(February 12, 2024 at 1:11 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The judge did not say she is not to be believed.
Are their any news commentors with their own opinion shows who do not state things as if they are fact?
The main statement she made for which she was sued was (IIRC) that an OAN staff member also writes for a Russian newspaper. That was factually correct. The bloviating surrounding that statement was opinion, and the judge ruled, protected speech.
I suppose we'd have to go back to the original broadcast to see its exact language and tone.
The issue is whether her statements were clearly presented as opinion or not. Lots of people are paid by Russian publishers who aren't lying for Putin, and a responsible person would take care not to cast aspersion where it's not due.
Maddow is paid millions every year, and has a large staff of writers. It wouldn't kill her to differentiate entertaining speculation from carefully sourced journalism. Or if she wants to argue that her program is free not to make that distinction, then I see no reason to believe anything she says.
Anyway, the larger issue is that corporate media are not objective. They push their propaganda. We all know what Fox pushes, but too many people remain unaware that the other channels are bad in their own way.
