Bobby Burack
Videos by OutKick
Tucker Carlson’s critics obsessively cite a federal judge who in 2020 found that Carlson’s commentary consists of opinion and exaggeration. Check any of Carlson’s recent viral monologues, the blue checks have it posted atop or below the links. You can’t miss it.
In a similar story, one that the media is reluctant to share, federal judge Cynthia Bashant recently ruled that viewers should not take the commentary found on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program too literally either.
As Glenn Greenwald uncovered, Bashant dismissed OAN’s defamation lawsuit against Maddow. In 2019, OAN sued Maddow, MSNBC, and Comcast after Maddow said the right-wing network is “literally paid Russian propaganda.”
Viewers expect her to do so, as it is indeed her show, and viewers watch the segment with the understanding that it will contain Maddow’s “personal and subjective views” about the news. See id. Thus, the Court finds that as a part of the totality of the circumstances, the broad context weighs in favor of a finding that the alleged defamatory statement is Maddow’s opinion and exaggeration of the Daily Beast article, and that reasonable viewers would not take the statement as factual. . . .
Here, Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying “I mean, what?”) and calling the segment a “sparkly story” and one we must “take in stride.” For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context. The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion. A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts.
In short, Bashant said the Court found that “the contested statement is an opinion that cannot serve as the basis for a defamation claim.”
How is that any different than the reason Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed a lawsuit filed against Tucker Carlson?
Any ideas?
Maddow and Carlson are alike in many ways. They both have strong beliefs and a distinctive on-air presence. They are the two most watched hosts in cable news because of — wait for it — their personalities.
The difference is that Carlson’s opinions are often unique. Found nowhere else on TV. Maddow’s stances, by contrast, echo the opinion of most mainstream journalists and hosts.
Of course, TV hosts and journalists won’t mention Bashant’s ruling. Maddow is on their team. She calls people racist and spreads lies about Donald Trump. If the media discredit Maddow, they discredit themselves.
Maddow benefits from privilege. Not white privilege — as she claims so many do — the privilege of her political beliefs.
As per usual, the subject of the story is less interesting than the media’s silence about it. That’s the fight Rush Limbaugh fought for decades.
“ reasonable viewers would not take the statement as factual”
Pretty much sums up her whole career.
I guess that makes all of her viewers unreasonable since they believe her bullshit word for word. Who am I kidding we all know her viewers are crazy, there is no way a normal sain person could watch her show on a regular basis. DNC propaganda and nothing else.
So the corrupt judge says, “Everybody knows she is a liar, so she can keep on lying without consequences”. This is the Communist Democrats game plan. It appears to be working. The Communist Democrats are destroying the nation. It must stop the steal. America Matters.
No way Carlson and this dude Maddow are similar to compare is really fucking dumb and nobody watches that fucker Maddow I mean come on man
“and that reasonable viewers would not take the statement as factual. . . .”
But this is OAN’s entire point. Maddow’s viewers are not reasonable…in part because she has lied to them for so long that they can no longer discern the truth for themselves. They ABSOLUTELY believed it was a statement of fact. She even said “literally”. I guarantee that if you poll the viewers, 80-90%+ now truly believe OAN is “literally” a paid arm of the Russian state media.
Precisely. It is the same reason the poll Clay highlighted last summer showed that 80% of democrats believed that more than 1,000 unarmed black men are killed by the police each year, when the number is “literally” less than 20. I ran that poll on my Maddow loving liberal mother, and she failed miserably. The problem is they are so brainwashed that when presented with absolute facts, they will still attempt to spin it or just ignore it and move on to the next thing that offends them.
Her viewership quite literally wants to be lied to. That’s why they watch her. It’s a form of religious/emotional therapy for the godless.
“TeLL mE tRumP iS hiTLeR pLeAsE!”
“TeLL mE mY neXt DooR nEigBor wItH a TrUmP siGn iS a aCtuALLy a RusSiaN asSeT!”
The news is no longer the news. It’s a TV program written for what it’s audience wants to see.
That Robert Maddow is one angry communist dude.
Wait. What? that isn’t a dude? wow!
Always remember that Tucker operates within the confines of the Trump-hating Murdoch Brothers. You’ll never hear him question anything about the 2020 election results or much positive about Donald Trump.
Yeah okay smfh
MSNBC is proof positive that the zombie apocalypse isn’t coming… It’s already here! And has been for a long time.
We walk amongst people who actually believe what they see/hear on TV… A painfully large percentage of the population.
WHY IS CNN ON – IN EVERY FREAKING AIRPORT?!