- Nov 2018
Ok. So, he admitted he never wrote propaganda, disinformation or unverified information. So, what is the problem?Proof?
He admitted it.
“The lawsuit includes a statement from Kristian Rouz that said he wrote some 1,300 articles over the past 4 ½ years for Sputnik but “’I have never written propaganda, disinformation, or unverified information.’”
The lawsuit is more than just the smearing of this writer. Also, does everything that Sputnik puts out is a lie and must not be read? Are you afraid to read them because you think it's a lie? How about all of the propaganda and lies that WaCompost and the NY Slimes have put out about Trump. You know, like Russian/Trump collusion??Why does that matter? Assuming that you are correct about her being a freelancer, she still had a business relationship with that disreputable source.
Well, we shall see. I realize you may think it's perfectly ok to smear another news outlet, who actually is not a propaganda outlet for the Democrat Party, like MSNBC, but Maddow's big mouth may have finally put her and her network in hot water.Even the Washington Examiner came back a couple of hours later and said the suit was bullshit.
OAN's wacko lawsuit against Rachel Maddow
OAN is wrong for reasons of both fact and law.
For a start, OAN and Sputnik, a western-focused Kremlin propaganda outlet, do (or recently did) share the same employee, Kristian Rouz. That alone protects MSNBC from the "actual malice" legal standard that OAN must prove in court. Namely, that MSNBC knew their claims were false, or entertained serious doubts to the claims. But that's not all.
After all, as I've explained, OAN's coverage does not simply align with Russian propaganda through Rouz. The network's reporting from Syria, for example, has at times reflected near-textbook Russian government disinformation (what the Russians regard as their special art form of "dezinformatsiya," or disinformation). More tragic, OAN's Syria coverage has supported Russian efforts to conceal deliberate chemical weapons attacks on civilian population centers. These reporting connection points, even if not coordinated, are sufficient to provide MSNBC with an almost indestructible defense to OAN's claims.
In short, OAN has a very weak case.
Newsflash: Don is not the one suing Big Mouth Maddow and Maddow claimed that the said writer was used by Russia to influence the election. I would love to see her proof.WAKE UP! WAKE UP! Out there in "dirty diaper Don's" trouble land. All of you are missing the point on how this all got started. That little
bedroom printed press newspaper in Diego land is a news report that "dirty diaper Don" subscribes too, and when "dirty diaper Don" read that Rachel Maddow's made her comments on air, he contacted the small two person printshop and ask them to sue Maddow's, MSNBC, and whoever to get back his hate for what he calls "fake news" and get a few dollars he really needs to pay his lawyers.
That is covered under Fed. Rule of Civ. Procedure 11.Dont think so. Making the leap they did is where the suit comes in
You being paid to be here and do this type of pump all things Putin and his buddies want you to?The lawsuit is more than just the smearing of this writer. Also, does everything that Sputnik puts out is a lie and must not be read? Are you afraid to read them because you think it's a lie? How about all of the propaganda and lies that WaCompost and the NY Slimes have put out about Trump. You know, like Russian/Trump collusion??
Unless MSNBC and Maddow can prove that the writer was lying, then perhaps Maddow is the one who is lying. Ever think about that?
|Recent Similar Discussions||Forum||Date|
|Joan Didion: The Center Will Not Hold||Entertainment|
|Trump Tax Returns & Loan Documents Show Fraud||Current Events|
|Tax-Funded Teacher Sues Tax-Funded Fed Ed Dept. For Denial Of Tax-Funded Loan Forgiveness||Current Events|
|Trump to grant student loan forgiveness for disabled veterans||Current Events|