It's interesting how much the GOP's "OMG media bias" rhetoric and lawsuits, was in the end "We want to use the federal government to impose our bias.".
> especially since CBS had *accurately* described Trump's claims as "completely without merit."
Apparently the court felt differently if it didn't dismiss the case. The statement above is opinion, not fact as written.
Personally, I'm more opposed to further media consolidation as it stands. The current status quo is already leading to too few, excessively large media conglomerates. Without access to communications between the FCC and Skydance/Paramount, it's impossible to say what was or was not communicated or implied. Making the entire story a biased speculation, "completely without merit."
Aren't you allowed to say pretty much anything you want, if it's an opinion?
If I'm reading it correctly, you're not talking about the legal standard of evidence, but rather about the article's characterization of the article as "accurate". If so, though, I would have to interpret any court decisions as matters of legal procedure, rather than any comment on the truth of the statement one way or the other.
It's interesting how much the GOP's "OMG media bias" rhetoric and lawsuits, was in the end "We want to use the federal government to impose our bias.".
I don't think anyone expected anything else. Newspeak has been used for quite some time now.
> especially since CBS had *accurately* described Trump's claims as "completely without merit."
Apparently the court felt differently if it didn't dismiss the case. The statement above is opinion, not fact as written.
Personally, I'm more opposed to further media consolidation as it stands. The current status quo is already leading to too few, excessively large media conglomerates. Without access to communications between the FCC and Skydance/Paramount, it's impossible to say what was or was not communicated or implied. Making the entire story a biased speculation, "completely without merit."
Aren't you allowed to say pretty much anything you want, if it's an opinion?
If I'm reading it correctly, you're not talking about the legal standard of evidence, but rather about the article's characterization of the article as "accurate". If so, though, I would have to interpret any court decisions as matters of legal procedure, rather than any comment on the truth of the statement one way or the other.
The settlement happened before trial; the court didn’t feel any way.
So, CBS/Paramount didn't request a summary dismissal of the case?