Capitol Hearings: Competing Narratives

[Dill]

(08-01-2021, 07:54 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Wasn't Rachel Maddow forced to do the same thing?

I may have the details mixed up.  I'm not sure if that was her position, or if it was the judge's ruling.  But I'm pretty sure one or other got the case thrown out because of almost identical logic (This is exaggerated entertainment, not scrictly the facts.)

Rachel and Tucker were both sued for defamation--Rachel by OANN for saying OANN was "literally paid Russian propaganda" and Tucker for claiming Karen McDougal sought to "extort" money from Trump and then to "defame" him. 

Rachel's claim was based on the fact that OANN actually shared staff with the state-owned Russian News Agency Sputnik--i.e., had reporters literally paid by the Russian gov. OANN did not dispute the revelation, but argued Maddow's statement was false because OANN itself, the news corp. was not "literally" paid by the Russian government. Tucker's commentary shifted responsibility for the McDougal scandal from Trump to McDougal, after Trump's efforts to suppress the story by buying and killing the story failed, so McDougal claimed slander. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/02/09/msnbc-rachel-maddow-awarded-legal-fees-after-oan-lawsuit/4447175001/
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

In both cases, the judge ruled that there is an important distinction between news and commentary, and that viewers should be expected to know that in the latter, one gets commentator opinion, conjecture and hyperbole as well as "facts." But there are important differences in the cases. MSNBC did not defend Rachel's statements as "entertainment." And OANN had to pay MSNBC 247,000 in legal fees for the frivolous suit. And the judge in Carlson's case referred to his "reputation" as an important factor in discounting what he says, as did Fox itself. That's where the "entertainment" factor--the so-called "Fox Defense"-- comes in. And McDougal, indeed slandered, and had to pay nothing.

For anyone unsure about the differences between Maddow and Carlson commentary, I offer the following:

Rachel typically begins discussing some historical precedent, like a SCOTUS ruling or a scandal, or a policy that
failed or was rescinded, for at least 10 minutes.

She then links that precedent to some current issue as illuminating back story, and articulates what she
takes to be the legal or policy principle that citizens need to understand.

Finally she brings on an "expert" or two, and first asks them if she has explained the legal/policy aspect of
the issue correctly. If she is not, then she is corrected, but usually her take is confirmed. Then rational discussion proceeds
on that factual ground. This looks to me like respect for journalistic standards by someone who takes seriously the press's
role in informing citizens.

She also has segments on other topics on the same show. E.g., if she began with a walk through of the legal grounds
for a current indictment of the Trump organization, she may then shift to a panel explaining/discussing the reasons for
the CDC's changes in masking/distancing policies. The focus is on informing and questioning.

Tucker proceeds rather differently, often beginning with an editorial about topics like "freedom" and how current Fed policies on
one issue or another deprive YOU of it and none of us should have to do something just because the gov. says it is "right." This
may be focused on COVID guidelines (The vaccine should sell itself without gov. help, if it really works!) or the 2nd Amendment or election fraud. He is a master of the "Is your mother still a *****?" style John Stewart parodied: "Not saying your mother IS a *****--just a question!" 

This may be followed by a panel including at least one very angry person, and we'll learn about "lies" and "hypocrisy." E.g., Fauci may be revealed as a "charlatan" for urging Delta-related changes in masking policy. The MSM will be faulted for disseminating his and CDC disinformation, or "hiding" something nefarious about virus stats. Lots of name-calling. This does not look to me like respect for journalistic standards by someone who takes seriously the press's role in informing citizens. (His show has become ground zero for disseminating COVID disinformation.)

So I can see why Fox might use the "entertainment" defense for Tucker, but I'd be surprised if Maddox accepted it, or MSNBC on her behalf.

PS I urge unfamiliar viewers of the commentators in question to test my description by viewing the openings of randomly selected episodes of each's show.