Maddow won because she was truthful about facts. Read the decision before comparing her to the likes of tucker and his filthy ilk.
You can't expect Greenwald to represent things honestly, that would be against his core beliefs.
That said, the comparison to the Carlson case is a fair one. The overlapping idea is that there are shows that are news broadcasts and there are shows about the news.
Shows about the news are based on the idea that the person or persons hosting the show are offering commentary and interpretation about the news.
This is protected by the first amendment.
Her comments were commentary.
As you said, the court decision pointed out that she made factual statements and clarified what was factually known.
Her defense (according to the decision) was that the statement was protected and that the segment was essentially true - which the court agreed with.
Tucker's defense also did fall into the "people watch the show knowing he is going to comment on the news and provide his opinion as well".
I don't think he offered a truth defense in any way.
The show is
The Rachel Maddow Show not
MSNBC Nightly News (anchored by Rachel Maddow).
View attachment 58685
now why OAN needed to hire a Russian reporter we will never know...or we already know? Russia if you are listening ROFLMFAO
As we said, her piece was substantially true. The only thing she said that could be contested was phrasing it “in this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America
really literally is paid Russian propaganda".
The network said that since the article only showed they employed someone who was paid by a Russian propaganda network, you had no proof the entire network was literally being paid by the Russians to produce propaganda.
greenwald.substack.com
