Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 05/10/2024 View Thu 05/09/2024 View Wed 05/08/2024 View Tue 05/07/2024 View Mon 05/06/2024 View Sun 05/05/2024 View Sat 05/04/2024
2019-12-30 Home Front: Culture Wars
Rachel Maddow's Argument Against OAN Lawsuit: Don't Believe Her Words Are Fact. Her attorney is arguing in court her words should not be taken as fact after saying OAN "literally is paid Russian propaganda."
[Culttture.com] One America News (OAN) is in court against MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in a $10 million lawsuit after Maddow said her conservative competitor "really, literally is paid Russian propaganda."

Now, Maddow is arguing in court that her words should not be taken as fact.

Her actual legal defense, put out in a motion by her lawyer Theodore Boutrous Jr., reads: "...the liberal host was clearly offering up her ’own unique expression’ of her views to capture what she saw as the ’ridiculous’ nature of the undisputed facts. Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ’of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false.’"

During one of her MSNBC segments, Maddow claimed, "In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America is really literally is paid Russian propaganda," and added, "Their on-air politics reporter (Kristian Rouz) is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government."

Leaving aside that Maddow now says her words should not be believed as fact, a linguistics professor’s testimony is leading observers to believe Maddow is also now lying in court.

UC Santa Barbara linguistics professor Stefan Thomas Gries said, "it is very unlikely that an average or reasonable/ordinary viewer would consider the sentence in question to be a statement of opinion."

Gries added that, "I am the second most widely-cited cognitive linguist and sixth most widely-cited living corpus linguist. The field of cognitive linguistics draws from both linguistics and psychology and studies how language interacts with cognition."

After analyzing Maddow’s segment and identifying and analyzing linguistic markers including words, tone, and cadence used by Maddow, Gries found "Maddow did not use any typical opinion-markers when she stated that OAN ’really literally is paid Russian propaganda.’"

OAN host Jack Posobiec tweeted at Maddow after she made her defamatory remarks, writing "Do you understand how defamation laws work? Please feel free to respond to our lawyers."

OAN's lawsuit also named MSNBC, Comcast, and NBC Universal Media as defendants, and accuses Comcast, MSNBC's parent company, of "anti-competitive censorship" because the network refuses to carry OAN as part of its cable package.
Posted by Herb McCoy 2019-12-30 00:00|| || Front Page|| [17 views ]  Top

#1 So, the lawyer is saying -

The is no truth in the news and that there is no news in the truth.

So, who is the real Russian pawn? /rhet question
Posted by Procopius2k 2019-12-30 06:56||   2019-12-30 06:56|| Front Page Top

#2 MSNBC should lose twice that amount, plus legal fees. Maddow was perfectly fine portraying her broadcast as serious, hard-hitting fact-based journalism, well, at least until the first lawsuit was filed.

That said, she'll be okay as long as the presiding judge was appointed by Obama.
Posted by Raj 2019-12-30 10:02||   2019-12-30 10:02|| Front Page Top

#3 Some liberal friends watch MSNBC to get their news. They take it as gospel. The fact that Rachel Madcow's words should not be taken as fact according to her attorney will not make a dent on them as they are Dem Kool Ade drinkers.
Posted by JohnQC 2019-12-30 10:05||   2019-12-30 10:05|| Front Page Top

#4 JohnQC

I know people like that also. They go to bars and restaurants and loudly spit out the stuff they heard the previous few nights on MSNBC, typically supplemented by chain emails they got from the leftist agiprop pipeline.

also, re Kool Aid, the followers of Jim Jones ingested poison mixed with Flavor-Aid, not Kool Aid.
Posted by lord garth 2019-12-30 11:42||   2019-12-30 11:42|| Front Page Top

#5 Depends on what the meaning of really really is.
And what literally literally means.
Posted by Lex 2019-12-30 12:03||   2019-12-30 12:03|| Front Page Top

#6 A reasonable English-speaking person listening to this person's words, intonation and context would conclude that she is either:

a practiced liar, knowingly spreading false accusations of treason every night in order to attract millions of moonbeams and earn for her tens of millions of dollars each year from her employer Comcast;

or

a mentally and emotionally disturbed individual whose hallucinatory rants just so happen to attract millions of moonbeams and earn for her tens of millions of dollars each year from her employer Comcast.

Or a mix of both.
Posted by Lex 2019-12-30 12:08||   2019-12-30 12:08|| Front Page Top

#7 I don't know any normal, sentient person who peppers his/her assertions with "really, literally."

But if I did meet such a person, I would conclude that the use of this redundant, intensive modifier is designed to underscore the speaker's belief that he or she is asserting an indisputable, material fact by using this extremely rare linguistic construction.

If this lying, scheming, greedy, utterly despicable individual isn't nailed for slander in this case, then our defamation laws are useless.
Posted by Lex 2019-12-30 12:12||   2019-12-30 12:12|| Front Page Top

#8 Soo... Her lawyers went to court to say that basically she was "FakeNews"?
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2019-12-30 16:04||   2019-12-30 16:04|| Front Page Top

20:11 Elmerert Hupens2660
20:09 Elmerert Hupens2660
19:22 Lord Garth
19:18 Rambler in Virginia
18:51 Bobby
18:35 jpal
17:54 swksvolFF
17:37 alanc
17:35 JohnQC
17:34 swksvolFF
17:29 JohnQC
17:25 JohnQC
17:19 jpal
17:15 ed in texas
16:58 M. Murcek
16:56 Woodrow
16:55 Besoeker
16:01 Procopius2k
15:34 Super Hose
15:19 Grom the Reflective
15:17 swksvolFF
14:25 European Conservative
14:08 Skidmark
14:02 NoMoreBS









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com