PDA

View Full Version : Rachel Maddow's lawyers claim her words are not literally true, even when she says they "literally" are



Kryztian
13th December 2019, 04:43
I am not a grammar Nazi, but I do have a pet peeve about people who misuse the word "literally". Some people misuse "literally" to add emphasis; however, lawyers for Rachel Maddow are claiming that when she uses "literally", she is really speaking "hyperbolically", and her misuse of this word could costs her ten million dollars:cash::cash::cash:! Really! Literally!

https://i.imgur.com/MXMBI9K.jpg

On July 22, 2019, Rachel Maddow was on her show discussing the the One America News Network (OANN), a San Diego based company part of the Herring Networks, Inc. Maddow called OANN “the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America” and is that it is “paid Russian propaganda” because one of its reporters, Kristian Rouz, had previously worked for Sputnik, a Russian state-backed news outlet.

Of course, Rachel Maddow has a long history of insinuating (https://www.advocate.com/politics/2017/3/10/maddow-russians-may-be-controlling-our-government) anyone and every one whose politics she doesn’t like (e.g. Julian Assange, Nigel Farage) is a Russian asset working for Vladimir Putin, but this time, she now she been careless with her words and those insinuations became clear accusations, that OANN is receiving payments from Russia:



... Trump`s favorite more Trumpier than Fox TV network [OANN], the one that the president has been promoting and telling everyone they should watch and is better than Fox, turns out that network has a full time on air reporter who covers U.S. politics who is simultaneously on the payroll of the Kremlin. What?

... this super right wing news outlet that the president has repeatedly endorsed as a preferable alternative to Fox News, because he thinks Fox is insufficiently pro-Trump, so now he likes this is other outlet better. We literally learned today that that outlet the president is promoting shares staff with the Kremlin.

I mean, what? I mean, it`s an easy thing to throw out, you know, like an epitaph in the Trump era, right? Hey, that looks like Russian propaganda. In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. They`re on air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.

According to Maddow’s lawyer, Theodore J. “Ted” Boutrous Jr:


“Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false,’”

In other words, when Maddow makes clear factual allegations and adds that they are “really literally” true, then she is just an entertainer, making a joke, and the public should know better than to take network news seriously. If this is the case, then there is no such law as slander.

The plaintiffs are calling in a UC Santa Barbara linguistics professor Stefan Thomas Gries to testify and among the many citations proving the case are the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definitions of “really” and “literally.”


* * * * * * * *


Rachel Maddow Asks San Diego Judge to Throw Out OAN Defamation Suit
https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2019/10/21/rachel-maddow-asks-san-diego-judge-to-throw-out-oan-defamation-suit/

Rachel Maddow Faces Slapdown by UC Linguistics Professor in Defamation Suit
https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2019/12/02/rachel-maddow-faces-slapdown-by-uc-linguistics-professor-in-defamation-suit/

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2019-07-22

Ba-ba-Ra
13th December 2019, 17:19
I personally would like to see Rachael get called out on all the misinformation she has put out as truths.

The Dems here in California see her as their 'high priest' and believe anything and everything she says as if it is gospel. I've watched her spin stories day after day - and I must admit, she is good at it.

At one point on the altmedia it came out that she was on the Clinton Foundation payroll. Don't know if it was ever proved, but clearly she touted and praised HRC in daily glorious tones.

Satori
13th December 2019, 17:58
The "special motion to strike" filed by Maddow's et al.lawyers should be denied. The complaint against her and her employers literally states a prima facie case for slander/libel/business disparagement and is plausible on its face.

Satori
13th December 2019, 18:42
Some humor re the use of the word "literally".

From MAD TV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC2QGojQnUY

AutumnW
14th December 2019, 00:49
This limo-liberal needs to drive that limo right off the nearest cliff, literally. Very few tv personalities give me a visceral yuk feeling...but she sure does. She's a war pig.

Ratszinger
14th December 2019, 08:50
OAN is being labeled fake news by Facebook and others and I just posted a video of three links to some reports that I think are among the best investigative reporting I've seen in recent years and they called it fake due to Maddow which was later argued by me and they put it back up but the point is the damage is real whether the liable takes hold or not! Maddow is guilty and should be reamed good of some serious funds to teach her a lesson about spouting off slanderous statements about real journalism! I hope they fry her rosy red in a pan of hot oil for months so she has to stress over it the way she instills stress in viewers with her phony narratives!