[googlryas]

The ruling(which Maddow won): https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MADDO...

The specific details are Maddow was talking about a journalist from another network(OAN), and said something like "This person is literally paid by the Russian government to produce news stories". Maddow's team argued that it isn't slander because no reasonable viewer of her show would take that statement to be truthful despite the confident/clear language it is expressed in.

[CalChris]

Krauss was in fact working for OAN and Sputnik at the same time and Sputnik is funded by the Russian government. Maddow even won attorney fees in that case. Rouz is a propagandist; quotes in the decision amply demonstrate that.

Quoting the appeals decision, The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story.

Equating Maddow’s exaggeration with Jones and Carlson is just rank bothsiderism.

[googlryas]

If they actually are on the payroll, how is it an "obvious exaggeration" to say that they are getting paid by the Russian government? If something is demonstrably true, why would one need to hide behind the "No reasonable person would believe this to be true" defense?

[CalChris]

Because that is the threshold question of any defamation case [1]. OAN lost that case and re-lost on appeal. Then in awarding Maddow attorneys fees, the court was saying OAN shouldn't have even filed the suit in the first place.

The question for you, the original question, is why would you consider her shorthand argument based on fact equivalent to what Alex Jones does?

[1] https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MADDO...

[AnimalMuppet]

Because when you're defending a lawsuit, you lay out multiple lines of defense. What we said was true, but even if it wasn't true, we had good reason to think it was, but even if we really didn't have good reason, we're just entertainment. That way you're not doomed if the court accepts some convoluted argument that what you said wasn't actually true.