Tucker Carlson wins lawsut

[Gromdor]

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9

Tucker Carlson wins the McDougal lawsuit for slander because they claimed he was "Fake News" and no reasonable viewer takes what he says as facts or news.  I found the whole thing so amusing that I had to share.

[the13bats]

I thought iirc faux ahem, fox has a disclaimer its not news just entertainment

[eight bits]

3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Tucker Carlson wins the McDougal lawsuit for slander because they claimed he was "Fake News" and no reasonable viewer takes what he says as facts or news.  I found the whole thing so amusing that I had to share.

Actually, your link was a good illustration of the issues in the case, and why Fox won on the merits.

First, to slander anybody you must make a harmful factual assertion about that person. According to reporting on the web, what Carlson said about McDougal that was arguably harmful (e.g. her motives in bringing suit against Trump) was asserted as a hypothetical or what could only be reasonably interpreted as a personal opinion.

Second, the standard for a publication to slander a public figure in the United States is very high, in light of the First Amendment guarantees to the press, and the historical role that the press has played in American public life since before the Revolution. The standard goes by the itchy-scratchy name "actual malice" (searchable). McDougal is a public figure and was before Carlson spoke about her. Actual malice is a very high bar, and intentionally so.

It is relevant to both considerations that Carlson's show is an opinion publication, at least in the relevant portions. That is what Fox apparently argued: not that Carlson is an unreliable reporter of facts, but rather that on the occasion in question, he was unmistakably presenting his opinion on a matter of public controversy.

Your link plays cute with its quotation marks wrapped up in spin about what happened, what the judge found and what Fox' lawyers had actually argued in the case. Thus, since it is a publication in th United States and Carlson is a public figure, since a reasonable person could not mistake the piece for an entirely factual report, and if someone did, then the report still falls short of the actual malice standard, the report doesn't slander Carlson.

I hold no brief for Carlson or Fox, but I am fond of telling the truth, whether about friend, foe, or just another talking head putting his time in.

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by eight bits

[SHaYap]

Somewhere over the there... 

Quote

Fox News argued in the case that under the First Amendment they have the right to lie and deliberately distort news reports.

~

Quote

www.cybercollege.com › newslies

News Lies and Distortions - CyberCollege

FOX News was taken to court over just such an issue. It was a whistle-blowing case and, interestingly, Fox lawyers won, not by trying to prove ...

~

[Gromdor]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

Actually, your link was a good illustration of the issues in the case, and why Fox won on the merits.

First, to slander anybody you must make a harmful factual assertion about that person. According to reporting on the web, what Carlson said about McDougal that was arguably harmful (e.g. her motives in bringing suit against Trump) was asserted as a hypothetical or what could only be reasonably interpreted as a personal opinion.

Second, the standard for a publication to slander a public figure in the United States is very high, in light of the First Amendment guarantees to the press, and the historical role that the press has played in American public life since before the Revolution. The standard goes by the itchy-scratchy name "actual malice" (searchable). McDougal is a public figure and was before Carlson spoke about her. Actual malice is a very high bar, and intentionally so.

It is relevant to both considerations that Carlson's show is an opinion publication, at least in the relevant portions. That is what Fox apparently argued: not that Carlson is an unreliable reporter of facts, but rather that on the occasion in question, he was unmistakably presenting his opinion on a matter of public controversy.

Your link plays cute with its quotation marks wrapped up in spin about what happened, what the judge found and what Fox' lawyers had actually argued in the case. Thus, since it is a publication in th United States and Carlson is a public figure, since a reasonable person could not mistake the piece for an entirely factual report, and if someone did, then the report still falls short of the actual malice standard, the report doesn't slander Carlson.

I hold no brief for Carlson or Fox, but I am fond of telling the truth, whether about friend, foe, or just another talking head putting his time in.

 

This is all true and fine and dandy.  But for your lawyers to use a claim that none of their clients viewers are dumb enough to believe him as a court defense is just hilarious for me.  It's not the first time Fox Network has used this defense either.

[aztek]

as much as i like  TC this is a bad judgment, it sets a precedent for use by the other side, not that any reasonable person takes a liberal msm garbage seriously ,but still.