Rachel Maddow “Is Not News” Says Court Ruling!

Although both Jimmy Dore and Glenn Greenwald find little to criticize in the judge's ruling, taking it as legal certification of Rachel Maddow's worthlessness as a "news provider", all of them may be missing the point. The judge is acting—in my view— a bit disingenuously. Her opinion packs several errors that vitiate its meaning. No one expects the judge to rule with the depth and precision of a sophisticated media analyst, let alone a genuine left media analyst. But even for those like us on the left happy to find an "official" seal corroborating what we have always said, that Maddow is toxic trash, the judgment obfuscates much more than it elucidates. It is not really helpful to truthseekers fighting the establishment narrative. Consider the following:

---

• 1. The judge underestimates the power of "confirmation bias" and the gullibility factor.  Most Maddow fans—people we could reliably describe as brainwashed liberals suffering from acute Trump derangement syndrome— completely agree with her claims and assertions. They've been primed to do so. Such people do not have, as the judge claims, high discriminatory power, the ability to easily tell ludicrous exaggerations and outright lies from credible statements. They are actually low-info consumers who appear happy swallowing Maddow's river of imperialist lies. 

---

• 2. Maddow and others of her rank and ilk working in "news organizations" in the Western media are not there to provide news but disinformation designed to bolster the credibility of the official narrative propping up the global imperialist system, that is, the rule of a grotesquely small sociopathic and uber rich oligarchy. The judge's ruling, claiming that Maddow and her ilk are "news providers" completely misreads the nature of imperialist mass communications. Using "the news" as a platform for lies is not journalism. 

---

• 3. Maddow and her ilk engage most of the time not just in "exaggerations" but in big lies, complete fabrications. As a rule exaggerations do not negate their basic content.  Hence they cannot be dismissed as incapable of conveying actionable meaning. If I say, "He ate until he burst", I am using hyperbole, but the fact remains that "he" ate a lot.  The Judge errs in letting Maddow off the hook on account of exaggerations. There's a qualitative distinction here, but the important point is that both types of expression—gross exaggeration and outright lies can be used sneakily to commit grand deception. That's why Maddow is first and foremost a dangerous paid propagandist whose underhanded warmongering mission on behalf of the imperialist establishment makes her doubly repugnant and reprehensible.