Thank you for pointing this out. Carlson and Maddow made nearly identical arguments in court and if both are not mentioned in the same breath, the speakers bias is instantly displayed to anyone who is educated on this topic.

> IMO they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news without putting entertainment in front.

Agreed but the average person wouldn't understand that Entertainment News was different than News. The problem goes deeper. I despair.

Carlson's texts were wild, they proved that he knew he was spreading lies and did it anyway for views. That's why Fox settled with Dominion for $787 million dollars.

Meanwhile, OAN sued Maddow for calling them Russian propaganda and her lawyers responded by flexing, doubling down with receipts under oath. Signing up for consequences if they were wrong, and receiving none because they were correct.

So no, these are not the same, and anyone who argues that they are immediately reveals themselves to be partisan hacks.

They are not the same because one had text indicating they were aware? While the other claimed to be braindead and no texts to prove otherwise?

They are literally the same with one case having a text message.

They are both not news and if you think that one and not the other is news than you might be the partisan you are trying to label others as.

You may be interested in Young v. CNN going on right now. It probably won’t be a 9 figure judgment, but could be 8.

From https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-backs-dismissal...

[Judge Smith] found OAN and its parent company were unlikely to prevail on the defamation claim because the challenged speech was not a statement of fact and the context of Maddow’s show made it likely her audience would expect her to make political opinions.

Putting the details of the court case aside, the judge is clearly saying that he does not believe that Maddow's show was "news" and it shouldn't be treated as such. That's what GP was pointing out: the defense of being "not news", which both shows have in common.

Nope. You paid very selective attention to that article:

> the context provided by Maddow’s commentary before and after she made the statement disclosed all relevant facts and contained colorful language.

If you listen to the clip in question, you'll observe that Maddow explains the facts, makes an exclamation, and then explains the facts. The complaint here only works if you clip chimp the exclamation. Contrast this with the complaint against Carlson, where he engages in what was by his own admission sustained deception.

> the average person wouldn't understand that Entertainment News was different than News

I think the 'average' person thinks of 'Entertainment News' as celebrity gossip, e.g., E! News[0] etc. Telling them the entertainment news/opinion/commentary they watch is not actually 'News' but is entertainment "news" doesn't compute

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E!_News

News Entertainment?

Like WWE is Sports Entertainment.

Absolutely- even as a lifelong leftie, I find the rhetoric on CNBC just as sickening as that on Fox.

I've (somewhat sardonically) wondered if they're both false flag operations. Imagine CNBC started with the idea "we'll parody the left to make them seem radical and unreasonable" but accidentally developed a huge following who didn't get the joke.

Do you mean MSNBC?