Article

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."

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Herb McCoy 2019-12-30 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11 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

23:18 jvalentour
23:15 jvalentour
23:12 jvalentour
23:08 3dc
22:50 Secret Master
22:27 Lex
22:22 Lex
21:57 Rob Crawford
20:57 Herb McCoy
20:52 gorb
20:18 Frank G
20:14 Bright Pebbles
20:14 Seeking Cure For Ignorance
20:07 jpal
19:59 Secret Master
19:57 Bright Pebbles
19:31 Frank G
19:25 Procopius2k
19:23 Frank G
19:17 Procopius2k
19:16 Dino Gliter6173
18:43 swksvolFF
18:15 Elmagum Omeaper1611
18:05 ruprecht