Fox News has never called themselves “entertainment”. There is no legal distinction in the US between “news” and “entertainment”. The FCC has no authority over cable channels or cable channel content. Most lies are not defamation and are protected by the First Amendment.
Yes they did in court to get around a lawsuit Tucker’s bs got them into.
Media lawyers note this is not the first time this sort of defense has been offered. A $10 million libel lawsuit filed by the owners of One America News Network against MSNBC's top star, Rachel Maddow, was dismissed in May when the judge ruled
she had stretched the established facts allowably: "The context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion."
Point but Maddow typically on tv during prime time corrects her mistakes.
I don't think this one was a mistake. It was deliberate.
Maddow didn’t claim it was a “mistake.”
This is what they actually said: 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....Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil'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."Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the
same — the statements are not actionable." In case you want to read the entire opinion law.justia.com/cases/federa...
No. They said Tucker was not news but was opinion and commentary and that he engaged in hyperbole.
No, they didn’t. They didn’t get “around” the lawsuit. It was dismissed because the judge found that the statements are issued were statements of opinion and/or rhetorical hyperbole that no reasonable viewers would interpret as a statement of fact. There is no “entertainment” defense.