Maddow Is Not a Journalist...

...as are not most US talking heads, they are BSers and ideologues, the equivalent of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee's ideological department, with fake credentials in "humanities". Well, I already posted on deranged enthusiast of anti-Trump movement, Rachel Maddow before, now, it looks like, Devin Nunes had it. 

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California) has filed a lawsuit against NBCUniversal and MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, claiming they harbor “institutional hostility” towards him. Nunes’ lawyers argue in the suit, filed in Sherman, Texas, that Maddow’s bias against their client stems from him becoming “the most prominent skeptic in Congress of Maddow’s marquee news narrative from 2017 to 2019: that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to hack the 2016 presidential elections.” Maddow was one of the most vocal media voices suggesting, while lacking any hard evidence, that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to somehow influence the 2016 presidential election.

Practically any talking head from the US MSM can be taken to court, because ethics and integrity are the terms which are not applicable to main stream media in combined West in principle. It goes both liberal and "conservative" (quotation marks are on purpose) ways, but the majority of the blame for turning the United States into an Exhibit A of a severe psychotic episode goes to DNC establishment media, despite the fact that Donald Trump was an incompetent POTUS. In the end, "lefty" MSM produced even more incompetent, and suffering from a fairly advanced stage of dementia, POTUS, who obviously operates on a cocktail of drugs for people in his condition. 

 

So, CNN once was taken to the cleaners: 

CNN has reached a settlement with Nick Sandmann, the high school student who sued the network over its coverage of an incident that went viral last year in which he appeared with a Native American activist at the Lincoln Memorial.A spokesperson for CNN confirmed that a settlement had been reached but declined comment on the details. Sandmann wrote on Twitter, “Yes, We settled with CNN.”

This is the only way to deal with lowlifes who populate (and own) US establishment media and I am still puzzled why nobody yet took James Clapper to court for his racist anti-Russian statements. But then again, such people as Clapper or Maddow, due to their genetic composition (???) are not worthy of being considered professionals in what they do. After all, even court established the fact that Maddow is not dealing with news, or, for that matter, facts--but with own "opinion". This opinion being that of an emotionally unstable person with a host of mental issues. But at this stage that what establishment political MSM are--a collection of psychopaths. Normal people wouldn't make it there in 90% of the cases. But suing those ass-holes could and should become a cottage industry. Or maybe a full blown one. 

Related News About Related News.

I cannot stop laughing. You all know my attitude towards Western so called mainstream media (MSM), but this is too good. From Glenn Greenwald about Rachel Maddow and her so called "show". 

A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts."Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news," an Obama-appointed judge ruled.

LOL. Throwing out a lawsuit by OAN (One America News) against Maddow on the account of her calling OAN "Russian propaganda", the judge concluded:

On one hand, a viewer who watches news channels tunes in for facts and the goings-on of the world. MSNBC indeed produces news, but this point must be juxtaposed with the fact that Maddow made the allegedly defamatory statement on her own talk show news segment where she is invited and encouraged to share her opinions with her viewers. Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions.Thus, Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news. Therefore, the Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact.

I think Maddow would prefer to be sued than have this dismissal of a lawsuit associated with her)))) In related news, because my blog is all about my "opinion", Rachel Maddow should check herself into the mental asylum, because she is nothing more than a sanctimonious ignorant uncultured activist with huge psychological issues, namely cyclical depression she suffered from childhood. Here is a snippet:

Maddow holds a bachelor's degree in public policy from Stanford University and a doctorate in political science from Oxford University and is the first openly lesbian anchor to host a major prime-time news program in the United States.

Which means she has zero of academic and life qualifications to offer her opinion on any serious global political issue, least of all on matters of foreign relations, intelligence and military, especially in any operational and strategic sense. I know, however, that for people of her lack of culture it is beyond comprehension that in any healthy society, and there are some segments even in America which still qualify, she is and would be viewed as nothing but cheap propagandist sublimating own complexes into a sanctimonious BS on air for a public who, as even court concludes, is aware that Maddow's opinions are nothing more than, well, BS. But then again, whole Western MSM establishment is nothing more than BS-peddling machine. So, court's ruling fully applies. The rest is a judicial psychobabble.