A New York City landlord is being accused of lighting his own townhouse on fire after the upstairs tenants stopped paying rent and refused to move out.
Brooklyn landlord Rafiqul Islam faces arson and attempted murder charges
Companies don’t make sweeping, damaging admissions in a court defense. No broadcaster would admit that all of their news is not news. They only make statements about the facts at issue. It’s a bad idea to admit anything beyond the scope of the case at issue. Anyone saying that a news agency admits they aren’t news has a bridge to sell.
The arguments made by fox were that their pundit, Tucker Carlson made exaggerated statements during his punditry show. And the courts agreed that those false statements were not defamatory, because reasonable viewers would not expect a political pundit to be factual, because dishonest exaggeration is what political punditry is.
MSNBC made very similar arguments in court. Rachel Maddow got a lawsuit from One America News Network dismissed under very similar circumstances. You don’t get factual information from pundits. Doesn’t matter what political leanings the network claims to have. Pundits are all liars, that’s what they do.
Fox does awful journalism. You probably shouldn’t trust their reporting, but not because they admitted in court that their pundit did punditry before they fired him.
You have accurately communicated the facts and I believe adherence to truth, even if you don’t like that truth, is the only way to be better than the typical OANN and Fox News crowd. I even found a corroborating article for the skeptics.
No.
Companies don’t make sweeping, damaging admissions in a court defense. No broadcaster would admit that all of their news is not news. They only make statements about the facts at issue. It’s a bad idea to admit anything beyond the scope of the case at issue. Anyone saying that a news agency admits they aren’t news has a bridge to sell.
The arguments made by fox were that their pundit, Tucker Carlson made exaggerated statements during his punditry show. And the courts agreed that those false statements were not defamatory, because reasonable viewers would not expect a political pundit to be factual, because dishonest exaggeration is what political punditry is.
MSNBC made very similar arguments in court. Rachel Maddow got a lawsuit from One America News Network dismissed under very similar circumstances. You don’t get factual information from pundits. Doesn’t matter what political leanings the network claims to have. Pundits are all liars, that’s what they do.
Fox does awful journalism. You probably shouldn’t trust their reporting, but not because they admitted in court that their pundit did punditry before they fired him.
You have accurately communicated the facts and I believe adherence to truth, even if you don’t like that truth, is the only way to be better than the typical OANN and Fox News crowd. I even found a corroborating article for the skeptics.
https://thedispatch.com/article/fact-checking-a-claim-that-fox-news/