MSNBC host Rachel Maddow is in court dealing with a $10 million legal action from One America News after the conservative network accused her of spreading defamatory fake news about them.
Though the court hearings have just begun, things are getting ugly quick for the Russian collusion hoax’s most enthusiastic disseminator.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
According to Rachel Maddow, when she uses the word “literally,” she doesn’t really mean “literally.” That’s especially true when she’s accusing conservative news outlets of colluding with Russia. Got that?
Maddow’s defense, after three years of spewing lies and unfounded conspiracy theories: she doesn’t mean what she says on MSNBC and her gullible viewers should know better than to take her at face value.
That’s at least her defense for breaking the news on MSNBC that conservative cable network One America News was “literally … paid Russian propaganda” after a Daily Beast report claimed one of OAN’s reporters worked for Russian outlet Sputnik.
WesternJournal report: The whole thing began with a July 22 Daily Beast report titled, “Trump’s New Favorite Channel Employs Kremlin-Paid Journalist.”
That article noted that Kristian Brunovich Rouz, who reported on U.S. politics for the channel — a favorite of President Trump’s — also worked for Sputnik at the same time.
Employing one journalist who works for a Russian disinformation outlet doesn’t make you a Russian disinformation outlet. I would think this is pretty much common sense. In fact, claiming otherwise would probably qualify you for a defamation suit.
So, you can probably guess why Maddow is now in court dealing with a $10 million legal action from OAN.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, on the same day that The Daily Beast published its piece, this is what Maddow had to say on the air: “We literally learned today that that outlet the president is promoting shares staff with the Kremlin.”
“In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. The on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”
The network sued, saying that there wasn’t any evidence to back up that statement. No such link exists in The Daily Beast’s article, although there are plenty of wink-wink intimations backed up by a grand total of zero evidence.
The jump to “literally … paid Russian propaganda” was all Maddow’s own.
“Maddow’s statement is utterly and completely false,” One America News’ complaint, filed in September, read.
“OAN is wholly owned and financed by the Herrings, an American family. OAN has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government. Defendants made this false claim to smear OAN’s reputation in retaliation for Plaintiff’s insistence that Defendants treat OAN fairly and offer the OAN news channel to Comcast subscribers.”
Comcast, in addition to being a massive cable provider, also owns MSNBC. OAN maintains the comments were made after OAN president Charles Herring accused Comcast of censorship, according to CBS News. The court papers describe the family-owned right-wing cable channel as being “as American as apple pie.”
Maddow’s attorneys, meanwhile, argued that OAN “utterly ignores the context of Ms. Maddow’s comment, which is nothing more than a vivid, hyperbolic turn of phrase sandwiched between precise factual recitations that indisputably and accurately state the facts from the Daily Beast article.”
They also said the “comment is fully protected opinion because (a) it was based on disclosed facts; and (b) it does not imply any additional objective facts such that it is capable of being proven false.”
MADDOW’S ARGUMENT DOESN’T HOLD WATER
However, according to left-leaning community publication the Times of San Diego, a University of California Santa Barbara linguistics professor said in a Monday court filing that argument doesn’t hold water.
“The professor, Stefan Thomas Gries, argues in a long analysis of Maddow’s on-air speech patterns that when she says ‘literally,’ she means ‘in fact,’” the paper reported.
Independent reporter Mark Ames noted the irony, likening it to the defenses used by Alex Jones in his multifarious trials:
Gries said that “it is very unlikely that an average or reasonable/ordinary viewer would consider the sentence in question to be a statement of opinion.”
In addition, one of Herring’s lawyers said “Maddow did not use any typical opinion-markers when she stated that OAN ‘really literally is paid Russian propaganda.’”
Furthermore, he went on to note Maddow “is a graduate of Stanford and Oxford Universities and a Rhodes Scholar.”
“In fact, on the show, Maddow regularly uses ‘literally’ in its primary meaning,” he said, citing several examples.
It’s probably not a great thing when you’re arguing what the meaning of the word “literally” is, particularly when the target is being called an asset of the Kremlin. That’s usually not going to qualify as a joke to most people.
The next court date in the case is Dec. 16. At that point, we might know a bit more about whether Maddow literally has something to worry about.
Latest posts by Baxter Dmitry (see all)
- Transgender Youth Most Likely Group To Support Violent Radicalization, Peer Reviewed Study Finds - March 29, 2023
- Zelensky Admits He Is ‘Terrified’ of Biden Losing 2024 Presidential Election - March 29, 2023
- ‘Patriot Act For The Internet’: TikTok Ban Bill Quietly Includes Terrifying Laws Targeting Americans - March 29, 2023