A federal judge Friday dismissed a $10 million defamation lawsuit filed by the owners and operators of the San Diego-based One America News Network against MSNBC and political commentator Rachel Maddow for telling her viewers last summer that the conservative network “really literally is paid Russian propaganda.”
U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant dismissed Herring Networks’ suit with prejudice, ruling “there is no set of facts that could support a claim for defamation based on Maddow’s statement,” which was made during a July 22, 2019, segment of her show.
In that segment, Maddow cited a Daily Beast article stating that an OAN on-air reporter was “on the payroll for the Kremlin.”
Herring Networks’ court papers say the reporter, Kristian Rouz, is originally from the Ukraine and started his journalism career by writing articles for Sputnik News, which is affiliated with the Russian government. According to Herring Networks, Rouz was merely a freelancer for Sputnik who selected his own article topics for submission, and his work there had no significance toward his work for OAN.
Herring Networks alleged in the lawsuit filed last fall that Maddow made “utterly and completely false” statements because OAN “is wholly financed by the Herrings, an American family” and “has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government.”
Bashant ruled that Maddow’s statement “is an opinion that cannot serve as the basis for a defamation claim,” and thus is protected under the First Amendment.
The San Diego-based judge ruled that most viewers would be able to conclude that Maddow was forwarding her opinion when she made the July 22 statements.
“For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context,” Bashant wrote. “The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion.”
In a motion to dismiss the case, Maddow’s attorneys allege Herrings Networks was not objecting to anything from the Daily Beast article, and conceded that Rouz worked for an organization affiliated with the Russian government.
Maddow’s attorneys maintained that her comments during the segment were opinions based entirely on the Daily Beast story, and “she nowhere indicates that she has separate knowledge about Mr. Rouz or the funding of OAN other than from that article.”
Bashant agreed, writing that viewers would “follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts.”
Robert Herring Sr., the 78-year-old owner and founder of OAN, told Times of San Diego that he would appeal the ruling.
“After I’ve seen several things that [Bashant’s] said and some of the things she’s done in the past, I wasn’t surprised at all,” Herring said.
Amnon Siegel, a Herring attorney who argued the case before Bashant on Tuesday, told Times of San Diego, “Honestly, we like our chances [with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]. We look forward to an opportunity to get our day in court.”
He said the only way Bashant is allowed to halt the case before reaching a jury is if she concludes no reasonable person can conclude Maddow made a statement of fact.
“If there’s any question, any ambiguity, if it’s a close call at all, she’s supposed to let the case go to the jury,” Siegel said.
“I think Judge Bashant kind of saw it her way. But her job is to decide whether any reasonable person could conclude that it was a statement of fact, not to give her personal take.”
>> Want to read more stories like this? Get our Free Daily Newsletters Here!Follow us: