MSNBC’s Maddow Beats OAN Appeal Over ‘Russian Propaganda’ Remark

MSNBC Host Rachel Maddow’s comment that OAN “really literally is paid Russian propaganda” was an “obvious exaggeration” and, therefore, didn’t amount to defamation, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Tuesday in a loss for OAN owner Herring Networks Inc.

Maddow’s statement was “well within the bounds of what qualifies as protected speech under the First Amendment,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled. The court upheld her motion to strike the lawsuit under California’s anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or anti-SLAPP, law.

Herring Networks sued Maddow after she ran a segment on her show in July 2019 during which she discussed an article by The Daily Beast titled, “Staffer on Trump-Favored Network Is on Propaganda Kremlin Payroll.” Herring argued her statement that One America News is “paid Russian propaganda” was false because it has never received money from the Russian government.

A reasonable viewer would have understood that Maddow was expressing her opinion, the court said.

The context of her show makes it likely that viewers would expect her to use subjective language, according to the ruling. Also, her tone of glee and surprise during the segment was apparent, and there’s no point where a reasonable viewer would understand her as breaking new news, the court said.

Maddow first reports the facts before going into “colorfully expressed commentary,” according to the ruling. By disclosing the factual basis of her statement, she shows that the contested statement was an “interpretation of the facts presented,” the court said.

Herring argued the lower court should have considered additional evidence, including transcripts from other shows, a linguistic expert’s report, and a statement made by Chris Matthews, another MSNBC host. However, its reliance on that evidence outside of the complaint was improper and inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court said.

The lower court didn’t abuse its discretion by dismissing Herring’s complaint with prejudice, according to the ruling. That’s because Herring never asked to amend the complaint, and if it had, amendment “would have been futile,” the court said.

Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. issued the opinion. Smith was joined by Judge John B. Owens and Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, sitting by designation.

Miller Barondess LLP represented Herring Networks. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP represented Maddow, Comcast Corp., NBCUniversal Media LLC, and MSNBC Cable LLC.

The case is Herring Networks v. Maddow, 9th Cir., No. 20-55579, 8/17/21.