. If not true and if no evidence would have suggested it then that is malpractuce by Maddow.
The US has a bunch of crazy ideologues like the OANN owner who wanted to buy the guardianship of Terry Schiavo, it does not need everything to be Russian funded.
Hopefully Maddow has something to back up this claim. If not, then yes, it is slanderous and it is right to sue her for it.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,286
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Jebus!!! With that standard, I think George Soros is about to clean up.
I think it may be a grave mistake to file a claim against Maddow regarding her claim of Russian control over their "news".
In such a claim, the Discovery process will involve a court-ordered search of electronic records to substantiate or reject the claim. Such a search for relevant data would occur on both the relevant accuser and defendant systems.
They want that? I bet not. I bet nothing gets filed.
Furthermore, Maddow is and was at the time an employee of MSNBC (or comcast, or whomever), performing her duties inline with her role as a news commentator. Attempting to file a claim against her, personally, would be legal malpractice. Comcast (or MSNBC) would be the subject, not the employee of the company who was "just doing her job".
My bet is this is just all show to combat the negative press of "maybe that's true".
In such a claim, the Discovery process will involve a court-ordered search of electronic records to substantiate or reject the claim. Such a search for relevant data would occur on both the relevant accuser and defendant systems.
They want that? I bet not. I bet nothing gets filed.
Furthermore, Maddow is and was at the time an employee of MSNBC (or comcast, or whomever), performing her duties inline with her role as a news commentator. Attempting to file a claim against her, personally, would be legal malpractice. Comcast (or MSNBC) would be the subject, not the employee of the company who was "just doing her job".
My bet is this is just all show to combat the negative press of "maybe that's true".
It could be questionable if she was "just doing her job". Was she reading something approved and directed to her by the network (then I agree). Or did she just make this statement striking out on her own? If the latter, I would hold her accountable and don't think she should be able to hide behind the network.
laughing dog
Contributor
If these people prevail, Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox News will be bankrupt within one year of that award.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Maddow seems to have very good researchers and fact checkers for her show. I suspect she didn't just have a brain fart in this regard and has facts to back up her assertions. If she was baiting them and it was a trap for OANN it will be a problematic lawsuit for OANN.
I hope so anyway.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,286
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
OANN does report RT material, which is produced by the Russian government.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,514
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Probably. But I don't care enough to be quite honest.
once the camera goes on in the studio, she is "on the job".... (and I imagine WAY before then as well).
The analogy that is used in Law School regarding employer versus employee liability is that of a pizza delivery guy that gets into a car accident on the way to delivering pizza with the company van, versus the delivery guy that "borrows" the company vehicle after hours and drives up a telephone pole.
For Maddow to be liable for anything she says on her show, it would take the theft of a TV camera and the hijacking of the studio for it to be a matter of personal liability.
edited to add: ... unless the FCC has some personal liability laws for people on mainstream media that I am unaware of... possible. There are personal liability laws that trump other protections in various industries.
Yes... the idea that she is baiting them into a Discovery is interesting... totally possible. Win win here for her side... if they drop it, she's right... if they pursue it, they risk her being proven right and action taken against them.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,514
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Fine, so continue to ask stupid questions that were answered on the article.
I bet you love the sound of your own voice.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,286
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
You shouldn't belittle. Being pretentious takes a lot of effort that could otherwise be used to read articles.
laughing dog
Contributor
Sure, why bother to actual know what you are talking about.
Wut? You can sue Maddow directly for slander. The main reason you sue the employer is for the bigger pockets.
This - reporters don't have any sort of immunity that would shield them from a lawsuit.
That said, this would be a slam dunk win for Maddow - they were reporting Russian propaganda about the Syrian chemical attacks, and Rouz is paid by the Russian government. The quote again (all caps from the link):
Maddow said:
For OANN to win they'd have to make the case that she meant they were exclusively Russian propaganda, which is a pretty tortured reading of her statement. The weakness of their case is evident in the complaint - where they're stating that OANN is owned by Americans, and that Rouz isn't an employee of Sputnik, but merely a freelancer. But she never stated they were owned by Russians or that Rouz was an employee of Sputnik.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Basically she pointed out that a OANN reporter had written for RT, a Russian outfit. Which said writer admitted. (1300 articles)
Where it gets messy is that this writer claims to have not been hired by Russians, but to have been a free lancer.