In court, the defending attorney made the argument that there's no basis to sue since no one has a reasonable expectation that DumFux News has anything to do with the dissemination of factual information.
Law & Crime:
“Would a reasonable viewer be coming here and thinking this is where I’m going to be hearing the news of the day?” Fox News attorney Erin Murphy asked U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil during a hearing conducted via telephone on Wednesday.
- and -
Under New York State defamation law, the entire case essentially hinges upon whether or not a reasonable viewer would have thought that Carlson was actually accusing McDougal of a crime.
Fox News attempted to argue exactly the opposite in court on Wednesday–insisting the controversial host was simply employing First Amendment-protected hyperbole and that a reasonable viewer would have, in fact, clearly understood the host’s rhetorical device.
You're in a hole. Stop digging
“There’s no statement that a reasonable viewer would understand in this context to state something provably false,” Murphy added–explicitly invoking the word “hyperbolic” to make her client’s case.
Stop.
“It’s not the front page of the New York Times,” Murphy continued. “It’s Tucker Carlson Tonight.
You're in a hole. Stop digging
“There’s no statement that a reasonable viewer would understand in this context to state something provably false,” Murphy added–explicitly invoking the word “hyperbolic” to make her client’s case.
Stop.
“It’s not the front page of the New York Times,” Murphy continued. “It’s Tucker Carlson Tonight.
And there ya go. Do I have to remind anyone that all the Journalism Awards have been handed out for this year, and DumFux News went oh-fer again - for the 25th year in a row?
No comments:
Post a Comment