Introduction
Rachel Maddow is an American liberal political commenter who hosts her own tv show, The Rachel Maddow Show. She has become a leading voice in the Trump-Russian collusion belief. She has continuously promoted the idea that the collusion goes beyond the 2016 election. This is confirmed by the fact that she wrote a 2019 book titled Blowout, where she made an effort to tie corruption of the oil and gas industries to Russian collusion. However, her beliefs reached a new peak when she falsely claimed on air that a right wing news channel (One American News Network or OAN) is funded by Russian propaganda.
The backstory involves Kristian Brunovich Rouz, one of the on air reporters for OAN. He is a Russian national who also writes for Sputnik (a Russian owned outlet). The Daily Beast reported on this issue in order to raise skepticism of OAN’s reporting credibility. However, the Daily Beast reported facts about the person’s background and reporting history. The tone of their writing was that of an assumption of a Russian misinformation. Rachel, on the other hand, took that idea to a whole new level. She escalated the idea of one Russian national spreading Russian propaganda to declaring the entire OAN news organization to “literally” be paid Russian propaganda.
The issue with her words is somewhat of an irony. As she was intending to prevent misinformation-and instead spread misinformation of her own. There is currently no basis for her to make such a claim-especially not on live television in from millions of viewers. Her irresponsible claims are slanderous in nature and is an example of using a large platform to misrepresent the identity of an opposing platform.
Though, no reason has been given as to why she chose to spread a lie to the general public, one could assume that it’s due to political views. Rachel openly identifies as a liberal and The Rachel Maddow Show is a liberal program that airs on MSNBC. She also despises former U.S. president Donald Trump. OAN is a right wing news channel that has described itself as one of Trump’s greatest supporters. Obviously, as a media member who isn’t fond of the former president, she would be tempted to give a verbal “take down” of said outlet that enables him with a supportive news platform. Regardless of her reason, she still has a responsibility to her viewers and her profession to accurately report the news. She failed that responsibility during her show.
Rachel Maddow Court Case
OAN was dissatisfied with this live level of misinformation and took Rachel Maddow to court. They sued Maddow, MSNBC, and its parent corporation Comcast Inc. for defamation. Claiming that it was demonstrably false that their network, in Maddow’s words, “literally is paid Russian propaganda”. Placing heavy emphasis on the word “literally”. If she was to say “figuratively”, it would be less problematic. “Metaphorically”. “Possibly” even. She chose to use the words “literally” which implies that her claim is objectively true and factual-despite its lack of factual basis.
Cynthia Bashant, a judge appointed by former president Barack Obama, dismissed the lawsuit. Maddow escaped any legal responsibility for misinformation. OAN was also ordered to pay the defendant’s legal fees. What’s interesting about this isn’t the fact that Maddow won the case, despite overwhelming evidence. The matter of interest is the reason she won the case. A reason that lacks self awareness and is very telling.
The judge, in an attempt to argue on Rachel’s behalf, claimed that her show isn’t purely factual. It’s heavy in hyperbole, opinions, and exaggeration. Therefore decides that even when she makes accusations with certainty, her audience shouldn’t assume that she’s being entirely truthful or straightforward. Judge Bashant further stressed the point that Rachel’s presentations are not that of objective truth and reporting, but one of personal liberal viewpoints. Essentially, the judge was arguing that Rachel isn’t a legitimate news reporter, but a biased commentator on existing news. Implying that she shouldn’t shoulder the responsibility of reporting the news accurately (like most news reporters). Declaring that the onus is on the viewer to separate what the truth from the “exaggerations” and to know when she isn’t giving the correct coverage of a story.
So, in the words of the law itself, Rachel can’t be expected to give the plain truth. She may, in fact, put a spin on her reporting of the news and “exaggerate the truth” to the extent of crossing the line of reality. Meaning that if she accuses anyone of her opponents of something that has no basis in reality, you can’t necessarily hold it against her. As the court claims, the audience will know “what to expect” when listening to her content. If you happen to be the victim of said inaccurate reporting, she can’t be held liable. This sets a potentially dangerous precedent, allowing for other news reporters to use the same argument as a defense in a court of law if they are pursued for inaccurate reporting.
Tucker Carlson Court Case
In fact, this very precedent was actually used a year later as a defense in court for conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. Model Karen McDougal, claimed that she had an affair with then-presidential runner Donald Trump for an extended period of time. “Hush money” was allegedly paid to prevent the affair from going public. However, this affair came out anyway, 4 days before the United States presidential election (in which Trump was the Republican nominee) due to The Wall Street Journal publishing the story. Karen McDougal had an interview with Anderson Cooper, where she detailed the alleged affair.
On Tucker Carlson Tonight, Fox News host Tucker Carlson referred to the incident as “extortion. He claimed that Karen “extorted” Trump by demanding payments in exchange for her silence of the story. The wording dissatisfied Ms. McDougal. She filed a lawsuit against Tucker, claiming that his words were slanderous. Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointed judge, handled the case. Similar to Rachel Maddow, she dismissed the lawsuit, citing that Carlson’s show is filled with subjective opinions and exaggerated characterizations. Claiming that the word was used dramatically. Claiming that his viewers understand “his kind of reporting” and wouldn’t take his words literal.
Different Reactions
What’s very noticeable is how the incidences of Rachel and Tucker received vastly different reactions. When Rachel Maddow won the court case, news websites had headlines that presented her victory as logical and basic. Networks such as USA Today, The Hill, Variety, and others report the story as simply a judge dismissing a lawsuit with a casual headline. “Judge dismisses lawsuit”, “San Diego judge drops lawsuit”, “Rachel Maddow wins court case”, and words of that nature.
Yet, the Tucker Carlson story was reported vastly different. Loaded headlines with subtle shots thrown at Tucker’s journalistic credibility. NPR’s headline reads “You Literally Can’t Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox’s Lawyers”. Newsweek headline reads “Tucker Carlson Wins Defamation Lawsuit After Fox News Argues His Viewers Know to Watch His Show With Some ‘Skepticism’ “. Slate headline reads “Judge Rules Tucker Carlson Is Not a Credible Source of News”.
Essentially, they’re headlines and the tone of the content in the articles imply a form of humor and subtle digs at Carlson’s credibility, while doing no such thing against Rachel who did the same thing a year earlier. Furthermore, Rachel’s court case was more damning. Tucker’s case was due to the use of an adjective that Karen felt poorly described her actions. Rachel’s was based off of a broad, unfounded claim used to smear an entire news organization. She also not only survived the suit, but was ordered to be reimbursed by the action groups using her.
The Tucker Carlson court case is routinely used by liberal commentators as “undeniable proof” that Tucker isn’t a credible source of information. Yet, these very same people don’t use that standard against the very pioneer of that strategy, Rachel Maddow. If one is to argue that this court ruling hurts Carlson’s reliability, one must be consistent and say the same for Rachel. Unfortunately, American politics has society playing for a team, and choosing when to hypocritically apply standards.
In my opinion, neither credibility is hurt from this ruling. The ruling was never the credibility problem-the reporting (or lack thereof) was. Hopefully, this precedent doesn’t continue for future hosts. Because the reporting that mainstream news platforms give out to the general public is very crucial. We need to make sure that the reporting is accurate and straightforward-regardless of political beliefs and bias.
Source (s)
Rachel Maddow Court PDF
Tucker Carlson Court PDF
The Hill
Daily Beast
USA Today
Newsweek
Glenn Greenwald
Center Of The Universe 