Rachel Maddow called out for 'dangerous' rhetoric toward Supreme Court: 'Fueling the

[Althea]

Did you see John Oliver's piece last week on Clarance Thomas? OMG, he nailed it!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/19/john-oliver-clarence-thomas-resign-1-million-offer

LOL. I had seen that. The Thomas duo reap plenty of illegal payments between his guaranteed rulings, and her very busy schedule destroying the nation. They don't need Oliver's money

 

[Nordberg]

If Hillary had won, those 3 justice picks would have been hers.

Maybe. The right stole Obama's choices. They recognized the value of politicizing the courts long ago. They would have tried to stop her from picking.

 

[Bigdog]

Maybe. The right stole Obama's choices. They recognized the value of politicizing the courts long ago. They would have tried to stop her from picking.

You can thank your own Harry Reid for making the nuclear option normal.

 

[LurchAddams]

LOL. I had seen that. The Thomas duo reap plenty of illegal payments between his guaranteed rulings, and her very busy schedule destroying the nation. They don't need Oliver's money

Yep, Clarence is living a life of luxury in order to rule like a medieval fucknut. All he had to do was threated to quit.

 

[Scott]

Having fancy degrees doesn't mean the person is well informed on any given subject. I'm wondering if you're aware of the following news story:

A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow’s Viewers Know She’s Not Offering Facts | Glenn Greenwald

So, you're posting an opinion piece by another opinion writer.

Greenwald may write opinion pieces, but the above article he wrote wasn't one of them. It's the court that decided that Rachel Maddow's viewers know that she's not always factual, not him. Here's a direct quote from the verdict, which is included in Greenwald's article:

**
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.
**

So there you have it. Personally, I find that John Oliver's comedy show tends to be more factual than hers, and I think we can all agree that no one's going to sue him for saying some blatant untruth, because most people know that comedy shows are incredibly sarcastic. But Maddow's talk show seems fairly serious, so I'm not personally persuaded that reasonable viewers would be so dismissive of what she has to say. If you consider yourself a reasonable viewer of her show, then I think my point has been made.

 

[LurchAddams]

Greenwald may write opinion pieces, but the above article he wrote wasn't one of them. It's the court that decided that Rachel Maddow's viewers know that she's not always factual, not him. Here's a direct quote from the verdict, which is included in Greenwald's article:

**
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.
**

So there you have it. Personally, I find that John Oliver's comedy show tends to be more factual than hers, and I think we can all agree that no one's going to sue him for saying some blatant untruth, because most people know that comedy shows are incredibly sarcastic. But Maddow's talk show seems fairly serious, so I'm not personally persuaded that reasonable viewers would be so dismissive of what she has to say. If you consider yourself a reasonable viewer of her show, then I think my point has been made.

In Maddow's case, the court dismissed OAN's lawsuit. They considered what Maddow said, her opinion and also stated in their opinion that Maddow does provide facts in her reporting. Glen Greenwald has lost his way.

 

[Scott]

Greenwald may write opinion pieces, but the above article he wrote wasn't one of them. It's the court that decided that Rachel Maddow's viewers know that she's not always factual, not him. Here's a direct quote from the verdict, which is included in Greenwald's article:

**
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.
**

So there you have it. Personally, I find that John Oliver's comedy show tends to be more factual than hers, and I think we can all agree that no one's going to sue him for saying some blatant untruth, because most people know that comedy shows are incredibly sarcastic. But Maddow's talk show seems fairly serious, so I'm not personally persuaded that reasonable viewers would be so dismissive of what she has to say. If you consider yourself a reasonable viewer of her show, then I think my point has been made.

In Maddow's case, the court dismissed OAN's lawsuit.

They did, yes, but as can be seen from the quote from the court verdict above, they did so on the basis that reasonable viewers of her show don't consider her to always be providing objective facts. Do you consider yourself a reasonable viewer of her show? If so, do you agree with the court's verdict?

They considered what Maddow said, her opinion and also stated in their opinion that Maddow does provide facts in her reporting.

I'm sure Maddow does cite some facts. The court simply asserted that you can't trust what Maddow says and that a reasonable viewer of her show knows this. Again, do you disagree with the court's verdict?

 

[LurchAddams]

They did, yes, but as can be seen from the quote from the court verdict above, they did so on the basis that reasonable viewers of her show don't consider her to always be providing objective facts. Do you consider yourself a reasonable viewer of her show? If so, do you agree with the court's verdict?



I'm sure Maddow does cite some facts. The court simply asserted that you can't trust what Maddow says and that a reasonable viewer of her show knows this. Again, do you disagree with the court's verdict?

