Coincidentally, Tucker Carlson just received the benefit of a similar finding for his show. I think he was the way more lucky recipient.
Fox News got to claim victory on Thursday after a new ruling in a lawsuit brought against the company came out in its favor, but the win arrived at a steep cost. To deflect an allegation of defamation, the network was forced to claim that one of its highest-profile personalities can't reasonably be expected to consistently provide accurate information to viewers.
Looking at the court's ruling for Rachel, she had her facts straight, and engaged in legally protected opinion and hyperbole in the discussion of them.
There is no dispute that Maddow discussed this article on her segment and
accurately presented the article’s information. Indeed, the facts in the title of her
segment are not alleged to be defamatory: “Staffer on Trump-favored network is on
propaganda Kremlin payroll.” Plaintiff agrees that President Trump has praised
OAN, and Rouz, a staffer for OAN, writes articles for Sputnik News which is
affiliated with the Russian government. (See Compl. ¶ 24.) Rouz is paid for his work
by Sputnik News. (Id. ¶ 26.)
Maddow provided these facts in her segment before
making the allegedly defamatory statement.
The Ninth Circuit has held that “when a speaker outlines the factual basis for
his conclusion, his statement is protected by the First Amendment.” Partington, 56
F.3d at 1156; see also Dodds v. Am. Broad. Co., 145 F.3d 1053, 1067 (9th Cir. 1998)
(holding an opinion “based on an implication arising from disclosed facts is not
actionable when the disclosed facts themselves are not actionable”); Standing Comm.
On Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430,
1439 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be
punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning. . . . When the
facts underlying a statement of opinion are disclosed, readers will understand they
are getting the author’s interpretation of the facts presented; they are therefore
unlikely to construe the statement as insinuating the existence of additional,
undisclosed facts.”).
The basis for Maddow’s allegedly defamatory statement is clearly the story
from the Daily Beast, which she presents truthfully and in full. Thus, she sufficiently
provides listeners with the factual basis for her statement. Maddow “does not even
hint that her opinion is based on any additional, undisclosed facts not known to the
public.” See Cochran, 58 F. Supp. 2d at 1122; Copp v. Paxton, 45 Cal. App. 4th 829,
837 (1996) (“A statement of opinion . . . may still be actionable if it implies the
allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion.” (citation
omitted)). Viewers were presented with the details of the story before hearing the
alleged defamatory statement and no additional facts were implied.
I don't watch Rachel Maddow's show, although I've seen occasional clipped segments of her show. But what I've seen of her I like. She's intelligent, knowledgeable, well-prepared. And I understand why the right hates her with a passion.
Oh - I did listen to her podcast
Bagman about Spiro T. Agnew and highly recommend it.
greenwald.substack.com
