Another Defamation Case Against Fox News

The last time Fox News was sued for defamation/slander, the federal judge hearing the case dismissed it out of hand, on the basis that:

“He (in this case Tucker Carlson) is not a provider of “the news” as we know it, or “facts” as we commonly understand them, and his audience knows this. The “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” … Given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism.”

Will that defense prevail here, against the defendants Fox News and its employees?  It seems to depend on the judge’s determination of “reasonable viewer.” Millions of people tune into these shows every day.  Are we saying that they are generally not “reasonable?”

My mother is one of these people, and I can assure you that a) she’s extremely well-read, b) she avails herself of other news sources, c) although she is advancing in years, she’s mentally sharp as a tack, and, most importantly, d) she believes in the veracity of every piece of content she receives from Fox.

No one can tell me that the average viewer knows that what they’re consuming is either badly taken out of context or invested out of whole cloth.  People who watch professional wrestling know that the spectacle they’re seeing is staged, but, for some reason, enjoy it anyway.  There is no way on Earth that even a small percentage of Fox viewers understand that what they’re seeing is almost always false.

In the name of justice, decent people everywhere are desperate to see these people go down hard.