[ourmandave]

Tucker Carlson set the precedent when he was sued for libel by Karen McDougal and won because Fox New lawyers successfully argued he wasn't a reporter and no reasonable person would believe he's stating facts.

Unless he's repeating Trump's lies, then 77M people apparently believe it.

[pessimizer]

> The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story. The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation.

"Rachel Maddow Wins in 9th Circuit; OAN Loses Appeal in Defamation Case"

https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2021/08/17/rachel-maddo...

-----

> Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news. Therefore, the Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact.

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

-----

The statement in queston: "[...T]he most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda."