shorthand for “fuckwit”
Here’s a story from Fox News:
https://news.yahoo.com/face-masks-made-little-no-001748577.html
They cite a Cochrane Library meta-study:
Anybody else notice that Fox failed to include this bit from the Cochrane article:
What are the limitations of the evidence?
Our confidence in these results is generally low to moderate for the subjective outcomes related to respiratory illness, but moderate for the more precisely defined laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection, related to masks and N95/P2 respirators. The results might change when further evidence becomes available. Relatively low numbers of people followed the guidance about wearing masks or about hand hygiene, which may have affected the results of the studies.
As limitations go … that seems kind of important, no?
Lying fucks.
Old news. Hannity knew ‘the steal’ was bullshit. Other FOX talking heads knew it too. Still, they were told push the bullshit.
They were outright told to LIE.
Anyone at any other network told to tell their audience LIES??
No?
The followup questions should have been:
Given that you did not believe it for one second, why did you continue to push this lie on the air?
Who told you to keep pushing this lie, that you have told us you did not believe for one second?
Hanntiy is trying to use the Nuremburg defense, to avoid having Dominion come after him. That should turn out well for him.
All that it’s done for him is provide evidence that he knew that he was lying but did it anyway. Some have argued that Dominion cannot win unless they can prove actual malice, as they are a “public official” (I strongly disagree with this interpretation).
However, Hannity has just proved a textbook example of actual malice because in many jurisdictions (not sure about the Dominion case), malice can be found where the published statements are false, and are known to be false by the Defendant.
Yes, “actual malice” usually means that you know for certain that what you are saying is false but do it anyway. Which Hannity essentially admitted to. It’s a pretty high bar but I think he just Fosbury-flopped himself right over it.
^ This, a millions times over (my bolding).
Hannity could not have answered either question without (at a minimum) losing his job.
But the questions would have been in the record.
Which you can get away with if it is parody or satire.
Colbert says a number of things that are not true in his monologue, but everyone knows that they are exaggerations or fabrications in service of the joke.
That was the Tucker Carlson defense, that no reasonable person would believe what he said to be true.
Of course, this means that Fox sees its viewers as unreasonable people.
Are you sure that you can get away with parody or satire while testifying under oath in court?!
No, but that’s not even close to what I said. 
I said that you can testify that the material in your show was satire.
Say Colbert is sued for defamation for something that he says in his monologue. He could rightly claim that he was using parody or satire, and he could testify to that effect.
That doesn’t mean he would be using parody or satire on the stand, I really have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
Gotcha, except Colbert’s show was parody. Neither Carlson nor Hannity have parody shows. That defense isn’t going to work and hasn’t so far.
Carlson basically claimed to be one, when they said that no reasonable person would believe anything he said.
And he got away with it. That defense worked just fine.
Hannity and Carlson are not news shows, they are “political opinion” shows.
That anyone believes them just goes to show that their viewers are stupid, and Fox knows this.
So, now that you know that that defense has worked, do you change your opinion as to whether it will work in the future?
That judge’s opinion assumed a “reasonable viewer”, which doesn’t in any way describe the typical consumer of Fox News.
Agreed, and as I said, Fox knows just how stupid and gullible its viewers are, and takes advantage of that.
I’d be OK if a judge ordered Fox News to put a one minute public service warning out every 15 minutes of programming time that warned viewers:
“Fox News is a fictional show. It does not state actual facts about the topics discussed and instead engages in 'exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ Non-literal commentary means that what they say is bullshit.”
And Rachel Maddow too, she’s officially full of shit.
Which tells me that all Alex Jones had to do was show up to court and he could have had his lawsuit dismissed. It just shows how stupid he is.
Really, we have precedent on both sides of the political aisle that opinion show hosts can say anything they want, and can’t be held liable.
That is a bit different. Her claim that OAN was “really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” Was a hyperbolic interpretation of actual facts that she presented earlier. Similarly if Hannity says “Biden is literally standing on the border and telling all the drug dealers to go ahead and come in.” Biden has no action against him despite the fact that he never actully went to the border and made such a statement. That is simply a hyperbolic claim based on what Hannity believes is lax border oversight.
This is very different from what he, Jones and Carlson actually did, which was to make false factual accusations the centerpiece of their show. If Maddow had made a show centered around a false claim that she had verifiable proof that Putin had directly funneled millions of dollars into OAN, Then OAN might have had a legitimate case against her.
Legally speaking, there is no difference. Morally you can definitely say there is a difference, but if you have an opinion show your first amendment rights are protected.
I don’t expect anything to happen to Hannity.
Just about anyone who is in the “political opinion” business is full of shit.
I wouldn’t both sides it too hard, though, as one drips little rabbit turds from time to time, and the other is constantly churning it out like butter.
If he had made the Sandy Hook claim once, certainly. Or even twice, probably. Even if he made it a week long campaign, he probably would have gotten away with it.
But he went on about it for years, calling out and doxxing parents, calling on his listeners to harass them.
That’s a bit more than getting some facts wrong.
To a large extent, this is true. And it should be, as they are expressing their opinions and they shouldn’t be liable for doing so. To the extent it is not true is that they are still not allowed to have a call to action for violence or anything like that, there are limits.
The problem comes when people (apparently unreasonable people) take their expressed opinion as fact.