FOX LAWYERS: Tucker Carlson not stating actual facts .. engaging in "exaggeration"

[jgarden477]

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson ... - NPR
https://www.npr.org › 2020/09/29 › you-literally-cant-bel...
Sep. 29, 2020 — Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by ...
************************************************** *******************
Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way.

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vysocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.'

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

..... Carlson's lawyers said. In written briefs, they cited previous rulings to argue Carlson's words were "loose, figurative or hyperbolic." They took note of a nonjournalist's use of the word "extort," which proved nondefamatory because it was mere "rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet."

The Fox team's legal briefs compared Carlson's show to radio talk-show programs hosted by ex-MSNBC and Fox Business star Don Imus, who won a case more than two decades ago because an appellate court ruled that "the complained of statements would not have been taken by reasonable listeners as factual pronouncements but simply as instances in which the defendant radio hosts had expressed their views over the air in the crude and hyperbolic manner that has, over the years, become their verbal stock in trade."

In sum, the Fox News lawyers mocked the legal case made by McDougal's legal team. She alleged "a reasonable viewer of ordinary intelligence listening or watching the show ... would conclude that [she] is a criminal who extorted Trump for money" and that "the statements about [her] were fact."
************************************************** ***************************
Apparently neither the U.S. District Judge (appointed by Trump) nor the FOX lawyers would consider the resident "right wingers" in this forum to be "reasonable viewer(s) of ordinary intelligence!"

[carolina73]

This article is a year old and about an even older set of comments taken out of context.

This belongs in rants

[midcan5]

Tucker doesn't seem as stupid as he makes himself out to be, so why is he such a clown? When a news person has a face that reminds one of constipation take notice. Crap will arrive soon. Tucker always looks constipated. Anyone wonder why? Does he think that is a serious look? I guess.

[Peter1469]

Tucker is part of FOX Entertainment, not FOX News.

FOX separates its commentary from its news. How many times do stupid people have to be reminded of this?

[jgarden477]

This article is a year old and about an even older set of comments taken out of context.

This belongs in rants

Tucker Carlson Starts Now.......

Started by RMNIXON‎, Yesterday 08:02 PM 123...8

Given that it was "RMNIXON" who introduced a thread yesterday based on comments by "TUCKER CARLSON," are we to now believe that in 2021 he is no longer engaging in the same "rhetorical hyperbole" that in 2020 "no reasonable viewer of average intelligence" would accept as "factual pronouncements!"


Those aren't my opinions on Tucker Carlson but those held by both a U.S. Supreme Court Judge and FOX's own lawyers!

[carolina73]

Well then you should have put this in his thread.

It's old news and what my lawyers say is out of my control. They work for the insurance company and represent them. FOX news lawyers do not represent Tucker Carlson and he has no control over what they say.

[jgarden477]

Tucker is part of FOX Entertainment, not FOX News.

FOX separates its commentary from its news. How many times do stupid people have to be reminded of this?

Does that mean Tucker Carlson's "commentary" as entertainment should to be taken as seriously as when Donald Trump shaved Vince McMahon's hair in "Wrestlemania 23?"

The original World Wresting Federation (WWF) later changed its name to the World Wresting Entertainment (WWE) - like Tucker Carlson,"no reasonable viewer of average intelligence" would consider the WWE to be anything more than entertainment, "A WRESTLING SOAP OPERA!"

[FindersKeepers]

Given that it was "RMNIXON" who introduced a thread yesterday based on comments by "TUCKER CARLSON," are we to now believe that in 2021 he is no longer engaging in the same "rhetorical hyperbole" that in 2020 "no reasonable viewer of average intelligence" would accept as "factual pronouncements!"
Those aren't my opinions on Tucker Carlson but those held by both a U.S. Supreme Court Judge and FOX's own lawyers!

Compare that to what CNN did just a couple of days ago. When it became known that the Christmas Parade Killer was a black guy, CNN started a rumor that he was "fleeing" from another crime.

The Waukusa Chief of Police had to publicly state that was untrue. CNN is really trying to bury the guy's profile, because it's starting to look racially motivated.

[The Booman]

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson ... - NPR
https://www.npr.org › 2020/09/29 › you-literally-cant-bel...
Sep. 29, 2020 — Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by ...
************************************************** *******************
Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way.

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vysocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.'

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

..... Carlson's lawyers said. In written briefs, they cited previous rulings to argue Carlson's words were "loose, figurative or hyperbolic." They took note of a nonjournalist's use of the word "extort," which proved nondefamatory because it was mere "rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet."

The Fox team's legal briefs compared Carlson's show to radio talk-show programs hosted by ex-MSNBC and Fox Business star Don Imus, who won a case more than two decades ago because an appellate court ruled that "the complained of statements would not have been taken by reasonable listeners as factual pronouncements but simply as instances in which the defendant radio hosts had expressed their views over the air in the crude and hyperbolic manner that has, over the years, become their verbal stock in trade."

In sum, the Fox News lawyers mocked the legal case made by McDougal's legal team. She alleged "a reasonable viewer of ordinary intelligence listening or watching the show ... would conclude that [she] is a criminal who extorted Trump for money" and that "the statements about [her] were fact."
************************************************** ***************************
Apparently neither the U.S. District Judge (appointed by Trump) nor the FOX lawyers would consider the resident "right wingers" in this forum to be "reasonable viewer(s) of ordinary intelligence!"

Have you got anything from 1975?

[Tahuyaman]

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson ... - NPR
https://www.npr.org › 2020/09/29 › you-literally-cant-bel...
Sep. 29, 2020 — Fox News viewers don't expect facts from Tucker Carlson, according to network lawyers who defended their star in a slander lawsuit filed by ...
************************************************** *******************
Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way.

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vysocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.'

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

..... Carlson's lawyers said. In written briefs, they cited previous rulings to argue Carlson's words were "loose, figurative or hyperbolic." They took note of a nonjournalist's use of the word "extort," which proved nondefamatory because it was mere "rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet."

The Fox team's legal briefs compared Carlson's show to radio talk-show programs hosted by ex-MSNBC and Fox Business star Don Imus, who won a case more than two decades ago because an appellate court ruled that "the complained of statements would not have been taken by reasonable listeners as factual pronouncements but simply as instances in which the defendant radio hosts had expressed their views over the air in the crude and hyperbolic manner that has, over the years, become their verbal stock in trade."

In sum, the Fox News lawyers mocked the legal case made by McDougal's legal team. She alleged "a reasonable viewer of ordinary intelligence listening or watching the show ... would conclude that [she] is a criminal who extorted Trump for money" and that "the statements about [her] were fact."
************************************************** ***************************
Apparently neither the U.S. District Judge (appointed by Trump) nor the FOX lawyers would consider the resident "right wingers" in this forum to be "reasonable viewer(s) of ordinary intelligence!"

I expect Tucker Carlson to opine on current events. If he’s talking about something I’m not interested in, I stop watching.

The left was obsessed with Rush Limbaugh for his entire time with a national program. They had a single mission to destroy him and all it did was make him more popular.

Now that Limbaugh is gone, is Tucker Carlson the new obsession of the left?