Maddow’s “I’m Not a Real Journalist” Defense Prevails in Court

[volsrock]

Any belief that Rachel Maddow is a journalist was set to rest in a San Diego federal courtroom on Friday, with a federal judge dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought against Maddow. The judge concluded that Maddow was far too silly to be taken as a credible news source.

The lawsuit against Maddow was brought by OANN, a news network that Maddow falsely accused on her show as being controlled by the Kremlin.

For the lawsuit to go forward, OANN would had to have shown that Maddow’s show stated facts rather than opinions.

In court Maddow’s lawyer argued that her show was one of “quintessential statements of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false.” John Nolte called Maddow’s lawyer’s claim “the Alex Jones defense,” although comparing Maddow to Jones is an insult to Jones in light of the Russigate and Avenatti hoaxers Maddow perpetrated.

In any event, the court agreed with Maddow’s lawyers. The defamation claim was dismissed because Maddow’s show is one of “opinion and rhetorical hyperbole,” and Maddow engages in an “exaggeration of the facts.”


https://www.cernovich.com/rachel-maddow-oann-lawsuit/

Fake News has finally admitted in court that they are fake.

[volsrock]

So basically this is saying that any story put out by MSNBC is - by their own admission in a sworn statement in a court of law - NOT credible.

[AProudLefty]

Who said she was a real journalist?

[volsrock]

Who said she was a real journalist?

MSNBC

https://www.nbcumv.com/programming/m...correspondents

They call the POS a News Correspondent

But the POS admits her show is nothing but quintessential statements of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false

No better than the National Enquirer

[Bill]

MSNBC

https://www.nbcumv.com/programming/m...correspondents

They call the POS a News Correspondent

But the POS admits her show is nothing but quintessential statements of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false

No better than the National Enquirer

cor·re·spond·ent
/ˌkôrəˈspändənt,ˌkärəˈspändənt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: correspondent; plural noun: correspondents

a person who writes letters to a person or a newspaper, especially on a regular basis.
"she wasn't much of a correspondent"
synonyms: letter writer, penfriend, pen pal; communicator
"I wrote to Jenny for a while but she wasn't much of a correspondent"

National Enquirer, yea, agreed they were the ones burying trump whore stories weren't they???

What did hannity call himself?? limbaugh & the rest of the angry folks bitching about everything under the sun, all bitch & complain all the time......

[cancel2 2022]

cor·re·spond·ent
/ˌkôrəˈspändənt,ˌkärəˈspändənt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: correspondent; plural noun: correspondents

a person who writes letters to a person or a newspaper, especially on a regular basis.
"she wasn't much of a correspondent"
synonyms: letter writer, penfriend, pen pal; communicator
"I wrote to Jenny for a while but she wasn't much of a correspondent"

National Enquirer, yea, agreed they were the ones burying trump whore stories weren't they???

What did hannity call himself?? limbaugh & the rest of the angry folks bitching about everything under the sun, all bitch & complain all the time......

You left out the relevant meaning, why was that?

One who contributes news or commentary to a publication (such as a newspaper) or a radio or television network often from a distant place.

[Bill]

You left out the relevant meaning, why was that?

One who contributes news or commentary to a publication (such as a newspaper) or a radio or television network often from a distant place.

Goggle it yourself, that is what came up. Get back to me w/ your findings on the word... thanks

[cancel2 2022]

Goggle it yourself, that is what came up. Get back to me w/ your findings on the word... thanks

I just did, why so defensive?

[AProudLefty]

I just did, why so defensive?

A correspondent can be a commentator.

[Bill]

I just did, why so defensive?

Because I don't appreciate your comment~implications........

Seems pretty obvious does it not??

I actually searched in on bing & that was what I got, then did Google it was the same- I went w/ it. NO ULTERIOR MOTIVES WHAT SO EVER...........

I don't watch her show... Other than a few dry clips over the years I hardly know nor care what her agenda is or the shit she preaches........

[cancel2 2022]

Because I don't appreciate your comment~implications........

Seems pretty obvious does it not??

I actually searched in on bing & that was what I got, then did Google it was the same- I went w/ it. NO ULTERIOR MOTIVES WHAT SO EVER...........

I don't watch her show... Other than a few dry clips over the years I hardly know nor care what her agenda is or the shit she preaches........

Yeh but surely you must have heard of a foreign correspondent?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../correspondent

[FreeSpeech]

cor·re·spond·ent
/ˌkôrəˈspändənt,ˌkärəˈspändənt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: correspondent; plural noun: correspondents

a person who writes letters to a person or a newspaper, especially on a regular basis.
"she wasn't much of a correspondent"
synonyms: letter writer, penfriend, pen pal; communicator
"I wrote to Jenny for a while but she wasn't much of a correspondent"

National Enquirer, yea, agreed they were the ones burying trump whore stories weren't they???

What did hannity call himself?? limbaugh & the rest of the angry folks bitching about everything under the sun, all bitch & complain all the time......

The key word would be "news" retard.

[PostmodernProphet]

Goggle it yourself, that is what came up. Get back to me w/ your findings on the word... thanks

given that you quoted it, you should admit that he did.....

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Any belief that Rachel Maddow is a journalist was set to rest in a San Diego federal courtroom on Friday, with a federal judge dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought against Maddow. The judge concluded that Maddow was far too silly to be taken as a credible news source.

The lawsuit against Maddow was brought by OANN, a news network that Maddow falsely accused on her show as being controlled by the Kremlin.

For the lawsuit to go forward, OANN would had to have shown that Maddow’s show stated facts rather than opinions.

In court Maddow’s lawyer argued that her show was one of “quintessential statements of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false.” John Nolte called Maddow’s lawyer’s claim “the Alex Jones defense,” although comparing Maddow to Jones is an insult to Jones in light of the Russigate and Avenatti hoaxers Maddow perpetrated.

In any event, the court agreed with Maddow’s lawyers. The defamation claim was dismissed because Maddow’s show is one of “opinion and rhetorical hyperbole,” and Maddow engages in an “exaggeration of the facts.”


https://www.cernovich.com/rachel-maddow-oann-lawsuit/

Fake News has finally admitted in court that they are fake.

One should really read the actual court ruling which can be found here.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/jud...msnbc/2331027/

"There is no dispute that Maddow discussed this article on her segment and accurately presented the article's information. Indeed the facts in the title of her segment are not alleged to be defamatory: "Staffer on Trump-favored netowork is on propaganda Kremlin payroll." Plaintiff agrees that President Trump has praised OAN, and Rouz a staffer for OAN, writes articles for Sputnik News which is affiliated with the Russian government. Rouz is paid for his work on Sptnik News. Maddow provided these facts in her segment...

The basis for Maddow's allegedly defamatory statement is clearly the story from the Daily Beast, which she presents truthfully and in full.

If anything, this court ruling should scare the hell out of Fox News and comments by Hannity, Ingrahm, and Carlson. The only defense for defamation is if you lay out all the facts truthfully and completely before presenting an opinion.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So basically this is saying that any story put out by MSNBC is - by their own admission in a sworn statement in a court of law - NOT credible.

You seem to have completely ignored what is in the ruling..

Maddow was being sued for one sentence being defamatory. The rest of the story was acknowledged as true by the plaintiff.
One sentence by Maddow which was her opinion based on facts she presented is not defamatory because opinion is protected by the first amendment.