Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 306: McMuffin Times Matter

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sorry for no Boogaloo joke, Lasa
---

This is so good though

---

i approve

---

https://twitter.com/thr/status/1273345355694956547?s=21
---

Why does Cory Gardner have used tissues lying around in a campaign ad

https://twitter.com/sarahlongwell25/status/1273237596076990467?s=21

---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/thr/status/1273345355694956547?s=21

oh my god, this is some uri geller level shit

"well, i never said i ACTUALLY have psychic powers..."

---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/thr/status/1273345355694956547?s=21

Wang: Ah-ha, I've been proven right once more! Tucker can't be bigoted if he has never presented anything as a fact!

---

FWIW, that's been Fox's defense for over a decade. They maintain that their primetime lineup is "commentary" and thus is not held to any real journalistic standards as opposed to some of their actual news programming like Shep Smith.

You see them trot this defense out occasionally when the pressure gets hot enough towards whatever bullshit their late night talking heads are spewing.

---

xp1337 posted...

FWIW, that's been Fox's defense for over a decade. They maintain that their primetime lineup is "commentary" and thus is not held to any real journalistic standards as opposed to some of their actual news programming like Shep Smith.

You see them trot this defense out occasionally when the pressure gets hot enough towards whatever bullshit their late night talking heads are spewing.

even when you buy this defense, "the viewers don't believe tucker reports facts" is obviously bullshit

---

Yeah, that's the defense for all media pundits. It's a shit standard they all use, on every network.

---

While I'm sure the other networks could use that defense I'm not sure I've really ever seen them in a position where they've had to bring it out.

Let alone multiple times over many years like Fox.

---

They have.
Though yes, Fox does use it the most. Pretty sure it's been a defense with stuff Maddow's said as well. They don't need to verify, they aren't giving out facts, they're giving out their opinion on stories. That's generally the defense and while there's some truth to that it's still a shitty, scummy standard media's got set up.

---

why is some moron trying to whatabout this shit with other news networks

Not that hes on a cable news network, but this defense hasnt worked out so well lately for Alex Jones
---

it's not entirely untrue. tucker's show is obviously not a show where he just reports the news. but yeah, fox is obviously using it to give tucker an excuse for misreporting facts. plus "if you run a commentary show, there's no need to adhere to any kind of journalistic standards" is just a shitty outlook.

---

If Carlson is an entertainer and not a journalist, doesnt that also lower the standard for proving slander below actual malice?

---

Lets hope he loses the slander lawsuit
---

Jones definitely pushes it to an extreme. some stuff, like eating neighbors or whatever, falls under personality, opinion, exaggeration, etc. other stuff like Sandy Hook, not so much. that's a very rare instance where even that standard has issue as a defense due to his using it, how often he used it, and other stuff he did to push that conspiracy theory.

that said his fine probably was less to do with the case and more to do with the fact that he ignored a judge's order. think it was to produce witnesses? naturally he got slapped around from that as hard as possible and the already strained defense got shredded.

---

Theres also the time he lost a lawsuit about immigrants at some Idaho factory? I forget the details
---

Here it is

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-chobani-alex-jones-20170517-story.html

Jones, whose YouTube channel has more than 2 million subscribers, drew the ire of Chobani when in early April he published a video and promoted it on Twitter with a headline that read Idaho Yogurt Maker Caught Importing Migrant Rapists.

Hasnt he learned the loophole that as long as he uses a question mark its okay?
---

quick google check... Chobani case is the one you're talking about.
didn't win or lose it technically, they settled on it.
he made a public apology on it and the company said the matter's resolved afterwards. he totally paid them off and lost but just not in court.

that's generally the other method to get out of legal issues but at least that's not exclusive to media or defamation.

---

Please let this be true

https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1273363639668539392?s=21
---

WaPo summary of the Bolton book:

https://twitter.com/danlamothe/status/1273349135375241217?s=21

---

I dont truly believe it until he says it under oath
---

So about that cop...

https://mobile.twitter.com/briangaar/status/1273352857392222208

---

She worked us??! Who is she then?
---

Lmfao it's a cop crisis actor? Or woman trolling as one.
Either way, well done.

---

Oh yeah, I've gotta quote this last part of the WaPo article:

When Bolton recounts the Trump-Kim meeting in Singapore, the first summit of U.S. and North Korean leaders in history, Bolton castigates Trumps diplomatic efforts, saying the president cared little for the details of the denuclearization effort and saw it merely as a an exercise in publicity.

He describes it extensively including what Kim and his advisers say, and what Trump and his advisers say in return, giving a fly-on-the-wall account of a historic event.

Trump told . . . me he was prepared to sign a substance-free communique, have his press conference to declare victory and then get out of town, Bolton wrote.

In the months following the summit, Bolton described Trumps inordinate interest in Pompeo delivering an autographed copy of Elton Johns Rocket Man on CD to Kim during Pompeos follow-on visit to North Korea. Trump had used the term Little Rocket Man to criticize the North Korean leader but subsequently tried to convince Kim that it was a term of affection.

Trump didnt seem to realize Pompeo hadnt actually seen Kim Jong Un [during the trip], asking if Pompeo had handed the CD, wrote Bolton. Pompeo had not. Getting this CD to Kim remained a high priority for several months.

---

HillaryFan posted...

