Court agrees with MSNBC: Rachel Maddow is obviously fake news

Court has ruled that Rachel Maddow’s statement saying that a conservative media outlet “really literally is paid Russian propaganda” should be taken as hyperbole and commentary. The judge agreed with MSNBC’s defense that a “reasonable viewer” would realize that the statement was not intended to be a statement of fact.

Perhaps MSNBC will run a big banner saying “court-certified fake news” to avoid lawsuits in the future?

Or are viewers able to tell when Maddow is spouting fabrications and hyperbole simply by seeing her lips move?

No reasonable person would listen to a word that angry little cow says. :man_shrugging:


MSNBC is basically saying that watching Maddow for real news is as silly as watching professional wrestling for real sporting competition. They are both just theater.

1 Like

Most of us already knew that though. It’s good to have it official, but it’s a well known fact that unstable people are her base. :man_shrugging:

Is Hannity on Fox a hard news show?

1 Like

it’s official because someone made a thread title here on the hannity forums shaping it that way. That’s how that works.

Alrighty then. lol

Just as anyone with a scintilla of sense knows Maddow is not a news show, it’s equally senseless to ask if Hannity is a new show.

For one thing he plainly states he is not a news show.

Maddow states: “the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda.”

Court agrees. OANN to pay Maddow’s legal fees.


No. The ruling concluded that Maddow’s statement was hyperbole and opinion so it was not defamation even if it was factually incorrect:

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.

OAN is appealing the decision. Here is a news article with a link to the opinion.

No. The ruling did not conclude the statement was factually incorrect.

Here, taken in isolation, the statement that OAN is “literally paid Russia propaganda” is capable of verification. Either OAN receives money from the Russian government or it does not. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of a finding that viewers could conclude that the statement implied an assertion of objective fact.

1 Like

Maddow isn’t a newsperson.

She’s an opinion/advocacy journalist.

According the comments in the Times of San Diego article, the only way the judge could dismiss the case without allowing it to go to a jury was to find that no reasonable person would conclude that Maddow’s statement was a statement of fact. The basis of the judgement was that Maddow’s statement was clearly opinion and hyperbole even though the plain text says the opposite.

The ruling does not imply that the statement was factually correct. It simply say that the statement was opinion so it can’t be used as a basis for defamation.

We will see what the appeals court says about the ruling.

She generally talks about one thing in depth for an hour. No one could possibly mistake that for basic news reporting. But it is funny that OAN lost the lawsuit and it’s being spun here as a lose for Maddie somehow.


perfect way to put it

the pro wrestling of “news”

Does her position exempt her from defamation lawsuits? Apparently the judge in this case thinks so since she did not allow the case to go to a jury.

The ruling reminds me of FBI Director Comey’s exoneration of Hillary Clinton. Basically Comey said that Clinton was so clueless and incompetent that it was impossible to prove criminal intent therefore there was no crime. Of course that same logic means that she was clearly not qualified to be president.

In the MSNBC case, the judge basically said that Maddow was so obviously biased and opinionated that a reasonable viewer would not believe her words were statements of fact. Defamation is therefore not possible under the law, but it means that MSNBC has zero credibility as a news organization.

An appeals court will review the decision, but for now Maddow appears to be free to say any falsehood no matter how malicious and deliberate without risk of damages for defamation.

That’s a strong use of the word basically.

Well, at least we know who her one viewer is.

1 Like

Yes, she has one viewer. At least you didn’t say literally.

Really literally . . .