At no point before the contested statement does Maddow “imply the existence of additional, undisclosed facts.” Instead, Maddow reports the undisputed facts and then transitions into providing “colorfully expressed” commentary.įinally, the Ninth Circuit says even the procedural things OAN wanted to argue about (again) are mainly the network’s own fault. Maddow’s dialogue before and after the contested statement is solely a reiteration of the material in The Daily Beast article. The story of a Kremlin staffer on OAN’s payroll is the only objective fact Maddow shares.Īnd the court hands down this implicit reminder: when commenting on people likely to be litigious, show your work: Thus, at no point would a reasonable viewer understand Maddow to be breaking new news. Maddow’s gleeful astonishment with The Daily Beast’s breaking news is apparent throughout the entire segment. If anything, it adds to Maddow’s defense. That Maddow was undeniably pleased to be reporting and commenting on OAN’s self-inflicted PR black eye makes no difference. The disputed facts can’t even be disputed because the OAN reporter actually worked for a Russian government-funded news agency. And yet, it sued, claiming this opinionated host was slinging facts. It’s all opinion, as OAN noted in its own complaint. Therefore, the medium through which the contested statement was made supports Maddow’s argument that a reasonable viewer would not conclude the statement implies an assertion of fact. In turn, Maddow’s audience anticipates her effort “to persuade others to position by use of epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole.” Info. It seems Herring agrees with this conclusion as well: Herring’s complaint characterizes Maddow as “a liberal television host,” and MSNBC’s cable programming as “liberal politics.” Although MSNBC produces news, Maddow’s show in particular is more than just stating the news-Maddow “is invited and encouraged to share her opinions with her viewers.” Id. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the broad context of Maddow’s show makes it more likely that her audiences will “expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions.” Herring Networks, 445 F. There’s no defamation here, something OAN seemingly conceded in its original complaint. Therefore, the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis is satisfied.Īnd yet, OAN wants to dispute. It is undisputed that Maddow’s challenged speech was an act in furtherance of her right to free speech. Having determined that, it makes quick work of OAN’s appeal. The Appeals Court says California’s anti-SLAPP law can be applied here, seeing as it closely aligns with federal options for dismissals and motions to strike. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says the lower court was right about everything. And with a the anti-SLAPP win came some fee-shifting, which led to OAN being ordered to pay more than $250,000 in legal fees. The court signed off on MSNBC’s anti-SLAPP motion, handing it a win. The district court said the assertions were based on fact and everything else was protected opinion. This report by Maddow came with the usual Maddow commentary, which included (protected!) opinions and the statement that Rouz was “literally paid Russian propaganda.” This referred to Rouz’s Sputnik work and cast serious shade on OAN’s decision to bring the reporter on board with its network. The OAN reporter, Kristian Rouz, also worked for Sputnik, the government-controlled Russian news outlet. One America News (OAN) - a “news” network apparently more “fair and balanced” than the extremely right-leaning Fox News - sued MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow for (factually) insinuating one of OAN’s reporters had a side gig working for the Russian government.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |