We know for a fact that other networks report things while saying explicitly in private that they know they aren't true and don't believe the things they say. Because being wrong is different to lying.The other networks do the same stuff...
We know for a fact that other networks report things while saying explicitly in private that they know they aren't true and don't believe the things they say. Because being wrong is different to lying.The other networks do the same stuff...
![]()
Trump ally Devin Nunes can sue NBCUniversal for defamation - judge
A U.S. judge on Monday said Devin Nunes, the former California congressman and an ally of former U.S. President Donald Trump, can sue NBCUniversal for defamation over a comment by Rachel Maddow concerning his relationship with a suspected Russian agent.www.reuters.com
....There are a series of persistent internet myths that all have a common element that Fox news "admitted" something devastating in court. Like that they aren't real news. Or that somehow, the FCC has "reclassified" them as entertainment or something similar. And every source I can find comes from the lay press misinterpreting court rulings or outright fabrications. The closest I can find to this is a court essentially saying that rhetorical hyperbole cannot be taken as a statement of literal fact. Which isn't shocking, other news agencies have used the same defense in the past, successfully.
There isn't a hard distinction between news and entertainment. One can be either, both, or neither.
There's a long list of these sorts of myths when it comes to Fox. Like that the Fairness Doctrine ending somehow caused Fox to be able to operate, even though the doctrine only applied to broadcast news, not cable. And it's deeply ironic that a news company hated for perpetuating falsehoods has falsehoods perpetuated about it.
Yeah, about 787.500.000 less of the same stuff. And that was "just" Fox's last minute panic settlement - if this went to trail they probably could've added an even higher figure to that same stuff.The other networks do the same stuff...
Eh, I'd say that they have learned. But they've learned they won't face consequences.The sad part is Fox has learned nothing, none of the talking heads will face any consequences, and this money is peanuts for the Fox co. I mean for fucks sake Fox was lying about the settlement and Dominion just last night! They know they won because Hannity and Murdoch didn't have to testify.
Something was found in discovery that would have been the end of the Fox brand if it got out.
MSNBC had the story on Harvey Weinstein years before he was arrested and deliberately quashed the story behind the scenes.We know for a fact that other networks report things while saying explicitly in private that they know they aren't true and don't believe the things they say. Because being wrong is different to lying.
Well everyone had the story on Harvey Weinstein. It was an open secret. So yeah fuck MSNBC but also Fox news have a fairly rich history of their own sexual harassment. And MSNBC doing that, if true is bad, but it is noy an example of them doing what Fox just settled for. It's just whattaboutism.MSNBC had the story on Harvey Weinstein years before he was arrested and deliberately quashed the story behind the scenes.
Van Jones on CNN reported about Trump Russia connections publicly while privately referring to is as "a nothingburger".
Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election was a thing that never happened and was intentionally propagated to rile people up. The New York times had their famous staff meeting (because an entirely accurate headline wasn't sufficiently defamatory towards Trump for the staffers) where the guy in charge basically said "you guys did some great work on Trump-Russia, but it didn't work, so we're moving onto race baiting".Reporting on something you personally consider not a big deal or a "nothing burger" is actually wildly different than insisting a thing that never happened actually happened in order to cause unrest. Again no evidence of other networks ntentionally lying to rile people up.
But it did happen? Like there was evidence it did happen. People admitted to it. The Mueller report didn't clear Trump; in fact it said there was significant evidence he did collude. Its just as the sitting president, they couldn't indict him.Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election was a thing that never happened and was intentionally propagated to rile people up. The New York times had their famous staff meeting (because an entirely accurate headline wasn't sufficiently defamatory towards Trump for the staffers) where the guy in charge basically said "you guys did some great work on Trump-Russia, but it didn't work, so we're moving onto race baiting".
Fuck sake. I'm not going through trump Russia again... You make shit up dude, you really do.Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election was a thing that never happened and was intentionally propagated to rile people up. The New York times had their famous staff meeting (because an entirely accurate headline wasn't sufficiently defamatory towards Trump for the staffers) where the guy in charge basically said "you guys did some great work on Trump-Russia, but it didn't work, so we're moving onto race baiting".
My only objection here is that the headline NPR picked is a tad misleading.....
The Fox team's legal briefs compared Carlson's show to radio talk-show programs hosted by ex-MSNBC and Fox Business star Don Imus, who won a case more than two decades ago because an appellate court ruled that "the complained of statements would not have been taken by reasonable listeners as factual pronouncements but simply as instances in which the defendant radio hosts had expressed their views over the air in the crude and hyperbolic manner that has, over the years, become their verbal stock in trade."
In sum, the Fox News lawyers mocked the legal case made by McDougal's legal team. She alleged "a reasonable viewer of ordinary intelligence listening or watching the show ... would conclude that [she] is a criminal who extorted Trump for money" and that "the statements about [her] were fact."
"Context makes plain," Fox's lawyers wrote, "that the reasonable viewer would do no such thing."
The judge fully agreed.
Anyone here has any idea what diebold is?Said it before, I'll say it again.
Ask a Democrat what they think of diebold, and you'll hear some shit. Ask a republican what they think of dominion, and you'll hear the same. Just never mind it's the same company.
What ultimately came out of this case, was the normalization of shady and insecure voting machines, and opaque tabulation methodology by notoriously mercenary corporations. Much like how Hillary normalized citizens united among democrats and liberals.
Based on context I’d say they manufacture another model of voting machine.Anyone here has any idea what diebold is?
"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." - The Mueller ReportBut it did happen? Like there was evidence it did happen. People admitted to it. The Mueller report didn't clear Trump; in fact it said there was significant evidence he did collude. Its just as the sitting president, they couldn't indict him.
Anyone here has any idea what diebold is?
Used to.Based on context I’d say they manufacture another model of voting machine.
I'm honestly not sure whether you are attempting to disagree with me but doing it badly, or helping prove my point.![]()
Trump ally Devin Nunes can sue NBCUniversal for defamation - judge
A U.S. judge on Monday said Devin Nunes, the former California congressman and an ally of former U.S. President Donald Trump, can sue NBCUniversal for defamation over a comment by Rachel Maddow concerning his relationship with a suspected Russian agent.www.reuters.com
All of the above!I'm honestly not sure whether you are attempting to disagree with me but doing it badly, or helping prove my point.
Is your point that they've all been sued for defamation?I'm honestly not sure whether you are attempting to disagree with me but doing it badly, or helping prove my point.