So tomorrow is Juneteenth, a day marking the end of slavery. Do you think there could be a chance that Trump would announce that involuntary servitude (something horrible no doubt) be re-legalized tomorrow? The reason why this is on my mind is not because I want that to happen (I am 100% against involuntary servitude of any kind and I have black friends) but because Biden's been doing pretty well on the polls so far, however if protests are big enough and things get out of hand because of his announcement, it could justify Marshall law being enacted which means no elections and Trump stays as president for as long as Marshall law is in effect. It is definitely not something that I want to see happen but unfortunately I have to account for that possibility so I can mentally prepare myself.

who's Marshall?

---

Marsha's brother.

---

Kinglicious posted...

Lmfao it's a cop crisis actor? Or woman trolling as one.
Either way, well done.

They still refer to her as an officer in that tweet.

She likely works for another department.

---

Kinglicious posted...

Marsha's brother.

Marsha Marsha Marsha

---

On India/China news, we're just getting more updates.

Apparently most of the Indian deaths are due to people losing footing/falling down the mountain ridge as they fought in the dark. And this was a fight between hundreds on both sides.

Swear to god if all things hold true this year the two are gonna have a 1000 AD style war to avoid calling it a war.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

If Carlson is an entertainer and not a journalist, doesnt that also lower the standard for proving slander below actual malice?

If he isn't reporting facts, that's an absolute defense. You can't be liable for libel, no matter who you are, if you don't commit libel. And you can't commit libel without saying a false fact about someone. And you can't say a false fact if you don't say any facts at all.

Also, Rachel Maddow just won a similar lawsuit because the judge said any reasonable audience would infer that she was talking about her opinion, not facts.

---

Also it really doesn't matter whether the audience actually believes it. The court looks at if a reasonable audience would believe it. If not, then no libel.

---

Love the idea that the precincts are gonna start turning on eachother whenever a cop does something awful/is a fucking moron.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Also, Rachel Maddow just won a similar lawsuit because the judge said any reasonable audience would infer that she was talking about her opinion, not facts.

The difference is that it was ruled that way for Maddow due to her tone and the context in which she said it in within the segment. It wasn't just "Her entire show is nothing but opinions." The ruling was "In this particular case, she's giving a clear opinion based on other facts which were presented, and her tone/the context makes it clear she's not presenting it as a fact."

Tucker would have a much tougher time with that argument.

---

red sox 777 posted...

The court looks at if a reasonable audience would believe it.

and what counts as a "reasonable audience" is totally not subjective!

---

StealThisSheen posted...

The difference is that it was ruled that way for Maddow due to her tone and the context in which she said it in within the segment. It wasn't just "Her entire show is nothing but opinions." The ruling was "In this particular case, she's giving a clear opinion based on other facts which were presented, and her tone/the context makes it clear she's not presenting it as a fact."

Tucker would have a much tougher time with that argument.

Wouldn't he have an easier time if his entire show is opinions? It's like if you're watching the Colbert Report - you know that nothing reported on that show should be trusted as a fact.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

and what counts as a "reasonable audience" is totally not subjective!

It is subjective. But that is the nature of common law. That's why judges are so important in the US and UK.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Wouldn't he have an easier time if his entire show is opinions? It's like if you're watching the Colbert Report - you know that nothing reported on that show should be trusted as a fact.

It would be if he actually presented his show that way, but he doesn't.

---

https://twitter.com/BenjaminPDixon/status/1272870941098418176

Major props for the restraint and courage of this young guy.

---

Very, very relevant to that last one.

https://twitter.com/rywriggs/status/1272353892165132288?s=19

---

"tucker carlson on his show is actually a character like the stephen colbert character and not the real tucker carlson" would be an interesting defense that would probably have more merit than anything else he could come up with. there is precedent for this - for example, plenty of people don't get that the nostalgia critic is a character played by doug walker and not a real person (even if doug does insert a lot of his own personality into the character). i doubt a judge would be satisfied with that argument, though.

---

Key difference: when someone consistently says the phrase "that's a fact", there is an enormous difference between that being on Fox News vs that being on Comedy Central.

---

CaptainOfCrush posted...

https://twitter.com/BenjaminPDixon/status/1272870941098418176

Major props for the restraint and courage of this young guy.

This doesn't diminish how fucked up this incident is, but I just love the delayed reaction.

Imagine punching someone from behind, and having that person not even react the first few seconds.

That's gotta hurt the old masculinity.

---

https://twitter.com/soledadobrien/status/1273396973559853065

lmao what a self-own

For federal prosecutors to criminally charge Bolton with disclosing classified information they have to admit what Bolton is saying is true.

---

https://www.revolt.tv/2020/6/14/21290907/man-tree-hanging-manhattan-park

You can't have it both ways. Either Tucker is a journalist and the standard of actual malice applies, or he's an entertainer and his statements should not be seen as factual, so there is no libel.

And yes, this basically does give US media a license to deceive or at least to do minimal vetting of their stories. This is what Trump constantly complains about. But it's been the law of the land for 50 years. How many journalists have been successfully been sued for defamation by a public figure since the NYT v. Sullivan decision in the US? It's got to be a vanishingly thin number.

---

red sox 777 posted...

You can't have it both ways. Either Tucker is a journalist and the standard of actual malice applies, or he's an entertainer and his statements should not be seen as factual, so there is no libel.

Yes. That's exactly our point. Tucker is presented as a journalist, and thus his lawyer's defense of "He doesn't need to be factual" doesn't work.

---

red sox 777 posted...

But it's been the law of the land for 50 years.

50 years? I thought U.S. television news started turning into a circus at the dawn of the 24-hour for-profit news network, or roughly 25 years ago.

---