No, it really looks like I did not misspell MSNBC: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow...

Court-ruled:

>"Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that even Maddow's own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda")."

https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/comments/j04eqv/fox_new...

Key points from the article:

    But Fox News argued that Carlson "cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect," the ruling said.

    US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed with Fox's premise, adding that the network "persuasively argues" that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes.""This 'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary,'" the ruling said

This was the same defense used in the rachel maddow lawsuit. Why not use a defense that is known to work?

"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," Bashant added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/499294-judge-dismisses-on...

ah, yes, comrade Glenn. He lost it a long time ago.

They are equally-weighted opposites.

If you cannot see that, you are the problem.

Key points from the article:

    But Fox News argued that Carlson "cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect," the ruling said.

    US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed with Fox's premise, adding that the network "persuasively argues" that "given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statements he makes.""This 'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary,'" the ruling said

This was the same defense used in the rachel maddow lawsuit. Why not use a defense that is known to work?

https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/comments/j04eqv/fox_new...

No they are not. You just want things to be simple. Left vs right, black vs white. Nuance is necessary and you appear to lack it.

"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," Bashant added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/499294-judge-dismisses-on...

No matter which one you think is funnier, they're both clown shows.

Where did I say anything about humor? I think one's a joke who froths at white rage and the other is a Rhodes scholar with a PhD who obviously engages in hyperbole but is informative, and more importantly is not a Nazi.

I generally agree, but I don't think foreign agitation can be completely dismissed. I've heard there's evidence that Russia was contributing to the rise of both the BLM and Blue Lives movements. The media can exasperate the issue, and may even be a necessary part of that agitation.

I don't think you're wrong, but consider that posting "I heard" with no source is pretty close to just posting misinformation

I didn't think I needed a source for a well known and long standing history of the CCCP and later Russia doing this sort of thing.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/30/560042987/russians-targeted-u...