Please cite the part in the decision where the court says, "you can't trust Maddow". That's your conclusion, not the court's, my friend!

 

[Scott]

They did, yes, but as can be seen from the quote from the court verdict above, they did so on the basis that reasonable viewers of her show don't consider her to always be providing objective facts. Do you consider yourself a reasonable viewer of her show? If so, do you agree with the court's verdict?

I'm sure Maddow does cite some facts. The court simply asserted that you can't trust what Maddow says and that a reasonable viewer of her show knows this. Again, do you disagree with the court's verdict?

Please cite the part in the decision where the court says, "you can't trust Maddow". That's your conclusion, not the court's, my friend!

It's my summation of what the court said. Again, I will quote the passage from the court that drew me to this conclusion:

**
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.
**

Source:
A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow’s Viewers Know She’s Not Offering Facts | Glenn Greenwald

By all means, tell me why you disagree with my summation if you like.

 

[LurchAddams]

It's my summation of what the court said. Again, I will quote the passage from the court that drew me to this conclusion:

**
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.
**

Source:
A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow’s Viewers Know She’s Not Offering Facts | Glenn Greenwald

By all means, tell me why you disagree with my summation if you like.

The public is also aware that Fox News hosts have strong opinions, but they got sued by voting companies for a billion for defaming them. You and Greenwald don't like Maddow, I get that. But Maddow doesn't outright lie and defame like Fox News has. The court ruled in favor of Maddow, but against Fox News. I'd call that: game, set, and match.

 

[Scott]

It's my summation of what the court said. Again, I will quote the passage from the court that drew me to this conclusion:

**
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.
**

Source:
A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow’s Viewers Know She’s Not Offering Facts | Glenn Greenwald

By all means, tell me why you disagree with my summation if you like.

The public is also aware that Fox News hosts have strong opinions, but they got sued by voting companies for a billion for defaming them.

They used the same argument as was used for Rachel Maddow, Glen Greenwald brings it up in his article.

You and Greenwald don't like Maddow, I get that.

I can't speak for Greenwald, but I actually liked some of the things Rachel said, back when I watched a bit of her show. But then, the same is true of some of the things Tucker now says. I also don't agree with some of what they both say. They are both good with sound bites, not always so good with evidence.

But Maddow doesn't outright lie and defame like Fox News has.

I was never much of a fan of Fox news in general, but I came to like various things Tucker said on topics such as the Covid vaccine and the war in Ukraine.

The court ruled in favor of Maddow, but against Fox News. I'd call that: game, set, and match.

As I said, the same arguments were used for Tucker when he said some things for which there was apparently no hard evidence. Another thing, from what I remember, Fox News, at the behest of the head guy (forget the name) decided to fold rather than litigate the matter in court. I haven't seen any evidence that Tucker had any say in the court strategy.

 

[LurchAddams]

They used the same argument as was used for Rachel Maddow, Glen Greenwald brings it up in his article.



I can't speak for Greenwald, but I actually liked some of the things Rachel said, back when I watched a bit of her show. But then, the same is true of some of the things Tucker now says. I also don't agree with some of what they both say. They are both good with sound bites, not always so good with evidence.



I was never much of a fan of Fox news in general, but I came to like various things Tucker said on topics such as the Covid vaccine and the war in Ukraine.



As I said, the same arguments were used for Tucker when he said some things for which there was apparently no hard evidence. Another thing, from what I remember, Fox News, at the behest of the head guy (forget the name) decided to fold rather than litigate the matter in court. I haven't seen any evidence that Tucker had any say in the court strategy.

Ooh! You just compared Tucker to Maddow. For one thing, Maddow warns us about our heading towards authoritarianism and Tucker embraces it. Did you see Tucker's interview with Putin and his glorifying of life in Russia vs. the US? Gross.

 

[Scott]

Ooh! You just compared Tucker to Maddow.

I did, yes.

For one thing, Maddow warns us about our heading towards authoritarianism and Tucker embraces it.

I disagree with you there. I think they both see some authoritarian trends in the U.S., on their respective sides- Rachel would see it in Trump and other conservative causes (the right to choose, for example), Tucker would see it in things like vaccine mandates.

Did you see Tucker's interview with Putin

Not only did I see the interview, I read an article on it by Cythia Chung, who went into great detail as to what Putin said. I then proceeded to create a thread about it in this forum. It's here if you're interested:

On President Putin's Interview with Tucker Carlson | justplainpolitics.com

and his glorifying of life in Russia vs. the US?

Tucker expressed astonishment at the cleanliness of the streets of Moscow, the lack of homeless people, the fact that the supermarkets had many products despite all the sanctions. He also said that he wouldn't want to live in Russia because of the lack of freedom of speech.