… All of them. Fox’s own lawyers argued that ‘no reasonable viewer’ should take what he says seriously, and won a court case on the back of that argument. htt

… All of them. Fox’s own lawyers argued that ‘no reasonable viewer’ should take what he says seriously, and won a court case on the back of that argument. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7216968/9-24-20-McDougal-v-Fox-Opinion.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7216968/9-24-20-McDou... Specifically - “This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20-21; Levinsky’s, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122, 128 (1st Cir. 1997)). Fox persuasively argues, see Def Br. at 13-15, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes.